[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9943-9983]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 278 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2360.

                              {time}  1153


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 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, with Mr. Gillmor in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.

[[Page 9944]]

  Under the rule, 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).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I am pleased to be here today to present the fiscal 2006 Homeland 
Security Appropriations bill.
  The first chapter for the Department of Homeland Security has been 
written. Progress has been made, and our country is safer today than it 
was before September 11. In 2 years the Department has developed and 
deployed new technologies to inspect cargo at our seaports and detect 
hazards in our environment. US-VISIT has been put in place at all 
international airports and seaports; a one-stop shop for first 
responders has been created; more than 90,000 national assets have been 
catalogued in a national infrastructure database; and a communications 
system with State and local governments is in place.
  These are important accomplishments, but they are not enough. There 
is a great deal of work to be done, and it is time to write the next 
chapter.
  The bill before us today provides $30.8 billion in discretionary 
funds for the upcoming fiscal year, $1.4 billion above the current year 
and $1.3 billion above the amounts requested by the President. There 
are some tough choices in here, but they have been made after a careful 
review of how the Department is functioning, which programs work, and 
which ones, quite frankly, are broken.
  Nearly 2 years ago, when the Department was first created and came 
before the Committee on Appropriations seeking funds, I made it clear 
that homeland security requires the active engagement of all Americans 
and all branches of government; that we are all stakeholders and must 
be treated as such. I also advised that the Committee on Appropriations 
would be a partner as the Department sought to secure our homeland, 
that we would not be casual bystanders willing to sign a blank check. I 
have consistently and repeatedly told the Department that we would 
require accountability and cooperation, that we would expect them to 
establish and meet specific milestones, that we would watch and measure 
their progress. We have done that, exactly that. And, frankly, Mr. 
Chairman, I am disappointed.
  I have come to the conclusion that there are two fundamental 
challenges within this Department. First, DHS has been slow to build 
its internal capabilities. The information technology infrastructure 
has not been integrated. There is no system in place to develop, 
certify, and transfer homeland security technologies. A financial 
management system that tracks where the money goes does not exist, and 
there is only a limited capacity to put first responder funds out on 
the street based on standards and minimum levels of preparedness.
  Second, the Department has not been successful at revising missions 
and assets of legacy organizations in a way that reflects the post-9/11 
homeland security environment. All too many examples come to mind: the 
Coast Guard, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Border Protection, 
and Transportation Security. In too many cases it is just business as 
usual. Missions and threats have changed, but the Department has not. 
This is unacceptable. The ``business as usual'' mentality has to go.
  The bill before us is anything but business as usual. The Department 
has been a reluctant partner and has ignored requests for information 
and direction to move expeditiously in the implementation of important 
national policies and goals.
  This became all too obvious this year when the Department ignored 
Congressional requests for comprehensive information on the Coast 
Guard's important Deepwater program. The Department will find that that 
lack of information has cost them. Absent a revised baseline that 
reflects post-9/11 mission requirements for the Coast Guard, Deepwater 
is being funded at pre-9/11 levels, $500 million. That is $466 million 
below the request. It is a simple equation, Mr. Chairman: No 
information equals no money.

                              {time}  1200

  Throughout this bill, we will see this equation applied. There are 
more than $485 million in cuts because the Congress did not get the 
information we needed to make informed decisions about programs and 
operations. There is also more than $310 million in fenced funding, 
until the Department performs certain actions, including implementation 
of new air cargo screening methods and standards, an immigration and 
border security enforcement strategy, and a plan to deploy explosive 
detection technologies to our Nation's airports.
  Within this bill, first responders are funded at the President's 
requested level of $3.6 billion. I would like to point out that there 
continues to be problems at the local, State, and Federal levels in 
terms of getting money actually out to first responders. We have 
recently learned, Mr. Chairman, that only 30 percent of the funds that 
we have appropriated since 2002, have been spent. Including the 2005 
grant money, there is $6.8 billion in the grant pipeline.
  Mr. Chairman, that is unacceptable.
  The bill does not propose any changes to the current formula as to 
how those monies are dealt out, but it does recognize that legislation 
which passed this Chamber last week is moving through the process. The 
appropriations bill will allow 2006 funding to go out based on any 
formula change that may be signed into law. The bill also presumes that 
if new formulas do not go into effect, the Department would maintain 
the minimum allocation for States of .75 percent. The balance of that 
fund, though, would go out based on risk, threat, and need; not, as it 
has in the past, based solely on population. That is a fundamental 
change in the way first responder monies would go out.
  The bill also includes a significant increase for border security and 
immigration enforcement. A total of $1.2 billion is added for the 
Customs and Border Patrol and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
branches. That funding is on top of the $550 million that was provided 
in the emergency supplemental just signed. Between that supplemental 
and this bill, we will be providing the Department with the resources 
to hire an additional 1,500 border patrol agents and 568 ICE officers 
throughout the country. Funds are also available to add some 3,870 
detention beds, which would be roughly a 20 percent increase over 
current levels. Also, funds are available for new radiation portal 
monitors and air assets.
  These funds, though, Mr. Chairman, would come with strings attached. 
Our immigration enforcement strategy needs an overhaul. Despite more 
than tripling spending on border security and immigration enforcement 
in the last 10 years, the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. has 
more than doubled, an unbelievable 11 million estimated illegal aliens 
in the country; and that number is growing by a half a million a year, 
by conservative estimates.
  And of that total, there are more than 465,000 absconders, people who 
have been caught, brought to court, released on their own recognizance 
to report at a later date, which they fail to do. And of those, 80,000 
of them have criminal records. Those numbers, Mr. Chairman, will only 
get worse unless we act.
  Immigration enforcement is one of the most critical components of 
homeland security, yet the Department's current strategy has changed 
little since the days of the old Immigration and Naturalization 
Service. In order to inspire change, the bill includes language 
requiring the Secretary to submit an immigration enforcement strategy 
to reduce the number of undocumented aliens by 10 percent per year. The 
bill withholds $20 million of the Secretary's office funds until we 
receive that strategy.
  Finally, for transportation security, the bill includes $6.4 billion, 
partially offset by fees, which is an increase of $344 million above 
the current year.

[[Page 9945]]

The bill includes several provisions that address years of frustration 
in dealing with the Transportation Security Administration. For too 
long, TSA and others have ignored congressional direction regarding 
general aviation at Reagan National Airport. A legislative provision is 
included, after these 3 or 4 years of discussions, requiring the 
Secretary to open Reagan National Airport to general aviation within 90 
days of enactment of this act.
  The committee also has repeatedly asked for a plan as to how TSA 
would be installing the explosive detection systems, the so-called x-
ray machines, at our airports. Again, TSA has ignored the Congress. In 
addition to providing $495 million for the purchase and installation of 
these x-ray machines, the committee fences $50 million of the 
administrator's funds until an installation plan is provided to the 
Congress.
  Finally, the bill provides $100 million for cargo security in 
passenger planes. TSA has ignored congressional directions to triple 
the screening of air cargo on passenger aircraft. As a result, the 
committee reduces the appropriation for TSA headquarters by $100,000 
for each day that the tripling of air cargo is not implemented. The 
bill also fences another $10 million until new cargo screening 
standards and protocols are implemented.
  These next few years, Mr. Chairman, will define the Department's 
place in history. This bill may be tough, and I admit that it is, but I 
hope it is a wakeup call. It is time to take strong action to ensure 
that the Department's place in history and our safety will be one of 
success and leadership in securing our homeland and not one of 
government bureaucracy and failed opportunities. It is now time for 
action.
  I appreciate that the bill includes several tough provisions. I am 
aware that the new Secretary is in the process of completing what he 
calls a second-stage review of the Department's programs and 
operations. I am pleased about that. While I have great respect and 
confidence in the Department's new leadership, and we look forward to 
receiving any recommendations the Secretary may have to move the 
Department forward, we cannot ignore the fundamental problems that we 
have been experiencing with this Department since its creation. I urge 
my colleagues to support the measure.

[[Page 9946]]

TH17MY05.001



[[Page 9947]]

TH17MY05.002



[[Page 9948]]

TH17MY05.003



[[Page 9949]]

TH17MY05.004



[[Page 9950]]

TH17MY05.005



[[Page 9951]]

TH17MY05.006



[[Page 9952]]

TH17MY05.007



[[Page 9953]]

TH17MY05.008



[[Page 9954]]

TH17MY05.009



[[Page 9955]]

TH17MY05.010



[[Page 9956]]

TH17MY05.011



[[Page 9957]]

TH17MY05.012



[[Page 9958]]

TH17MY05.013



[[Page 9959]]

TH17MY05.014



[[Page 9960]]

TH17MY05.015

 

[[Page 9961]]

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. Chairman, I submit the following exchange 
of letters for the Record.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Appropriations,

                                     Washington, DC, May 17, 2005.
     Hon. Bill Thomas,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Thomas. Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 
     Act for fiscal year 2006. As you have noted, the bill is 
     scheduled for floor consideration on Tuesday, May 17, 2005. I 
     appreciate your agreement to expedite the passage of this 
     legislation although it contains a provision involving 
     overtime pay that falls within your Committee's jurisdiction. 
     I appreciate your decision to forgo further action on the 
     bill and acknowledge that it will not prejudice the Committee 
     on Ways and Means with respect to its jurisdictional 
     prerogatives on this or similar legislation.
       Our committees have worked closely together on this 
     important initiative, and I am very pleased we are continuing 
     that cooperation. I appreciate your helping us to move this 
     legislation quickly to the floor. Finally, I will include in 
     the Congressional Record a copy of our exchange of letters on 
     this matter. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. 
     We look forward to working with you in the future.
           Best regards,
                                                    Harold Rogers,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____
                                  
                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2005.
     Hon. Harold Rogers,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Committee on 
         Appropriations,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Rogers: I am writing concerning H.R. 2360, 
     the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2006 which is scheduled for floor consideration 
     on Tuesday, May 17, 2005.
       As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has 
     jurisdiction over matters concerning customs and Title 19, 
     U.S.C. 267(c)(1). There is a provision within the bill which 
     involves overtime pay for U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
     employees and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means.
       However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor 
     consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill. 
     This is being done with the understanding that it does not in 
     any way prejudice the Committee with respect to exercising 
     its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar 
     legislation.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 2360 and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration.
           Best regards,
                                                      Bill Thomas,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Chairman Rogers) for his cooperation and good work in bringing this 
bill to the House. This bill, in its current form, represents a 
substantial improvement over the President's budget request.
  My comments are related to the bill as it stands. I am not sure, 
after all the points of order are made today, what will remain in the 
bill; but as the bill stands, there are many good things in this bill, 
including better funding for border enforcement and separate programs 
for transit and port security grants. I appreciate that the chairman 
worked with us to toughen up the bill on air cargo screening, chemical 
plant security, and privacy safeguards.
  The Department has a long way to go in these areas. However, this 
bill pushes them to improve operations and better secure our Nation. I 
would especially like to point out the air cargo screening provisions 
in this bill. One of these provisions penalizes TSA for not complying 
with last year's law which required a threefold air cargo screening 
increase. Another provision mandates that TSA utilize their equipment 
to screen air cargo during the downtime in checked baggage screening. 
This should help raise the screened percentage of air cargo even 
further. Last, the bill includes $30 million for three air cargo 
screening pilot programs, two at passenger operations and one at an 
all-cargo operation.
  The report accompanying this bill directs the Secretary to ensure 
that all DHS contracts with companies that collect personal 
information, such as ChoicePoint, will require the companies to have 
security procedures to properly notify individuals if their personal 
information is lost or stolen. The personal data of hundreds of 
thousands of people have been compromised in recent months. For 49 
States, there is no requirement for companies to notify the affected 
people. We should require notification government-wide, and this 
provision takes an important step in the right direction.
  The bill also demands that the Department get its act together to 
develop proper standards and processes for designating the information 
as ``security-sensitive.'' Today, TSA has no meaningful procedures to 
designate ``security sensitive'' documents. This has led, I believe, to 
TSA withholding information from the public that should be disclosed. 
This bill directs the Department to limit the number of people who can 
designate such information to establish internal controls to audit 
these designations.
  I do have reservations about some parts of this bill, especially the 
funding levels for fire grants and the State homeland security formula 
grants. We will have an amendment relating to fire grants later. I 
happen to be in probably a small minority who thinks it is a mistake to 
distribute a portion of the State formula grant based on risk and 
vulnerability versus population.
  Let us be clear. The urban initiative grant is distributed on a 
discretionary basis. My observation over the last several years, when 
trying to get information from the Department on how they made those 
judgments, we rarely get good answers; at periods of time, no answers; 
and at other times, very ineffective answers. I have no problem with 
whatever the judgment of the Congress is in adjusting the minimum grant 
that goes to particular States. However, I think when we assume that 
this Department has the capacity to make risk judgments on allocating 
funds to all 57 States and territories, I think we overestimate their 
capacity to make such judgments.
  They have made mistakes in the past, and I just do not think they 
have developed the needed expertise to make the kinds of judgments we 
are assuming they can. If they had that capacity, then I think we might 
be headed in the right direction; but there is no evidence that they 
have that capacity today.
  In conclusion, however, I must say that I think we must measure this 
homeland security bill by asking whether the bill helps close the gaps 
that exist today. I think the bill does that. I think it makes 
substantial improvements in how the Department would operate, and I am 
proud to support the bill as it stands today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, there are two problems that we face in 
dealing with this bill. The first is that we have an agency which is 
essentially incompetent and dysfunctional. We are trying to protect the 
Nation's security by working through an agency which is gargantuan, 
which is bureaucratic, to say the least, which is filled with inertia, 
and filled with people working at cross purposes. Outside of that it 
does a terrific job.
  And the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee have 
tried to do their dead level best to provide the kind of Congressional 
oversight that is necessary if you are going to help bring this agency 
out of its troubles and put that agency in a posture where it can be a 
trusted repository of the responsibilities that we have given to it.
  The second problem we have is that we still have not faced up to the 
need. Even though the agency which we must go through in order to deal 
with this problem is a mess, we still have not faced up to the fact 
that we need more resources.

[[Page 9962]]

  We still only inspect a tiny percentage of the container cargo which 
comes into this country every day. We still inspect an infinitesimal 
percentage of cargo on passenger airplanes. Mr. Sabo has focused on 
that issue many times.
  We, despite all of our posturing, and despite every Member of 
Congress who has gone on the Lou Dobbs Show and talked about the need 
to secure our borders, we still are incredibly short in terms of the 
number of border guards, in terms of the number of immigration 
inspectors. And then, in addition to that, the Congress on the 
supplemental appropriation bill added an entirely extraneous provision 
which set up this new complicated, convoluted Rube Goldberg operation 
that every citizen is going to have to go through in order to renew 
their driver's license.
  And the cost of that program is indeterminate, but we are being told 
by the Congressional Budget Office that it will cost at least $100 
million, which will be laid onto State and local governments. We are 
told by the National Council of State Legislative Leaders that it will 
cost about $500 million, and we have laid that responsibility on State 
and local governments.
  So, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that even with our doubts about the 
agency there are certain functions that we ought to be providing more 
money for unless we are determined to create yet another unfunded 
mandate. The committee has not been able to provide additional money, 
not because of any defect in the committee but for one simple reason: 
This House has decided to make as a higher priority providing very 
large tax cuts for the next 10 years, and a huge percentage of those 
tax cuts have gone to the most blessed persons in this society. Let me 
put it that way.
  The reality is that if you make over a million dollars this year, you 
could expect, on average, to get a $140,000 tax cut. We could plug all 
of the holes I have just mentioned in our homeland security activities 
if we simply limited that $140,000 average tax cut to $138,000.
  And that is what the amendment would do that I intend to offer at a 
later point in the proceedings. The Rules Committee did not make that 
amendment in order, while they did make in order, or they did make it 
possible for any single Member to walk onto this floor and wipe out 15 
pages of this bill that provide needed resources for numerous security 
activities.
  So we are in the situation where the Rules Committee has precluded me 
from offering an amendment which can be voted on by the entire body, 
and yet the Rules Committee has said we are going to allow a single 
Member from a committee that has never produced a bill that has gone 
into law, we are going to allow them to walk in here and shred this 
bill.
  That makes no sense to me. So I just think the Rules Committee has 
failed in its stewardship responsibility, and I think we are failing 
our responsibilities to our constituents if we do not provide more 
resources than this bill provides.
  Having said that, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Rogers) for doing the best job that he could under the 
circumstances. I had intended to vote for this bill until they took it 
and shredded it. Whether I will vote for it in the end will be 
determined by just how irresponsible people are when they come to the 
floor and knock out provisions of this bill just because their 
committee did not happen to think of them.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the very distinguished and very able chairman of our full 
committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my 
chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), for yielding me 
whatever time I might consume. I really rise because I want the House 
to know that this bill is perhaps one of the most positive reflections 
of what our Appropriations Committee can do at the subcommittee level 
when we work in a very professional and highly nonpartisan manner to 
address major problems that face our country.
  The question of homeland security and the need for expanding 
effectively our work in this arena is obvious. Both the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) have 
done a fabulous job of working together.
  The staffs are not just outstanding, they have produced a product of 
which we can all be proud. Indeed, as we go through the process today 
it is conceivable this product may change because of untoward 
circumstances. But I must say in the arena that involves homeland 
security we do have a new authorizing committee that has been put 
together. They have yet to produce their first product this year, but 
they are working diligently to try to move in that direction.
  It is our desire to help them be successful. And over time I am 
certain that we will be able to help them be successful. If money has 
anything to do with this process we hope to have a very positive 
influence.
  In turn, the bill as it is currently formed is being used effectively 
for oversight. We all know that this department is something much 
different than an elephant or a hippopotamus or a donkey combined. It 
is the merging of some 22 agencies, an attempt to put together the 
homeland security department.
  As we attempt to massage the process to make sure this agency can 
operate effectively, clearly the Appropriations Committee has a role to 
play. In their attempt to provide effective oversight, before oversight 
has been done by way of the authorizing committee, for they have not 
had a chance to do that yet, it is very important that dollar pressure 
get the attention of this organization.
  Let me just mention one area in the area of the Coast Guard's work, 
in the Deepwater arena. Preceding 9/11 they were on a plan for working 
and developing their responsibilities in Deepwater efforts. Subsequent 
to 9/11, the chairman has been pushing them to move in the direction of 
remodeling their plan to reflect this new world that we are living in.
  And the chairman has worked, by way of language in past bills, he has 
worked by communication with the leadership of the new agency, he has 
done everything he can to have them be responsive to a plan that is not 
just a 5-year, but a 20-year plan that tells us where these sizeable 
number of dollars are going to be spent to impact that piece of our 
security.
  And indeed the lack of response from the Coast Guard is astonishing 
to me. I mean, indeed, you would think perhaps that this subcommittee 
did not exist because they presume that money for them would be 
automatic around this place.
  Well, the Chairman has done a great job of trying to send a message 
that says, we expect you to have a real world plan that reflects post-
9/11 realities. And that language is important to our ability to 
provide oversight in the months that are just ahead.
  I would hope that all of us working together would recognize that 
sometimes you use the vehicle that is available to have oversight that 
will impact an agency whose attention we absolutely must get. Otherwise 
we could waste not just 6 months or a year, we could waste 2 or 3 years 
while we are getting our act together.
  Indeed, let me return to my original point; that is, this 
subcommittee has done a fabulous job. If you will just read this bill 
and look at the care that has been taken in every section, staffs on 
both sides of the aisle indeed should be applauded for their effort at 
causing both the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and my colleague, 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), for doing a fabulous job on 
behalf of our Nation's security.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a 
distinguished member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Sabo) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, first off I would like to compliment the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), for their hard work on this bill.

