[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22402-22414]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2360, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
474, I call up the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2360) 
making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 474, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 29, 2005, at page 21852.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous

[[Page 22403]]

material on the conference report to accompany the bill, H.R. 2360, and 
that I may include tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are pleased today to present for consideration the 
conference agreement on the funding for the Department of Homeland 
Security. Five weeks ago this Nation experienced perhaps the worst 
natural disaster in our history.

                              {time}  1930

  Ninety thousand square miles were declared a disaster area. Ninety 
thousand square miles, an area twice the size of my home State of 
Kentucky. I believe Hurricane Katrina was a wake-up call. It showed us 
we are not indestructible. Vulnerabilities clearly exist. We were 
reminded that there are many threats to the homeland security beyond 
terrorism.
  There are obviously many lingering and important questions about 
Hurricane Katrina, all of which need to be and will be addressed in the 
upcoming months. We witnessed firsthand in Katrina the immediate 
response was inadequate. We also saw how responses varied across State 
lines and at different levels of government.
  But while the response to Katrina was plagued by problems, the 
preparation response to Hurricane Rita was not. We observed a 
substantially more organized preparation and response, demonstrating 
how the Department of Homeland Security can and does work as an 
effective organization. The fact is for many within the Department, the 
response to these disasters has been nothing short of remarkable.
  For instance, in the week immediately following Katrina, the Coast 
Guard saved more than 33,000 lives, more than the Coast Guard saved 
over the past 5 years. Over 4,000 Coast Guard, 12,000 FEMA, 2,500 
Federal law enforcement personnel have been sent to support Hurricane 
Katrina and Rita relief operations, and their work continues even as we 
speak.
  The bill before us supports these efforts and more. It provides the 
funds the Department needs to prevent, prepare and respond to 
disasters, both natural and man-made. It provides a balance among 
Homeland Security programs and ensures the Department has the resources 
it needs to carry out its missions. This bill maintains a steady course 
towards keeping our communities safe and making our Nation more secure.
  In total, the 2006 conference agreement provides $30.8 billion, $1.4 
billion above the current year and $1.3 billion above what the 
President asked of us. This includes more than $19.1 billion for border 
protection and immigration enforcement; $3.3 billion for our Nation's 
first responders; $6.33 billion for transportation security; $1.5 
billion for research, development and deployment of innovative 
technologies; and $625 million for protecting our national critical 
infrastructure and key assets.
  In the interest of time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight just 
a few of these items that I know are of interest to all the Members.
  There is $3.3 billion for our first responders. This agreement 
strikes a balance between funding high-risk communities and providing 
support for States and localities to achieve and maintain minimum 
levels of preparedness. The bill includes $950 million for basic 
formula and law enforcement terrorism prevention grants and $1.2 
billion for security in our urban and most populated areas, including 
$390 million for transportation and infrastructure security grants. 
Some people say the amount of money for first responders is below the 
current level, and it is true. It is. The reason for that is they have 
got $6.6 billion in the pipeline, not yet allocated; so why add to the 
reservoir when the river is running full?
  The bill provides $19.1 billion for border protection, immigration 
enforcement and related activities, which is $1.2 billion over the 
current year and almost a half billion over what the President asked of 
us. That includes $1.8 billion for border security and control; $3.4 
billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement; $340 million for the 
US-VISIT program; $2.9 billion for Coast Guard operations; fully 
funding Deepwater at $933.1 million; and $40 million for the 
implementation of the REAL ID Act.
  So I think the agreement, Mr. Speaker, will go a long way towards 
improving the integrity of our borders. When we combine what we have in 
this bill with the 2005 supplemental, we will have 1,500 new Border 
Patrol agents and 568 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents across 
the land to be hired in fiscal year 2006. The bill also supports a 
total of 20,300 detention beds for housing people who are locked up, 
having come across the border.
  The conference agreement supports security for all modes of 
transportation, including $6.3 billion for the Transportation Security 
Administration and the Federal Air Marshals and $150 million in rail 
security grants.
  There is $85 million for air cargo security, which will support the 
hiring of 100 new air cargo inspectors, the development of new cargo 
screening technology and the expansion of canine enforcement teams. The 
bill also continues to provide strong oversight of TSA's progress 
towards inspecting all cargo that is transported on passenger aircraft.
  There is $1.5 billion for science and technology, including $318 
million for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office that will coordinate 
our Nation's efforts against the smuggling of nuclear materials into 
our country. This is a brand new agency, and this is brand new funding. 
We also continue to fully fund research and development for antimissile 
devices that might be used against commercial aircraft.
  Mr. Speaker, the important work of the Department of Homeland 
Security cannot be emphasized enough. As we continue to watch the 
recovery efforts in the Gulf States and our hearts go out with our 
money to those regions, it is clear that the assets we have given the 
Department over the past 3 years are being put to good use. I believe 
this conference agreement builds on the Department's progress and 
substantially furthers the protection of our homeland, and I urge all 
of my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  When the House passed the 2006 Homeland Security appropriations bill, 
I said that the bill represented a substantial improvement over the 
President's budget request. The conference report does as well. I said 
that the bill included better funding for border enforcement, separate 
programs for transit and port security. This conference report does 
those same things.
  I said that the House bill toughened up air cargo screening, privacy 
safeguards and the designation of security-sensitive information. This 
conference report includes these initiatives.
  However, I also said that I had reservations about some parts of the 
House bill, and I continue to have those concerns. I have more 
reservations because of changes made to the bill in conference.
  I am a strong minority who has strong reservations about the shift in 
distributing State and local grant funds from being based on population 
to being based on the Department of Homeland Security's assessment of 
risk and threat. These are funds that flow to State governments to be 
reallocated, at least 80 percent to local government. Last year, less 
than 40 percent of these grant funds went out by threat. This year 78 
percent of the funding will go out by this threat measurement. I wonder 
how the DHS risk model and threat model will assess and treat Michigan, 
a border State, as compared to North Carolina, a hurricane-prone State.
  Only two of the Department's 15 threat scenarios are based on natural 
disasters. As a result, I worry that our Nation may be less prepared 
for the disasters that we know will occur. My observation of the 
Department over the last several years leave me with little

[[Page 22404]]

confidence that they are going to make fair judgments or correct 
judgments in making their allocation.
  I am disappointed that this agreement does not do more to strengthen 
chemical plant security. In the conference, I offered an amendment, a 
simple amendment, to give the Homeland Security Secretary the authority 
he needs to issue requirements for security standards and plans for 
facilities he determines to present the greatest security risk. We 
should demand the Department get serious about hardening these chemical 
facilities. However, my amendment failed on a party-line vote.
  I also have reservations about Secretary Chertoff's reorganization 
proposal, which is rubber stamped by this conference report. This 
reorganization plan was submitted to Congress barely 3 months ago, and 
we have not taken the time to evaluate it carefully. This 
reorganization was developed before the Department's poor Hurricane 
Katrina performance. It further weakens FEMA by severing its 
relationship to preparedness programs. I strongly believe that this is 
a mistake.
  So, Mr. Speaker, as in so many bills, there are good things and bad 
things in this conference report. Members must make their own judgment. 
On balance, I will vote ``yes.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, who has been enormously helpful in this 
bill all the way through.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my deep 
appreciation to both my chairman from Kentucky and the gentleman from 
Minnesota for the work they have done on this conference report.
  At the beginning, as we brought Homeland Security together, we 
brought some 22 different agencies together under one maze. A very 
difficult process. Much of the original bureaucracies remaining in 
place and yet struggling to figure out how and where and why they 
effectively work within the Federal Government. The chairman and 
ranking member have worked very hard to provide the kind of oversight 
that is necessary to lead them down this pathway, dealing with very 
tough issues that relate to America's national security.
  Having said that, I want to congratulate the gentlemen for their work 
and at the same time suggest rather directly that none of us can do 
anything with that which an act of nature brings upon us. Katrina and 
Rita were natural disasters. We have not experienced such in my 
lifetime in public affairs. But, indeed, Americans are attempting as 
best they can to help the region of this country that is so important 
not only in terms of our natural resources but to our economy as well.
  I very much appreciate the work particularly that was done by the 
gentlemen in overseeing that work which is the responsibility of the 
Coast Guard, for, indeed, they have gotten their attention. It is very 
apparent they are not just responding to the committee but in this very 
horrid crises did a great bit of response on behalf of America.
  So I congratulate both of them for their work. I appreciate very much 
the job they have done.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, first let me say that there are a number of 
useful things in this conference report. For 3 years, many of us have 
been trying to strengthen support for border enforcement and control, 
and this bill is $675 million above the President's request. That is 
good. It also provides some additional funding to beef up transit 
security and port security, and that is good. It provides $655 million 
for fire grants, 30 percent more than the Bush request, and that is 
good. It provides $30 million for three pilot projects to increase the 
screening of cargo, which is a major terrorism vulnerability that 
remains unaddressed by the Bush administration recommendations. This 
bill, therefore, helps to take care of a rather important problem.
  But, in my view, there are three big problems that remain which will 
require me to vote ``no.'' First of all, because of the need to add 
$675 million more for border programs, the conferees cut funding for 
other programs substantially below the President's own request. 
Example: Pre-disaster mitigation programs, $100 million below the Bush 
request, $50 million below last year. Grants to States and localities 
to help them prepare for terrorism and other events are cut by over 
$800 million, or 20 percent from last year; and this occurs on the very 
day when we have been briefed by the administration warning us about 
the total incapacity of State and local governments to respond to local 
problems, such as a pandemic. Aviation security screening is cut by $83 
million from the Bush request under this bill.
  My second problem with the bill is that it approves a thoughtless 
reorganization proposal made by Secretary Chertoff. Just 2 weeks ago, 
members of the majority party told us it was premature to return FEMA 
to its previously independent status; and yet this legislation embraces 
a reorganization plan proposed by Secretary Chertoff, the sixth 
reorganization this agency has had, and that reorganization goes in the 
wrong direction.
  My third objection is that FEMA is not reformed, but it is in fact 
further deformed by this proposal. We all understand that the response 
of the Homeland Security agency to the disaster of Katrina was, well, 
for want of a better word, disastrous; and yet nothing is done in this 
legislation to provide for a return to independent status for FEMA. It 
remains buried in the bowels of a dysfunctional bureaucratically 
layered agency; and, in fact, this bill moves us further in the wrong 
direction. The fire academy and other training programs are 
specifically taken away from FEMA.
  So there are two ways, I suppose, that Members can deal with this 
bill. We can squawk about it, if we do not like parts of it, and hold 
our noses and vote for it because it does have some substantial 
improvements, and I congratulate the gentleman from Minnesota and the 
gentleman from Kentucky for those.
  But the fact is that there is another choice if we believe that this 
bill still is not sufficient to meet the national interests, and that 
is to vote against the bill as a protest; and that is what I feel 
compelled to do tonight.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), one of the hard-working members of 
our subcommittee whose work helped make this bill happen.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference agreement and urge 
my colleagues to all do the same. I want to commend the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), and the 
great subcommittee staff for their hard work in putting this bill 
together.
  The process of structuring an appropriations bill addressing the 
operational needs of 22 agencies under the Homeland Security Department 
has, once again, been very difficult, difficult in part because we are 
funding a mission that has many dimensions and for which there are few 
absolutes.
  As I participated in this process, I have come to the conclusion that 
our approach to funding homeland security has been measured and 
judicious. We have had to make difficult choices. Most importantly, we 
continue to benefit from the ideas and knowledge of State and local 
officials from our districts all around the country. That collective 
wisdom serves us well.
  Because of this cooperation, we are beginning to see some of the 
improvement in the funding processes for first responders. In Iowa, we 
are working to protect the agriculture community through planning and 
training, and in fact thousands of people have been trained in our 
community colleges

