[Pages H7959-H7972]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 5441, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution

[[Page H7960]]

1054, I call up the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 5441)
making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1054, the
conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the
House of today.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today for the consideration of
the fiscal 2007 conference agreement for the Department of Homeland
Security.
Mr. Speaker, I bring good news for all Americans who want to see our
borders are secure from those who are crashing those borders. We are
ending the age-old catch-and-release program that has allowed millions
of illegal aliens to flood our country. You will hear more about that
during this debate today, I hope.
The recent anniversaries of the 9/11 attacks and the 2005 hurricane
disasters keep us focused on why we are here today: to protect our
citizens and our homeland from any threat to our society and our
economy, be it terrorism or natural catastrophe. The funding in this
conference agreement ensures the Department of Homeland Security can
address the perils that face our communities and reduce our
vulnerability to them.
The fiscal 2007 conference agreement provides a total of $34.8
billion for the Department, including an additional $1.8 billion in
emergency funds devoted to border security. The total provided is $2.3
billion above the current year and $2.7 billion above what the
President asked us for, when you exclude disaster relief funding for
Katrina.
This includes more than $21.3 billion for border security and
immigration enforcement; $4.34 billion for port, container, and cargo
security; $3.4 billion for first responders across the country; $6.4
billion for transportation security; $1.4 billion for research,
development, and deployment of innovative technologies; and $1.8
billion to protect national and critical infrastructure.
Five years ago our Nation suffered its most devastating terrorist
attack. Since that tragic day, a vigorous national debate over our
vulnerabilities, fueled by historic levels of illegal immigration, has
resulted in one very clear conclusion: we must do all we can to gain
control over our borders and our coastlines to preserve the sovereignty
and integrity of our immigration and preserve the strength of our
economy.
This conference agreement will provide the resources and direction to
build upon the Department's progress and transform our approach to
border security from a fragmented, uncoordinated effort into a truly
integrated system capable of producing results.
This includes a staggering $1.2 billion to secure the borders with a
system of fencing, a system of infrastructure, a system of technology,
1,500 new Border Patrol agents, 6,700 new additional detention bed
space for those caught, 650 additional CBP officers, and over $1.7
billion for the procurement of aircraft and vessels to patrol those
borders. This massive infusion of moneys will accelerate the
Department's goal of obtaining operational control of these borders in
less than 5 years, a goal that has become an unquestioned necessity
since 9/11.
I want to emphasize that with all these resources we are pouring into
this effort will come accountability. We are requiring bi-monthly
status reports on the Department's performance and their expenditure of
funds on border security. We want to know what is happening every 2
weeks. We are withholding $950 million until the Department provides a
detailed border security expenditure plan. They won't get the money
until we see the plan. I believe in planning your work and working your
plan.
And we are requiring, in bill language, strategic plans for the
Secure Border Initiative and port and cargo security. We are absolutely
committed to holding the Department accountable and providing the
American people with the results that they are demanding of us.
In addition to border security and immigration enforcement, the
conference report balances resources across other critical areas of
homeland security including:
One, almost $900 million to prevent weapons of mass destruction from
entering the country. These funds will enable DHS to speed the
deployment of radiation detectors and significantly enhance screening
for vehicles and cargo.
Two, $2.5 billion to fund and reform FEMA. The funding and direction
contained in the conference agreement will ensure that we do not repeat
the errors of 2005, by putting in place the planning, assessment,
training, logistics, and communications to enable DHS to prepare for
and respond to acts of terrorism and natural disasters.
Three, $6.4 billion for transportation security. The recent
disruption of the terrorist plot in London reminds us that
transportation security remains a top priority. This report includes
critical resources for new cutting-edge technologies to strengthen
protection from all modes of travel as well as to increase the
capabilities of the Federal air marshals. While we are much safer than
5 years ago, we must sustain that effort to anticipate and defeat
threats to our transportation system.
In addition to these significant levels of funding, the conference
agreement includes several legislative provisions that will fortify our
homeland security, including legislation to criminalize for the first
time the construction or financing of a tunnel across or under the U.S.
border; two, legislation that significantly strengthens and improves
FEMA, a whole new authorizing law; and, thirdly, breakthrough
legislation requiring the Department of Homeland Security to regulate
security at chemical facilities across the land.
Our homeland security needs are both numerous and they are complex,
but I believe this conference report will make a major contribution
towards those needs. So I urge my colleagues to support the agreement.
Before I sit down this time, Mr. Speaker, I want to pay special
tribute to our staff on both sides of the aisle who have worked long,
hard, and laboriously over these last several months. I want to
especially thank Michelle Mrdeza, who could not be with us in these
final days because of an illness in her family which required her to be
absent. But she is retiring from this body. She has been a great
servant of the public on this committee for a number of years. Her
service has been invaluable and expert, and we will miss her terribly.
I want to thank Stephanie Gupta too and the staff of the subcommittee
and staff on both sides of the aisle for the great work that they have
done.
And, finally, I want to say a word about Marty Sabo, ranking member
of this subcommittee, who will be finishing 27 years of service in this
body and to the Nation when he leaves office in January seeking greener
pastures. This man is a personal friend of mine and all of ours, but he
is also an expert on budgetary matters and has become an expert on the
homeland security efforts of the country. A huge void will exist on the
horizon of this body when Marty Sabo leaves this body.

{time} 1500

I cannot say enough in tribute to this man. He has been a helpmate to
me and the subcommittee and the country on this bill for a number of
years now, as well as before that we served in the same capacities on
the Transportation Subcommittee; and of course, as you know, he was
chairman of the Budget Committee for a number of years sometime past.
A great public servant whose work is now soon to be finished in this
body, but I am confident that his record will stand for the ages. Very
few Members of Congress can retire from this body with a greater sense
of accomplishment of greatness than our friend, Marty Sabo. The
gentleman will be missed in this body.