[[Page 9963]]

  The bill's top line total is $1.3 billion, or 4 percent above the 
President's request, and $1.7 billion, nearly 6 percent above this 
year's enacted level. The bill achieves these numbers without conceding 
to the President's request to increase the Federal security surcharge 
on airline tickets by $3.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to strongly state my support for the efforts of 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) in this bill to ensure 
accountability, which is long overdue. I understand that the top 
management at DHS has had a very difficult management task on their 
plate from day 1, pulling together all of these different agencies and 
making sure that they play and work well together.
  I believe, however, that these challenges are cause for more, not 
less oversight on the part of the Congress. After September 11, 
Congress voted to grant the Department of Homeland Security a broad 
scope of authorities. This means that if managed properly, the 
Department is uniquely positioned to protect us from terrorism.
  On the other hand, if managed improperly, it is also uniquely 
positioned to do great harm. For instance, since the PATRIOT Act and 
the Homeland Security Act, I, along with many others in this body, have 
spoken out constantly on the need for our antiterrorist agencies to 
safeguard our constitutional rights and civil liberties.
  Mr Chairman, I believe that if in the process of getting the bad guys 
we step and throw away the Constitution, eventually it is the 
terrorists who would have won the battle. Congress is the most 
essential body for protecting Americans from these types of excesses 
and missteps by the Department.
  Furthermore, the American people have also charged us with ensuring 
that every dollar that the government spends, especially on something 
like homeland security, is spent in a way that yields the most benefit. 
The most significant way that we in Congress carry out this vital task 
is by controlling the way the money is spent, and that is what the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) has spoken to for so many 
times with the support of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
  We cannot just open up this new part of our funding, if you will, in 
this Congress and dole out all of these dollars without having some 
accountability. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and especially 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) well understand that this 
is not our personal money, this is the taxpayers' dollars, and the 
taxpayers complain a lot about how we spend the money. This time we 
have a new department, new agency, new spending sources, new funding 
levels, and we can from day 1 try to pull the strings in and have some 
control.
  So I would hope that today, during this debate, those who may be 
officially or personally offended about how some things happen around 
here understand that there is a greater task; that is, the protection 
of the people and the protection of the taxpayer.
  First off, I would like to commend Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member 
Sabo for their hard work on this bill.
  The bill's top line total is $1.3 billion (4 percent) above the 
president's request and $1.7 billion (nearly 6 percent) above this 
year's enacted level.
  The bill achieves these numbers without conceding to the President's 
request to increase the federal security surcharge on airline tickets 
by $3.
  I am strongly supportive of Chairman Rogers' efforts in this bill to 
ensure accountability at DHS, which is long overdue.
  I understand that the top management of DHS has had a difficult 
management task on their plate from day one: pulling together all these 
agencies and making sure that they play well together.
  I believe, however, that these challenges are cause for more--not 
less--oversight on the part of this Congress.
  After Sept. 11, Congress voted to grant the Department of Homeland 
Security a broad scope of authorities. This means that, if managed 
properly, the Department is uniquely positioned to protect us from 
terrorism. On the other hand, if managed improperly, it is also 
uniquely positioned to do great harm.
  For instance, since the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act, I, 
along with many others in this body, have spoken out constantly on the 
need for our antiterrorist agencies to safeguard our Constitutional 
rights and civil liberties.
  Congress is the most essential body for protecting Americans from 
these types of excesses and missteps by the Department.
  Furthermore, the American people have also charged us with ensuring 
that every dollar that the government spends--especially on something 
like Homeland Security--is spent in a way that yields the most benefit.
  The most significant way that we in Congress carry out this vital 
task is by controlling the way money is spent--and, if necessary, 
denying the Administration requests if they are unable or unwilling to 
respond to our concerns.
  Chairman Rogers recognized this point when he built accountability 
into this bill.
  I would also like to take a moment to highlight some of the funding 
levels in the bill that I believe are inadequate.
  I understand that when it comes to something like our safety and 
security from terrorist attacks, any final amount of funding means that 
tough choices must be made.
  One important area that suffers a severe cut in this bill, however, 
is funding to our state and local programs, which the bill reduces by 
11 percent from this year.
  The Administration and many on our committee have noted that this cut 
is in response to the sluggish pace at which the Department and states 
move these funds out to local agencies, so that they can be spent.
  But I don't believe that slashing funding for these essential 
programs is the right approach to making them work better.
  These state and local governments are on the front lines in our 
struggle against terrorism, and still have many needs that are going 
unmet.
  Most notably, fire grants, which, as the Ranking Member notes, are 
the most successful grant program at DHS are reduced by $115 million 
from current levels--16 percent--even as we are finding that our 
firefighters are still largely unprepared to respond to catastrophic 
terrorist acts.
  In addition, State homeland security formula grants, local law 
enforcement terrorism prevention grants, and urban area security 
grants, all of which are especially important to my district and other 
high risk areas, are reduced by 14 percent.
  As the bill moves to Conference, I am hopeful that we can find a way 
to address some of these deficiencies, and I look forward to working 
with the Chairman and Ranking Member on these issues.
  In closing, I believe overall that this is a good start to tackling 
many of the problems that have plagued the Department from its 
inception, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price), another distinguished member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) has 15\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to my 
colleagues, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), for their conscientious and cooperative 
efforts in writing this bill.
  The bill would provide much-needed additional funding to protect our 
borders. It would also boost the Department of Homeland Security's 
efforts to track down potential terrorists and criminal aliens that are 
already in this country.
  It would shorten the backlog for people seeking to legally live in 
this country as permanent residents or citizens. It would help protect 
our ports and our chemical and nuclear facilities. And as the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Serrano), my colleague, just stressed, it focuses on 
accountability, much-needed accountability, at the Department, and I 
commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) in particular for 
that.
  Given the limited funds the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) had to start with, theirs was 
not an easy or enviable task, and they have done an exceptional job 
with the poor hand they were dealt. But I have said this before and I 
will say it again: we can do better. This bill could and should be 
better. We would do better if we made better budget choices at the 
front end of this process.

[[Page 9964]]

  This vote today is not occurring in a vacuum. During recent funding 
debates, we have heard the Republican leaders say over and over, there 
simply are no funds available to provide what is needed. I suspect we 
are going to hear that again today.
  What we do not hear as often is that since 9/11, we have spent 20 
times as much on tax cuts, mainly benefiting the wealthiest people in 
this country, as we have on protecting the American people from 
terrorist attacks. Just the other week, we passed another tax cut that 
will only benefit people inheriting estates that are worth millions of 
dollars.
  So we go over the cliff fiscally, and our Republican friends try to 
pin the blame on discretionary domestic spending, including spending 
for security. We pass budget resolutions that fall far short, so that 
by the time we try to write appropriations bills within the limits in 
these resolutions, we have nothing left to talk about. All we can do is 
lamely speak of the things we just are not able to do, in this bill and 
other bills, because we do not have the funds.
  Well, we chose not to have the funds. To name one conspicuous 
example, for the second year in a row, we are going to cut the Fire 
grant program, one of the most successful Federal programs we have.
  Despite the fact that a recent FEMA study showed that two-thirds of 
our fire departments operate with staffing levels that do not meet the 
minimum safe staffing levels required by OSHA and the National Fire 
Protection Association, we are again under-funding the SAFER program, 
which assists understaffed departments in hiring additional personnel.
  Mr. Chairman, we pass bills authorizing first-responder support, but 
when it comes time to pay for these programs, we would rather put the 
country's money toward tax breaks for the wealthy than for police 
officers who are protecting our communities. Trillion-dollar tax cuts 
get rammed through this Congress, but in this bill, the leadership says 
we have ``no choice'' but to cut State block grants by 14 percent.
  Today, our choices are indeed limited, although I am hopeful we can 
make some improvements at the margins, for example, by passing the 
gentleman from Minnesota's (Mr. Sabo) first responder amendment.
  At the end of the day, we should pass this bill, and I am hopeful 
that colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support it. But we 
should understand why this bill, despite our subcommittee's best 
efforts, does fall short. We should resolve to fix this country's 
budget policy so that at long last our Nation's people and their 
security can come first.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Minnesota for 
yielding me time, for his leadership, and also to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for his diligence, hard work, and leadership 
in bringing this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, last month the port of Oakland in my district in 
California became the very first port in the Nation to fully install 
radiation portal monitors at every one of its international marine 
terminals. That means that every single container exiting the port of 
Oakland will be screened for nuclear weapons. As the fourth largest 
port in the Nation, that is almost 700,000 screened containers a year.
  While Oakland can detect and prevent the entry of nuclear weapons 
into our country now, other ports around the Nation, unfortunately, 
cannot. We know that terrorist organizations are actively seeking 
nuclear weapons; but under this bill, our Nation's ports would not be 
fully equipped with radiation portal monitors until 2009. That is 
unacceptable.
  The fact is this administration has consistently underfunded port 
security for years. The Coast Guard estimated in 2002 that we needed $7 
billion for port security. In the last 4 years, Congress has only 
provided about $737 million, and this bill would add a meager $150 
million.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we cannot wait until a real attack occurs, and we 
need more money for port security now. So I hope that we make this 
commitment today as this bill moves forward.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota for the time.
  I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and as well the chairman and 
ranking member of the full committee. If there is ever a challenge, Mr. 
Chairman, it is a challenge of trying to get one's hands around the 
massiveness of homeland security.
  I think if we have ever realized the importance of the work of the 
subcommittee on appropriations, and also the authorizing committee, it 
was last Wednesday, just less than a week ago, when masses of people in 
this area were told to evacuate and Members of Congress were seen 
fleeing, as others stood by watching them.
  We have, if you will, a crisis more or less in the way that we handle 
homeland security issues, and the focus in terms of resources could not 
be more important and could not be more immediate.
  First of all, I would like to acknowledge the dollars that are in 
this particular legislation dealing with Customs and border protection 
and immigration and Customs enforcement. I would like to see more. I do 
believe that the lack of dollars in the Fire grants is something that 
we need to improve.
  What I would like to focus on, in particular, is the need to, one, I 
hope over time eliminate aspects of the REAL ID bill but to emphasize 
that it is seemingly unwieldy to suggest that States have to implement 
the REAL ID bill with a national ID card and no dollars, and I believe 
that this bill falls short of the amount of money needed to implement 
the REAL ID bill.
  Then look at those of us who are border States, Texas, California, 
Mexico and Arizona, facing the likes of the Minutemen. On May 1, the 
Houston Chronicle said that the Minutemen are headed for Texas. We are 
patriots but we can handle our own business, but the Federal Government 
needs to handle immigration business.
  I believe that we need more resources at the border for Customs and 
border patrol protection agents, more dollars for enforcement 
technology, more dollars to be able to protect the border, more dollars 
to ward off inappropriate, unauthorized militia on our borders. The 
reason why Americans are taking up immigration in their own hands is 
because we have failed them.
  Mr. Chairman, we need enforcement with respect to employer sanctions. 
We need enforcement with respect to promoting American jobs. We need 
enforcement as it relates to protecting our borders, north and south; 
and yes, Mr. Chairman, we need comprehensive immigration reform.
  I have introduced the Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 
2005, which has to do with reuniting families, legalization for long-
time residents, protecting women against violence and the border 
protection, as well as dealing with American jobs. I hope that we will 
have an opportunity in appropriations and authorization to look at 
immigration reform.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the appropriations 
process for fiscal year 2006 and the Department of Homeland Security 
appropriations bill in particular. This is the first appropriations 
bill to be considered under the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution. The 
bill also provides for what we all agree is one of our Nation's highest 
priorities: protecting Americans at home.
  The budget resolution provides a total allocation for discretionary 
appropriations of $843 billion in fiscal year 2006. This represents a 
0.8 percent reduction for fiscal year 2006 in total non-defense, non-
homeland security spending. I recognize the challenge this poses to the 
Appropriations Committee.
  With respect to H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, this is the first 
appropriations bill we are considering for fiscal year 2006, and the 
first to be reported by the Homeland Security subcommittee of the 
restructured Appropriations Committee.

[[Page 9965]]