[[Page 22405]]

through federally funded assistance. Iowa and other Midwestern States 
are doing what is necessary to protect our communities from man-made 
and natural disasters.
  Of course, obstacles remain for our security systems. We have 
demanded much from our States, and the Federal Government must remain a 
working partner by providing appropriate funding. We must continue to 
work closely with local and State officials because they are the people 
we will look to when disaster occurs.
  I am especially pleased in this bill that we have increased the 
number of border patrol agents by 2,000 and provide more beds to house 
the people who are coming across the border illegally until we can send 
them back to their country.
  Again, I commend the chairman and the ranking member and urge all 
Members to support this bill.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, my good friend 
and leader from Minnesota for many years.
  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the conferees included a 
provision that would protect from liability airports that choose to opt 
out of the Federal screening program, as well as protection from 
negligent acts committed by private security screeners.
  The Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which was the 
fundamental law, allows airports to opt out of the Federal program and 
replace Federal employee screeners with screeners employed by a private 
company under contract with TSA; but the language of that provision was 
written very carefully to ensure that we would have one level of 
security for all airports.
  A small number of airport operators believe that they will have 
greater control over security if they opt out of the Federal program, 
but the Aviation Security Law requires that private screening companies 
contract directly with TSA and be supervised by TSA to ensure that our 
Nation's security remains one level and a Federal Government function. 
The liability provisions of this conference report should not be 
interpreted to change the reality that the Federal Government has 
direct responsibility for airport security.
  Furthermore, in my reading of the language, this provision does not 
relieve an airport operator of liability in a case involving a breach 
of security for any act or failure to act by the airport operator or 
its employees which constitutes negligence, gross negligence, or 
intentional wrongdoing. In a situation where the airport or airport 
employees knew that a screening company was not doing an adequate job, 
but failed to take action to notify TSA, or if an airport employee were 
part of a scheme to commit a terrorist act, then my interpretation of 
the language in this conference report is that the airport, 
nonetheless, would be liable.
  Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the Federal 
Government has spent billions on aviation security, and little on 
transit and rail security, even though five times as many people take 
trains as planes every day.
  Over 9.6 billion transit trips are taken annually on all modes of 
transit service, with people using public transportation vehicles over 
32 million times each weekday.
  Since September 11th, the transit industry has invested more than $2 
billion of its own funds for enhanced security measures. Railroads have 
also strengthened security. Amtrak has added police and dog units and 
removed large fixtures from their platforms, but the railroads and the 
transit industry can't do it alone.
  Even with the investments made by transit agencies, the documented 
transit security needs total more than $6 billion, far more than the 
$150 million provided in the conference report for rail and transit 
security grants (the same amount provided in FY2005).
  Amtrak alone has requested $100 million in security upgrades and 
nearly $600 million for fire and life-safety improvements to tunnels on 
the Northeast Corridor in New York, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.
  Transit agencies have requested $2 billion from Congress, yet the 
conference report provides only $10 million for intercity bus security 
grants.
  Securing our Nation's transit and rail facilities is a formidable 
task, but Congress must get it done.
  The London bombings and the terrorist train bombing in Madrid, Spain 
in 2004, which killed 191 people and wounded more than 1,800 others, 
show that there is a clear need--more than ever before--to strengthen 
transit and rail security.
  The London and Madrid bombings were just the latest in a series of 
attacks on trains worldwide. Between 1998 and 2003, there were 181 
attacks worldwide on trains and rail-related targets such as depots, 
ticket stations, and rail bridges, resulting in an estimated 431 deaths 
and several thousand injuries.
  It is clear that Federal leadership and Federal resources are 
required to address the needs of a reliable, safe, secure, mass transit 
network, just as has been used in establishing a secure Federal 
aviation network. But despite recent attacks, Congress is again 
shortchanging our transit and rail industries.
  One hundred and fifty million dollars for such a vast network isn't 
enough. It's not enough to protect passengers. It's not enough to 
secure our most vulnerable infrastructure. The American people deserve 
better.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), another hard-working member of our 
subcommittee whom I rely upon very much.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for their hard work 
on this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this, because I view the world from 
the State of Texas. I look at the largest single foreign border in the 
United States in Texas. I look at a port that the Coast Guard told me 
carries the largest amount of dangerous cargo in the United States, and 
possibly the largest amount of dangerous cargo on Earth, the port of 
Houston.
  I look at the big spaces we have to cover as we try to secure just 
the State of Texas. I look at the 68,000 other-than-Mexican immigrants 
that we have actually caught in the last 8 months crossing the Texas 
border. These are people from places other than Mexico: Central and 
South America, Eastern Europe, Russia, the Middle East, Syrians, 
Iranians, Iraqis, Chinese and Far Easterners, crossing our border 
across the Rio Grande River.
  I view that world, and it is a world that requires a secure homeland.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of hard work done on this bill, and 
I think this bill goes a long way to start securing the Texas border 
and the rest of the border between the United States and Mexico and the 
United States and Canada. We are adding 1,000 border patrol agents by 
this bill; we are putting on investigators; we are beefing up ICE. We 
are doing everything we can to say to the world, We are not anti-
immigrant; we are anti-people who break the law to enter our country or 
who are coming in illegally.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will help, so I stand in support of this bill, 
because it does the right thing for America.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Homeland Security.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member 
for yielding me time and for allowing me the opportunity to speak.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support for the conference report on 
H.R. 2360. It has some good provisions. For example, I am pleased that 
the conference report funds transit and rail security grants at $150 
million. However, I am concerned that less than 1 percent of the TSA's 
budget is dedicated to addressing the vulnerabilities in surface 
transportation. At this rate, maybe we should stop calling it the 
Transportation Security Administration and call it an ``aviation 
security administration.''
  I am also troubled that the conference report gives blanket airport 
liability protection to airports that opt out of the Federal screeners 
program. One of the first things that Congress did after the 9/11 
attacks to signal to the American people that it was safe to fly again 
was to federalize security.
  I am pleased that the conferees adopted many of the changes which the

[[Page 22406]]

Democrats on the Committee on Homeland Security advocated during the 
Department's authorization process. I commend the conferees for 
creating the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Intelligence Officer. 
We have been calling for such changes to give the Department focus on 
bio-preparedness and intelligence.
  We have also been advocating a quadrennial Department of Homeland 
Security review and long-term policy planning at the highest levels of 
the Department. I am pleased that this legislation would also require 
the Department to do so.
  At the same time, I am concerned that the conferees adopted many of 
the organizational changes that Secretary Chertoff proposed in July, as 
if Hurricane Katrina never happened. The establishment of a 
preparedness directorate will not make us any more prepared if we do 
not have competent people in place.
  In response, Mr. Speaker, 13 members of the Committee on Homeland 
Security introduced legislation today to create a coherent 
organizational picture for the Department. The Department of Homeland 
Security Reform Act of 2005 would authorize many of the new offices the 
administration plans to create and this conference report funds. The 
logical step for Congress is to consider this bill as it provides 
direction for some of the new positions the administration planned to 
create on its own.
  Much more needs to be done to make DHS the Federal agency that 
America deserves. I strongly urge my colleagues in the House to support 
the Homeland Security Reform Act, legislation that builds upon the 
conference report.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time and for his hard work in this Herculean task of trying to make 
this agency better.
  Thankfully, homeland security has worked. Our Nation is safer. My 
gripe, though, is FEMA. Four storms hit Florida, and FEMA was ill 
equipped. In my opinion, it is ill equipped because it resides in an 
agency that should be focused solely on terrorism and homeland 
security.