TRIBUTE TO BRETT DREYER

Mr. Speaker, the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee will
soon take leave from our Congressional Fellow, Brett Dreyer,

[[Page H7961]]

who, after having served the Committee with great distinction over the
past 2 years, will assume new responsibilities as a senior Special
Agent for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Special Agent Dreyer's professional career mirrors some of the
transitions of the young Department of Homeland Security. He began his
Federal service in Newark, New Jersey as an immigration enforcement
agent with the Immigration and Naturalization Service; moved up to
become a Criminal Investigator at INS; and then transferred to the U.S.
Customs Service. On 9/11, Agent Dreyer helped secure airports as the
security situation was resolved, and was at Ground Zero in New York,
searching the rubble for remains of victims of that terrible attack.
After DHS was established he found himself an ICE Special Agent, where
he witnessed the trials and tribulations of the agency merger that was
repeated throughout the Department.
Brett came to the Subcommittee in January 2005, and at once proved
himself a key member of the professional staff. His critical judgment,
familiarity with agency matters, and expertise on Customs and
Immigration law and regulation made him integral to the operations of
the Committee during the extraordinary developments over the past 2
years, in particular the response to the 2005 hurricanes and the
intensified effort to secure our borders and strengthen administration
of immigration law. His strong understanding of organizational
dynamics, of operational issues and real-world, real-time
considerations for building a successful new department contributed
significantly to the success of this subcommittee. Brett brought to the
appropriations process the clear, thoughtful analysis and mature
judgment developed in his successful career in criminal investigation.
Throughout his service here, Brett's unqualified professionalism,
perceptiveness, great sense of humor and cool head have helped this
Subcommittee and the Congress move forward on a wide range of policy
and budgetary issues. His assistance in planning and coordinating
complicated subcommittee oversight trips were of particular benefit,
and in coordinating the many classified briefings our oversight
requires.
Special Agent Dreyer has served me, this Subcommittee, and the House
well: We are sorry to see him leave, and will miss him as a colleague
and as a friend. Each of us on the Homeland Security Subcommittee wish
Brett all the best as he resumes his ICE career, where we look forward
to seeing him accomplish great things.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to follow up on the
remarks of the gentleman from Kentucky about the gentleman from
Minnesota.
I remember when Martin Sabo first walked into this institution in
1978. He and his wife, Sylvia, epitomize more than any people I know
what are regarded as midwestern values, most especially the value of
modesty. You will never find Martin Sabo bragging much on himself. In
that sense, he is a true Norwegian. I also think that he exemplifies
the thoughtfulness and the caring for one's neighbor that people in the
Midwest have come to take as being the natural course of things.
He is probably the closest friend I have in this body. I very much
regret to see him leave. I question his judgment profoundly on that.
As the gentleman from Kentucky has said, while today the gentleman
from Minnesota deals with homeland security issues and is certainly an
expert on those, in the past he has dealt with transportation issues
most ably. As a matter of fact, there is no one in this body who has
made a greater contribution to the cause of responsible budgeting and
deficit reduction over the years than has the gentleman from Minnesota.
He chaired the Budget Committee when we took the action under President
Clinton that finally began to get the budget deficit under control.
I just want to profoundly express my appreciation to him, not just
for his accomplishments but for the way he has achieved those
accomplishments, for the way he has dealt with the needs of this body
as an institution, for the respect that he has shown for the values and
the traditions of this institution and the respect that he has shown
for persons on both sides of the aisle.
He is truly a gentleman. He is a great legislator. I hate to see him
go. I hope he is back to visit us often. I thank the gentleman
profoundly for the quality of his service.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to join the chairman
and our ranking member in paying tribute to Martin Sabo, whom I also
consider a dear friend and one of this institution's finest Members.
Martin has served here for 28 years. He was the chairman of the
Budget Committee when Congress passed the largest deficit reduction
package in its history. He served as our ranking member on
Transportation Appropriations and on Homeland Security Appropriations
ever since that subcommittee was formed.
Martin is an exemplary Member of this body in every way. He is a
skilled legislator who is more interested in achieving results than in
claiming credit. He is a gifted politician with a knack for finding
common ground. He is a man who understands and loves this institution.
He is a congenial colleague and he is a good friend, displaying
qualities of character that in the end matter above all.
So we will miss Martin Sabo. We salute him for his service to
Minnesota and to this country, service that is indeed exemplary and has
inspired and encouraged us all.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, well, I am not sure I should say anything. But thank you
to my chairman, Mr. Rogers, for his kind comments. We have been
together, I think, 6 years now, 4 years on homeland security, 2 years
on transportation.
As I said last night in front of the Rules Committee, the ultimate
compliment I can give to somebody is to call them a pro; and Hal Rogers
is a pro. It has been a pleasure to serve with him. He is on the
majority party. He has a responsibility to the President of his own
party.
At the time, he is someone who has asked many a tough question and
asked for discipline and, as he said in his opening comments, that he
expects to continue to do oversight of the operations of this agency
which has had many, many growing pains. It has not been an easy
committee to chair as we merged all of these 22 agencies into one, with
an incredible amount of chaos; and he has shown, I think, an intellect
and toughness and fairness in trying to steer this agency in the right
direction. It has been a privilege to work with Chairman Rogers.
My friend, Dave Obey, who I have known, and known him for many years
before I came to the Congress, neighbor across the border in Wisconsin,
I have served with him on Appropriations for 28 years, both a personal
friend and somebody who has an absolute passion for public policy and
for making this institution work.
It has been a real honor, Dave, to get to know you and Joan and to
work with you. You are just a great human being.
And to Dave Price who served with me on the Budget Committee, I am
often asked, why do you leave? And, you know, particularly if the
partisan nature changes and the opportunity to chair a subcommittee.
And I always say, I have no reluctance in doing that because I know the
next person in line is Dave Price, who is a person who has great skill
as a legislator and great understanding of public policy. And I think
he will do a great job, as he has done in many other roles, whatever
the role might be, as either a Chair or ranking member of the
subcommittee in 2 years. So it is an honor to have your kind words
today.
And to the staff, to all of the majority staff, Michelle, who is not
here because of a family crisis and who is leaving the House and has
done an incredible job, but all of the majority staff have been great
to work with.
I suppose a special word to Stephanie. She followed us from
Transportation to Homeland Security. So I have had an opportunity to
work with her in both roles.
To our own personal staff on this committee, to Chris, who has worked
with us, and Bev Pheto, who sits right here next to me, who has worked
with us, me personally on this committee, over the last 6 years, 2
years in Transportation, 4 years in Homeland Security, who I am
constantly amazed at her knowledge and her energy. She has