  I am pleased to report that it is consistent with the levels 
established in H. Con. Res. 95, the House concurrent resolution on the 
budget for fiscal year 2006, which Congress adopted as its fiscal 
blueprint on April 28.
  H.R. 2360 provides $30.8 billion in appropriations for the Department 
of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2006, which is $1.1 billion below 
the fiscal year 2005 level. Excluding the $2.5 billion in one-time 
appropriations provided in fiscal year 2005 for Project BioShield, the 
bill actually represents a $1.4 billion, or 4.7 percent, increase in 
budget authority above last year's level and is $1.3 billion above the 
President's fiscal year 2006 request.
  The bill provides increases in border protection, immigration 
enforcement, first responders, transportation security, and science and 
technology broadly consistent with the President's request, but exceeds 
it largely because of the rejection of the Administration's proposed 
$1.7 billion increase in aviation security fees for the Transportation 
Security Administration. The bill's funding level is partly offset by 
slowing spending for the replacement of the Coast Guard fleet and by a 
reduction in non-defense, non-homeland security spending. With total 
fiscal year 2006 appropriations equal to its allocation, the bill 
conforms with the budget resolution.
  H.R. 2360 does not contain any emergency-designated BA, which is 
exempt from budget limits. The bill contains one rescission of $84 
million in previously enacted discretionary BA for the Coast Guard; the 
same amount is appropriated for replacement or maintenance of the 
current patrol boat fleet.
  The bill complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which 
prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an Appropriations 
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays 
established in the budget resolution.
  As we enter the appropriations season, I wish Chairman Lewis and our 
colleagues on the Appropriations Committee the best as they strive to 
meet the needs of the American public within the framework established 
by the budget resolution.
  In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 2360.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the FY 2006 
Homeland Security Appropriations bill. This is not a perfect bill, but 
it provides much needed funds to make our country safer.
  Total funding in the bill is increased from this year's levels, with 
significant increases over the requested levels for immigration and for 
customs enforcement and border protection. Funding for port, transit 
and aviation security is also much improved over the president's budget 
request.
  Still, I'm concerned about shortfalls in the bill. It cuts fire 
grants by 16 percent, even as a recent survey found that fire 
departments all over the country are not prepared to respond to a haz-
mat incident and lack equipment. The bill cuts State homeland security 
formula grants, local law enforcement terrorism prevention grants, and 
urban area security grants by 14 percent. The bill does provide 
additional funding for border patrol, but the number of agents still 
falls 500 short of the 2,000 called for in the Intelligence Reform 
bill. Since September 11, just 965 additional border patrol agents have 
been hired--less than a 10 percent increase in 4 years.
  I am pleased that the House adopted an amendment offered by Mr. Obey 
of Wisconsin to provide 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.
  I opposed the amendment offered by Mr. Tancredo which would block any 
Homeland Security funding from going to State and local governments if 
their law enforcement is prohibited from reporting immigration 
information to the Federal Government.
  I believe that linking this provision to vital homeland security 
funds could have unintended consequences for our national security. 
Since 9/11, national security has become a national priority, and State 
and local governments play an essential role in assisting the 
Department of Homeland Security to improve the security in this 
country.
  Under current law passed in 1996, it is already illegal for law 
enforcement to restrict the reporting of immigration information to the 
Federal Government. I support this law, and believe it should be fully 
enforced. The efforts of State and local governments to enhance our 
security should not be undermined because the Federal Government has 
not properly enforced immigration law.
  We should be providing States with resources to improve security, not 
taking these resources away. By underfunding and allowing the weakening 
of security in some States and localities due to their lack of 
reporting illegal immigrants to immigration officials, the Federal 
Government would in effect be contributing to the weakening of our 
national security.
  Mr. Chairman, much remains to be done to improve our defenses against 
terrorism, but this bill is an important step, and I will vote for it.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this bill, which 
includes critically important funding for Oregon and the rest of the 
country.
  I especially appreciate funding for prevention measures to reduce the 
damage done by floods and other natural disasters, and I would like to 
thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for fully funding the Flood 
Insurance Reform Act of 2004. The Act, which this House passed 
overwhelmingly last year, extends the authorization of the National 
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and provides new resources to address 
severe repetitive loss properties.
  The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reports that 
repetitively flooded properties, which make up just 1 percent of the 
insured properties, account for 25 percent of NFIP claims dollars. 
Mitigating these properties will not only keep people out of harm's 
way, but will also save other flood insurance program policyholders 
thousands of dollars.
  Fully funding the program this year would allow us to move more than 
1000 families out of harm's way. It will also save the Federal 
government millions of dollars in money that would otherwise be spent 
on flood damages and disaster relief. FEMA reports that mitigation and 
building standards already in place have resulted in over $1 billion 
annually in reduced flood losses.
  I appreciate the strong support of Financial Services Chairman Mike 
Oxley, Ranking Member Barney Frank, and their staff, who have worked 
tirelessly to ensure that the Flood Insurance Reform Act is 
implemented.
  The Homeland Security bill also includes crucial local preparedness 
grants, which are an important part of the Federal government's 
responsibility to be a good partner to local communities. I am pleased 
that these grants will be distributed, after a state minimum guarantee, 
on the basis of risk, as the 9/11 Commission recommended.
  However, I am disappointed that three and a half years after the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, our homeland security budget 
continues to under-fund some of our most pressing needs, from border 
security to infrastructure security to first responders. But this 
shortfall stems not from the appropriations bill, but from unfortunate 
budget choices and the resulting inadequate allocations.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2360, the 
Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006. As a member 
of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, it has been an honor to work 
with Chairman Hal Rogers and our Ranking Member, Martin Sabo, in 
drafting this bill. I would like to commend them both, for their 
efforts to address our Nation's security needs despite the severe 
budget constraints forced upon them.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill provides $30.85 billion for operations and 
activities of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, in fiscal year 
2006, an increase of $1.37 billion above the fiscal year 2005 enacted 
levels. Although the bill does not fully fund many initiatives critical 
to securing the homeland, I am pleased that this legislation does 
provide adequate funding for several programs of importance to urban 
communities such as my own in Los Angeles.
  For instance, State and local emergency managers will be happy to 
learn that although the President continues to zero out the funding in 
his budget request for the Emergency Management Performance Grants, the 
committee has appropriated $180 million for this grant program. 
Congress has rightly called this program ``the backbone of the Nation's 
emergency management system.'' In California, emergency managers use 
these grants to develop plans to help prepare our residents for 
disasters such as earthquakes, fires, floods, or terrorist attacks.
  The bill also provides $750 million for State-wide formula grants 
which are distributed on a per capita basis to first responders. The 
current population-based formula is under review by the Homeland 
Security Authorization Committee which is determining whether or not 
funds should go to States based solely on population. In lieu of any 
changes by the authorizing committee to the formula, this bill directs 
DHS to maintain a minimum allocation of .75 percent per State and to 
allocate the rest based on threats and need versus population. I 
strongly agree that targeting funds based on the assessment of actual 
vulnerability is a

[[Page 9966]]

much more effective use of limited resources than population alone. 
Furthermore, the committee recognizes that DHS must still establish a 
national preparedness goal which will help our States develop 
appropriate homeland security funding goals.
  Our firefighters were among the first to respond to the tragic events 
of September 11th, and they will likely be the first to respond in the 
event of a future attack. The fire grant program helps local fire 
departments deal with these and other needs by allocating funds for 
equipment and staff. Unfortunately, the President proposed cutting 
funding for these programs by $215 million, or 30 percent. This bill 
restores most of the president's cuts by providing $600 million for 
fire grants and $50 million for firefighter staffing grants. This is 
critical funding because only 13 percent of fire departments are 
prepared to respond to a hazardous material incident and an estimated 
57,000 firefighter's lack personal protective clothing for a chemical 
or biological attack. I would hope that by the time this bill goes to 
the President, these programs will be fully funded at last year's level 
of $715 million at a minimum.
  In addition, the bill strengthens the committee's direction that port 
security grants, for the 55 ports of national significance, should be 
based on vulnerability assessments. This means that limited resources 
for port grants will be used where they are needed most. While we are 
dedicating $150 million to both the port and the transit security 
programs, the Administration had proposed no funding for these critical 
programs. This is inexcusable particularly when the Coast Guard and the 
transit industry have indicated $7 billion and $6 billion in security 
needs in their respective industries to improve security. I am also 
pleased that Congress dedicated $50 million for the security of 
chemical plants.
  I thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Sabo for including in the 
Homeland Security report several items I requested to address serious 
issues raised during subcommittee hearings with representatives of the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  For example, the report expresses deep concern about reports that 
children, even as young as nursing infants, apprehended by Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are being separated from their parents 
and placed in shelters operated by the Department of Health and Human 
Services while parents are held in separate jail-like facilities. The 
Committee's report language directs DHS to release families or use 
alternatives to detention whenever possible, and when detention of 
family units is necessary, the Committee directs DHS to use appropriate 
detention space to house them together.
  The report also addresses the need to expand the use of Legal 
Orientation Programs to additional ICE detention centers in the 
country. Legal Orientation Programs consist of legal presentations made 
by nongovernmental agencies to all persons in immigration detention 
prior to their first hearing before an immigration judge. This program 
saves on the costs of immigration detention, makes Immigration Court 
more efficient, and facilitates access to justice for detained 
immigrants in removal proceedings. Immigrants are better prepared to 
accept their removal earlier in the immigration hearing process when 
they have learned from organizations not affiliated with the government 
that they have exhausted their immigration relief options.
  I am also pleased that the report contains language I requested to 
improve the quality assurance standards at our ports of entry. The 
Committee urges Customs and Border Protection to consider expanding the 
use of videotape systems to record interactions between potential 
asylum seekers and border patrol agents at our ports of entry. These 
tapes should be reviewed and retained for a sufficient period of time 
to ensure that asylum seekers are treated equally and with fairness at 
any one of our ports of entry.
  The bill once again includes language I drafted to prevent the 
Department of Homeland Security from moving forward with the 
unnecessary and potentially dangerous privatization of key immigration 
officers at the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. These 
officers are responsible for handling classified information used to 
prevent fraud and the exploitation of our immigration laws. I am 
thankful that this inherently governmental work will continue to remain 
the responsibility of trained and experienced federal employees 
directly accountable to the Department and not to the bottom line of a 
private company.
  The report also includes language which I requested to address 
concerns about Customs and Border Protection employees who were 
required to participate in a six-day twelve week basic training, but 
who were not fully compensated for all of their days of work. The 
report directs the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection to 
report on the number of employees who were not compensated and also on 
the steps the department is taking to resolve the problem.
  Finally, the report directs the Transportation Security 
Administration to report on the status of their efforts to issue 
regulations for basic security training for flight attendants. I am 
pleased we are keeping TSA accountable to this task, and I look forward 
to the timely completion of this report.
  However, Mr. Chairman, despite the fact that this Homeland Security 
Appropriations bill addresses several of the issues I raised in 
hearings and increases funding levels in certain accounts, I am 
concerned that this year's bill continues the practice of underfunding 
several homeland security recommendations as well as the initiatives 
and programs mandated by Congress to ensure our Nation's security.
  As one of the largest cities and metropolitan areas in the country, 
Los Angeles is considered to be one of the most ``at risk'' areas for 
terrorist attacks. For this reason, I am disappointed that this bill 
provides only a slight increase of $15 million over last year's funding 
for Urban Area Security Initiative grants compared to the $405 million 
increase requested in the President's budget. Protecting our most 
vulnerable cities and towns is extremely costly and causes tremendous 
hardship on local governments. We must ensure that they receive the 
adequate funding to keep our most vulnerable cities secure.
  I am further disappointed that the bill appropriates $5 million for a 
program which allows States and local jurisdictions to enter into a 
Memo of Understanding, MOU, with Homeland Security to train local 
police to enforce limited immigration functions. I believe our limited 
resources should instead be directed toward identifying and deporting 
terrorist elements in our country.
  In addition, although both the Patriot Act of 2001 and the 
Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 called for increases in specific areas 
such as border agents, customs and immigration inspectors, immigration 
investigators, as well as for additional detention beds, this bill 
fails to meet the established border enforcement benchmarks--by 500 
border patrol agents (25 percent short), 600 immigration investigators 
(75 percent short), and 4,000 detention beds (50 percent short).
  I am also concerned with the decrease in funding that the Bureau of 
Citizenship and Immigration Services has continued to receive since the 
creation of the Department of Homeland Security. This bureau is charged 
with processing thousands of work authorization and citizenship 
applications for immigrants in our country and yet this bill includes 
only $120 million for this important agency. This decrease in resources 
simply does not make sense given that over the last 4 years, the Bureau 
of Citizenship and Immigration Services continuously fails to meet its 
6 month goal for processing citizenship applications. These backlogs 
send the wrong message to our Nation's immigrants who are eager to 
become full participants in our society, but must wait years before 
their citizenship applications can be reviewed and processed. Mr. 
Chairman, I hope that before we send this bill to the President we will 
appropriate the funds necessary to once and for all resolve the backlog 
problems which have plagued this agency for years.
  I am disappointed that this bill's report expresses support for 
expedited removal and recommends its expansion. Expedited removal means 
that Customs and Border Protection officers can immediately deport 
individuals they do not believe have a true case for asylum. This year, 
a federally funded study issued by the U.S. Commission on International 
Religious Freedom on the impact of expedited removal on asylum seekers 
found that expedited removal procedures are not being applied evenly 
across the country. The report found that where an asylum seeker enters 
our country, the country they come from, and which officer conducts 
their brief interview, impacts the decision on whether an individual is 
allowed to see an asylum officer or is deported without further review. 
Before expedited removal is expanded, as the bill's report recommends, 
Congress should require the Department of Homeland Security to provide 
evidence that Customs and Border Protection is making progress in 
resolving the current and serious problems associated with expedited 
removal.
  Lastly, I am concerned by the Administration's seeming indifference 
toward protecting critical infrastructure, such as ports, transit and 
railroad facilities, and chemical plants. Not only have critical 
assessments not been completed, but the Administration has consistently 
underfunded or unfunded important infrastructure security programs.
  For example, although Congress continues to fund aviation security 
and provides $30 million for air cargo screening, the Administration

[[Page 9967]]

has continued to leave the aviation system's vulnerabilities exposed. 
Despite Congress' direction to increase the percentage of screened air 
cargo on passenger aircraft, the Transportation Security Administration 
has not fully implemented the law.
  Additionally, the Administration has proposed no new funding to 
install inline baggage screening machines beyond the currently approved 
eight airports, and Congress has again decided to only fund the 
existing programs at 75 percent, rather than the contractually agreed 
to amount of 90 percent. This creates an additional burden that our 
cash-strapped communities can ill-afford.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I will support this bill to provide 
critical resources to help make our country safer. However, fully 
addressing these and other critical national security concerns requires 
resources that the Administration simply did not propose and which the 
Republican majority did not provide in this bill. While this bill is an 
improvement over the Administration's request, critical homeland 
security needs will still go unmet.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time and I 
yield back my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for 
time as well, and I yield back.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2360

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of 
     Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2006, and for other purposes, namely:

            TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

            Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, as authorized by section 102 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 112), and executive 
     management of the Department of Homeland Security, as 
     authorized by law, $133,239,000: Provided, That not to exceed 
     $40,000 shall be for official reception and representation 
     expenses: Provided further, That of the amounts appropriated 
     under this heading, $20,000,000 shall not be available for 
     obligation until the Secretary of Homeland Security submits 
     to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives an immigration enforcement strategy to reduce 
     the number of undocumented aliens, based upon the latest 
     United States Census Bureau data, by 10 percent per year: 
     Provided further, That of the amounts appropriated under this 
     heading, $10,000,000 shall not be available for obligation 
     until section 525 of this Act is implemented: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary shall submit all reports 
     requested by the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives for all agencies and components of the 
     Department of Homeland Security, as identified in this Act 
     and the House report accompanying this Act, by the dates 
     specified: Provided further, That the content of all reports 
     shall be in compliance with the direction and instructions 
     included in this Act and the House report accompanying this 
     Act by the dates specified: Provided further, That, of the 
     amounts appropriated under this heading, $20,000,000 may not 
     be obligated until the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives has received all final reports in 
     compliance with such direction and instructions.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hostettler:
       Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(decreased by $500,000)''.
       Page 4, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(decreased by $5,505,000)''.
       Page 12, line 20, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $193,200,000)''.
       Page 16, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(decreased by $21,156,000)''.
       Page 19, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(decreased by $47,500,000)''.
       Page 34, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(decreased by $180,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(decreased by $60,000,000)''.

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) is 
recognized for 5 minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the combination of 
the three amendments I will offer today. It would supply funds for the 
shortfall of ICE agents, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, 
border patrol agents and detention beds that have not yet been funded 
by this Congress. This shortfall occurs as a result of the difference 
between authorized levels due to last year's National Intelligence 
Reform Act and a combination of this year's appropriations bills, this 
appropriations bill and the recently passed supplemental.
  Immigrations and Customs Enforcement is the agency tasked with 
enforcing immigration laws internally within the United States. It is 
critical that ICE, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, receive the 
resources necessary to successfully complete its mission.
  The 9/11 Commission recognized the great importance of adequately 
securing our Nation's borders against the potential threats. We must 
make up the shortfall in funding and provide funding for the additional 
500 border patrol agents who have not yet been funded.
  It is also critical that we have adequate detention bed space to 
house aliens that might otherwise never return for hearings or, worse, 
might commit crimes if not detained.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment to fully fund critical parts of homeland security and the 
Bureau of Border Protection, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 
as well as detention beds.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky insist upon his point 
of order?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, there is plenty of money in 
this section of the bill. I think we have put all the money we can into 
that section, and it is ample.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill 
not yet read. The amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays 
in the bill, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order 
raised by the gentleman from Kentucky?
  If not, to be considered en bloc, pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule 
XXI, an amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget 
authority or outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana proposes a net increase in the level of outlays 
in the bill, as argued by the chairman of subcommittee on 
appropriations, it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to address 
portions of the bill not yet read. The point of order that the 
amendment proposes to address portions of the bill not yet read is 
sustained.

                              {time}  1245


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Souder

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Souder:
       Page 2, line 9, after ``$133,239,000'' insert ``, of which 
     $6,000,000 shall be for the Office of Counternarcotics 
     Enforcement to carry out its responsibilities under section 
     878 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended''.

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to adopt this 
amendment, which would ensure adequate funding for the Office of 
Counternarcotics Enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security. 
The office was created by Congress in December of 2004 as part of the 
9/11 intelligence reform legislation. It is fully authorized but, to 
date, has not received sufficient funds to enable it to carry out its 
mission of overseeing and coordinating DHS' antidrug trafficking 
efforts.