                              {time}  2000

  FEMA should be able to respond to the needs of a natural disaster 
that we have experienced.
  Immigration has been mentioned repeatedly. Immigration is out of 
control. We recently read in the paper that employees of the U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Service are facing misconduct charges 
ranging from bribery to exchanging green cards for immigration in 
return for sexual favors. It is not enough that we have illegal 
immigrants running around unfettered, we also have them committing 
serious crimes.
  Daniel Rodriguez Mendoza, a 21-year-old illegal alien from Mexico, 
was recently responsible for killing the mother of two children in a 
traffic accident in West Palm Beach, Florida. He did not have a 
driver's license. He had no papers, and four times he had been 
previously ticketed for driving without a license. Each time, he was 
let back into the community, even after immigration officials were 
notified of him, but failed to do anything.
  Then there is the 20-year-old young man in my district who was hit by 
a truck while riding his motorcycle in a small town on Father's Day. He 
is now hospitalized, paralyzed from the chest down. The illegal alien 
who paralyzed him was caught, charged with the accident and then, 
regrettably, released, and now he has disappeared and has not shown up 
for his trial.
  Mr. Speaker, we are debating today money for the Federal department 
now responsible not only for protecting us from terrorism but also from 
illegal immigration and for helping in disasters. We need to make sure 
this money works.
  We should not have to be dealing with inept disaster programs and 
dysfunctional immigration enforcement. And I think most of my 
colleagues here would agree.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to engage the 
gentleman from Minnesota in a colloquy and seek support to include 
language in a future supplemental bill to provide individual assistance 
to residents in Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, Florida, who suffered 
damage because of Hurricane Katrina.
  Hurricane Katrina struck Broward and Miami-Dade counties as a 
Category One storm on August 25. The Federal Emergency Management 
Agency's initial assessment revealed that over 170 homes were destroyed 
or severely damaged in Broward and Miami-Dade counties because of 
Katrina's fury. Following the initial assessment, local and State 
authorities documented that there were at least 219 homes in Broward 
and 189 homes in Miami-Dade severely damaged or destroyed.
  FEMA denied assistance to individuals in Broward and Miami-Dade 
Counties on August 31, 2005. On September 6, 2005, Florida appealed 
FEMA's decision and provided specific information to support its 
original request, including the disproportionate number of low-income 
residents impacted and the fact that the State does not have disaster 
relief funds. This appeal was also denied, leaving hundreds of south 
Floridians with little hope of Federal individual assistance.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act suggests that a number of factors are considered to 
measure the severity, magnitude and impact of a disaster and authorizes 
FEMA to provide individual assistance. I would be happy to work with 
the gentlewoman from Florida to get this corrected within current FEMA 
statutory authorities and provide equitable assistance to all victims 
of Hurricane Katrina.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
leadership, commitment, and support.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to support the gentlewoman's efforts 
and those of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart). We all 
in south Florida are working. I thank the gentlewoman for highlighting 
this. Katrina did start in Florida. People have been impacted. They 
have been hurt, and they deserve the same consideration as our 
colleagues and neighbors in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida and the gentleman from Minnesota, and I look forward to working 
with them to correct this inequity.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding 
me this time.
  It is not so much what is in this bill; it is what is not in this 
bill. What we have here is a bill which does not, in fact, deal with 
all of the threats which are posed by al Qaeda.
  Right now, across our country, it is harder to get into some night 
clubs in New York City than it is to get into chemical facilities 
across our country. There are 23 States that have over 100 facilities 
that could cause injuries or deaths to 1 million people. This bill 
still does not mandate armed guards at chemical facilities.
  The nuclear power industry still does not have a permanent upgrade of 
the protections which are needed against an al Qaeda attack, even 
though we know that al Qaeda has nuclear power plants at the top of 
their terrorist target list.
  Public transit. While $18 billion has been spent on airlines, only a 
small fraction of that has been spent on mass transit to protect 
against al Qaeda attacks, even though we have been warned in Madrid, 
warned in London, and even today, New York is in fear

[[Page 22407]]

that there could be an attack on that city.
  LNG: What the Republicans have done this year is they have told 
mayors they have no say over where LNG facilities would go. Governors 
have no say. And the Coast Guard has no say. Only the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, dealing with the wish lists of the oil and gas 
industry, can decide where they go, but in the City of Boston and in 
dozens of cities across our country, they are going to have a homeland 
security nightmare trying to protect if al Qaeda attacked an LNG 
facility.
  When it comes to hazardous material shipments, this majority 
Republican Party still refuses to have a mandate that there is a 
rerouting of those dangerous chemicals, the chlorines and the others 
that, if they were attacked, would cause catastrophic injuries in our 
country.
  And in aviation, still only a small fraction of all of the cargo that 
goes on passenger planes in our country is inspected. So the people in 
our country must take off their shoes, put their computer through, 
their bags go through, all of it is screened, and they are sitting in 
the passenger section of the plane, and then underneath their feet will 
come all of this cargo that has not been screened.
  This bill has only a very slight increase in its budget, but the 
budget itself does not determine whether or not we have good homeland 
security. This Republican majority still refuses to tell the chemical, 
the nuclear, the LNG, the hazardous material industry, the aviation 
industry that there is a regulatory black hole through which al Qaeda 
can come to attack the very list of targets that they put at the top of 
their terrorist target list. Not enough money and no mandates on the 
industry.
  Mr. Speaker, catastrophe is bred by complacency, and that is what 
this bill is.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report we are considering today on the 
House Floor fails to close dangerous homeland security loopholes that 
continue to put Americans at risk more than 4 years after the 9/11 
attacks.
  Despite the urgent need to increase protections against terrorists 
determined to strike our country, serious vulnerabilities persist in a 
range of major areas:
  Chemical plant security: More than 100 facilities in 23 States could 
threaten 1 million or more people if terrorists attacked the facility. 
There are no federal security requirements for chemical plants--the 
industry secures itself if it decides, on its own, to do so. ``60 
Minutes'' did a segment where they literally walked right through an 
open front gate into a chemical plant outside downtown Pittsburgh. At 
one facility, the reporter climbed up onto a tank containing toxic 
material and shouted ``hello, I'm on your tank.'' There were no guards 
and no one tried to stop him. There are nightclubs in New York City 
that are harder to get into than some of our chemical plants.
  Leaks of toxic chemicals can be devastating. In India in 1984, a leak 
at a chemical plant in Bhopal killed at least 4,000 people and injured 
hundreds of thousands more.
  Transportation of extremely hazardous materials: Shipments of 
extremely hazardous materials such as chlorine routinely travel through 
densely populated areas of our country. These shipments are mobile 
chemical weapons that often share the same track as urban passenger 
rail systems and could kill or injure 100,000 people within half an 
hour.
  In a report released by the Teamsters Rail Conference last week that 
surveyed rail employees, 63 percent of those surveyed indicated that 
their train or equipment was delayed or left unattended for an extended 
period of time that day, and of those, 55 percent indicated that there 
were hazardous materials aboard that train.
  LNG Security: One of Millennium Bomb plotters planning to attack Los 
Angeles International Airport was smuggled into the country on an LNG 
tanker docking in Everett, MA in my Congressional District. Terrorists 
may target LNG tankers and terminals, resulting in catastrophic 
consequences for surrounding communities. In 1979, my bill to require 
such remote siting was signed into law. But the Bush Administration is 
trying to undermine it, opening up the possibility an LNG plant would 
be placed, like a sitting duck, in the middle of an urban area, where 
an attack or accident would cause incredible devastation. Energy Bill 
signed into law in August 2005 froze out local officials from site 
decision-making process, so now convenience for energy companies, 
rather than security safeguards for surrounding community, will 
determine where facilities are built. Last month, I offered an 
amendment to the Coast Guard reauthorization bill to require the 
involvement of the Coast Guard, which is part of the Homeland Security 
Department, in siting decisions. My amendment was defeated on the House 
Floor.
  Republicans claim to support local control and the right of states to 
fend off federal encroachments. But when it comes to LNG siting, 
Republicans cut out mayors and governors and state homeland security 
officials from carrying out one of their most important 
responsibilities--protecting the public.
  Aviation: Approximately 22 percent of all cargo transported by air in 
the United States is carried on passenger planes. This cargo consumes 
about half of the space in the cargo bay on a typical flight, and 
almost none of it is ever inspected! In the past, this cargo loophole 
has been exploited with deadly results, such as when Pan Am Flight 103 
was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland by a bomb hidden in unscreened 
baggage. I asked Secretary Chertoff if he would support a requirement 
that 100 percent of the cargo carried on passenger planes be inspected, 
just as all checked bags, carry-on bags and passengers are currently 
inspected before boarding? He said ``No.''
  Why should the booties of babies be scrutinized for bombs, but no one 
checks the cargo bound for the belly of a Boeing? The Bush 
administration says we should trust the shipper. But we must apply the 
Reagan Doctrine to cargo security--Trust, but verify.
  Public transit: The attacks in London and Madrid clearly demonstrated 
our vulnerability to similar strikes against our transit systems here 
in the United States. Despite these wake-up calls, this conference 
report provides only slightly more funding than what is being provided 
today. Ranking Members Obey and Sabo offered amendments during the 
conference to increase funding for public transit security, but these 
amendments were defeated by the unanimous opposition from Republicans 
on the conference committee.
  The American Public Transportation Association has identified $6 
billion in transit security needs for U.S. public transportation 
systems, approximately the same amount of money we're spending each 
month in Iraq. Since September 11, the Federal Government has spent $18 
billion on passenger air security, but only $250 million on transit 
security. Yet, Americans take public transportation 32 million times a 
day--16 times more than they fly.
   Biological Weapons: Four years after the unsolved anthrax attacks on 
the Capitol that killed innocent workers, DHS has only completed 
material threat assessments on four of the biological, chemical and 
radiological agents that it is required to assess under Project 
Bioshield. I asked Secretary Chertoff if he would commit to completing 
the rest of these threat assessments within 60 days. He said ``no.''
  Today's conference report does not adequately address these issues. 
This bill does not:
  Require chemical plants to be protected by armed guards trained to 
prevent attacks by sophisticated, suicidal terrorists or require 
chemical companies to substitute safer technologies and chemicals in 
their processes whenever possible, so if terrorists penetrate a plant, 
damage they could cause would be dramatically reduced.
  Require re-routing of extremely hazardous materials whenever possible 
to reduce the threat of an attack on a chemical shipment in a densely 
populated area.
  Mandate that LNG facilities should be built in remote locations far 
away from population centers or ensure that security officials, 
including State and local government representatives are involved in 
siting process.
  Require that all the commercial cargo carried on passenger planes be 
inspected for bombs, just as all passengers and their luggage are.
  Direct the Department of Homeland Security to complete all of the 60 
material threat assessments and purchase all of the vaccine doses 
required under Project Bioshield.
  Republicans continue to nickel and dime homeland security while 
writing a blank check for the war in Iraq. Specifically, the 
discretionary funding provided in this bill is $1.3 billion, only 4.5 
percent more than last year, which is just slightly more than the rate 
of inflation. When Ranking Members Obey and Sabo attempted to add $1.7 
billion for FEMA disaster mitigation programs, emergency management 
grants, chemical, transit and port security, and other critical 
security programs such as aviation security and Coast Guard operations, 
they were defeated by Republicans on a party-line vote.
  Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita washed away the illusion that 
the Federal