[[Page H7962]]

to compete with all of you on the majority side and has remarkable
knowledge and ability. It utterly amazes me. And she is a remarkable
person.
Marjorie Duske from my staff, who originally was an intern in our
office and has now been in our office for many years working with me on
Homeland Security, has worked transportation, defense, housing, you
name it, from simple issues to the most complicated of issues, just
been an incredible person, dedicated to public policy and doing what is
right, but, at the same time, tough, hard-nosed to work with agencies
to make sure that the Government does what it is supposed to do.
Just incredible people who make this institution work. I simply say
thank you.
A couple of words about the bill, if I might. It is a good bill, and
it does lots of good things. It has got additional funding.
Some of the other issues we worked on, we have had a concern over how
sensitive security information is handled by the Department. There are
provisions here for handling that information, which I think is good. I
think the changes made to FEMA strengthens the role of FEMA.
I was one, along with Mr. Obey, who a year ago thought we were making
a mistake as we created a new Department or agency on preparedness and
how it was structured. This basically goes back to strengthening the
role of FEMA within the Department. I think it is a significant
improvement.
Frankly, if I had my choice, I still would make FEMA a separate
agency outside of this Department. I would prefer that. That is not
going to happen. I think the changes in this bill represent substantial
improvement.
I have to say that I am concerned over how we add the money in this
bill for the Department. We do it on an energy basis. I think $1.8
billion is desperately needed and will be well spent. But, at some
point, we have to come back to passing budget resolutions in this body
that are real.
The need for additional expenditure for homeland security are not
emergencies. They are going to be there on an ongoing basis in the
years ahead; and, in 2005, we added $450 million as an emergency; 2006,
$1.2; and $1.8 in 2007.
At some point, this institution has got to get back to having budget
resolutions that are real, where real choices are made, not pretending
that we are not going to spend any money initially and then getting
around to it by having emergency designations. That simply undermines
the process.
I am probably in the minority on this issue. I still remain very
concerned to the degree we have given the Department discretion in
distributing some of our formula funds. I do not think that they have
the capacity to do it. So I hope this institution keeps an eye on how
the agency does distribute formula grants or simply grants in the
future. Clearly, their ability to do it on a discretionary basis, I
think, needs to be examined; and I think they need much better
information to do that than they have had in the past.
But it is a good bill. It has been a pleasure working with Mr. Rogers
and all of the other members of our subcommittee. We have a good
subcommittee. I think this committee has made a great contribution.
Mr. Chairman, I do have to ask one question. I understand we have a
variety of other bills relating to homeland security that are
authorizing bills, that seem to be hanging up the adjournment or our
recess. Am I wrong that everything that is in this bill is currently
authorized? All of our money can be spent that is in this bill? It is
not subject to any authorization?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. That is correct, except for the new
authorizing languages that are in the bill. You are correct, except for
the newly authorized items that are in this bill.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.
All of the money that is needed for borders, for ports, all of the
money we have appropriated can be spent?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. That is correct.
Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman. And I thank the gentleman for his
good work.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for his very, very kind
remarks; and I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee,
who has been extremely helpful on this bill, as all of the others.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the fiscal
year 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations Conference Report. This is
the second of 11 individual conference reports I hope to bring to the
House floor for consideration this year.
The conference report funds the Department of Homeland Security at
$34.8 billion for fiscal year 2007, an increase of $2.3 billion over
the fiscal year before.

{time} 1515

The conference agreement aggressively addresses our most critical
homeland security needs including border and immigration security;
port, cargo and container security; transportation security; natural
disaster preparedness and response; and support to State and local
first responders.
I would really like to praise Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Sabo
for their very fine bipartisan work; but to my colleague Martin Sabo,
let me say not just a colleague and congressional classmate, Martin
Sabo is one of the finest people I have known since I have been in
Congress. I would say to Martin, a job well done, my friend, not just
for, of course, this piece of work, but most important, for a lifetime
of work on behalf of your country.
Chairman Rogers has spoken to the specifics of the conference report
so I will again direct my attention to the need to complete our
appropriations work this year.
As the body knows, the Appropriations Committee has made tremendous
strides over the last 2 years in reforming the process of adopting our
annual spending bills. The Appropriations Committee has been strongly
committed to bringing to this floor individual conference reports for
each and every bill. We were successful in doing so last year. I hope
to replicate that success again this year.
To underscore this point, Chairman Cochran and I sent a letter to
both Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Frist this week reiterating
our support for completing each of our bills in regular order and not
resorting to an end-of-session omnibus spending bill. I would like to
submit for the Record that letter at this point.
House of Representatives,

Committee on Appropriations,

Washington, DC, September 25, 2006.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House,
Washington, DC.
Hon. William H. Frist,
Senate Majority Leader,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker and Majority Leader Frist: As we approach
the end of the pre-election legislative session, the
Appropriations Committees are preparing to present to our
chambers the conference reports for funding the Department of
Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. While
progress is being made with these two major bills, we want to
reiterate our commitment to moving each of the individual
appropriations subcommittee conference reports at the
earliest possible date this year. We know that you, too,
share this goal.
Thanks to your leadership last year, we were able to
complete each of the appropriations bills individually within
the established budgetary constraints and avoid a massive,
year-end ``omnibus'' spending bill. This represented a
remarkable victory for taxpayers and demonstrated that
Congress was capable of completing its constitutional
responsibilities on time and on budget. Upon our selection as
Chairmen, we committed to you and our colleagues that we
would work to restore regular order to the appropriations
process. We remain committed to passing conference reports
individually again this year.
Maintaining regular order and passing individual conference
reports within the parameters of the budget resolution is an
important part of controlling spending. It is our belief that
omnibus legislation that bypasses the regular order is not in
the best interest of the Congress, or ultimately the
taxpayer. Whether we work through the holidays or pass long-
term continuing resolutions, we are committed to completing
the FY 2007 appropriations process in an open and orderly
manner, without resorting to an omnibus strategy.
Our Committees remain committed to completing our work at
the earliest possible