[[Page 9968]]

  DHS is the largest single drug enforcement entity in the Federal 
Government, combining the legacy Customs Service, the Coast Guard, and 
the Border Patrol. For this reason, Congress specifically made drug 
interdiction one of its primary responsibilities. Congress has also 
created the position of Counternarcotics Officer, CNO, in 2002, to 
oversee drug interdiction activity and facilitate coordination and 
cooperation within the Department.
  Regrettably, the original CNO position did not have the resources or 
the status necessary to be effective. During a hearing held by the 
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, 
which I chair, we learned that CNO was a detailee from the Drug Czar's 
office without a dedicated staff or budget.
  To remedy this problem, Congress replaced the CNO position with the 
Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement. The office is responsible for 
analyzing and reporting to Congress on the Department's annual 
counterdrug budget request, for reporting to Congress on the results 
and effectiveness of DHS counterdrug operations, and for ensuring the 
coordination of the Department's counterdrug efforts both internally 
and with other departments.
  Although Congress authorized $6 million for the office out of the 
Department's appropriation for departmental management and operations, 
the administration failed to request any funds for it. The amendment 
specifically designates $6 million for the office out of the overall 
appropriation for the Office of the Secretary and for executive 
management of the Department.
  In closing, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis), chairman of the full committee; and the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Rogers), chairman of the subcommittee, for bringing this vital 
legislation before the House. But once again I would like to make it 
absolutely clear that this does not increase any dollars in the 
Homeland Security budget. It merely requests, again, that dollars we 
have authorized be set aside inside this department.
  This department has been opposed by the administration before. In the 
original creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the 
administration opposed the creation of the Office of Counternarcotics. 
This House spoke clearly, as did the other body, and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker himself, led this being inserted in 
the bill, but the administration ignored our request. So when we went 
back to the 9/11 report, this House again changed and added more duties 
and staff to this office. The other body agreed with us, but the 
administration opposed this.
  The administration has steadfastly opposed narcotics, of which most 
of the divisions of the Department of Homeland Security work in, yet 
they have steadfastly opposed making this office anything but 
superficially irrelevant. They have not allowed the director of it, the 
current director was first funded by the ONDCP, now he is funded by 
TSA. He has all detailees in his office, or interns. The minimal budget 
is at the begging from the Chief of Staff to fund their office.
  We need a set-aside office. This body and the other body have spoken 
in both major bills. It needs to be funded. The administration 
continues to be negligent in the area of narcotics. They proposed 
wiping out Byrne grants, they proposed wiping out HIDTA, they proposed 
getting rid of meth hotspots, and once again they are after the 
narcotics budget.
  The number one crime problem in America is related to narcotics, and 
it is about time this administration understood that problem. We need 
to continue to speak out in Congress, because across the board they 
have been opposing this, and this may be our only chance to go on 
record to show that we want this administration to be more aggressive 
in counternarcotics.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment, and I rise reluctantly in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment that would earmark $6 million for the Office of 
Counternarcotics Enforcement and the U.S. Interdiction Coordinator out 
of funds provided for the Office of the Secretary and executive 
management.
  Mr. Chairman, the Department currently has eight people working on 
counternarcotics issues. In the past 2 years, we funded $1.86 million 
for that activity. That is almost half the funding provided for the 
Chief of Staff of the Department, where the counternarcotics staff are 
located. A $6 million earmark for counternarcotics would have the 
effect of zeroing out all funding for all other activities funded 
within the Chief of Staff's office, including the development of budget 
and information technology policies for the secretary.
  In fact, this amendment would require additional reductions in the 
Chief of Staff's office to fund this work. These reductions would mean 
that the Secretary would hire fewer security staff to focus on 
classified and security-sensitive issues within the Department, reduce 
support for the privacy office, or perhaps eliminate most of the newly 
proposed Office of Policy and also prohibit the hiring of new staff 
requested in the 2006 budget.
  There is no real clear justification why this office should basically 
triple in one fiscal year from less than $2 million to $6 million, or 
what the appropriate size of the office should be, particularly when 
they have not even filled all the funded positions they have.
  While I support the counterdrug mission of the Department, and in 
fact wish that the Chief Counternarcotics Officer would take a more 
prominent role in resolving longstanding issues of interagency 
coordination of drug interdiction, we cannot appropriate funds without 
knowing what those funds will be paying for. We just do not write blank 
checks in this subcommittee. I respect the gentleman's amendment and 
his intent.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment does not specify that it comes 
from the Chief of Staff's office, was it? That was not my impression. 
Because it is in the section of the bill that relates to the Chief of 
Staff?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Reclaiming my time, that is correct, and this 
is where the staff is now located. So it would have to come out of the 
Chief of Staff's operating budget.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will once again yield, I 
question whether it has to come out of the Chief of Staff's budget, 
because it was supposed to be a separate Director of Narcotics. I think 
the Department of Homeland Security has chosen to fund it through the 
Chief of Staff's office, which is not necessarily binding. But I would 
be happy to work with the gentleman in conference to see if we can come 
up with a figure.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Perhaps the gentleman can withdraw the 
amendment and we will have a chance to work on it further.
  Mr. SOUDER. If the chairman will agree to work with leadership and 
with the Speaker's Drug Task Force, which has supported this, I will 
withdraw the amendment on the grounds that the chairman will continue 
to work with me as we move to conference.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I will be happy to work with the gentleman. 
He has been a very diligent Member of this body, and I appreciate the 
information he is providing to us now. We will work with the gentleman 
to try to get at the problem he describes here.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  The CHAIRMAN. Hearing none, the amendment is withdrawn.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.


[[Page 9969]]

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I hope the distinguished 
chairman will acknowledge that we believe this is revenue neutral. This 
amendment is offset by the account out of the Secretary's office and it 
is not legislating on an appropriation bill, but it is addressing a 
need that is overwhelming in our offices and throughout America.
  If our message to America is that we believe in legalization and we 
believe in the legal access to immigration, or to legalization, meaning 
that we want people to come into the United States legally and to 
secure legal status, then we are doing everything wrong to encourage 
that proposition.
  We know that this country is a land of immigrants and a land of laws, 
and through the decades, through the centuries immigrants have come 
first through the Atlantic, through the Statue of Liberty, through 
Ellis Island, seeking opportunity and seeking legalization. And, Mr. 
Chairman, we have allowed that to happen. We have had processes in 
place that would work toward, not against those processes occurring.
  Today, ask any Member of Congress what is the largest caseload they 
have in their office, and it is regarding immigration benefits and 
access to citizenship. Not illegal access, but legal access. When we 
look at the documentation we find that there is a steadily increasing 
number of individuals seeking legal immigrant status. In the years 
2001, 7.8 million, 2002, 7.7 million, 2003, 7.1 million. At the same 
time, we find that there is a lack of access to real immigration rights 
because we are backlogged.
  There is an enormous backlog, even though there are no numerical 
limits, as reported in this chart, no numerical limits on the admission 
of aliens who are immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Such citizens 
petitioning for their relatives are waiting almost a year, almost a 
year, and in some parts of the country almost 2 years for the paperwork 
to be processed.
  Citizens and other legal permanent residents petitioning for other 
nonimmediate relatives under family preferences are often waiting 
several years for the petition to be processed.
  This is a crisis, colleagues. We are working against our own 
philosophies and policies, which is to encourage legal immigration. 
Right now you can ask any Member of Congress whether they have an 
elderly constituent who is attempting to beat the clock of life.
  Right now in my own office there is a gentleman who loves this 
country, in his 80s, and he has been trying to become a citizen through 
legal ways for almost a decade. Right now he is ailing. His family 
calls me every day. The reason his petition is taking so long is 
because we are backlogged and cannot seem to get a simple process of 
fingerprints and documentation together at once.
  The additional $15 million in this amendment will help us in funding 
the hiring, clearance processes, training, office equipment, and 
support services for 300 additional full-time CIS adjudicators. The 
Sensenbrenner-Conyers substitute amended the immigration section 102 in 
a committee hearing for the immigration customs enforcement legal 
program for the hiring of an additional 300 attorneys and related 
training and support cost. This amendment, that I join together with 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) in, likewise adds this amount 
of attorneys and adjudicators into this process to help us along.
  The President supports reducing the lengthy backlog of immigration 
application processing as an important policy objective. Lengthy 
backlog and interminable processing delays are a disservice to the 
needs of businesses, keeps families needlessly separated, and 
undermines the integrity of the system. There is a bipartisan agreement 
that the Department of Homeland Security must catch up on the backlog 
it inherited from the INS. The former head of the immigration services, 
Eduardo Geary, in our own Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, 
submitted a proposal to end the backlog.
  Work has been done, but more work has to be done. The report language 
for this bill earmarks $120 million for this purpose but it fails to 
add money where it is needed most by increasing the number of 
adjudicators who can process the backlogged applications.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a bipartisan amendment, as shown in 
the bipartisan effort of the work done by both the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers). Together, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and 
myself now offer these additional dollars and focus on the need for 
adjudicators and on the need to help with backlog applicants.
  Remember what I said. The numbers are increasing every single day and 
the backlog is increasing every single day. Citizens and LPRs, legal 
permanent residents, petitioning for nonimmediate relatives under the 
family preferences are waiting now several years. Mr. Chairman, we can 
do better. How can we do better? By supporting the Jackson-Lee/Conyers 
amendment.
  For every single Member in this body who has a backlog in their 
office of those trying to do the right thing, this is the Homeland 
Security appropriation and what we need to do is understand immigration 
and fight terrorism. So I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.

                              {time}  1300


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state a point of 
order and in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized on his point 
of order.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the proposal will likely cause 
an overage on outlays, and so the amendment proposes to amend portions 
of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc 
under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to 
increase the level of outlays in the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there Members desiring to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I need a 
clarification. The amendment is on page 2 line 9, and the offset comes 
on page 37 line 12. I do not understand what the objection is to the 
amendment in terms of out of order. I seek a clarification. What is the 
objection?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I will read it again to the 
gentlewoman.
  The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. 
The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule 
XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in 
the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me just say I would hope 
that the chairman would be willing to waive the point of order. I 
consider this amendment so important that I will withdraw the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment 
without prejudice at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas that the amendment be withdrawn?
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. LoBiondo

  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. LoBiondo:
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Office of the 
     Secretary and Executive Management'', after the first dollar 
     amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by $130,000,000)''.
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Office of the Under 
     Secretary for Management'', after the first dollar amount, 
     insert the following: ``(reduced by $130,000,000)''.
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Office of the Chief 
     Financial Officer'', after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $16,000,000)''.
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Office of the Chief 
     Information Officer'', after

[[Page 9970]]

     the first dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by 
     $190,000,000)''.
       In title II, in the item relating to ``United States Coast 
     Guard-acquisition, construction, and improvements'', after 
     the first dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased 
     by $466,000,000)''.

  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today with my 
colleague and friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), 
would restore the $466 million cut to the Coast Guard's Integrated 
Deepwater System. I know the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) 
strongly supports the Coast Guard; and while I disagree with his 
decision to cut Deepwater, I understand why the gentleman felt the need 
to do it.
  In light of the post-9/11 capability requirement changes, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) asked for a comprehensive 
implementation plan for the entire life of the program. As the Chair of 
the Coast Guard authorizing subcommittee, I have also requested the 
exact same information. Unfortunately, to date, neither the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) nor I have received the information 
requested. I would say to the Coast Guard, to the Department of OMB, 
provide Congress with this information and do it now. No more excuses, 
just do it now.
  If the administration continues to ignore this request, the Deepwater 
program will be devastated. At $500 million, Deepwater will likely take 
over 40 years to complete instead of the original 20-year estimation. 
Thousands of jobs would be lost in a number of States. The total cost 
to the taxpayer would actually increase substantially because of the 
delays; and the delivery of the new, more capable vessels, aircraft and 
communications equipment will be delayed indefinitely.
  Specifically, this cut in funding would likely stop all work on the 
national security cutter affecting jobs in Mississippi. The break in 
production would negatively impact the already-troubled shipbuilding 
industry. It would also defer design work on offshore patrol cutters 
and the fast response cutter, again affecting jobs in Mississippi, 
would stop work on the vertical takeoff unmanned aerial vehicle, and 
this affects jobs in Texas. It will scale back the mission 
effectiveness program of the 210- and 270-foot cutters, which is 
intended to keep these legacy assets afloat and operational. This will 
affect jobs in Maryland.
  Also, Mr. Chairman, it will affect the operation tempos 
significantly, placing a tremendous strain on the service's aging 
legacy assets that are doing the job now.
  In fiscal year 2004, the United States Coast Guard lost over 700 
patrol days due to failing legacy assets. Last year, the cutter fleet 
operated free of major casualty less than 50 percent of the time. Last 
year, the service's fleet of C-130, HU-25, and HH-60 aircraft all 
failed to meet target levels for readiness. And last year, the Coast 
Guard's main rescue helicopter experienced in-flight engine failures at 
a rates of 329 mishaps per 1,000 hours of flight.
  All of these issues are putting our men and women in uniform in grave 
danger and jeopardizing our homeland security mission. The GAO 
testified before my subcommittee that legacy assets are insufficient to 
meet mission demands and the need to replace or upgrade deteriorating 
legacy assets is considerable. The Coast Guard commandant calls it a 
readiness gap or downward readiness spiral.
  Whatever we call it, the fact remains without new and better-equipped 
assets promised under Deepwater, the Coast Guard will not be able to 
successfully conduct its homeland security and other vital missions. 
Delaying Deepwater is bad for homeland security. It is also bad news 
for the budget. Continuing to defer acquisition of new assets causes 
the service to sink more and more money into rapidly deteriorating 
legacy assets just to keep them afloat.
  The Coast Guard anticipated spending $20 million annually to keep 
legacy assets operational; but in 2006 the service expects to spend 
more than 12 times that much, and that does not take into account the 
nearly $60 million it will cost to replace the wing boxes on several of 
the C-130s or the $63 million in other unfunded legacy sustainment 
priorities.
  In order to control costs, we need to invest in replacement assets. 
The new Deepwater assets will cost much less to maintain and will 
operate with fewer servicemembers, saving millions in operating 
expenses and helping our homeland security mission. Deepwater will 
allow the service to push out the borders and effectively meet the 
demands of homeland security and other traditional missions.
  I urge my colleagues to fully restore the Deepwater funding, and at 
the appropriate time I intend to withdraw my amendment and hope that 
the gentleman from Kentucky will have received the information 
requested from the administration, and work with us as the bill moves 
forward to restore these desperately needed dollars.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, imagine that your house is on fire, and the first thing 
you do is call 911; but the fire truck which was purchased during the 
Eisenhower administration gets a flat tire. The siren is not working, 
and then the hose springs a leak. Now you have lost your house, all of 
your possessions, and hopefully not your life.
  Now imagine you are at sea. You call for help. The mayday call will 
be answered by the United States Coast Guard with ships and planes that 
are called legacy assets. Presumably that is a euphemism for old, 
really old. In fact, the Coast Guard operates the second oldest naval 
fleet in the world. The North Korean and Iranian naval fleets are in 
better shape than the United States Coast Guard.
  Many so-called legacy assets are riddled with structural defects, 
putting Coast Guard personnel and people who call on them for help at 
risk, like the nine Coast Guard personnel who were aboard the 1942-era 
cutter Storis who nearly died when the davit lowering their lifeboat 
ripped away from the steel superstructure crashing them into the frigid 
Bering Sea. The rescuers literally became the rescued.
  And remember last year, the Coast Guard's main search and rescue 
helicopter, the Jayhawk, experienced in-flight engine failures at a 
rate of 329 per 100,000. The FAA acceptable standard is one per 100,000 
flight hours. These failures limit the Jayhawk's ability to hover over, 
and place the lives of its crew and passengers and those below in 
danger.
  The undisputable fact is that the demands on the Coast Guard have 
vastly outpaced its resources. I think we can all agree, there is no 
margin for era, particularly in this post-9/11 world, when the Coast 
Guard cannot escort an LNG tanker because the cutter's hull has 
fractured; when the parents of an overdosed teenager discover that the 
Coast Guard boats were not fast enough to interdict the drug smugglers; 
when family members of deceased fishermen discover that the Coast Guard 
could not have got there sooner because the helicopter had to turn 
around because of engine problems.
  I sincerely appreciate the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and 
the Committee on Appropriations have been most patient in seeking the 
answers to the questions that they have posed, but I deeply regret we 
have come to the point where Congress feels it is necessary to threaten 
the future, the very existence, honestly, of the Coast Guard; and OMB 
and the administration should comply sooner rather than later with the 
request put forward by the chairman so we can put this matter behind us 
and meet our responsibilities to the brave Coast Guard personnel as 
well as the American people.
  In the end, we should be looking for ways to speed up the Deepwater 
program and encourage the purchase of additional cutters and aircraft. 
What the service needs with its multiple missions and increasing 
responsibilities is not further reduction, but rather increases; 
increases, not of millions, but of billions, of dollars because it is 
that critical.
  Unless we do not really care about patrolling ports, bridges and 
power plants, unless the 5,000 lives that the

[[Page 9971]]

Coast Guard saves on an annual basis are now expendable, and we all 
know that is not true, that is not the case. But the reality is a 
crippled Coast Guard means lost property, lost commerce, and lost 
lives. We can do better.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
LoBiondo) for bringing this important amendment to the floor. I think 
it is very important. I would also like to commend the Subcommittee on 
Homeland Security and the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for 
the great job he has done in doing his job as the chairman of this 
important subcommittee.
  I would like to bring my perspective as the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Terrorism and Unconventional Threat and Capabilities on 
the Committee on Armed Services. I like to look at the war on terror in 
three parts. We have the part that is taking the fight to the enemy. 
That is the armed services and the intelligence community. We have the 
job of gathering information both domestically and internationally in 
this very difficult war on terror. And third, we have the job, the task 
of securing the homeland.