[[Page 22408]]

Government is better prepared to respond to a natural disaster or 
terrorist attack than it was on 9/11. Not only are we not prepared for 
a natural or man-made disaster, we are not taking the preventive 
measures to reduce the risk of these devastating events. This 
conference report does not provide for qualified, experienced 
leadership at FEMA, nor does it return FEMA to the staffing levels of 
the 1990s.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this conference report, which fails to 
address pressing, well-known homeland security weaknesses. I urge a 
``no'' vote.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all 
acknowledge the very hard work of the Chairman and the Ranking Member 
of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, and I recognize that this is 
a difficult challenge.
  As a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security and now the 
authorizing committee for two terms, I believe that those of us who 
have studied the details of the structure of homeland security can 
speak with a degree of information, if you will, of both the assets of 
this appropriation but also some elements that are obviously missing.
  Spending a lot of time walking through the cots and amongst those who 
were survivors of Hurricane Katrina, having now in our community almost 
125,000, I know the fear and the devastation of the lack of 
preparedness of this government. So it is to my dismay that the 
acceptance of Secretary Chertoff's reorganization plan was not put on 
hold so that we could truly find out what were the funding needs.
  I join my colleagues in wanting more dollars for rail security. I 
have joined my colleagues in offering new legislation today that was 
articulated by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson). I join my 
colleagues in the concerns of the limited regulation of chemical 
plants. But, most of all, I speak to issues that I think would save 
additional lives.
  There are 1,100 persons dead and still counting in the Hurricane 
Katrina backdrop of Mississippi, Alabama and in New Orleans. We have 
yet to mourn those who have lost their lives. But certainly the 
director for preparedness and response is not the answer. FEMA needs to 
be independent, self-sufficient, well-funded and a separate component 
to Homeland Security, even to the extent of being its own cabinet.
  I realize that Michael Brown has been singled out, and I am delighted 
that Director Paulson is the Acting Director, but I can assure my 
colleagues, having been to Beaumont and Port Arthur after Hurricane 
Katrina, we did not have our act together then. We did not have our 
time and our organization together, even then. FEMA was not there 
timely. Generators that were needed were not there. Ice and water was 
not there. The National Guard did not have orders, and no one knew who 
was in charge. So, frankly, I believe there is much work to be done.
  In the backdrop of the potential epidemic of bird flu, I believe 
there needs to be more resources and efforts than a chief medical 
officer. We need to boost up under Homeland Security the public health 
system. The sense of Congress that Immigration and Customs and border 
protection should be merged, I do not know if that is a well-thought-
out plan. In fact, we need to investigate some of the failings of these 
entities before we begin to merge one entity into another.
  I am grateful that we have provided dollars for transportation 
security, but it is not enough. Whistleblower protection is good, but 
there is not enough funding, if you will, to establish an independent, 
strong FEMA. That is what we need to be focusing on, and the 
reorganization plan should not be accepted in the backdrop and the 
failures of Hurricane Katrina.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous 
consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his critical leadership on this issue.
  As one who represents New York City, the site of the 9/11 attack, 
nothing is more important to New York and, I would say, our country 
than homeland security. Just this evening the mayor has been working 
with the FBI and the appropriate agencies with another serious 
terrorist threat against New York City's mass transit system. This is 
critical. I am deeply concerned about funding formulas, the lack of 
attention for the cargo, for the mass transit and many other areas.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, before I yield back, I think it 
is important that the gentleman from Minnesota and I express our thanks 
to staff. They make us look good, because they are the ones who produce 
these products, the staff that is seated here with me and the staff on 
the minority side. These people have done yeoman's work day and night 
for the last year on this bill. I want to thank them for all of the 
great work that they have done.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in total agreement.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable to me that we can slash 
funding for first responders, do nothing about making sure funding is 
distributed based on risk and sit here slapping each other on the back.
  What are we commending ourselves about?
  Is it the $550 million dollar cut to State Homeland Security Grants?
  Is it the $120 million dollar cut to the high threat cities?
  Is it the fact that we did nothing to require funding to be 
distributed based on risk?
  Is it the overall cut for first responders of $645 million?
  Is it the further weakening of FEMA or the cutting of their budget?
  Is it the $50 million cut to pre-disaster mitigation loans that could 
save communities from future disasters?
  Is it that we are paving the way to return private screeners at 
airports and picking up the tab for their liability insurance?
  Or is it the fact that we are funding 1,000 fewer border patrol 
agents, 450 fewer immigration investigators and 6,200 fewer detention 
beds than we called for when we passed the Intelligence Reform Bill 
last year?
  This bill does not reflect our homeland security needs.
  It is good that we, once again, give the Department of Homeland 
Security complete control over how more than 60 percent state homeland 
funding will be distributed.
  Will this actually be the year they use their authority to distribute 
it based on risk?
  Why do we refuse to listen to the 9/11 Commission and mandate it is 
distributed based on risk?
  What ever happened to the Cox Bill that passed this house 409-10 and 
would distribute funding based on risk?
  Where is the threat reduction that go with these cuts?
  We are told to remain vigilant.
  The President went on national TV this morning reminding us just how 
long it will be to defeat terrorism and protect our Nation.
  Back home in New York City we are still in a code orange. This is not 
code orange funding. This is code green funding.
  We need to get our priorities straight.
  We need to make sure we give our first responders the funding they 
need. We need to make sure homeland funding is distributed based on 
risk.
  We need to do better than this.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering the conference 
agreement on H.R. 2360, the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill for 
FY 2006. I am pleased by some of the provisions in this conference 
report, but I am also troubled by a number of other provisions.
  We had several days to prepare before Hurricane Katrina ravaged the 
gulf coast--much longer than we will have before a potential terrorist 
attack. But the administration's incompetence meant that extra time was 
almost wasted and lives were lost. In April, we had a successful 
terrorism response exercise in New Jersey called TOPOFF 3, bringing 
together Federal, State and local authorities to respond to simulated 
terrorist attacks. What we need are more exercises like these, not 
fewer; more and better planning, not less. But this conference report 
cuts pre-disaster mitigation by $50 million over last year and by $100 
million from even the administration's request. If we had spent money 
ahead of time--if we had