[[Page H7963]]

date. We thank you for your assistance in this endeavor and
we look forward to working with you as we together accomplish
our legislative goals this year.
Sincerely,
Jerry Lewis,
Chairman, House Committee on Appropriations.
Thad Cochran,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, early in the process I made it very clear to our
leadership and to our Members that the Appropriations Committee would
not entertain the prospect of an omnibus spending bill. This committee
is doing everything in its power to ensure that this does not happen.
The Appropriations Committee passed each of the 11 spending bills
through the full committee by June 20 of this year, and passed 10 of 11
bills off the House floor by June 30. We remain committed to pass the
final appropriations bill at a moment's notice.
The Appropriations Committee made a commitment to move its spending
bills individually, in regular order, and within the framework of the
budget resolution. We have done that. The Appropriations Committee has
kept its word.
Moving our spending bills individually is the only way to maintain
fiscal discipline. The pursuit of an omnibus strategy is a budget-
buster and an invitation to unrestrained spending. If history is any
guide, an omnibus spending bill would become a vehicle for other forms
of legislative mischief.
Again, Chairman Cochran and I would ask our colleagues to avoid that
approach and move forward in passing individual conference reports.
Together, we remain committed to completing our work at the earliest
possible date.
I also urge the adoption of this conference report in a vote later
today.
As I close these comments, let me say one more time, Mr. Rogers and
Mr. Sabo have a reflection in this bill of the finest of bipartisan
efforts, exactly the kind of effort that will cause the Congress to
rise in the respect of the American people.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to my friend from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that I am pleased to be
able to support this bill. I very much regret the fact that we will
only have completed two out of the 11 appropriation bills by the end of
the fiscal year. That, in my view, is not the fault of the
Appropriations Committee on either side of the aisle. It is very much
the fault of the fact that this institution chose to adopt a budget
resolution which did not accurately reflect the political center of
gravity in the Republican Party, much less the Democratic Party when
you take a look at the positions of each House.
Having said that, I want to take this opportunity to comment on
something the President said yesterday because the President told the
country that those of us on this side of the aisle were, in effect,
soft on security and soft on defending this country.
I regret very much that the President has chosen to govern this
country by dividing it rather than uniting it. I took a great deal of
pleasure in working with the President's father in working out many a
legislative compromise. We did the same thing with President Clinton.
We did the same thing with President Carter. We even on many occasions
did the same thing with President Reagan and President Nixon. But this
is the first President I have known who has seemed to purposely divide
the country in order to govern, and I just want to trace what the facts
are with respect to defending the homeland.
I remember, in August of 2001 when I was at home in Wisconsin,
receiving a call from my staff director telling me he had just been
briefed by the CIA and that they were extremely concerned about the
traffic that they were intercepting around the world, and they thought
something big was up, did not know if it was domestic or international,
but the intelligence community was very worried that something was
coming. That was in August, just before 9/11.
The day before 9/11, Attorney General Ashcroft met with his staff to
set out their priorities for the year, and in that meeting, he was
presented a spreadsheet with various boxes indicating which would be
his preferred activities and activities of focus for the coming year.
He declined to check any of the boxes that had anything to do with
antiterrorism. He was, in fact, urged by his staff to reconsider and
rejected that advice and told the staff, ``No, I want to focus on
drugs.'' The Attorney General denied that in a hearing of our
committee, but in fact, my office had been leaked the documents by his
own agency that showed exactly what he had done in that meeting.
Then, after we were hit by anthrax, I called Bill Young, who was then
the chairman of the full committee, and suggested that since we could
not get into our offices, we talk to the security agencies to see what
they felt they needed in order to respond to the threat represented by
9/11.
We talked to the FBI, the NSA, CIA, you name it, all of the security
agencies. On a bipartisan basis, we put together a listing of action
items, and then we cut it and we cut it and then requested to see the
President.
We went down to see the President. He came into the room. Before we
could say a word, he said, ``Well, I understand some of you want to
spend more money than I have requested for homeland security.'' He
said, ``My good friend Mitch Daniels here from OMB tells us that we
have got enough money in our budget, and so I want you to know, if you
appropriate a dollar more than I have asked for, I will veto the bill.
I have got time for four or five comments and I am out of here.''
Senator Stevens said, ``Mr. President, I do not think you understand,
we have already agreed. We will knock off any item you do not want. We
are not trying to have an argument. We just want something done.''
Senator Byrd made the same point, and then I asked the President, I
said, ``Mr. President, I have been coming down here for 30 years, this
is the first time any President has ever told me his mind was closed
before the subject was even open.'' I said, ``I want to ask you four
questions about Federal installations, which we have been told by your
own people, your own security people, are gravely at risk of terrorist
attack, their words, not mine.'' I asked him about them. It was clear
he had not been briefed on them. I did not expect him to. He is a busy
man.
But we walked out of there after being told by the President that he
would veto any additional efforts to provide funds for homeland
security. Despite that fact, we went back up to Capitol Hill and
eventually added more than $2 billion to the President's request, and
he signed the bill.
The following year, the President held a press conference bragging
about the fact that the Customs agency had this new port security
arrangement, new inspection of cargo coming into this country, and he
had a press conference bragging about it, and then pocket vetoed the
money to make it happen. I felt that that was enough to give hypocrisy
a bad name.
So that is very basically the early history of what the President's
record is in terms of resisting bipartisan efforts to strengthen
homeland security funding.
I remember going out to the CIA and watching in real-time as we could
see what the Predators flying over in Afghanistan were seeing when they
were looking for bin Laden, and I know what the CIA people thought
about the President's decision to divert a significant portion of our
resources from the job of nailing bin Laden to preparing for the war in
Iraq. They were not very happy about it, and we were not either.
Since that time, on seven different occasions on this side of the
aisle, we have tried to add funding to the President's budget for
homeland security and to the committee budget.
I want to make clear I think the subcommittee has done the best it
could, given the allocation that it was given under the Republican
budget; but that does not mean that the allocation was adequate. The
record is clear that the President on numerous occasions offered
inadequate budgets which had to be augmented by this committee on a
bipartisan basis.
So I think it comes with considerable ill grace and with considerable
reinventing of history for the President to suggest that there is any
difference of opinion between the two parties with respect to our
dedication to protecting the homeland. He knows it is not so, but
campaign rhetoric is getting in the