                              {time}  1315

  We are talking about building block No. 3 today. This year, 
unfortunately, it has been found necessary for the fiscal year 2006 
Homeland Security Appropriations bill to include $500 million for the 
Coast Guard's Integrated Deepwater System, cutting the program by $466 
million below the President's request. I think this is a mistake. I do 
not think there is anything more important today, and I remember Ronald 
Reagan telling me when I was first elected to Congress 20 years ago 
that there are many things that the Congress does that are important, 
but nothing is more important than providing security to the American 
people.
  Cutting nearly half of the funding will result in huge delays for 
Deepwater. This is simply unacceptable. If funding remains at this 
reduced level, it will add an additional 20 years to the program's 
completion. We cannot wait. This would serve a tough blow not only to 
this program but to taxpayers who ultimately have to fund the program 
over the long term.
  Continuing to underfund the Deepwater program only puts off the 
acquisition of new replacement assets and further stresses already 
failing legacy systems. The gentleman from New Jersey went into some 
detail on that subject. With reduced resources, the service is forced 
to sink the majority of its funding into keeping legacy systems 
literally afloat and literally in the air.
  Failure to fully fund the Deepwater program creates a readiness gap 
that we cannot afford to create. The Coast Guard performs countless 
critical missions to aid in the war on terror and we must not 
intentionally reduce or hamper their capabilities.
  I understand that the gentleman from New Jersey is going to withdraw 
this and there will be pending considerations by the chairman of the 
committee. I thank both gentlemen for their effort in this regard.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey bringing 
this forward and I join with him and my colleague from Massachusetts in 
regretting that we are at this pass. I understand that the committee is 
not motivated by any animus against the Coast Guard or any failure to 
appreciate the need for what it does. While we are going to have this 
amendment withdrawn at this point, obviously we all fervently hope that 
the administration will come into compliance with the very reasonable 
request of the committee so that by the time this bill ultimately is 
signed into law it includes these necessary funds for the Coast Guard.
  I represent the most prosperous fishing port in the United States, 
the city of New Bedford, town of Fairhaven. The value of the catch 
there is very significant. They make a significant contribution to the 
economy, the fishermen do. They also provide a very healthy source of 
food. At a time when we are worried about the health of what people 
eat, the health effects, we are worried about obesity, fishing is one 
source of about the healthiest food people can eat. Unlike most other 
foods, people do not often realize that the seafood that is brought to 
their table involves some risk of life. People do not get killed 
growing vegetables or even herding cattle, but people get killed 
fishing, particularly out in the deep sea. We have had tragic instances 
recently in the North Atlantic of these extraordinarily brave men 
losing their lives not through their own fault but weather and other 
factors.
  We need to do a lot to deal with that. We need to change regulations 
that give them incentives to be out at unsafe times. We need to do 
better training. We need a whole range of things. But no matter how 
hard we try to avoid accidents, given the nature of fishing, they will 
happen. Sadly, the Coast Guard today is not as well equipped as it can 
be and should be to deal with those accidents.
  My colleague from Massachusetts alluded to a controversy over a 
failure of a helicopter at a time when someone needed a rescue. The 
Coast Guard maintains that it would not have made any difference. We do 
not know whether it did or did not, but even accepting their argument, 
we should not be having that debate. Families mourning the loss of a 
brave fisherman should not be further tormented by the possibility that 
it was a failure in our own government that led that to happen.
  Having the Coast Guard do everything that it physically is capable of 
doing in these rescue situations is an essential part of an overall 
safety program, and obviously that cannot happen without there being 
the funds that we need. I urge the administration strongly to comply 
with the committee's request because it would be morally unacceptable 
for us to let this bill get signed into law with this gap still there.
  I appreciate the leadership of the committee in trying to get it 
resolved. They will have our support in doing that. We hope that when 
this bill is finally signed, those of us who represent fishermen will 
be able to tell them with some sense of confidence that we are, in 
fact, doing everything that we can to save them in this difficult 
situation.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the ships we are talking about today are well over 35 
years old. If we were to proceed as scheduled, it is still going to 
take 2 or 3 years to build them. If we delay, we are talking really no 
telling how long. Quite frankly, the Navy right now is retiring Block I 
Aegis class cruisers that are less than 20 years old for maintenance 
problems. If we are going to retire 20-year-old Navy ships, it is only 
fair that the people who sail side by side with them, the United States 
Coast Guard, should have their ships replaced as well.
  The gentleman from Kentucky has asked some very legitimate questions. 
I would hope the administration would be forthcoming with the answers 
to those questions. It is important to know what sort of financial 
obligations we are undertaking by replacing these vessels. But the 
bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is we have no choice but to replace these 
vessels. They are 35 years old, the newest of them. We are sending 
young people to sea that are half the age of the vessels they sail on. 
If it was my son, your son, I know we would want better than that.
  I encourage you to get the answers that you seek, for the Coast Guard 
to be forthright with the information that you seek, but at the end of 
the day it is important that these ships that were built in the 1960s 
and the early 1970s be replaced as quickly as possible.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  I really appreciate the action of the gentleman from New Jersey, the 
chairman of the Coast Guard authorization committee. I really 
appreciate the gentleman's amendment and the comments that have been 
made. I think we

[[Page 9972]]

are all in agreement. There is nothing that hurt me more in this bill 
than when we were forced to cut back the Deepwater monies until we 
could get the report of the Coast Guard about what the 20-year plans 
were.
  I am a big supporter of Deepwater. In fact, when I was chairman of 
the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee is when we first funded 
Deepwater. The gentleman from Minnesota and I served on that 
subcommittee as well. It is a wonderful program.
  But then came 9/11. When 9/11 happened, the mission of the Coast 
Guard dramatically changed and they never really amended the Deepwater 
program in view of that very alarming new mission that they became 
charged with. And then we have continued to fund them for the last 2 
years just based on their promise that they would get us the revised 
plan--a rebaselining. And then as time passed and we began to notice 
with the help of the gentleman from New Jersey's subcommittee that more 
and more of the Deepwater monies intended for new equipment was being 
used to maintain the old equipment, increasingly eating into the 
Deepwater monies. We felt we had no choice but to try to force the 
issue.
  We have bent over backwards, 15 different ways, with the Coast Guard 
and with the Department to try to get them to tell us the new 20-year 
plan, the rebaselined Deepwater, so that we all know where we are going 
and we know what we are buying.
  This subcommittee is not going to be a blank check for anybody. We 
insist on knowing what the program is. I think that is our duty. As 
soon as the Coast Guard can get us the 20-year Deepwater spending plan, 
I think the problem will disappear but not until. The old equation, 
lack of information means lack of money, applies to the Coast Guard as 
it does to my personal account.
  I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey's work and his attitude in 
the subcommittee. He is a great leader of that subcommittee and has 
done a wonderful job. We have enjoyed working with him. He is easy to 
work with. He is very firm in his convictions, but he understands what 
has to be done here.
  I hope that this painful period of time will pass. It is up to the 
Coast Guard and the Department and perhaps, most importantly, the 
Office of Management and Budget to all finally agree and let us get on 
with it. I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. The concern of the committee to get a rebaselining of the 
Coast Guard construction program is not something that has just 
happened recently. I think we have been working on this for a year and 
a half, 2 years, something like that, to get the rebaselining. It is 
not a last-second whim that has occurred, but something that we have 
been concerned about for an extended period of time and have not gotten 
a response.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman is exactly correct. In fact, in 
the 2002 period of time we were requesting the new baseline. We did 
that in 2003. And then in the 2005 bill finally, we wrote it into the 
law that said you shall furnish the rebaselining on a such and so date. 
That time has long past gone. We still do not have it. What else can we 
do? I am open to all ideas, but I think the only weapon we have left is 
withholding funds.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) for bringing this issue to the attention of 
the House and my appreciation to Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member 
Sabo for performing the kind of responsible oversight that our branch 
of government is accountable for.
  The gentleman from New Jersey very accurately points out that the 
Deepwater program is an essential element of homeland security. The 
Coast Guard's mission has changed dramatically and justifiably since 9/
11. For it to carry out that message, its aging and inferior fleet 
needs to be replaced with a 21st century fleet. I commend the gentleman 
from New Jersey for taking the lead in making that fleet a reality.
  I understand that because of the constraints we are under under this 
bill, that he will not be able to go forward with his amendment at this 
time. I obviously support that decision. But I wanted the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) to know that I would be 
interested and willing to help in whatever efforts are necessary from 
this point on so that we can find the optimal and appropriate level of 
funding for this program so that we can complete the modernization of 
the Coast Guard for its very essential new mission.
  I again thank the author of the amendment and would urge continued 
cooperation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Lobiondo amendment.
  The Coast Guard's Deepwater Program will result in a nearly complete 
recapitalization of the Coast Guard's fleet of vessels, aircraft, and 
supporting systems.
  The Coast Guard's legacy assets are failing at an alarming rate, 
jeopardizing the success of Coast Guard missions and the lives of Coast 
Guardsmen.
  We must bring the new assets that will be procured through the 
Deepwater Program online as quickly as possible.
  The current bill will not only fail to accelerate the rate at which 
these assets become available, but it dramatically slows down the 
delivery of these critical assets.
  Following the events of 9/11, the Coast Guard has taken on 
significant responsibilities to protect maritime homeland security in 
addition to carrying out its important traditional missions of search 
and rescue, illegal drug and migrant interdiction, oil spill response 
and prevention, and fisheries law enforcement.
  We must provide the resources necessary to allow the men and women of 
the Coast Guard to successfully carry out these missions.
  The Deepwater Program will provide these assets and I applaud the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation 
for his amendment to provide funding to procure the assets needed by 
the Coast Guard.
  I thank the chairman.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
LoBiondo amendment to the DHS authorization and I ask my colleagues to 
support it.
  The Coast Guard yard in Baltimore, MD has dedicated coasties and 
dedicated civilian personnel, all of whom are fighting to keep us safe 
and secure. So it is disheartening to hear that the DHS authorization 
is going to cut critical funding for the Coast Guard to the tune of 
$466 million.
  This in my opinion is a huge mistake. We have asked the Coast Guard 
to take on an aggressive and daunting role in protecting our 
coastlines, ports, rivers and waterways, and more importantly keeping 
our homeland secure. We cannot and should not be cutting their funding. 
The Coast Guard is moving in a new and exciting direction that will 
allow for an all encompassing approach including faster, stronger ships 
along with an aircraft component. At this time we should not be cutting 
their budget; we should be making sure they have the tools and 
resources to keep us safe.
  It is my understanding that cuts could result in a loss of up to 108 
jobs at the Baltimore Yard and I want to let you know that this is 
completely unacceptable. The Baltimore Coast Guard yard is already 
scheduled to lose 50 jobs for the MEP program and to add another 108 
jobs on top of it would devastate the yard and the proud maritime 
tradition that Baltimore has.
  I support the new direction for the Coast Guard and believe these new 
capabilities will only make our homeland security stronger. However, 
losing skilled ship repair and builders is not a good idea. It is hard 
enough to find trained workers but to keep pushing them aside will only 
hurt us when we need their help the most.
  But aside from that we are cutting the fleet of vessels that are 
going to be the new line of maritime defense. We cannot let this 
happen. This Deepwater project is designed around the new cutters, 
smaller support craft and integrated aircraft fleet. By reducing 
funding for this program you will hurt the overall effectiveness of the 
program and we will lose hundreds of jobs of hard working Americans.

[[Page 9973]]

  I ask my colleagues to stand in support of this amendment.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers) for his focused and outstanding leadership, and I ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $18,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentlewoman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will have an 
opportunity to find common ground. Again, I raise the question to my 
colleagues, how many of you have been overwhelmed by the number of 
immigration cases in your office and overwhelmed by the fact that these 
are individuals seeking legal status.
  I referred my colleagues to a report on immigration and 
naturalization petitions pending from 1997 to 2004. The most glaring 
point is that citizens and legal permanent residents petitioning for 
other not immediate relatives under the family preferences are often 
waiting several years for the petitions to be processed.

                              {time}  1330

  The normal cycle is 6 months.
  This amendment is simple. It would provide relief by providing for 
funding for the hiring, clearance processes, training, office 
equipment, and support services for 300 additional full-time CIS 
adjudicators above the number of adjudicators presently employed by CIS 
in fiscal year 2005. This means that the backlog elimination plan as 
offered by the former Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services, Eduardo Aguirre, could be further implemented, and, also, the 
report given by the ombudsman presented in the first annual ombudsman 
report, which talks about the enormous delay and the need for improving 
in Citizenship and Immigration Services.
  Let me share with my colleagues the long time of waiting in a number 
of States where these regional service centers are. If one is 
attempting to get their immediate relatives into the country, in 
California the waiting started for processing of applications filed in 
2003; Nebraska, 2002; Texas, 2002; Vermont, 2003. Unmarried sons and 
daughters of citizens, these applications are backlogged to July 19, 
2001, out of California Regional Center; Nebraska, 2001, Regional 
Center; Texas, the regional center there, 2001; and Vermont, 1999. If 
one is a legal permanent resident and they are attempting to get their 
unmarried son and daughter and they are going to their Congressional 
office, their petition would be backlogged in California from April 6, 
1998; Nebraska, April 13, 2001; Texas, October 30, 1998; and Vermont, 
January 4, 1999.
  Even with the new Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Chairman, it 
is imperative that we begin to look misdirections. We argue for legal 
immigration and legal processes, but yet when those individuals try to 
access the process, they are put in lines that are long and not moving, 
which frustrates the process, it frustrates our message.
  We should promote legalization. We should promote access to 
legalization. We should promote those who come into this country to 
seek access to legalization in a legal way, in a way that falls under 
our laws. But if our processes are broken, then we are not in any way 
supporting our policies.
  This amendment is simple. It provides $18 million to assure us that 
these 300 adjudicators can help move the process along. It also, I 
think, tracks very well with our intent as we have seen a number of 
legislative initiatives being offered. As I said, I have offered the 
Save America Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act that deals with 
border protection, that deals with saving America's jobs, protecting 
immigrant women who are subject to violence. It also, I believe, 
provides dollars for border protection.
  But the question of immigrant services is, even with the good works 
of this subcommittee, long overdue to improve. These 300 adjudicators 
can go a long way in improving that and answering the concerns of many 
of our colleagues when they go into their office and talk to their 
caseworkers and see the long list of cases dealing with immigrant 
concerns.
  It also responds to those who are aging on the list. They are trying 
to secure access to citizenship and legalization. They have put in 
their paperwork, but they have been delayed. Long years of delay. Right 
now in my office I have an elderly gentleman who simply wants to pledge 
allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, put his hand up 
on his heart and salute the flag of the United States of America. He 
has been waiting for years. He is aging. He is ill. He wants to return 
home to his motherland for some issues that he has to contend with, but 
he cannot move from the United States because we have been waiting and 
waiting and waiting and waiting for his citizenship process to go 
forward.
  These are the kinds of crises that Members face all over America. 
These are the kinds of crises that immigrants face who are seeking to 
follow the process legally.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment that would allow us to 
add 300 adjudicators to this process. I believe it is revenue neutral, 
and I ask my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase the appropriation of 
funds for the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, CIS, by 
$18 million for the purpose of funding the hiring, clearance processes, 
training, office equipment and support services for 300 additional 
full-time CIS adjudicators above the number of adjudicators employed by 
CIS in Fiscal Year 2005.
  The President supports reducing the lengthy backlog for immigration 
application processing as an important policy objective. Lengthy 
backlogs and interminable processing delays are a disservice to the 
needs of business, keep families needlessly separated, and undermine 
the integrity of the system.
  There is bipartisan agreement that the Department of Homeland 
Security must catch up on the backlog it inherited from the INS. In 
fact, the report language for this bill earmarks $120 million for this 
purpose. But it fails to add money where it is needed most--for 
increasing the number of adjudicators who can process the backlogged 
applications.
  Just recently, in a bipartisan agreement negotiated between the 
Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, 
authorization was added during a Judiciary Markup for DHS to hire 
additional attorneys for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, ICE, and 300 additional adjudicators for CIS. The 
amendment before us today is necessary to fund the additional 
adjudicators and the related training and support costs.
  After forging that agreement, and passing it out of the Judiciary 
Committee, the majority tried to undercut that agreement by requiring 
that the adjudicators be paid for by an increase in immigration 
services fees. Simultaneously, they authorized explicit funding for the 
new ICE attorneys to be drawn out of the total DHS authorization.
  These costs should not be born by immigrants. Immigrants should not 
have to subsidize the administrative failures of our immigration 
agency. It is an insult to require immigrants to keep paying more and 
more for slower and shoddier service. These funds should be 
appropriated by Congress, and Congress should demand better agency 
management of these funds.
  I understand and appreciate the concern of those who would resist 
moving funds from enforcement functions to adjudications. I do not 
believe that a reduction of $15 million in the funds available for 
enforcement activities would significantly reduce the effectiveness of 
our enforcement programs. That amount of money would be sufficient, 
however, to support 300 additional adjudicators who are desperately 
needed for backlog reduction in benefits applications.
  As to the discussion by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Ranking Member 
Obey, regarding