[[Page 22409]]

pre-positioned assets in the gulf coast region before Katrina struck--
we could have saved lives and billions of dollars. As our Nation faces 
a variety of threats, both manmade and natural, we need to think 
seriously about these cuts.
  After watching the Federal Emergency Management Agency seriously 
mishandle their response to Hurricane Katrina there is a clear need to 
restructure the Agency. However, we will not be doing that today. This 
legislation does nothing to reform FEMA--it doesn't improve the 
leadership, it doesn't return staffing levels to the highs of the 
1990s, it doesn't even require that FEMA report directly to the 
president. FEMA is the Federal Government's first line of defense and 
response to disasters, and it needs to be reformed. And this bill 
doesn't provide the money either. This conference report even cuts 
funding for FEMA by 12 percent from last year's funding level.
  It also slashes funding for state and local preparedness grants by 
$585 million below FY 2005 levels. We know that New Jersey is a target 
for terrorists. In a bioterrorism attack just after September 11, 2001, 
postal workers in Hamilton were sickened with anthrax. Last year, the 
Prudential Plaza building in Newark was named as a target after an Al 
Qaeda laptop computer containing information on the building was found 
in Pakistan. And, of course, four of the 9/11 hijackers passed through 
Newark Liberty International Airport and 700 residents of the State 
were killed on that terrible day. Funds for State and local 
preparedness are crucial to keep New Jersey and our Nation safe. The 
police officers who notice something suspicious, the community leaders 
who develop evacuation plans, the first responders on the scene 
immediately after an attack--these people are local authorities, and we 
need to give them the tools they need to do their jobs.
  There have been two major terrorist attacks in the West since 
September 11, and both have been aimed at mass transit--the March 11, 
2004 Madrid bombings, and the July 2005 London bombings. But the 
President did not request any specific funds for mass transit. 
Fortunately, the conference agreement adds $150 million dollars for 
transit security. New Jersey Transit, the Nation's third largest 
transit authority, with 220 million riders a year, 40 percent inbound 
to New York City, runs several trains and buses through my district. 
Princeton Junction, located in my district, is the fourth busiest 
station in New Jersey Transit's system. We need more funding for mass 
transit, and this is a start.
  This conference report also begins to address one of our greatest 
vulnerabilities to terrorism, one that the Bush administration 
continues to ignore. It allocates $30 million for initial programs for 
better screening of passenger stowed luggage on commercial flights. The 
conference report also provides for adequate independent oversight of 
Secure Flight, the next generation of the air passenger prescreening 
program. This will allow us to balance security and privacy.
  It also provides $655 million for fire grants, $155 million more than 
President Bush requested. As we all know, our local fire departments 
are the backbone of our first responder network. Fire fighters are some 
of the first to arrive at disasters, be they natural or man-made. I am 
glad that the conference report provides much needed funds for fire 
grants.
  New Jersey is home to what terrorism experts call the ``most 
dangerous two miles'' in America--the chemical plants, highways, and 
railroads that lie between Newark Liberty International Airport and the 
Port of Elizabeth. And in a 14-mile radius around the site, there are 
12 million people living and working. The House earlier this year voted 
to increase funding to help secure these sites. But the conference 
report does not include this desperately needed funding increase. 
Rather, it contains only $95 million for the necessary chemical 
countermeasures that would help secure industrial materials, and 
provide safety and peace of mind to millions of New Jerseyans.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill leaves too much undone. Cutting funding for 
local preparedness and first responders is more than enough 
justification for New Jerseyans to oppose this bill. We can do better 
in planning for disasters, reforming FEMA, and assisting state and 
local governments. And though the conference report does more for 
transit and air cargo screening, these efforts are just down-payments 
on what will be a long-term project.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering 
appropriations for The Department of Homeland Security, which was 
created with one mission in mind--to help protect the country. 
Unfortunately, it seems that not all of the agencies within the 
Department take that mission as seriously as they should.
  The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, is 
responsible for processing petitions for immigration benefits. This 
includes petitions for green cards, visa issuance, asylum status, and 
marriage benefits. The adjudication process must be thorough and secure 
to ensure that those who want to harm America are not allowed to enter 
the country.
  Monday's Washington Times included a disturbing article about a 
Congressional briefing by an internal CIS investigator that highlighted 
alleged corruption and dysfunctional practices at the Agency. If true, 
these practices would comprise a threat to national security.
  According to the article, the allegations include CIS employees 
exchanging immigration benefits for sex, being influenced by foreign 
governments to provide benefits, and not having access to the 
appropriate systems to do background checks on those applying for 
benefits.
  When an agency receives Federal funding it is obligated to do 
everything in its power to complete its job. The Department of Homeland 
Security needs to better protect our country from those who would do us 
harm.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of 
this appropriations bill.
  As State and local governments await critical homeland security 
funding, I do not want to stand in the way of the bill's passage, 
particularly as we proceed further into the fiscal year with so few 
spending bills already law.
  I do, however, feel the need to register my concerns with a number of 
this bill's shortcomings and identify pressing needs that are not being 
adequately addressed by today's actions.
  First, let me start with the obvious; the amount spent to protect our 
homeland is too little in too many areas.
  There are few Americans that would suggest the threats of terrorism 
or natural disasters have diminished over the past year, yet this 
agreement cuts funding for several of our most vulnerable weaknesses. 
Reductions include:
  State and local domestic preparedness grants are cut by $585 million 
(19 percent) below FY 2005;
  Firefighter Assistance Grants cut by $60 million (8 percent) below FY 
2005;
  Pre-disaster mitigation, perhaps our best weapon of preemption, is 
cut by $50 million below last year; and
  Aviation security is reduced by $83 million below the President's 
request, resulting in 2,000 fewer screeners.
  These cuts irresponsibly penetrate the core of our Nation's ability 
to prepare and respond to national emergencies.
  Second, I am concerned about what Congress isn't focused on.
  On an average weekday, 32 million people make trips on public 
transportation, but funding for transit security makes up less than 
one-half of one percent of the DHS's budget.
  The conference agreement includes $4.6 billion for private aviation 
security, but only $150 million for State grants to improve mass 
transit security. Transit industry experts estimate we need more than 
forty times this amount. Put another way we spend $30 on planes for 
every $1 on transit which carries tens of millions more people.
  Furthermore, only $8 million will be available for rail security and 
$4 million to track hazardous truck traffic even though tons of 
hazardous material capable of becoming weapons of mass destruction 
travel our highway and rail lines every day.
  While we have made obvious adjustments in our airline security, I ask 
that we be as proactive in preventing other commercial carriers from 
being used as weapons against us.
  If the concern is that there isn't a sound transit plan or that 
regional coordination is proving inadequate, we should impel DHS to 
find solutions that make transit more secure.
  It would be a national travesty of tragic proportions if we had to 
wait until another attack similar to Madrid to occur in the United 
States in order to commit the resources necessary to properly secure 
our rail and transit systems.
  Third, we haven't exercised sufficient oversight to determine whether 
the money we've appropriated has been spent appropriately or 
accomplished its intended objectives.
  I am aware of the large unexpended balance the Metropolitan 
Washington Region may be sitting on.
  Admittedly, this unaccounted-for balance is troubling. But what is 
more disturbing is that we have no consistent explanations: It's red 
tape and unnecessary Federal bureaucratic procedures, or it's the delay 
in reaching regional consensus on how it should be spent, or it's a 
snafu in procurement.
  I suspect that this region's experience is not unique. Remaining 
silent or stubbornly oblivious of these problems abdicates our 
responsibility to use tax dollars wisely, and we should demand 
accountability of our spending commitments.

[[Page 22410]]