[[Page H7964]]

way of the facts as far as he is concerned.
So I just want to make the point that I do not question the
President's patriotism because he chose to put tax cuts as a higher
priority than even additional funding for homeland security. That is a
judgment he made, and that is a judgment he will have to defend. I do
not question his patriotism. I question his judgment. I think that it
comes with considerably ill grace from a man who has the track record
of refusing efforts of this Congress to strengthen homeland security on
various occasions, to have that man question anybody else's dedication
to this country, question anybody else's dedication to defending this
country.
The record does not bear out his claims, and I think if you check the
record, you will find out that every statement I have made today is
fully true and accurate.
With that, I thank the gentleman for the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentleman from
Minnesota has 8 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Kentucky has
16 minutes remaining.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the very
distinguished chairman of the authorizing Committee on Homeland
Security in the House, whose cooperation on this bill has been
fabulous, for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with
Chairman Rogers and Chairman Sensenbrenner. I would like to address the
meaning of section 546 of the fiscal year 2007 Department of Homeland
Security appropriations conference report regarding the Western
Hemisphere Traveling Initiative, also known as WHTI.
I would like to establish the fact that the language proposed in the
conference report does not require a delay in implementation; in fact,
the date change does not prohibit the administration from complying
with its original deadline of January 1, 2008.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I agree it is important to recognize
that paragraph 1(a) requires that the Secretary of Homeland Security
develop and implement a plan for appropriate passports or other
documents as expeditiously as possible. It then instructs the Secretary
to complete implementation of WHTI by no later than the earlier of June
1, 2009, or 3 months from the date the conditions of paragraph 1(b) are
met.
Thus, the Secretary may and, indeed must, begin the implementation
process earlier than the June 1, 2009, deadline to ensure that he meets
this mandate.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, both gentlemen are correct. WHTI
is vital to our homeland security, and I am absolutely committed to
ensuring it is put in place.
The conference report requires the Departments of Homeland Security
and State to implement WHTI no later than 3 months after the security
requirements are met or by June 1, 2009, whichever is earlier.

{time} 1530

We urge DHS and State to quickly develop the PASS card technology,
card readers, and procedures to enable the earliest possible deployment
of the system at our sea and land ports of entry.
Again, let me make this clear. The conference report does not force a
delay upon WHTI. It is up to DHS and State to make sure the program
works securely and is implemented as soon as possible, which can and
should be in accordance with the original WHTI deadline of January 1,
2008.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Wamp), a very valuable member of this subcommittee, hardworking, and a
conferee on the bill.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the outstanding job
he does.
This $34.8 billion brings the total that we have spent on this
Department since September 11, 2001, to $151.7 billion, a significant
investment in this new Department.
I want to hail the service of Marty Sabo over the years but
specifically on this subcommittee and because of his cooperation
specifically in one area where he and Chairman Rogers have been
brilliant. They have used the power of the purse to force this
Department to move towards efficiency and accountability, something
that was really missing for a long period of time. We have withheld
money from them pending reports and accountability over and over again.
I want to report on two areas today where we are making great
progress because of our work on this subcommittee. Science and
technology was woefully inadequate. It is now moving rapidly. Admiral
Cohen has come in, and he is outstanding. We are deploying new
technologies, and we are really spending the money much more wisely.
Great progress has been made.
Another area is where we created and helped the administration form
the DNDO, the Defense Nuclear Detection Organization. Nuclear problems
in homeland security are our greatest threats. Mr. Edwards, on the
Democratic side, and myself and others have really been active here to
make sure this new agency is effectively detecting the nuclear threat
and advancing those technologies. This funding is $481 million. We
forced it up above the administration's request to that figure. It
still is not enough. I would rather have had the Senate number of $500
million, but we are making great strides there now as well.
Also, the border is much more secure today than it was a year ago.
The gentleman from Minnesota is exactly right. This subcommittee has
been securing the border each and every year but dramatically in the
last year. We now are sending 99 percent of them back.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to wish happy birthday to Michelle.
Thank you for your service.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Good luck to you, Martin, and thank you for your
service and the great job you have done for America. Both sides working
together on this legislation speaks for itself.
The conference report I support. There is real good in this
legislation. As the author of the FIRE Act, I am glad to see that the
Congress has restored the President's draconian cuts to this successful
program. $662 million for FIRE grants, including $115 million for the
SAFER Act will allow us to continue to provide for the critical
equipment and staffing needs of fire departments nationwide.
I am also heartened by the fact that we kept FEMA in Homeland
Security. I think that is very, very important, rather than make it a
separate organization. Combining many of the Department's preparedness
functions with FEMA and keeping it in DHS is wise and, I think, sound
policy.
But there is some missed opportunities here. I cannot let this go by
without projecting this and asking everyone in this room to think about
it. We have done everything to try to put before the American people
and the Congress the necessity for interoperability dollars. We had it
in the budget, we came to agreement on both sides, but it is not there
anymore.
We said that this was the most difficult task facing our police and
our fire, yet we take $3.1 billion out in dedicated interoperability
funding. We have had hearings on this in Washington State and hearings
in New Jersey, and this is not the way to treat our law enforcement. It
is not the way.
Five years after 9/11, the Department still does not have a dedicated
interoperability grant program; and, as a result, State and localities
are still robbing Peter to pay Paul by using a huge amount of their
homeland security grant funding.
I am also concerned that the chemical security provisions within this
bill will not facilitate adequate security to an industry that needs
it.
Again, I want to thank those who put this legislation, this
conference report together.