[[Page 9974]]

his surprise over the submission of this amendment, let me clarify his 
assumption. This crucial amendment was not intended to broadside 
anyone. My immigration counsel and someone from Mr. Conyers' staff met 
with one of Mr. Obey's staffers last Friday afternoon to discuss 
amendments, and this amendment was brought up at that time.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues support this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman continues to reserve his point of order.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, in this bill we double the 
amount of money that is in the 2005. We double it, $40 million more 
than they had in 2005, and it is 50 percent more than what the 
President requested. I mean we are shoveling money at this office. To 
shovel more money at them would be, I think, wasteful, to say the very 
least.
  Number two, this proposal would cut the Office of the Secretary. We 
are already doing a lot of that in this bill, and to cut them any more 
I think would be counterproductive. That Office of the Secretary is 
$133 million plus. This cut would result in a 15 percent reduction from 
that figure. The office is largely salaries and expenses, and cuts will 
result in fewer people attempting to meet an increasing workload. Fewer 
people means the Department will take even more time to respond to our 
Congressional inquiries.
  We have been critical of that office, but it is this office that will 
ultimately make the changes needed to make this Department work. They 
are working on the new Secretary's second-stage review even as we 
speak. It is only now that the office has been fully staffed up. Any 
cuts would directly affect these positions.
  In 2006 we recommended about 90 new positions to address critical 
needs in the Secretary's Office. These cuts that the gentlewoman 
proposes would result in reductions in security personnel responsible 
for classified material. It would reduce the newly expanded privacy 
office, and it would reduce the newly created policy office, a function 
that should help eliminate some of the stovepiped functions that we 
complain about in the Department.
  So I would urge Members to reject the amendment. We have already 
doubled the amount of money in that account in this bill, and it would 
slash the Office of the Secretary at a very critical time.
  I oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman for yielding to me.
  I appreciate the dilemma that the chairman speaks to, particularly 
with respect to the very broad needs that we have.
  I want to remind my colleagues that this is $18 million for 300 
adjudicators specifically and that what we are talking about is trying 
to eliminate or bring down the existing 6 million benefit applications 
that were pending in 2003. As I read to my colleagues, no matter what 
part of the country they are in, whether they are under the California 
Regional Service Center, the Nebraska Regional Service Center, the 
Texas Regional Service Center, the Vermont Regional Service Center, 
their constituents are facing an enormous backlog. That raises a lot of 
havoc, Mr. Chairman. In fact, it speaks to security in this country 
when people are undocumented and do not have the legal papers that 
would allow them to stay in this country.
  It helps young people to age out. One of the issues that we have 
dealt with is when parents who are trying to bring their children in 
and the children reach 21 before they are able to even be processed.
  This is a crisis. And as one of my colleagues who stood on the floor 
of the House said, the Department of Homeland Security is huge. This is 
not an attempt to cause the resources out of the Office of Secretary to 
be diminished in strategic areas. But I can assure the Members I have 
great confidence in our new Secretary and those dollars can be 
effectively moved out of places that would not be damaging to his 
mission or his work or the work of the Department of Homeland Security.
  What we are talking about is providing that $15 million for 300 
adjudicators, and I would welcome the opportunity for us to be able to 
support this amendment and support this amendment in a way that 
realizes that it focuses on needs that many of our offices face all 
over America.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Anyone who 
serves here any length of time knows that one thing that we really 
appreciate is if we are not surprised or sandbagged by other Members or 
other committees.
  Earlier today the Committee on Rules provided a sandbag to this 
committee when, without anyone on this side of the aisle knowing about 
it, they simply left this bill open to a whole variety of points of 
order. And they did that after we had worked out some delicate 
compromises between both sides of the aisle. I strenuously objected to 
that action. I cannot be credible in objecting to that action if I do 
not also object to surprises that occur on my side of the aisle.
  I made a statement in the whip's meeting last week and asked every 
member of our caucus to please come to those Members of the House on 
this side of the aisle whose responsibility it is to run the bill from 
this side of the aisle. We asked that they come to us if they had any 
amendments so we could walk through with them how those amendments 
might or might not fit into the greater scheme of things. At least we 
wanted to have a chance to consult with Members.
  This amendment is here with no prior notice to me. I do not know if 
anyone else on this side of the aisle was noticed, but I certainly was 
not noticed, and I do not appreciate it. The fact is we have our 
differences between parties, but we try to run these bills in a way 
which will protect the interests of all Members. We cannot do that if 
individual Members continually surprise us with amendments so that we 
have not had an opportunity to try to make certain that they are 
drafted in such a way that they do not get in the way of what the 
sponsor is trying to do or get in the way of what we are trying to do.
  The gentleman from Kentucky has pointed out that this account has 
already been increased by a very significant amount. It has and I 
applaud him for it. The fact is there are some accounts in this bill 
that do not have a dime in it, and that needs to be corrected before an 
amendment like this is offered.
  So I regretfully have to say that while I wish we had more money for 
a number of these accounts, as one who has to balance where we put 
limited amounts of money I have to agree with the gentleman from 
Kentucky and urge defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
strike the requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, far be it from me to attempt 
to surprise my colleagues. But since we are all equal Members of this 
body, I consider it my right to approach this issue from the 
perspective of the knowledge that I have.
  I believe in collegiate work, and I believe in working with the 
collective bodies here, and I do not think I have ever risen to the 
floor to speak along those lines, but I will do it now. In order to 
focus on some of the issues that have come to my attention from Members 
across the aisle on the question of immigrant services, listening to 
members of the Department of Homeland Security talk about their efforts 
to ease the burden and knowing the importance of adjudicators which 
would help, in fact, to ease that burden, I hope that the allotment 
that has been spoken to both by the ranking member

[[Page 9975]]

of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee will be 
designated for these important adjudicators.
  The purpose of this amendment is valuable, and I think the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and I viewed it as a valuable amendment. I 
hope that as we move forward that I will be able to see that those 
dollars allegedly that have been allocated, some $400 million, will go 
to easing some of these backlog dates.
  I remind my colleagues, 1998, 2001, 2003, all scattered across these 
service centers. Why? Because they are overburdened. Fingerprints are 
lost. Applications are lost. So often we hear that in our constituency.
  I think the process of appropriations is a complicated process. We 
attempt to do it in the spirit that is collegiate in this body. We 
attempt to do it with the knowledge that we have and the research that 
we do and the work with fellow staff members. If that cannot be done, 
we move forward.
  I hope that we can improve the process because everybody is not in a 
whip meeting. So therefore I hope that we can improve the process and 
ensure that when we come to the floor these amendments that we have to 
be made in order, we have the understanding that they are for a purpose 
and a reasonable purpose.

                              {time}  1345

  Now, I will look forward, as we move toward conference, to monitoring 
this particular legislation to see whether or not it completely 
addresses the question of adjudicators, which is what this amendment is 
all about, the question of adjudicators.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues that if they are having a 
backlog in their office, I hope that they will consider that the intent 
of this amendment was not a malicious intent; it was an intent to work 
collegially and to help solve the problems, and I hope that we will 
continue in that spirit, to work toward solving problems, because that 
is what this particular body is all about, solving problems, Democrats 
and Republicans working together.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill, and I 
congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman, 
for taking a firm, strong, aggressive stance to secure our borders, 
because that is one of the issues that is first and foremost on the 
minds of Americans, whether they are on the border or whether they live 
2,000 miles away.
  Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, there has 
been a dramatic increase in the number of non-Mexican illegal 
immigrants, also known as OTMs, apprehended on our borders. In fact, 
some border patrol sectors have reported a 300 percent increase in OTMs 
this year alone. This problem has grown exponentially, in part because 
the Department of Homeland Security has failed to take a strategic 
approach to detention and removal that ensures that every illegal 
immigrant apprehended is properly deported.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, my good friend from Texas is 
correct. The Department has failed to take corrective action, and that 
is why this act will withhold $50 million in funding until the 
Department submits a detention and removal plan that addresses these 
issues in a more comprehensive manner. Already this year, the border 
patrol has apprehended over 75,000 illegals, Other Than Mexicans, more 
than twice the number of apprehensions compared to this same time last 
year; and we still have 5 months to go.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the chairman has 
worked hard to produce a bill that will fund additional enforcement, 
within budget limitations, and has set forth directions in the report 
accompanying the bill to get the Department headed toward a solution.
  I also want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for hearing my 
concerns regarding the so-called ``catch-and-release'' policy that 
allows OTMs to be released on their own recognizance. Last summer, I 
was in communication with then-Secretary Ridge and then-Under Secretary 
Hutchison regarding this issue, and they responded by authorizing 
expedited removal for all OTMs apprehended by the border patrol. 
Unfortunately, the Department has implemented expedited removal in only 
two districts. I am therefore pleased to see this issue is addressed, 
as well, in this bill.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman first 
described to me the ``catch-and-release'' policy and how it has 
affected the border communities, I was surprised to learn that the 
Department had not made full use of its authority. I understand that 
doing so will not only allow the Department to remove OTMs two to three 
times faster than traditional methods while permitting legitimate 
asylum claims, but would cut detention costs for such individuals by 
more than 50 percent.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the chairman is 
absolutely correct. Expedited removal would allow the Department to 
save money while addressing the OTM problem. I would also add that 
taking such enforcement action would help deter OTMs from attempting to 
immigrate illegally in the first place.
  I once again thank the chairman for taking the time to hear the 
concerns of our border communities and for responding so readily. As a 
fellow subcommittee chairman, I know the difficulties in finding 
solutions that meet budgetary restrictions, and I appreciate the 
directions he has given to the Department, which will make great 
strides to ensure that this critical issue is addressed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Musgrave:
       Page 2, line 9, insert after the first dollar amount the 
     following: (reduced by $100,000).
       Page 26, line 23, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: (increased by $100,000).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, the Chair must 
query whether any Member raises a point of order against provisions of 
the bill addressed by the amendment, but not yet reached in the 
reading, wit: page 26, line 19 through page 30, line 8.
  Are there any points of order?
  If not, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) is recognized 
for 5 minutes on her amendment.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, according to recent news reports, the 
Department of Homeland Security has hired former actress Bobbie Faye 
Furgeson as the new ``liaison to the entertainment industry.'' In other 
words, the Department of Homeland Security is now hiring actresses to 
communicate with Hollywood.
  In March 2004, the Department of Homeland Security posted an opening 
on the government Web site, USAjobs.com, stating the salary could top 
$136,000, plus benefits. I want to emphasize that this position has not 
been specifically authorized by Congress.
  I believe that Americans take our homeland security very seriously. 
They see images of 9/11 that will clutch their hearts for their entire 
lives. They saw in the news just the other day about the incident here 
on Capitol Hill and saw people frantically trying to get to an area 
that was safe. Thank God they were not in danger.
  But the people of this country have high expectations in regard to 
our homeland security after we were violated on 9/11, and they realize 
how vulnerable we are. I would just like to thank the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for his excellent work in living up to those 
expectations that the American people have for us.
  However, I would have a very difficult time explaining to my 
constituents how we would use over $100,000 in

[[Page 9976]]

this manner. If people are not aware of what we could do with $100,000, 
if we move this money to State and local governments to have grants 
available for our first responders, that amount of money would buy 694 
Quick2000 Escape Hoods. Those are like the very hoods that we keep in 
our congressional offices. It would buy 558 Emergency PA systems, just 
like those that were used last week to warn people and to tell them 
about the evacuation. This one really interests me. It would buy 165 
bullet-proof vests. There is a young family member that we have that is 
a police officer, and I realize how first responders rely on their 
lives with these bullet-proof vests. That amount of money would also 
buy 40 Level A HAZMAT protective suits, something that is really needed 
by our first responders.
  So instead of spending $100,000-plus on one person who would simply 
review movie scripts for the government or help identify opportunities 
for Hollywood outreach and provide resources for TV and movies, we 
should direct this money to actually help the people who respond and 
can save lives.
  I ask for support of my amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the 
gentlewoman. I think this is an excellent amendment. I am delighted 
that the gentlewoman has been able to ferret this out and bring it to 
the attention of all of us, and I want to say what a great job the 
gentlewoman has done and that I am going to vote for the gentlewoman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

              Office of the Under Secretary for Management

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary 
     for Management, as authorized by sections 701-705 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 341-345), 
     $146,084,000: Provided, That not to exceed $3,000 shall be 
     for official reception and representation expenses: Provided 
     further, That of the total amount provided, $26,070,000 shall 
     remain available until expended solely for the alteration and 
     improvement of facilities, tenant improvements, and 
     relocation costs to consolidate Department headquarters 
     operations.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Sabo

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I and others offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sabo:
       Page 3, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $26,100,000)''.
       Page 30, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 30, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
       Page 30, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $23,900,000)''.
  Mr. SABO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, our amendment increases the funding for the 
fire grant program by $50 million, $25 million for the SAFER program, 
and $25 million for the regular grant program. With the $25 million 
added to the SAFER program, it would be funded at $75 million, or $10 
million above last year's funding.
  With the increase to the regular fire grant program, it would be 
funded at $575 million, unfortunately still a $75 million cut from last 
year's level. If we had more funding, and more offsets, we would have 
added it to this program.
  I might add that whatever the problems are with the larger local 
grant program, this is a program that has worked very efficiently and 
effectively. It is a proven successful program, and grant decisions are 
made on the basis of independent board review.
  The needs of our fire departments are great, and our Federal funding 
for the fire grant program has decreased in recent years and, actually, 
as a population that has grown, the number of firefighters nationwide 
has fallen.
  Firefighters still lack basic equipment. The number of firefighters 
with proper breathing gear and protective clothing has not 
substantially improved since 9/11.
  In 2003, Federal fire grant funding was $746 million; this year it is 
$715 million. This bill, with the amendment, would increase that amount 
to $650 million. The offset funding for the new personnel system would 
be decreased by $20 million, but still would have an increase of $17 
million, or 47 percent under this mark.
  What this amendment does is it is fully funded in offsets and makes 
minor adjustments in the chairman's bill but, in my judgment, will 
result in better fire department capabilities in our local communities; 
and I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, as an author of this legislation with the distinguished 
ranking member and the distinguished chairman, I thank the chairman for 
working with us on this compromise. The chairman has been one of the 
tireless advocates in this body on behalf of the first responder 
community; and I want to tell the gentleman they recognize that. On 
behalf of the 1.2 million men and women who serve in the 32,000 
departments across America, they understand that the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) is listening to them.
  Last week, when I approached the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman 
Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), our colleague, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Andrews), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and a whole 
host of Members on our side of the aisle over here, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Boehlert) and others, it was with a great deal of 
enthusiasm that the chairman said he would work with us, and that 
allows us to bring this amendment forward today.
  Last November, Mr. Chairman, I spoke at the memorial service for our 
fallen firefighters. We paid tribute to 111 brave Americans, most of 
them volunteers, who paid the ultimate price in protecting America. 
Each year in this country, we lose over 100 police officers, we lose 
over 100 firefighters, paramedics, and EMTs. The difference in terms of 
law enforcement support, and we spend about $3 billion to $4 billion a 
year on local law enforcement at the Federal level, is that 85 percent 
of our first responders in the fire community are volunteers. They get 
paid nothing. They serve on behalf of these 32,000 departments while 
doing their full-time job and then come home on weekends and at nights 
and serve their communities. It is up to us to make sure they have the 
proper equipment they need.
  Now, Members need to understand there is a distinction between the 
grant program running through the States and the grant program 
increased by this amendment. The grant program that this amendment 
increases is directly accessible to the fire departments. There are no 
middle people. There is no bureaucracy. There is no overhead. They go 
on line for 30 days once each year, and they apply directly. The grants 
are actually reviewed by other firefighters. There is no politics. That 
is why over 19,000 departments in this country have received one or 
more grants that have benefited our local towns.
  This money is not just for homeland security; it is to better equip 
those departments who, back in 2000, we recognized need national help.

                              {time}  1400

  The second part of this amendment provides additional funding to the 
SAFER program, a program to encourage cities to hire more paid 
firefighters, volunteer departments to come up with more creative ways 
to encourage volunteers, and volunteer departments who may have to hire 
a full-time driver or a full-time officer,

[[Page 9977]]

to have some of that funding available through this SAFER bill.
  It is a significant increase when the program was appropriated to the 
level of $65 million this fiscal year, to add another $25 million in 
this amendment to that program.
  Let me say just in closing, Mr. Chairman, that we are asking our fire 
and EMS departments to do more. The recent round of base closings that 
was announced on Thursday largely closes Guard and Reserve facilities. 
That is going to put increased pressure for homeland security on those 
32,000 fire departments. They are not going to be able to rely on those 
local Guard and Reserve units, because their facilities are being shut 
down, so it is all the more reason that this amendment makes sense. It 
is good policy. It is good fiscal sense. It is paid for.
  I commend all of the authors and everybody involved and especially 
again I want to thank the chairman for his vision, for his foresight, 
and for working with the ranking member to make this possible.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to join my friend, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) who has done such an extraordinary job in 
raising the consciousness of the Congress and of the American people 
with respect to the importance of our volunteer and paid fire fighting 
community and our emergency medical response teams throughout this 
country.
  I also want to join my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Sabo), and I want to join the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) 
in thanking the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for his agreement 
to move this forward and for helping us fashion this amendment.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) as well, 
the chairman of our full committee. Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
express sincere appreciation to all of those involved, and I 
particularly want to recognize my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pascrell) whose effort was extraordinary in the adoption of the 
Fire Act, which provides for the basic grant program.
  All of us were involved, but no one was more involved and more in the 
leadership, and of course his bill was the basis for the establishment 
of this. I would be remiss if I did not also reiterate how important 
the Fire Service Caucus has been and Bill Webb, who is the Executive 
Director of the foundation, and their focus on the issues that confront 
us.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides much needed increases to both 
the Fire Grant and SAFER programs, and moves us closer to fulfilling 
our obligations to ensure that our Nation's firefighters have at their 
disposal every resource possible to not only guarantee their own 
safety, but also to allow them to better serve each of our communities.
  The $25 million we add to each of these accounts brings the funding 
in the bill to $650 million, $575 million for the Fire Grant program, 
and $75 million for SAFER. The SAFER program deals with personnel, the 
Fire Grant program is a broader application of moneys dealing both with 
equipment, safety equipment, training and other matters.
  This is $150 million above the level requested by the President and 
is a reflection of Congress' commitment to ensuring that our fire 
departments are properly staffed, trained and equipped. But these 
amounts are still, Mr. Chairman, well below the authorized levels and 
far from meeting the needs of the fire service.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) pointed out the fact 
that the Base Closure Commission or the Pentagon has recommended to the 
commission the closure of many Guard and Reserve units around the 
country, and while first responders are critically important now they 
will be even more so if this action is taken.
  The Fire Grant program was established by Congress in 2000, as I said 
through the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and so many others, to 
meet the basic equipment, training and fire fighting safety 
requirements of America's fire service, and to bring all fire 
departments to a baseline of readiness to respond to all hazards.
  The Fire Grant program has been a tremendous success, providing more 
than $3 billion for the infrared cameras, HAZMAT detection devices, 
modern breathing apparatuses, improved training and physical fitness 
programs, new turn-out gear, fire trucks and interoperable 
communications systems, to name but a few of the items that have been 
provided for by the Fire Act.
  The simple fact is that the equipment and training provided by these 
grants have saved the lives of firefighters and average citizens in 
communities across America, and I am proud to play a role in this 
program.
  The SAFER Program authorized 2 years ago and funded for the first 
time last year is a vital compliment to the Fire Grant program, because 
insufficient staffing, defined by National Fire Protection Association 
as fewer than four firefighters per apparatus, is a very real problem 
for far too many of the Nation's career and volunteer fire departments.
  Not only does that understaffing put at risk the firefighters but, as 
I said, it puts at risk those whom the firefighters would save, whether 
in a very serious automobile accident, in a fire, earthquake or other 
natural disaster.
  Responding with fewer than four firefighters per apparatus prevents 
the first responder unit from complying with OSHA's two-in/two-out 
standard for safe fire-ground operations and adds unnecessary risk to 
the already dangerous job of fire suppression.
  Mr. Chairman, the NFPA estimates that an additional 75,000 
firefighters are required across the country and the additional funding 
we provide today will move us a little closer to achieving that goal.
  Mr. Chairman, I am in strong support of this legislation. I thank the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), I thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell) and all of those who have been involved in supporting these 
two vital programs.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first I would like to commend the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), for all of the hard work that they have done in 
bringing this bill to the floor.
  Homeland security is a new discipline for this body, and in a 
relatively short amount of time the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) have provided 
expertise in the field.
  I want to publicly acknowledge the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Weldon) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for the leadership 
they have displayed, that leadership in enhancing our Nation's 
security.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is another example of their work to 
increase our emergency preparedness and response capabilities, and I 
ask all Members to support it. The challenges of our changed world 
require us to ask more and more of America's firefighters. Yet, we all 
know that many of their needs remain unmet. How can we expect our men 
and women on the front lines to be a real force in the war on terror if 
we do not deal with their most basic needs?
  Like the fact that over 10,000 fire engines are at least 30 years 
old, or that 27,000 fire stations in the country have no backup power, 
or that two-fifths of all departments lack Internet access, or the fact 
that the majority of portable radios firefighters use are not water 
resistant; the list could go on.
  But probably the biggest issue facing the fire service is a lack of 
manpower. Currently two-thirds of all fire departments, Mr. Chairman, 
two-thirds throughout America operate with inadequate staffing. And in 
communities of at least 50,000 people, 38 percent of the firefighters 
are regularly part of a response that is not sufficient to safely