  Mr. Speaker, I worry that we may be living on borrowed time.
  If there's one thing Katrina showed us it's that emergency response 
plans that are not rigorously tested and retested won't work in a 
crisis.
  Even worse, public skepticism is growing over whether the Federal 
Government is now capable of responding effectively to another 
catastrophic event.
  A natural disaster is one thing, but terrorists can strike anytime, 
anywhere and use our own resources against us.
  I urge my colleagues to consider fully funding the needs of securing 
our homeland, and I challenge us as a body to meet the vital challenge 
of protecting our Nation.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the FY 2006 
Homeland Security Appropriations conference report. This bill does not 
fully address our homeland security needs. Still, it provides vital 
funds to make our country safer, and so I will support it today.
  Total funding in the bill is increased from this year's levels. 
Specifically, the bill increases funding over the requested levels for 
immigration and for customs and border protection. The agreement also 
provides $1.5 billion, 35 percent more than current funding, for 
science and technology programs.
  I am pleased that the conferees adopted an important amendment 
offered by Representative David Obey that requires the Department of 
Homeland Security, DHS, to provide details on how money appropriated 
for responding to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is spent. I am a 
cosponsor of H.R. 3737, a bill that would create a Special Inspector 
General for Hurricane Katrina Recovery who would have oversight over 
all Federal Hurricane Katrina emergency funding. While the Obey 
amendment doesn't go as far this legislation, it is a significant step 
forward.
  I am also pleased that the conference report includes funding to help 
States comply with the REAL ID Act. Estimates are that complying with 
the Act will cost the States between $100 million and $500 million over 
the next 4 years. Since the majority saw fit to push the REAL ID 
provisions through Congress, it is important that Congress also 
provides funding to do the job.
  Still, I'm concerned about shortfalls in the bill. It cuts fire 
grants by $60 million (8 percent) below FY 2005, even as a recent 
survey found that fire departments all over the country aren't prepared 
to respond to a haz-mat incident and lack equipment. The bill also cuts 
State and local domestic preparedness grants by $585 million, 19 
percent, and Urban Area Security Initiative grants by $270 million, 26 
percent, below FY 2005 levels. Funding for communications equipment for 
first responders is cut from the levels in the bill the House passed in 
May, before Katrina struck--from $27 million to $15 million. The bill 
does provide additional funding for border patrol, but the number of 
agents still falls 1,000 short of the 2,000 called for in the 
Intelligence Reform bill. Since September 11th, just 965 additional 
border patrol agents have been hired--less than a 10 percent increase 
in 4 years.
  The conference report fails to provide much more than basic funding 
for the security of rail and public transportation systems because DHS 
has not yet spent funds it was allocated last year. Despite the fact 
that passenger rail in the U.S. carries about five times as many 
passengers each day as do airlines, this bill only includes $36 million 
for ground transportation security and $150 million for State grants to 
protect mass transit systems, as compared to $4.6 billion for aviation 
security. I'm very concerned that crucial security upgrades to our rail 
and public transportation systems--especially in light of the bombings 
in Madrid and London--can't move forward more quickly. The bill also 
underfunds port security and does not include $50 million for chemical 
plant security that was included in the House-passed bill.
  I'm also concerned that this bill includes DHS Secretary Chertoff's 
proposal to create a new Preparedness Directory and take that 
responsibility away from FEMA, making FEMA a stand-alone office focused 
on response and recovery only. Secretary Chertoff's proposal was made 
in July--before Hurricane Katrina hit--and this bill would move it 
forward. This administration crippled FEMA by making it just one of 
many organizational boxes under the Homeland Security Department. 
Splitting preparedness and response and recovery tasks now would weaken 
FEMA even further, at a time when we should be focusing on how to learn 
from the lessons of Katrina.
  Instead of making these changes in FEMA, we should remove it from DHS 
and make it an independent agency under qualified leadership, as would 
happen under the bill (H.R. 3816) I introduced last month.
  Mr. Speaker, much remains to be done to improve our defenses against 
terrorism. I do not believe this bill sets the right priorities or 
provides sufficient resources, but it does fund programs that are 
critical to our homeland security. The conference report is an 
important step, and I will vote for it.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, there are many good provisions in this 
conference report, and I intend to support it.
  I am pleased, for example, with the $110 million appropriated for the 
SAFER Program--and was proud to have worked with Congressmen Weldon and 
Sabo on an amendment to provide additional SAFER funding.
  The President's budget zeroed out this program of hiring grants, 
which help achieve adequate staffing levels and improve the safety of 
our firefighters and communities.
  I also am pleased that the conference agreement contains $545 million 
for the Fire Grant Program--representing an increase of $45 million 
over the President's request.
  Nonetheless, even this funding level is $100 million below last 
year's level.
  The Fire Grant Program is authorized at $1 billion, and we must work 
to increase--not decrease--funding that ensures that firefighters have 
modern equipment and advanced training.
  However, none of us should delude ourselves.
  This Republican Congress is simply not doing enough to address our 
unmet homeland security needs.
  The inept Federal response to Hurricane Katrina--almost 4 years to 
the day after the terrorist attacks of 9/11--has only heightened 
concern about this Nation's ability to respond to another catastrophe.
  Democrats would meet our first responder needs. Yet, this conference 
report cuts three of the four first responder grant programs.
  Democrats would meet our needs for port security. Yet, with this 
conference report, we have funded only 12 percent of the amount needed 
for ports to comply with the Maritime Transportation Security Act.
  Democrats would meet our needs for rail and transit security. Yet, 
while an estimated $6 billion is needed to improve rail and transit 
security, this conference report provides only $150 million for fiscal 
2006.
  Mr. Speaker, this Republican Congress--despite its proclamations 
otherwise--simply is not addressing our Homeland Security priorities.
  I intend to support this conference report. But its flaws ought to 
give all of us pause.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment on the fiscal year 2006 
Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. I supported this 
bill when it passed the House in May, and I will vote in favor of the 
conference report, but I want to state for the record the serious 
deficiencies in this legislation.
  My home State of North Carolina has been the victim of a number of 
devastating natural disasters including Hurricanes Floyd and Fran, as 
well as floods, tornadoes and ice storms. In many cases these natural 
disasters overwhelmed local and state resources, and the Governor asked 
for help from the Federal Government which, in most cases, responded 
appropriately.
  The U.S. Congress established the Department of Homeland Security to 
address all hazards faced by our Nation--both natural and man-made. 
However, since the creation of the Department, we have seen the focus 
and funds shift from preparing for and responding to all hazards to a 
narrow, short-sighted focus on terrorism.
  Again and again the administration and Republican leadership have 
pushed through cuts in pre-disaster mitigation efforts, emergency 
management performance grants, and even annual funding for the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency.
  Unfortunately, Hurricane Katrina exposed the erosion of our Nation's 
response capabilities and its horrendous results.
  And now, Congress has the responsibility and opportunity to address 
some of these weaknesses through the appropriations process, but the 
Republican leadership has produced a piece of legislation that is 
almost in complete disregard of the Department's weaknesses.
  This bill cuts pre-disaster mitigation funds by 67 percent; it cuts 
state and local domestic preparedness funds by more than a half billion 
dollars, and it cuts disaster relief funding by $370 million.
  Furthermore, this legislation strips the preparedness function from 
FEMA, further weakening this beleaguered agency. Experienced emergency 
managers on every level will tell you, as they have told the members of 
the Homeland Security Committee, that their duties include prevention, 
protection, response and recovery. You cannot take away one of these 
four roles and expect the agency to function. Preparation, whether it 
be to prepare

[[Page 22411]]

updated flood maps or train personnel to respond to a dirty bomb 
attack, are all vital to the creation of an effective, sustainable, and 
practical approach to domestic security.
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill with great reluctance and 
strong reservations, but it is my fervent hope that my colleagues in 
the U.S. House will join me in restoring FEMA to its former 
effectiveness and preparing our nation for all eventualities.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
agreement on H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006. This is not a perfect bill; I 
believe that we are acquiescing too readily to yet another 
restructuring plan, allowing the Department to yet again reshuffle 
boxes on its organizational chart without adequately establishing in 
hearings that the proposals will actually make this country safer. No 
amount of structural reform, which inherently muddles missions and 
produces chaos among employees, can substitute for professionalism, 
expertise, and strong leadership.
  I am also concerned that, given our woefully inadequate 302(b) 
allocation, we have had to shore up funding for the Department's 
essential activities at the expense of our support for state and local 
law enforcement agencies and first responders. State and local 
governments continue to be on the front lines of any effort to respond 
to natural disasters and acts of terrorism, and yet we have funded them 
significantly below both last year's level and the Administration's 
request. At a time when the Administration is trying to shift blame to 
state and local governments for the chaotic overall response to 
Hurricane Katrina, we have not provided them with adequate resources to 
get the job done.
  That said, I believe that this bill does a reasonably good job of 
addressing our most pressing homeland security needs. I especially want 
to highlight a provision that directs the Department to allocate the 
bulk of first responder grants on the basis of threat and risk. While I 
do not believe that our task in this Congress will be finished until 
100 percent of the Department's grant funds are allocated on the basis 
of risk, this conference report is a noteworthy step in the right 
direction.
  In addition, I am pleased that the conference report includes 
measures to ensure accountability in the way that the Department spends 
these appropriations, especially with respect to emergency supplemental 
funding for Hurricane Katrina. The Department's initial reports to 
Congress, required by law, have lacked detailed specifics on how the 
Department has been spending the $60 billion that this Congress has 
provided since the hurricane first hit. While the American people fully 
support our commitment to providing relief to the victims of Katrina 
and Rita, they also expect this Congress to make sure that the 
Department spends their tax dollars effectively and responsibly.
  In closing, I would like to thank subcommittee Chairman Rogers and 
Ranking Member Sabo for their hard work on this critical bill. We all 
knew that the creation of the department would create a considerable 
management challenge, and today, as we pass the third appropriations 
bill funding the department, I would like to applaud their leadership 
on this subcommittee for making sure that many of these concerns have 
been addressed.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of the 
conference report on H.R. 2360, the Homeland Security Appropriations 
Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
  My support is based on the fact that it is the only vehicle available 
at this time to fund critical homeland security efforts.
  While this bill makes some progress over last year's funding levels, 
we are far from where we need to be to adequately respond to a 
terrorist attack or natural disaster. I am disappointed and concerned 
that the bill before us falls short of addressing the weakness and 
lessons learned from September 11, Hurricane Katrina and the terrorist 
attacks in Madrid and London.
  H.R. 2360 unfortunately is a status quo homeland security 
appropriations bill with only modest improvements over the previous 
year's bill.
  My first concern is that the Republican leadership would not accept a 
Democratic motion to delay Homeland Security Secretary Michael 
Chertoffs proposal to reorganize the Homeland Security Department until 
a thorough investigation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
FEMA, could be undertaken.
  Such an investigation would provide us with the necessary information 
to determine how best to organize FEMA including the advisability of 
consolidating FEMA's existing preparedness functions under a new 
Preparedness Directorate and limiting FEMA's functions solely to 
recovery and response.
  Second, I was disappointed that Republican conferees did not accept 
the Obey-Sabo-Byrd amendment that would have provided an additional 
$1.7 billion in investments in emergency disaster planning, grants to 
first responders, transit, port and chemical security, and additional 
border security. These are critical programs that help communities 
prepare for a disaster and help bring relief following a catastrophe.
  Third, I am concerned that the conference report actually cuts 
funding for several programs that are of particular concern to urban 
areas such as my Los Angeles district. For example two programs that 
provide essential funding for first responders, the State Homeland 
Security Grant Program and the State and Local Grant Program are cut 
below their current year funding by 50 percent and 20 percent 
respectively. I am also alarmed that grants for high-threat, highly-
populated urban areas will suffer a 15 percent cut and that grants for 
firefighters to buy needed safety equipment are cut by 8 percent. 
Lastly, I am troubled that funding for FEMA to perform its limited 
functions has been reduced by 11.5 percent.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I will support this bill to provide critical 
resources to help make our country safer. However, fully addressing our 
critical national security concerns in light of recent events requires 
resources that the Administration simply did not support and which the 
Republican majority did not provide in this bill. While this bill is an 
improvement over the Administration's request, unfortunately critical 
homeland security needs will still go unmet despite the probability of 
disasters lurking in the not so distant future.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the conference report we are considering 
today on the House Floor fails to close dangerous homeland security 
loopholes that continue to put Americans at risk more than four years 
after the 9/11 attacks.
  Despite the urgent need to increase protections against terrorists 
determined to strike our country, serious vulnerabilities persist in a 
range of major areas:
  Nuclear terrorism: Non-proliferation expert Graham Allison has said 
that ``more likely than not'' there will be an act of nuclear terrorist 
attack in our country. Al Qaeda views obtaining nuclear weapons as a 
religious duty. There are tens of thousands of nuclear weapons-worth of 
highly enriched uranium in the former Soviet Union, but we do not have 
the technology that can reliably detect it at our ports of entry.
  Chemical plant security: More than 100 facilities in 23 States could 
threaten 1 million or more people if terrorists attacked the facility. 
There are no federal security requirements for chemical plants--the 
industry secures itself if it decides, on its own, to do so. ``60 
Minutes'' did a segment where they literally walked right through an 
open front gate into a chemical plant outside downtown Pittsburgh. At 
one facility, the reporter climbed up onto a tank containing toxic 
material and shouted ``hello, I'm on your tank.'' There were no guards 
and no one tried to stop him. There are nightclubs in New York City 
that are harder to get into than some of our chemical plants.
  Leaks of toxic chemicals can be devastating. In India in 1984, a leak 
at a chemical plant in Bhopal killed at least 4,000 people and injured 
hundreds of thousands more.
  Transportation of extremely hazardous materials: Shipments of 
extremely hazardous materials such as chlorine routinely travel through 
densely populated areas of our country. These shipments are mobile 
chemical weapons that often share the same track as urban passenger 
rail systems and could kill or injure 100,000 people within half an 
hour. In a report released by the Teamsters Rail Conference last week 
that surveyed rail employees, 63 percent of those surveyed indicated 
that their train or equipment was delayed or left unattended for an 
extended period of time that day, and of those, 55 percent indicated 
that there were hazardous materials aboard the train.
  LNG Security: One of Millenium Bomb plotters planning to attack Los 
Angeles International Airport was smuggled into the country on an LNG 
tanker docking in Everett, MA in my Congressional District. Terrorists 
may target LNG tankers and terminals, resulting in catastrophic 
consequences for surrounding communities. In 1979, my bill to require 
such remote sitting was signed into law. But the Bush Administration is 
trying to undermine it, opening up the possibility an LNG plant would 
be placed, like a sitting duck, in the middle of an urban area, where 
an attack or accident would cause incredible devastation. Energy Bill 
signed into law in August 2005 froze out