[[Page H7965]]

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a very valuable member of the
subcommittee and of the conference.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I rise in support
of this conference agreement and urge my colleagues to also support it.
I also want to commend Chairman Rogers, Mr. Sabo, and the subcommittee
staffs on both sides for their great work on this bill.
I also want to take note that this is the last time that Congressman
Marty Sabo will be on the floor with the Homeland Security
appropriations bill. He has been a key member of the subcommittee and a
valued member of the full committee, and on behalf of Kathy and myself,
we wish you and Sylvia the very, very best for the future. You are
great people, and it has been an honor to get to know you. I appreciate
your great career here.
The process of putting together this appropriations bill to address
the operational needs of the Homeland Security Department has once
again been a very difficult one. As I participated in the process on
this bill, I have come to the conclusion that our approach to funding
homeland security has been well thought out in the face of having to
make difficult choices. This year, as in the past, we have worked hard
to balance the priorities. While I am not fully satisfied with some of
the choices, overall I am pleased with many of the components of this
bill.
For example, I am very happy that we put extra funding into
enhancement of border security. We added funds for new border patrol
personnel and capital infrastructure. This is one more significant step
toward the best combination of assets to protect our borders. This is a
must, in my view.
I am also pleased that we have included a structural overhaul of
FEMA, an issue that had to be addressed. The components of the overall
bill set FEMA on a path to better carrying out its mission.
At the end of the day, there are no perfect answers to our homeland
security problems, and there is no perfect dollar resource level for
any of these homeland functions. We are not going to reach a 100
percent security umbrella no matter what level of funding we allocate
to the homeland function. Since we cannot reach security perfection and
because our resources are limited, we simply have to allocate resources
wisely, and we have done that again this year.
I would ask all Members to support this conference report.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, allow me to thank the
distinguished gentleman and pay him a great debt of gratitude for his
service and for his fight. Martin Sabo knows his business, and he gets
the job done, and I simply want to thank him very much.
I wish as we proceed in this bill that there were elements of it that
really could answer the questions that the American people ask about
homeland security. I am disappointed we could not work out the right
kind of approach to chemical security, primarily because I live in a
region that has a sizable number of chemical plants and, most recently,
we have experienced a number of incidents that have impacted the
surrounding neighborhoods. So I would have hoped we would have been
able to implement a plan that had a great deal more teeth to it than
what we now have in this bill.
Also, I would like to mention that, although the Homeland Security
Committee looked at and does agree with FEMA remaining in the Homeland
Security Department at this time, I am disappointed that the monies,
which we really do need to reconstruct FEMA and to make it work, one,
are missing; and, two, that the question of the FEMA staffing is a
question that has not been answered.
Also, as my good friend from New Jersey indicated, we are still
fighting the battle of interoperability, and that is a key element, as
reflected in the 9/11 Commission report.
We also determined that the local law enforcement is very, very
unhappy with the presence of the UASI grants in FEMA. I wish we had had
more time for consultation to work with the Nation's chiefs of police
to be able to ensure them that these grants would be distributed
fairly.
Much can be said about the improvement of this bill, but, Mr.
Speaker, I would hope that we would have the opportunity to ensure that
there is full funding for homeland security and full staffing. Without
that, it cannot work.
I rise in support of the Conference Report to the Homeland Security
Appropriations Act of 2007 to H.R. 5441. Although the compromise is far
from perfect, on balance it contains enough good things to warrant my
support.
I am pleased that the legislation includes all of the recommendations
that the Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee released in
February, entitled ``Directing FEMA Towards Success: A Democratic
Report and Legislative Solution.'' The legislation combines some of the
Department's preparedness functions (Grants and Training, U.S. Fire
Administration, and the National Capital Region office) with FEMA and
keeps the new entity within the Department. It requires that the
Administrator of FEMA possess a demonstrated ability in and knowledge
of emergency management and homeland security and have no less than 5
years of executive leadership and management experience. Finally, the
legislation designates the Administrator as the principal advisor to
the President for all matters pertaining to emergency management and
authorizes the President to designate the Administrator to serve as a
member of the Cabinet during emergencies.

Interoperability Funding to Meet the Needs of Local Responders

It is unfortunate that Republicans opposed the inclusion of $3.1
billion dedicated interoperability funding for state and local first
responders. Five years after the 9/11 attacks and one year after
Hurricane Katrina, the Department still does not have a dedicated
interoperability grant program. As a result, states and localities are
still robbing Peter to pay Paul by using a huge amount of their
homeland security grant funding--in some instances 80%--to purchase
communications equipment. States and localities are forced to short-
change first responder training, local terrorism prevention activities
and securing the nation's critical infrastructure.
Although the bill shortchanges interoperability, the legislation does
include increased authorizations in FY 2008 for a variety of programs
that Democrats have championed throughout the process. These include:
A $20 million increase for the Urban Search and Rescue Teams;
A $30 million increase for the Metropolitan Medical Response System;
A $175 million increase in FY 2008 for the Emergency Management
Performance Grant program; and
$4 million in grants for the administration of the Emergency
Management Assistance Compact, which is used to coordinate assistance
between the states during disasters.

FEMA

With respect to the new FEMA's overall funding, the legislation also
authorizes a 10% annual increase over the next three years for
administration and operations. It remains to be seen whether the
Administration will include this crucial funding in their 2008 budget
request.
My Democratic colleagues on the Homeland Security Committee,
including Ranking Member Bennie Thompson (MS), Representatives Jane
Harman (CA), Nita Lowey (NY), Bill Pascrell (NJ), and I have been
outspoken leaders in the effort to solve the problem of
interoperability for our Nation's first responders. Although the
majority blocked our attempts to provide dedicated funding to address
the issue, the legislation does adopt many Democratic provisions
related to emergency communications.
The legislation creates an Office of Emergency Communications to
support, promote, monitor, and promulgate operable and interoperable
communication capabilities, consolidating various offices across the
Federal government. Additionally, it requires the development of a
National Emergency Communications Plan that would identify ways to
expedite the adoption of consensus standards for emergency
communications equipment and recommend both short and long-term
solutions to overcoming obstacles to achieving nationwide
interoperability and operability.
It also mandates the completion of a national baseline study
assessing the state of operability and interoperability among Federal,
state, tribal, and local governments. Finally, it ensures that
recipients of homeland security grants are coordinating and operating
consistent with the goals and recommendations of the National Emergency
Communications Plan.
Unfortunately, and for no apparent policy reason, this legislation
fails to place this new Office of Emergency Communications where it
most logically belongs--FEMA. Instead, it is an outlier--grouped in
with the office that oversees cybersecurity. By failing to do this,
Republicans have perpetuated--and written into law--the very
fragmentation of the preparedness and response functions that led to