[[Page 9978]]

respond to a structure fire because of a lack of staffing. This is 
unconscionable.
  This amendment helps to tackle those problems. It does provide the 
dollars, as has been pointed out on this floor. It goes without saying 
that both of these programs, the Fire Grant program, and the SAFER 
program are of critical importance to our Nation's safety. Fire grants 
provide funding directly to local fire departments.
  In fact, we debated within committee whether or not the Homeland 
Security Act should provide direct aid to municipalities rather than 
going through the States, and I think we ought to revisit that subject 
again and again because of the success of the Fire Act.
  And the SAFER Act, which we were able to fund for the first time last 
year, provides annual grants for the purpose of hiring, recruiting and 
retaining career and volunteer firefighters. Congress has made great 
strides, but still we need more. We need more. There is more to do.
  Across this great country firefighters and fire departments 
desperately require more folks on the front lines, more personnel, 
functioning communications, radios and protective gear. There is a 
reason for the Fire Grant program, that it had 20,300 applications 
containing close to $3 billion in requested assistance from departments 
across the country just in this one year.
  These are basic needs we are talking about, and at the time the local 
jurisdictions are facing tough budget decisions in departments, you 
know, what are the state of our municipalities? All across this country 
they are laying off firefighters. This amendment could not come at a 
better time.
  So I implore, we listen to the chairman and the ranking member, and 
we do as we think we should do and pass this amendment. I want to thank 
both of them for bringing to it the floor.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to add my word of support for the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo's) amendment and commend him for offering it, and 
also thank the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), for his cooperation in working out this 
accommodation.
  Several steps have led us to this point. The President's budget was 
sorely deficient in the area of first responder funding. The President 
proposed to cut the State Homeland Security block grants by 25 percent. 
He proposed to cut the Department of Homeland Security firefighter 
grants by 30 percent. He proposed to eliminate funding for the SAFER 
program.
  And then when you look at the Department of Justice, at the programs 
that our law enforcement agencies depend on, the President proposed 
even more massive cuts, a 95 percent cut in the COPS program and a 98 
percent cut in the Justice Assistance grants.
  We will, of course, not be able to deal with all of that here today. 
We will hope that our colleagues on the subcommittee appropriating for 
the Justice Department will attend to this and repair some of this 
damage.
  But today we can deal with the Homeland Security portion of the 
President's budget. Our subcommittee already has made some improvements 
in the bill brought to the floor today. The first responder funding was 
brought to a 10 percent cut overall, which in terms of the President's 
budget was a gain. State and local block grants in the bill before us 
would be cut 11 percent, fire grants by 15 percent, the SAFER program 
by 23 percent.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo's) amendment takes that 
progression further, and I commend him for it, because it is money that 
our communities really need. For fire grant funding, half of the 
committee's cut from the current fiscal year's level would be restored.
  SAFER funding would actually be increased $10 million from the 
current fiscal year. State block grant funding would be increased but 
it would still fall $400 million short of the current year.
  So we are not talking still about generous funding, funding that is 
anywhere near as generous as it should be, but we are talking about an 
improvement, and I hope that colleagues on both sides of the aisle will 
readily agree to this amendment to the committee bill.
  Mr. Chairman, all of us, I suspect, have visited and talked with 
first responders in our districts. I hope and expect that we have 
thanked them for what they do, because they serve our communities every 
day. It is important, though, not just to stop with the lip service. It 
is important to understand that what we are talking about with fire and 
law enforcement and other first responders is an essential governmental 
service in which the Federal Government is a crucial partner.

                              {time}  1415

  Sometimes that partnership has been in danger of faltering. We have 
got to make certain that that does not happen. So we need to do more 
than say thank you. We need to do more than talk about hometown heroes.
  We need to put our money where our rhetoric is. This bill is not all 
that it should be, but with this amendment I believe we will go some 
distance toward extending to these first responders the kind of support 
they need. After all, they are being asked to do some new and demanding 
things in this post-9/11 world. They need some new equipment. They need 
new communication capacity. They need some new personnel and training.
  So we are preparing to extend that assistance, without forgetting 
that these first responders have been on the frontlines all along.
  Traditional disasters, traditional emergencies have not gone away. In 
fact, the need for a conventional capacity is as strong or stronger 
than it ever was.
  So let us resolve that we are not merely going to pay lip service to 
these people on the frontline who defend our communities every day. Let 
us resolve to strengthen the Federal partnership and provide the 
Federal support that they need and deserve.
  Support the Sabo amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  I opposed a similar amendment at the full committee level, but that 
was due largely to the use of IAIP funds to offset this amount. That 
would have stopped all construction and renovation of that growing 
directorate.
  We have been working with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), 
the ranking member, on this particular matter. We found a more suitable 
offset. We have reduced other first responder grant programs in this 
bill because of poor guidance and large unspent balances. However, 
these grants do go directly to the fire departments. There is no choke 
point issue involved with these funds, and so I enthusiastically 
support the amendment on the floor and urge its passage.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, let me just simply thank the chairman for his 
support of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Homeland Security, for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I want to commend the gentleman for his efforts to work with our 
subcommittee and the Committee on Appropriations, and I regret that the 
process of coordination did not go more smoothly.
  I should acknowledge that the gentleman has indeed only sought to 
expose to points of order provisions or conditions that are genuinely 
authorization provisions, not all provisions against which a point of 
order would

[[Page 9979]]

lie. Since the exposed provisions and conditions are, in fact, 
authorizing provisions, I want to assure the gentleman that in the 
conference negotiations on such provisions, I will follow the will of 
the authorizing committee in advancing the House position; and the 
conference report will, to the greatest extent possible, follow the 
will of the authorizing committee.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, who has been a true 
leader on homeland security, for his hard work on this bill and his 
efforts to reach full agreement with the authorizing committee. I 
regret the fact that rescheduling this bill to earlier in the week 
deprived us of the time that would have enabled us to accommodate much 
of these discussions in advance of reaching the floor. But I want to 
thank the gentleman for his efforts to reach full agreement with the 
authorizing committee.
  Based on the understanding that the conferees will follow the will of 
the authorizing committee in advancing the House position in the 
conference negotiations and, to the greatest extent possible, follow 
the will of the authorizing committee on the provisions and conditions 
which are, in fact, authorizing, I will not insist on the points of 
order exposed to objection under the rule that we just adopted today, 
and I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Menendez

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Menendez:
       Page 3, line 15, insert ``(decreased by $50,000,000)'' 
     after ``$146,084,000''.
       Page 26, line 23, insert ``(increased by $50,000,000)'' 
     after ``$2,781,300,000''.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, the attacks of September 11 made each of 
us realize that terrorism had entered a whole new realm, one in which 
our Nation's assets, infrastructure, and people could be attacked by 
those meaning us harm. The district I have the honor of representing 
contains a vast number of potential targets of terror, such as the 
largest seaport on the east coast, one of the busiest airports in the 
country, an area known as the ``chemical coastway,'' four major 
chemical plants, and six tunnels and bridges that connect New Jersey to 
New York City, and if that were not enough, an area in northern New 
Jersey between Liberty Airport and Port Elizabeth commonly referred to 
by the FBI and others as the most dangerous 2 miles in America.
  The Menendez amendment seeks to address one of the most serious 
security threats facing our Nation today, and that is the threat of 
terrorist attacks on chemical plants and facilities.
  According to data from the Environmental Protection Agency, there are 
eight plants in New Jersey where a worst-case release of chemicals 
could threaten more than 1 million people per attack, and a recent 
article in the New York Times stated that a chemical plant in my 
district that possesses chlorine gas poses a potentially lethal threat 
to 12 million people who live within a 14-mile radius.
  So this is obviously a very important matter for the district and 
State that I come from, but let me make a point here that this is not 
just simply a New Jersey issue. There are 15,000 chemical plants 
nationwide, and that same EPA data that I just referenced shows that 
123 of these could pose a threat to at least 1 million people each 
time, if each one of those entities were attacked, if there were a 
release; 123 times a million, 123 million Americans.
  My amendment takes a first step by providing $50 million to State and 
local governments in order to enhance the security of those chemical 
plants. Funds might be used by State and local officials to prepare 
plants to respond to and possibly even prevent attacks on these 
facilities. This money could be used to equip and train our first 
responders who would respond to such an attack. Such funds might be 
used to provide assistance and guidance to the chemical plant officials 
to implement best management practices that either improve security or 
use less caustic chemicals, or perhaps this funding could be used to 
increase law enforcement's presence in patrols around chemical plants. 
These are just by way of description.
  According to the threat level set by the Department of Homeland 
Security, our local law enforcement agencies are then often asked to 
provide additional security for these plants. I have heard from several 
mayors and police chiefs about the serious financial burden those 
additional patrols are costing their cities, and over time, 
consequently, their ability to meet this challenge is really under 
siege; and I am sure this is a problem for law enforcement agencies 
across our country.
  In New Jersey, some of these plants are surrounded by residential 
communities and transportation corridors that make this issue even more 
critical for us to secure. I believe if we look at that list of the 
Environmental Protection Agency across the country we will find that is 
often the case in other States in the Nation.
  I strongly believe we must do what we can to protect our constituents 
from a clear opportunity here in which millions could be affected by 
what is otherwise a use of a facility for legitimate purposes.
  This is not a new issue or one that is brand new for us. The Hart-
Rudman report mentioned chemical plant security. Going back to that 
report, several of these plants are included on the national 
infrastructure list. So we are well aware of the problem, and we need 
to take steps to ensure security at these plants.
  I very rarely come to the floor to offer amendments, but I feel 
compelled when we know the nature of the risk and we know the nature of 
the threat to do something about it.
  This amendment is a modest first step. We do need to make these 
facilities and our constituents living near them safer and more secure, 
and I would just urge my colleagues to think about who among us would 
be content with the counsels of patience and delay if they were living 
within the radius of one of these chemical plants that could literally 
cause the deaths of millions of people and we did absolutely nothing to 
protect them.
  In that context, I urge my colleagues to support the Menendez 
amendment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise in support of the Menendez amendment, and I want to mention to 
the gentleman that I know that he is also familiar with this issue, 
being the ranking member on the subcommittee on the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce that has jurisdiction over chemical security; and I would 
hope that as time goes on that we could in our committee, in the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and specifically in the gentleman's 
subcommittee, have a hearing and address this issue in a more 
comprehensive way because I do think it needs to be addressed.
  In the meantime, I agree with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez), my colleague, that we should provide additional funding in 
this appropriations bill to have our State and local responders try to 
address this issue in a significant way or at least provide some 
funding so that they could.
  As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) mentioned, we have a 
number of facilities in our own State of New Jersey where we know that 
under this EPA report over 1 million people at each of those facilities 
could be negatively impacted if there was a terrorist attack on a 
chemical facility. He mentioned at least eight.
  In fact, in a hearing just last week in the United States Senate, Mr. 
Robert Falkenroth, who was a former Bush official with the Homeland 
Security Department, actually said before the United States Senate that 
his biggest fear in terms of another terrorist attack would be an 
attack on a chemical facility. He knows and we know and the Department 
of Homeland Security knows that this is the one area in the aftermath 
of 9/11 that has not been addressed.
  We have talked about attacking a nuclear plant. We have talked about 
attacks on port facilities. We have talked

[[Page 9980]]

about attacks at airports. In every case, there has been an effort by 
this body to address a terrorist attack and to deal with security 
issues at those various facilities, but not so in the case of chemical 
plants. For whatever reason, we have said to the industry that you are 
on your own; you voluntarily set your own standards. We have not taken 
action in the House of Representatives or in the Senate to address the 
issue, and I think that is a shame.
  There have been various occasions in the past, most notably in the 
case of Bhopal, many of my colleagues just remember we just had the 
20th anniversary of the Bhopal disaster. In the case there, Union 
Carbide owned a plant. It was not a terrorist attack, but the result 
there was over 20,000 people killed. That was not because of a 
terrorist attack. That was because of neglect or negligence on the part 
of Union Carbide. It had nothing to do with a terrorist attack, but the 
devastation at Bhopal, not the 20,000 that were killed but the hundreds 
of thousands in the aftermath of that crisis 20 years later, are still 
suffering, have not received medical attention, the impact on their 
children and the disorders that they are now seeing with their 
children, I mean, this is the type of thing that needs to be addressed, 
and it is not being addressed here.
  I think my understanding is that the gentleman from New Jersey's (Mr. 
Menendez) amendment would shift $50 million to State and local programs 
to try to get them to address this issue.

                              {time}  1430

  Now, I think we need a comprehensive program. Senator Corzine and 
myself have introduced the Chemical Security Act, myself here in the 
House, he in the Senate, which basically establishes a nationwide 
program that would require that chemical plants provide for security. 
But absent that, because we have not had that, we have not even had a 
hearing on it in this House, we need our local responders and our State 
responders, the way my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez), has described, to have some money so they can go out and do 
some things to try to shore up this problem and deal with this problem.
  So I just want to say again that this is something we should do. It 
has been neglected here in the House. Hopefully, we will pass the 
Menendez amendment. Hopefully, we will have a hearing in our 
subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, and we can begin the process with this 
amendment of addressing this very important issue not only for the 
State of New Jersey but for the Nation as a whole.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I fully sympathize with the concerns the gentleman from 
New Jersey has brought up, and the other gentleman has, about the issue 
of safety at chemical plants. We have 77,000 of them in the country and 
17,000 of those deal with hazardous materials. So it is a big exposure 
that we have.
  However, I have to respectfully urge the defeat of this amendment for 
two or three reasons. One, we have included $50 million in the bill 
just for critical infrastructure protection, including chemical plants, 
already. I know the gentleman will be pleased to hear that we do have 
that amount of money in there: the amount he is requesting is already 
in the bill.
  Number two, we put in some very strong report language directing the 
Department to continue and complete the vulnerability assessments of 
all critical chemical facilities in the country. We have already 
reduced the State and Urban Area grant programs in this bill because of 
poor guidance, but mainly because they have still got $6.8 billion that 
we have appropriated since 2002 in the pipeline. They have only spent 
30 percent of all we have appropriated. They have $6.8 billion left in 
the Office of Domestic Policy, which makes these grants. So there is 
plenty of money there. There is no point of putting more, until they 
draw down on what they already have.
  Number three, I have a problem with where the gentleman is taking the 
money from. We have already hit the Under Secretary for Management's 
Office big time in this bill already. We have taken $26 million today, 
and this is the place where the important work of the Department needs 
to take place. If you take this $50 million from the Under Secretary of 
Management, it could only come from one place without impacting 
personnel; that is to say, lay off people, and that is the Human 
Resource System of the Department.
  A $50 million reduction in that system would halt implementation of 
that human resource system program in its tracks. We would be unable to 
fund the ``pay pool,'' which would prevent the initial conversion of 
employees from the General Schedule to the new market-based pay bands 
and the pay-for-performance programs.
  We would also be unable to provide competent program management and 
evaluation. It would delay the establishment of the Department's Labor 
Relations Board, as required by the final regulations. We would not be 
able to access knowledgeable outside experts that understand industry 
best practices in compensation design sets.
  We would be unable to fund the training of managers, supervisors, and 
employees, and that lack of training would also have profound impacts 
on the credibility of the program with the employee base and their 
representatives.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose the amendment, sympathizing 
with the gentleman's sentiments. But I think we have plenty of money 
there now, and I do not want to see us hurt the human resource system 
that is being put in place even as we speak. So I urge the defeat of 
the amendment.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason I move to strike the last word rather than 
speaking directly to the amendment is because I have mixed emotions. I 
think the problem the gentleman from New Jersey presents to us is one 
of the most important and most profound ones we face in the whole 
question of homeland security.
  His amendment bothers me for two reasons: One, I think there are real 
problems where the money is coming from; and, secondly, I am concerned 
that we are transferring this problem from the Federal Government to 
the State governments. Because dealing with chemical security and the 
security of chemical plants is truly a national problem and not one 
that should be the ultimate problem of State governments.
  The Department, in my judgment, has been incredibly slow in dealing 
with the problem. The Congress has been slow in dealing with the 
problem. A year ago we provided $3 million to the Department for a 
study on whether they should require vulnerability assessments and 
security plans from the chemical plants. The study has not occurred. We 
do have language in this bill that urges them to do more in the next 
year. I hope they listen to that more than what they did to the 
provision of $3 million last year.
  But I would suggest to my friend from New Jersey that the format that 
we should be following is really what we did in the Maritime 
Transportation Security Act as it relates to ports. What we required in 
that bill was for ports to do vulnerability assessments and produce 
security plans themselves, and that is what the major chemical plants 
in this country should be doing. We should not be assessing them, they 
should be developing their own vulnerability assessments and security 
plans. And then, as in the Maritime Security Act, where the Coast Guard 
assesses the plans, that is what we should be doing with chemical 
plants.
  The bulk of the responsibility for implementing those security plans 
should be with the chemical companies, not with the State. It should 
not be with the Federal Government, in my judgment, let alone with the 
States. And I am concerned that we are putting up the assumption that 
this is now becoming a responsibility we are delegating from the 
Federal Government to the States.
  So the gentleman is absolutely right. This is one of the biggest 
vulnerabil-