[[Page 22412]]

local officials from site decision-making process, so now convenience 
for energy companies, rather than security safeguards for surrounding 
community, will determine where facilities are built. Last month, I 
offered an amendment to the Coast Guard reauthorization bill to require 
the involvement of the Coast Guard, which is part of the Homeland 
Security Department, in siting decisions. My amendment was defeated on 
the House Floor.
  Republicans claim to support local control and the right of states to 
fend off federal encroachments. But when it comes to LNG siting, 
Republicans cut out mayors and governors and state homeland security 
officials from carrying out one of their most important 
responsibilities--protecting the public.
  Aviation: Approximately 22 percent of all cargo transported by air in 
the United States is carried on passenger planes. This cargo consumes 
about half of the space in the cargo bay on a typical flight, and 
almost none of it is ever inspected! In the past, this cargo loophole 
has been exploited with deadly results, such as when Pam Am Flight 103 
was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland by a bomb hidden in unscreened 
baggage. I asked Secretary Chertoff if he would support a requirement 
that 100 percent of the cargo carried on passenger planes be inspected, 
just as all checked bags, carry-on bags and passengers are currently 
inspected before boarding? He said ``No.''
  Why should the booties of babies be scrutinized for bombs, but no one 
checks the cargo bound for the belly of a Boeing? The Bush 
Administration says we should trust the shipper. But we must apply the 
Reagan Doctrine to cargo security--Trust, but verify.
  Public transit: The attacks in London and Madrid clearly demonstrated 
our vulnerability to similar strikes against our transit systems here 
in the United States. Despite these wake-up calls, this conference 
report provides only slightly more funding than what is being provided 
today. Ranking Members Obey and Sabo offered amendments during the 
conference to increase funding for public transit security, but these 
amendments were defeated by the unanimous opposition from Republicans 
on the conference committee.
  The American Public Transportation Association has identified $6 
billion in transit security needs for U.S. public transportation 
systems, approximately the same amount of money we're spending each 
month in Iraq. Since September 11, the federal government has spent $18 
billion on passenger air security, but only $250 million on transit 
security. Yet, Americans take public transportation 32 million times a 
day--16 times more than they fly.
  Biological Weapons: Four years after the unsolved anthrax attacks on 
the Capitol that killed innocent workers, DHS has only completed 
material threat assessments on FOUR of the biological, chemical and 
radiological agents that it is required to assess under Project 
Bioshield. I asked Secretary Chertoff if he would commit to completing 
the rest of these threat assessments within 60 days. He said ``No.''
  Today's conference report does not adequately address these issues. 
This bill does not:
  Require chemical plants to be protected by armed guards trained to 
prevent attacks by sophisticated, suicidal terrorists or require 
chemical companies to substitute safer technologies and chemicals in 
their processes whenever possible, so if terrorists penetrate a plant, 
damage they could cause would be dramatically reduced.
  Requiring re-routing of extremely hazardous materials whenever 
possible to reduce the threat of an attack on a chemical shipment in a 
densely populated area.
  Mandate that LNG facilities should be built in remote locations far 
away from population centers or ensure that security officials, 
including state and local government representatives are involved in 
siting process.
  Require that all the commercial cargo carried on passenger planes be 
inspected for bombs, just as all passengers and their luggage are.
  Direct the Department of Homeland Security to complete all of the 60 
material threat assessments and purchase all of the vaccine doses 
required under Project Bioshield.
  Republicans continue to nickel and dime homeland security while 
writing a blank check for the war in Iraq. Specifically, the 
discretionary funding provided in this bill is $1.3 billion, only 4.5 
percent more than last year, which is just slightly more than the rate 
of inflation. When Ranking Members Obey and Sabo attempted to add $1.7 
billion for FEMA disaster mitigation programs, emergency management 
grants, chemical, transit and port security, and other critical 
security programs such as aviation security and Coast Guard operations, 
they were defeated by Republicans on a party-line vote.
  Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita washed away the illusion that 
the Federal government is better prepared to respond to a natural 
disaster or terrorist attack than it was on 9/11. Not only are we not 
prepared for a natural or man-made disaster such as a dirty bomb, we 
are not taking the preventive measures to reduce the risk of these 
devastating events. This conference report does not provide for 
qualified, experienced leadership at FEMA, nor does it return FEMA to 
the staffing levels of the 1990s.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this conference report, which fails to 
address pressing, well-known homeland security weaknesses. I urge a 
``no'' vote.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Conference 
report on H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 
Act for fiscal year 2006 because I am concerned about some of the areas 
where it falls short, but moreso because I believe it is the wrong 
vehicle to make the structural changes to the Department of Homeland 
Security that Secretary Chertoff laid out in his Second Stage Review 
without the appropriate congressional scrutiny.
  As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am very 
disappointed that the Conference Report, even though it provides more 
funding that the President's original request, makes a number of 
significant cuts in very important First Responder and Disaster 
Preparation programs at a time when we can ill afford to. I also see no 
sign that the deficient public health system on which every and any 
response will depend received the funding it needs to be brought up to 
a basic standard in every community in this country.
  This Conference Report fails to make Homeland Security the priority 
it ought to be.
  The rob from Peter to pay Paul that we are seeing in the Congress' 
Katrina/Ophelia/Rita response, continues, and badly needed increases 
for border security come at the expense of money for such items as 
first responders, disaster relief and port security. The result is that 
America will be far less safe than it needs to be.
  Mr. Speaker, as someone who represents an area which as seen more 
than its share of devastating hurricanes, and is home to some sites of 
critical national infrastructure, I am particularly concerned about 
some of the proposals set forth in Secretary Chertoff's reorganization 
which would split FEMA's preparedness and response functions and leave 
FEMA solely as a disaster response agency reporting to the Secretary. 
It is because of this concern and others why I joined Homeland Security 
Committee Ranking Member Bennie Thompson and other members of the 
Committee in introducing the Department of Homeland security Reform Act 
of 2005 to offer solutions where the administration's reorganization 
plan creates more problems. I also have grave concerns that what this 
reorganization does is continue to concentrate power in the White 
House. We see that in every Department, even at the NIH, and it is a 
dangerous trend that we as a co-equal branch of government should not 
let happen.
  Our bill would strengthen FEMA creating a strong Directorate of 
Preparedness and Response that includes an intact, strengthened FEMA 
with a Director and Deputy Director who must have an extensive 
background in emergency or disaster-related management.
  It will also include a new Assistant Secretary for Preparedness who 
will head a consolidated version of the Office of State and Local 
Government Coordination and Preparedness, which is presently an 
isolated entity located in the Secretary's office. We also establish a 
military liaison within the Directorate who will assist with the 
coordination of DOD and DHS preparedness and response efforts.
  Mr. Speaker we have seen what can happen to a community which has 
been impacted by a disaster, as we did with Alabama. Mississippi and 
Louisiana in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, when there is weakened and 
ineffective FEMA, and where the Department does not provide leadership 
or clear lines of authority. This Conference Report does nothing to fix 
the deficiencies of FEMA that came to light as a result of the Gulf 
Coast disasters which is the last thing we should be doing.
  We could accept this report because it is late in the year, and there 
are some good parts to it, but the security of each and everyone in 
this country is at stake, and this is not good enough. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this conference report and send it back.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
appropriations measure because this Nation desperately needs all the 
resources it can get. According to the Department of Defense, over 
15,000 of our troops have been injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have 
about 18,000 American troops deployed in Afghanistan and about 149,000 
in Iraq for the current war effort. During the August recess, 85 
American troops were killed in Iraq,