[[Page H7966]]

the Administration's failed response to Hurricane Katrina.
While the bill authorizes the existing Chief Medical Officer and
gives him primary responsibility for medical preparedness issues in the
Department, Republicans rebuffed efforts by Homeland Security Democrats
to locate this office where it most logically belongs--within FEMA. In
addition, provisions to establish a program to assess, monitor, and
study the health and safety of first responders involved in disasters
was stripped by the Republicans, as was language to direct the Chief
Medical Officer to provide guidance for the Metropolitan Medical
Response System and to develop and update guidelines for State, local,
and tribal governments for medical response plans for WMD attacks.
Additionally, the legislation authorizes a national training and
exercise program for first responders, as well as a comprehensive
assessment system and a remedial action program to identify and
disseminate lessons learned. However, Republicans stripped out a
Democratic proposal--accepted by the Majority in the Homeland Security
Committee bill--to authorize an exercise to prepare for pandemic
influenza.

Finally, the bill stripped a Democratic provision to create an Office
of Public and Community Preparedness, which was proposed to address a
lesson learned from Hurricane Katrina--that citizens need to be
prepared to protect themselves and their families and cannot rely on
assistance for the first few days of a disaster. The office would have
consolidated various programs at the Department of Homeland Security
into one office with the primary responsibility within the Department
for assisting the efforts of State, local, and tribal governments in
preparing citizens and communities in the United States for acts of
terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies.
Notwithstanding these weaknesses, I will support the Conference
Report because on balance the weaknesses, which I will work to
eliminate next year, are outweighed by the following good provisions:
Prohibits the Secretary from allocating, reallocating, establishing,
consolidating, altering, or discontinuing organizational units within
FEMA under the authority of section 872 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002.
Creates a national and 10 regional advisory councils (one in each
FEMA region) made of up local officials, emergency managers, first
responders and the private sector, to advise the Administrator and each
of the regional Administrators and ensure coordination.
Creates a Disability Coordinator, a position advocated by Rep. James
Langevin (D-RI), to ensure that the needs of individuals with
disabilities are being properly addressed in emergency preparedness and
disaster relief.
Directs the Administrator, in coordination with the heads of other
appropriate agencies, to provide evacuation preparedness technical
assistance to state local and tribal governments. Democrats on the
Committee had introduced legislation on this issue over a year ago.
Directs the Administrator to collaborate with local and state
officials and first responder groups to develop standards for the
credentialing of first responders and the typing of resources needed to
respond to disasters.
Codifies the national preparedness goal, target capabilities list,
national planning scenarios, and creates a national preparedness system
to prepare the nation for all hazards. Many of these activities are
currently being undertaken by the Department.
Directs the Administrator to develop a ``transparent and flexible''
logistics system for procurement and delivery of goods and services
necessary for an effective and timely response to disasters.
Directs the Administer to develop and submit a strategic human
capital plan to shape and improve the agency workforce and authorizes
the Administrator to pay a bonus to recruit and retain individuals in
positions otherwise hard to fill.
Creates a National Child Reunification Center within the Center for
Missing and Exploited Children as well as a National Emergency Family
Registry and Locator System.
For these reasons, I will support the Conference Report and I urge my
colleagues to join me.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), another very important member of
this subcommittee who has helped us enormously.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I have been on this committee since its
inception 4 years ago. It is probably my most challenging duty here in
Congress. It is one of my greatest honors, and I have to tell you,
every year this appropriation measure is probably the steepest climb
that we have because we know now that the threats we face, the
challenges we face are enormous, and any arbitrary amount of money
can't bring us to a place of perfection.
I want to salute the chairman for his great work. This is probably
one of the best bills that you have been able to produce, Chairman, and
they have all been pretty darn good, and so I really appreciate your
leadership.
To Mr. Sabo, I wish you well. You have had a great career. It has
been an honor, especially in these past 4 years, to serve with you and
watch your leadership.
What I would like both of you to know is that our staffs here are
some of the unsung heroes and I think the real patriots. They do
incredible work. They listen, they study, and then they enact, and they
enable us to do some of the good things we are doing here, and they
have enabled us to make this Nation more secure.
The American people need to know this committee has served
respectfully and greatly in a bipartisan fashion. For example, since 9/
11, we have been able to provide almost $40 billion for first
responders. In this report is an example: $662 million for the
assistance of firefighter grant programs, $7 million more than the 2006
number was and $370 million more than what the President asked for.
We also found that balance by finding minimal security levels
throughout the Nation that are satisfactory and, as well, made sure we
had targeted money, $770 million, for the Urban Area Security
Initiative. We do substantial work on ports, $4.34 billion; and $21
billion on the borders.
Mr. Chairman, I think you have really identified what those
priorities are, and we have balanced them very well.
Finally, on WHTI, I just want to say that I think we have worked out
a flexible compromise that will allow us to provide security and
maintain our economic interests.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), chairman of
the Coast Guard Subcommittee in the House.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a
colloquy with Chairman Rogers.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize concerns expressed about the Coast Guard's
C4ISR program. This is a critically important program providing a
deployable preemptive capability to prevent or stop the movement of
terrorists and their weapons before they reach the homeland. I would
hope that the Chair would agree that if the C4ISR program is able to
adequately address the concerns contained in the conference report that
you would look favorably upon this program in the future.