[[Page 9981]]

ities that we have. The Department has not been paying attention to it. 
The Congress has not been willing to deal with the issue of whether 
this is something we want simply the Federal Government to do or 
whether we should be requiring the chemical plants, at least the major 
ones, to have the vulnerability assessments and the security plans and 
then they submit them to the Department for their evaluation. From 
there, we can move as to how you remedy the security plans and how you 
make judgment on the funding you need for local people who might have 
to respond to an emergency.
  So I have mixed emotions about this amendment. I have problems with 
their premise with the offset and the basic delegation to the States, 
but the amendment raises, I think, one of the most crucial problems we 
face in homeland security. And to the other gentleman from New Jersey, 
who talked about a comprehensive bill he was introducing, I think that 
is the direction we should be going.
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding to me, and I want to thank both the chairman and the ranking 
member on their thoughtful observations about this issue.
  I understand the constraints under which they are working. I am not 
unmindful of that, which is why I rarely come to the floor on 
amendments because I understand that all of us could devise a different 
bill but you are given the responsibility collectively for us. But I 
would just need to make some comments in observation of what has been 
said.
  Number one is the government's responsibility to protect its own 
people is not delegable to anyone, the private sector or any other 
entity outside of the government itself. We might want to place 
responsibilities, and I agree that there are responsibilities that 
should be placed upon certain legitimate corporate responsibilities, 
that should be placed upon people who operate in a society and who have 
a hazardous element to their operation and need to operate in a way and 
to protect their facilities in such a way that protects the greater 
good, but ultimately, ultimately the defense of the people is not 
delegable to any other entity.
  The second point is that when I hear the chairman talk about the $50 
million placed in critical infrastructure, I do appreciate that, but 
that is all critical infrastructure. That is nuclear power plants, that 
is electric grids, that is everything you can think of that we would 
develop under the rubric of critical infrastructure. And in that 
context, while understanding the limitations, it is a relatively small 
amount when you think about protecting all of the Nation's critical 
infrastructure.
  I do not know, as has been pointed out by law enforcement, as has 
been pointed out by the Environmental Protection Agency, that this 
critical infrastructure that we talk about in terms of chemical plants 
does not come to a higher level, because ultimately the potential 
attack and emissions and the plumes that come from it can kill 
literally millions and millions of people. And that, in other respects, 
I think heightens it among the critical infrastructure that exists.
  I understand that people are concerned about the management office, 
although I will note that that is where we just took money for another 
critical issue. But if you ask the American people between management 
and protecting the chemical coastways that are along and throughout the 
landscape of this country, I think they will tell you I would like to 
see the chemical coastways protected.
  Even if we ultimately ask the private sector, those who operate these 
chemical plants, to have greater responsibilities, which I concur with, 
at the end of the day it will be police and firefighters who will 
respond to an attack. At the end of the day it will be a State 
policeman who will have to respond. These routes are public in nature. 
If you run along the New Jersey Turnpike, you can easily have access to 
that New York Times article and that chlorine plant.
  So from a public road, an entity which the private sector would have 
no responsibility for, an attack could be levied. So, therefore, there 
are going to be resources necessary for the governmental entities, even 
with a heightened corporate responsibility, to perform. And that is my 
concern.
  We have had Hart-Rudman talk about chemical plants, we have talked 
about it in the 9/11 Commission Report, and yet we are nowhere nearer 
to creating any private responsibility nor are we responding in a 
public context. Hence, that is my concern, and that is why I offer the 
amendment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate, or support again what my 
colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), said. And I 
appreciate the comments from our ranking member, but the problem is 
that the House has not been willing to take up, even in our 
subcommittee, this issue. In other words, it would be great if we had 
the opportunity to bring up a bill, I have mentioned the Chemical 
Security Act, that would actually mandate that companies do in fact 
come up with their own assessment plans to respond in the event of a 
terrorist attack. I agree that would be a great thing. But, again, we 
are not moving in that direction. We have not even had a hearing in our 
subcommittee on this issue.
  Absent that, what we need is some money going back to the States. 
Because under the Menendez amendment, if money was going back to the 
States specifically for a chemical security response, then a State like 
our own of New Jersey would be able to take that funding and basically 
do some of the things that we would like the Federal Government to do 
that they are not doing.
  So this would accomplish that goal at least for those States that 
want to take the initiative; that they would have some money for their 
State and local programs to make the chemical companies respond and do 
something about this threat. The problem now, as our ranking member 
said, this is not happening. It is strictly left up to the voluntary 
efforts of the chemical plants, and that is not a good response.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  The CHAIRMAN. The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez) will be postponed.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  I rise in strong support of this important bill and for the purpose 
of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Homeland Security.
  Since the tragic events of 9/11 and the subsequent creation of the 
Department of Homeland Security, there has been a dramatic increase in 
the number of undocumented aliens apprehended at our borders. And last 
year alone, approximately 1.2 million people were apprehended at our 
southwest border. It is conservatively estimated by border patrol that 
three undocumented aliens get past our borders for every one that is 
caught. It is estimated also that the number of non-Mexican illegal 
immigrants, also known as OTMs, entering our country has increased 
tremendously in some border patrol sectors by 300 percent this year.
  This group, often not on any watch lists and usually lacking 
legitimate documentation, should cause us all great concern. Despite 
the risk these

[[Page 9982]]

persons present, the problem has grown because courts will not impose 
detection and because the Department of Homeland Security lacks 
adequate detention space.
  As a former counterterrorism prosecutor in the Justice Department 
whose jurisdiction included the Mexican border, I know firsthand the 
threat this poses to our national security. When the border patrol 
catches individuals who do not fall in the category of mandatory 
detainees, they often have no choice but to release them on their own 
recognizance with a notice to appear at an immigration hearing, only to 
disappear later. It is commonly derided by law enforcement as the 
``catch-and-release program.'' This is exactly how Ramzi Yousef, the al 
Qaeda perpetrator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings entered this 
country.
  This is why I, along with the support of 44 of my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, signed a letter to the Committee on Appropriations 
asking for full funding of the 2000 border patrol, 800 interior 
investigators and most importantly, 8,000 detention beds recommended by 
the 9/11 Commission and authorized by the Intelligence Reform Act.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas is 
absolutely correct. There is a definite problem with our system that we 
hope to correct.
  The bill before us provides $690 million, $90 million more than DHS 
asked, for an additional 1,920 detention bed spaces; and that combined 
with what we provided in the supplemental appropriations bill last week 
will add a total of 3,870 new beds over the current level. In addition, 
the bill provides $43 million for alternatives to detention, tripling 
last year's level and $10 million more than DHS requested. That will go 
further to attack the problem of the so-called OTMs who abuse our 
immigration policies and leave a gaping hole in the integrity of the 
borders.
  I am convinced that the so-called catch-and-release practice signals 
that our current system is in need of significant reform. This bill is 
intended to make an effort in that respect.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. The Chairman has worked hard to produce a bill 
that will fund additional border security enforcement and detention 
space within budgetary limitations and supports expanding the use of 
alternatives to detention as a way of compensating for the shortage of 
bed space and smart solutions to the bigger problem of coping with the 
numbers of illegal aliens crossing into our country.
  I will continue to work with the chairman and the Committee on the 
Budget to ensure that in the future detention beds authorized by 
Congress are fully funded.
  I thank the chairman, and I commend the gentleman for taking the time 
to hear the concerns of our border communities and for responding so 
readily. All of the items provided for in this bill will help keep 
criminals and terrorists from crossing into the United States and, when 
they do, ensure that they are detained and removed from our country.
  In the post-9/11 world, this is not just an issue related to 
immigration; it is one of national security.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Chairman Rogers) of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security for entering 
into this colloquy regarding a very important issue.
  As was the case last year, the administration's budget for fiscal 
year 2006 proposes to transfer funding for the Coast Guard's research 
and development program to the Department of Homeland Security Science 
and Technology Directorate. The Department has justified this proposal 
by suggesting that such a transfer would reduce duplicative programs 
within the Department and would increase cooperation between agencies. 
Now, if the Coast Guard R&D program consisted purely of research 
related to homeland security, I might be able to understand such a 
transfer. However, Coast Guard R&D supports research and investigations 
into methods and procedures to improve the service's ability to carry 
out many of its traditional missions.
  At this time, I would ask the chairman if it is his understanding 
that the Coast Guard's research, development, test and evaluation 
program will continue to sponsor research to support the service's 
traditional missions.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMMONS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, yes, I agree that the program 
should focus on both the traditional and homeland security missions of 
the Coast Guard.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his willingness 
to address this important issue.
  When the Coast Guard was transferred to the Department of Homeland 
Security, this Congress ensured that the service's unique multi-mission 
character would be retained. We must maintain the Coast Guard's ability 
to carry out its many missions, including search and rescue, illegal 
drug and migrant interdiction, fisheries law enforcement, and 
protecting the maritime security.
  Tomorrow, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will 
mark up H.R. 889, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 
2005, which authorizes funding for the Coast Guard's R&D program within 
the Coast Guard budget.
  So I ask the chairman if he will work with me and my colleagues to 
find a solution to ensure that the Coast Guard retains control over the 
direction of this funding.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield, I recognize the gentleman's concerns. We will work with him 
on this subject if the authorization bill retains R&D funding within 
the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2006.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his willingness 
to work with me on this matter. I am satisfied we will be able to work 
this out.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record statements by the chairman of 
the Committee on Transportation and the Infrastructure, the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young); and the chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
Coast Guard, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), in support 
of this issue.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Simmons-LoBiondo amendment, and I thank my friend from Connecticut for 
bringing this important amendment to the floor.
  This amendment will maintain the integrity of the Coast Guard as a 
distinct entity within the Department of Homeland Security.
  Section 888 of the Homeland Security Act states that the Coast Guard 
shall be maintained intact with all of the Service's authorities, 
functions, and capabilities.
  The Coast Guard's research and development program has in the past 
concentrated on the development of strategies and resources aimed to 
improve the Service's ability to perform all of its traditional and 
homeland security missions.
  The Coast Guard's traditional missions include search and rescue, 
drug and migrant interdiction, marine environmental protection, ice 
operations and aids to navigation.
  It is imperative that we maintain the Coast Guard's ability to 
perform these important traditional missions in addition to the 
Service's homeland security mission.
  Just this year, we have seen the importance of the Coast Guard's oil 
spill response and prevention program.
  I am extremely concerned that the transfer of research and 
development funds to the Department will forever change the Coast 
Guard's abilities to balance its resources and personnel to carry out 
its many and varied missions.
  We must protect the multi-mission nature of the Coast Guard.
  We should provide funding for Coast Guard research, development, test 
and evaluation directly to the Service in the same manner that we 
provide all other Coast Guard funds.
  This is what the law demands and this is the right thing to do.
  I urge my fellow members to support the Simmons-LoBiondo amendment.

[[Page 9983]]


  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Connecticut.
  As my colleague explained, this amendment will restore the Coast 
Guard's research and development funding to the Service's budget. The 
removal of this funding from the Coast Guard's direct control will 
constrict the Service's ability to direct funding to research programs 
to support both the Coast Guard's traditional and homeland security 
missions.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the second year that the Administration has 
proposed to transfer this funding to the Department of Homeland 
Security's Science and Technology Directorate. The Administration has 
reasoned that the consolidation of research programs within the 
Department will reduce redundancies and maximize resources available 
for the entire Department. However, this reasoning does not take into 
account the strong focus of the Coast Guard's research program to 
improve the Service's capabilities to carry out its traditional 
missions of search and rescue, providing aids to navigation, oil spill 
response and prevention, and illegal drug and migrant interdiction.
  Last year, the Coast Guard identified several key areas of 
concentration for its research and development programs that focused on 
enhancement to the Coast Guard's maritime safety, maritime mobility, 
marine environmental protection, and maritime domain awareness 
programs. I cannot help but be very skeptical that the Coast Guard's 
research and development program will continue to support such a broad 
scope of investigations under a DHS program that is wholly devoted to 
improving homeland security.
  The Coast Guard has always been and has continued to be a unique, 
multi-mission Service within the Federal government. As such, Congress 
required the Coast Guard to remain an independent entity within the 
Department of Homeland Security with complete control over all of the 
Service's functions, authorities, and assets. Any changes to the Coast 
Guard's research and development program will restrict the Service's 
ability to improve methods to protect the safety and security of lives 
and vessels in U.S. waters and on the high seas.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to maintain the 
integrity of the Coast Guard by restoring funding for the Service's 
research and development program. I thank the gentleman from 
Connecticut again for bringing forth this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I applaud the great work the chairman and the ranking 
member are doing on this bill, but also wish to express my deep 
concerns and ask for a colloquy with the chairman.
  We are not paying enough attention to the northern border of the 
United States. Unless they represent the border States like Minnesota, 
some Members may not realize that the U.S.-Canada border is over 4,000 
miles long and consists of over 430 official and unofficial ports of 
entry. However, even with recent staffing moves, moves that I commend, 
the Customs and Border Patrol has only 1,000 agents along the northern 
border. That compares to over 10,000 agents on the border which is half 
the length of the U.S.-Canada border.
  This staffing shortage along the northern border poses a real 
security threat. In fact, due to the shortage, the Department of 
Homeland Security has looked for new ways to monitor the Canadian 
border, such as a new proposed requirement for passports to get back 
and forth across the border. Unfortunately, anyone who has spent time 
up north knows this will not accomplish much to deter or prevent 
illegal activities or to secure the border.
  Simply put, the Canadian border is just too vast for such an approach 
to work with many unmanned check points in remote areas. I know from 
personal stories that at some of these unmanned crossings, people have 
to wait an hour or more before a border patrol agent can come to lift 
up the gate so they can cross.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not expect al Qaeda and narcotics traffickers to 
wait an hour for the border patrol to show up at the check point. We 
have already recognized in numerous laws that high-tech border 
surveillance must be integrated into the manpower and resources we have 
up there to get real control over our borders.
  In the prior year's Defense Authorization Act, in the prior year's 
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, and in this year's Intelligence 
Reform Act, Congress recognized the need to develop high-tech border 
surveillance. However, what little progress the Department of Homeland 
Security has made on this front has been entirely confined to the 
southern border even with the $10 million appropriated in this bill 
last year. Mr. Chairman, this is unacceptable. We simply are not paying 
enough attention to the northern border.
  Some think the southern border is more dangerous, but I remind my 
colleagues that terrorists will attack us through the path of least 
resistance. I believe it is critical that the funds allocated to the 
Customs and Border Patrol accounts used to pay much-needed research and 
survey technology, including unmanned aerial vehicles, be not solely 
devoted to the southern border but also to the northern border to 
stretch the resources our Custom and Border Patrol manpower has.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that the gentleman from Kentucky work with me to 
ensure that there is sufficient resources in the bill and in the 
conference report to address these issues and that it be applied not 
just to the southern border but to the northern border as well.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
bringing up this important subject. The gentleman makes an extremely 
important point, and that is we have two borders, the southwest and the 
Canadian border.
  Over the years, I have to agree, we have neglected the northern 
border. So I join the gentleman in his sentiments that we find the 
monies, or be sure that the monies we have appropriated are spent on 
both borders. I thank the gentleman for bringing up that very important 
point.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
that commitment and look forward to working with him on this through 
the conference report.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, in the supplemental bill that we just passed, 
there was $36 million that had been appropriated for the northern 
border which the Department was not spending, and with the cooperation 
of the chairman, we inserted specific language telling the Department 
to spend the $36 million on the northern border.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
for his commitment on this issue and look forward to working on this 
supplemental and other issues to ensure that the northern border 
remains secure.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. King of Iowa) assumed the Chair.

                          ____________________