[[Page 22413]]

and nearly 2,000 have been killed since September. To further 
exacerbate matters, the price tag for the war has already exceeded $196 
billion, broken down to about $5 billion per month. These monies and 
bodies have been and are being expended on an effort that is not 
bringing the relief that is currently needed right here on American 
soil.
  With these motions in mind, Mr. Speaker, I will ultimately support 
the underlying legislation under the Conference Report, but I recognize 
that it has many shortfalls that will affect this Nation's ability to 
respond to a new and substantial set of circumstances--namely the 
aftermath of Katrina and Rita. I speak not only from the standpoint of 
a Representative of an area that experienced compound effects of both 
Katrina and Rita, but I speak as a mother, wife, and a person who 
understands the pains of economic hardship.
  I applaud the Conferees for giving agencies such as ICE an 
appropriation of $3.175 billion--which was a $216 million increase over 
the FY05 level of $2.95 billion. Furthermore, of the $4.6 billion 
allocated to TSA, $2.54 billion is allocated to cover the passenger and 
baggage screener workforce. The number of TSA screeners is capped at 
45,000--which will constrain our efforts to compensate for the effects 
of the two hurricanes. Within this account, privatized screening 
operations are funded at $140 million. The conferees also extended 
liability protection to airports with private and TSA screeners for 
``any act of negligence, gross negligence, or intentional wrongdoing'' 
committed by a Federal or private screener--which will be a good 
element.
  While I support many of the allocations set forth in this measure, it 
is my feeling that, overall, the initiative to implement the 
departmental facelift called for in the Secretary's Second Stage Review 
is the wrong focus at this time. Katrina and Rita have created more 
pressing issues that could be addressed with this bill.
  To compound the severe need for resources and administrative services 
caused by the hurricanes, there are major departmental changes that 
have been made that could weaken our ability to address those needs. 
The proposed transfer of all state and local grants and associated 
activities to the new Preparedness Directorate must be given oversight 
analysis before it is implemented. After having seen firsthand the 
cries for ice, potable water, food, and other subsistence items in 
Baton Rouge, LA and in my own backyard of Port Arthur, I know that this 
bill does not do all that it can to make us more prepared for incidents 
similar to Katrina and Rita.
  Unfortunately, the underlying bill is not exactly on-point or up-to-
date vis-a-vis Hurricane Rita. Many of the problems that we face are 
new, late breaking, and developing in front of our eyes.
  In emergency situations such as occurred in the Gulf States, 
communications capabilities are essential. Emergency responders must 
have the equipment that will allow essential communications efforts to 
continue in case of the major damage to infrastructure we have seen in 
New Orleans.
  Clearly, the Federal Emergency Management Agency needs to change--
from the bottom to the top. We need to look at whether the tasks 
charged to FEMA are too large to be included with 21 other agencies 
under the Department. Before some of the very substantial changes set 
forth in H.R. 2360 are passed into law, we need to seriously consider 
separating FEMA so that from top to bottom--especially given the recent 
resignation of former Director, Michael Brown, whose credentials as an 
emergency manager had been widely questioned.
  Funds that we appropriate to FEMA must be prioritized for disaster 
preparedness, and we need substantial oversight in order to prevent 
catastrophic aftermaths.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the FY 2006 
Homeland Security Appropriations conference report. This bill does not 
fully address our homeland security needs. Still, it provides vital 
funds to make our country safer, and so I will support it today.
  Total funding in the bill is increased from this year's levels. 
Specifically, the bill increases funding over the requested levels for 
immigration and for customs and border protection. The agreement also 
provides $1.5 billion, 35 percent more than current funding, for 
science and technology programs.
  I am pleased that the conferees adopted an important amendment 
offered by Rep. David Obey that requires the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) to provide details on how money appropriated for 
responding to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is spent. I am a cosponsor of 
H.R. 3737, a bill that would create a Special Inspector General for 
Hurricane Katrina Recovery who would have oversight over all federal 
Hurricane Katrina emergency funding. While the Obey amendment doesn't 
go as far as this legislation, it is a significant step forward.
  I am also pleased that the conference report includes funding to help 
states comply with the REAL ID Act. Estimates are that complying with 
the Act will cost the states between $100 million and $500 million over 
the next 4 years. Since the majority saw fit to push the REAL ID 
provisions through Congress, it is important that Congress also 
provides funding to do the job.
  Still, I'm concerned about shortfalls in the bill. It cuts fire 
grants by $60 million (8 percent) below FY 2005, even as a recent 
survey found that fire departments all over the country aren't prepared 
to respond to a haz-mat incident and lack equipment. The bill also cuts 
State and local domestic preparedness grants by $585 million (19 
percent) and Urban Area Security Initiative grants by $270 million (26 
percent) below FY 2005 levels. Funding for communications equipment for 
first responders is cut from the levels in the bill the House passed in 
May, before Katrina struck--from $27 million to $15 million. The bill 
does provide additional funding for border patrol, but the number of 
agents still falls 1,000 short of the 2,000 called for in the 
Intelligence Reform bill. Since September 11th, just 965 additional 
border patrol agents have been hired--less than a 10 percent increase 
in 4 years.
  The conference report fails to provide much more than basic funding 
for the security of rail and public transportation systems because DHS 
has not yet spent funds it was allocated last year. Despite the fact 
that passenger rail in the U.S. carries about five times as many 
passengers each day as do airlines, this bill only includes $36 million 
for ground transportation security and $150 million for State grants to 
protect mass transit systems, as compared to $4.6 billion for aviation 
security. I'm very concerned that crucial security upgrades to our rail 
and public transportation systems--especially in light of the bombings 
in Madrid and London--can't move forward more quickly. The bill also 
underfunds port security and does not include $50 million for chemical 
plant security that was included in the House-passed bill.
  I'm also concerned that this bill includes DHS Secretary Chertoff's 
proposal to create a new Preparedness Directory and take that 
responsibility away from FEMA, making FEMA a standalone office focused 
on response and recovery only. Secretary Chertoff's proposal was made 
in July--before Hurricane Katrina hit--and this bill would move it 
forward. This Administration crippled FEMA by making it just one of 
many organizational boxes under the Homeland Security Department. 
Splitting preparedness and response and recovery tasks now would weaken 
FEMA even further, at a time when we should be focusing on how to learn 
from the lessons of Katrina.
  Instead of making these changes in FEMA, we should remove it from DHS 
and make it an independent agency under qualified leadership, as would 
happen under the bill (H.R. 3816) I introduced last month.
  Mr. Speaker, much remains to be done to improve our defenses against 
terrorism. I do not believe this bill sets the right priorities or 
provides sufficient resources, but it does fund programs that are 
critical to our homeland security. The conference report is an 
important step, and I will vote for it.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the 2006 homeland security 
spending plan is something we must enact to sustain our ongoing efforts 
to protect the American people from harm. For that reason, I will 
support it. However, I have strong reservations with the bill.
  First, the Republican majority has attached a plan to fundamentally 
reorganize the Department of Homeland Security to this must-pass bill--
effectively forfeiting the oversight responsibility of the Congress. 
They are willingly making these sweeping changes, despite the fact that 
no meaningful hearings, discussions, or analyses have taken place on 
this proposal.
  My colleagues, there are many lessons to be learned from Hurricane 
Katrina that ought to be incorporated into any restructuring plan of 
our Department of Homeland Security. Yet, the Republican majority has 
not only failed to undertake a full investigation of what went wrong in 
the Gulf Region, but it is now denying Congress the opportunity to 
appropriately study or amend Secretary Chertoffs proposed changes--
which were submitted one month prior to the hurricane. This is wrong, 
and denies us the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the last 
few months so that we might do better in the future.
  Moreover, Mr. Speaker, while this bill represents an attempt to make 
up for some of the funding shortfalls in the President's fiscal year 
2006 homeland security budget--allocating $1.3 billion more for 
homeland security efforts this year than proposed by the 
Administration--it still does not adequately fund essential

[[Page 22414]]

security initiatives that are needed to protect our citizens.
  Specifically, the measure cuts by $60 million funding for Firefighter 
Grants. It also fails to provide the level of funding needed to fully 
protect our Nation's ports which, according to the Coast Guard, will 
cost $4.8 billion.
  Our constituents are depending on us to keep them safe from harm and 
the nation free from terror. This bill fails to live up to our 
promise--and this Administration's promise--to provide real leadership 
in the face of real threats.
  Mr. Speaker, I will reluctantly vote for this measure because it 
would be irresponsible to cut off funding for our homeland security 
efforts altogether. But, from my seat on the Budget Committee, I will 
continue to work to ensure that Congress lives up to its responsibility 
to provide strong leadership and to meet the Nation's security needs.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the 
conference report, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon). Without objection, 
the previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of 
the conference report will be followed by 5-minute votes on the motion 
to suspend the rules on H.R. 3895 and on the motion to suspend the 
rules on H.R. 3896.
  Proceedings will resume on H. Con. Res. 248 tomorrow.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 347, 
nays 70, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 512]

                               YEAS--347

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--70

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Doyle
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Rush
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Slaughter
     Tierney
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Boswell
     Crowley
     Delahunt
     Evans
     Hastings (FL)
     Inglis (SC)
     Olver
     Payne
     Poe
     Rothman
     Royce
     Schwarz (MI)
     Stark
     Strickland
     Watson
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2043

  Mr. OWENS, Mr. BERRY, Ms. DeGETTE and Mr. WATT changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________