{time} 1545

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. If the gentleman will yield, I agree with the
gentleman from New Jersey that this is an important program; and I can
assure him that, should we receive information that the Coast Guard has
addressed our concerns, we will give the program favorable
consideration in the future.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Thank you very much, and thank you for your hard work.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. King), the chairman of the authorizing committee.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Let me at the outset thank Chairman Rogers for the extraordinary work
he has done and the extraordinary cooperation he has exhibited toward
the Homeland Security Committee.
There are two key components of this appropriations bill which are in
fact legislation passed by our committee and which Mr. Rogers has so
generously moved forward for us: certainly FEMA reform, and chemical
plant security.
On the issue of FEMA reform, let me also commend Chairman Reichert
for the extraordinary work he did at the subcommittee and committee
level; and on the chemical plant security legislation, let me commend
Chairman Lungren for his work.
As someone coming from New York, let me point out the fact that this
legislation includes a $30 million increase for the Urban Area Security
Initiative, UASI, a grant program particularly important for the New
York City and the metropolitan area.
On FEMA reform, this is real reform. This gives FEMA the leverage and
the

[[Page H7967]]

power and the autonomy it needs within the overall perspective of
homeland security.
As far as chemical plant security, this is extraordinary legislation
because for the first time it gives the Department of Homeland Security
rulemaking power over the chemical plant industry.
I could go on for great length about this legislation, but I would
like to yield to Sheriff Reichert.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5441, the
fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations Conference Report. I
would like to discuss the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act
of 2006, which is included as title VI.
As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science,
and Technology and as one of title VI's principal authors, I proudly
announce today both Chambers and both parties have come together and
reached a landmark agreement in reforming FEMA.
Mr. Speaker, when you Google the term ``FEMA,'' over 2 million hits
pop up. Fixing FEMA has been on the forefront of the American
consciousness since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita last year. Some said it
couldn't be done.
Mr. Speaker, we have done it. The important reforms of FEMA are based
in large part on H.R. 5351, which I introduced on May 11, 2006, and
which passed the Committee on Homeland Security less than 1 week later.
Finally, this legislation addresses emergency communications.
Congress has already appropriated billions of dollars for
interoperability. However, standards are still not established. Many
States do not have plans statewide and are still working on it.
Before spending billions more, there are less expensive but integral
reforms that must be implemented. Once these reforms occur, then and
only then should we create an additional grant program. I look forward
to working in a bipartisan way to create that new grant program.
The American public demanded that Congress fix FEMA. This agreement
does that.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5441, the
``Fiscal Year 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations Conference
Report.'' In particular, I'd like to take a few moments to discuss the
``Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006,'' which is
included in Title VI of H.R. 5441.
As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science,
and Technology, and as one of Title VI's principal authors, I am
especially proud to announce that both Chambers and both parties have
reached this landmark agreement to overhaul the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA).
Mr. Speaker, if you Google the term ``FEMA Reform,'' over 2 million
hits will pop up. The idea of fixing FEMA has been on the forefront of
the American consciousness since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita last year.
And some said it couldn't be done--that Congress could not come
together in a bipartisan, bicameral way to fix this problem. There were
too many obstacles and too much politics. That the problem itself was
simply too massive and no one knew where to begin. But Mr. Speaker, we
have overcome those obstacles in the interests of the American people.
And, to do so, we began by listening to those who know best what the
problems are and what the solutions must be--our Nation's first
responders and emergency managers.
This landmark agreement will, among other things, reform FEMA by:
Elevating the standing of FEMA within the Department of Homeland
Security by promoting the Administrator of FEMA to the level of Deputy
Secretary;
Requiring that the Administrator possess a demonstrated ability in
executive leadership and management experience;
Directing the Administrator to serve as the principal advisor to the
President and others for all matters relating to emergency management;
Restoring the nexus between emergency preparedness and response; and
Elevating the importance of emergency communications within the
Department by establishing an Office of Emergency Communications and
requiring that Office to draft a National Emergency Communications Plan
and conduct a baseline operability and interoperability assessment.

These and the other important reforms of FEMA in Title VI are based,
in large part, on H.R. 5351, the ``National Emergency Management Reform
and Enhancement Act of 2006,'' which I introduced on May 11, 2006 and
which passed the Committee on Homeland Security less than one week
later.
As a former law enforcement officer for more than 33 years, I can
assure my friends in blue that nothing in this agreement would in any
way undermine the terrorism-specific focus of the Department's
terrorism preparedness grants and other prevention and protection
programs. In fact, my colleagues and I drafted the base text of this
legislation with the direct input of our Nation's first responders.
Finally, some have recently brought up the need to immediately create
a new multi-billion grant program for interoperability. However, before
spending additional billions of Federal dollars on interoperable
communications, there are less expensive but integral reforms that must
first be implemented. This agreement contains an entire subtitle of
such reforms. As a former Cop and Sheriff, I know that first responders
need standards in place and that States need to adopt Statewide
Interoperable Communication Plans to ensure that Federal money is well
spent. It is then, and only then, that we should create an additional
interoperability grant program. However, once these reforms have been
implemented, I look forward to working in a bipartisan way to create
that new grant program.
However, to be clear, Congress has already appropriated billions of
dollars for emergency communications. From FY 2003 through FY 2005,
recipients of DHS' terrorism preparedness grants have obligated and
spent more than $2 billion on interoperability projects--the single
largest use of such grant funding. Moreover, the Department of
Justice's COPS program has allocated more than $300 million for
interoperability to law enforcement agencies during that same period of
time. Finally, in the Budget Reconciliation Act of 2005, Congress
established a $1 billion interoperability grant program to be
administered by the Commerce Department.
Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the American public demanded
that Congress fix our Nation's broken emergency management system. This
agreement does that and more. It is for that reason that I urge my
colleagues to support this landmark, bipartisan legislation.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I have read the chemical bill language, and I do not
understand whether that language preempts the ability of a State to
adopt more stringent requirements than the Federal standards.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding, and we
had the opinion of committee counsel on this, that it does not preempt
States.
Mr. SABO. The intention is not to preempt the ability of the States.
Mr. KING of New York. That is not the intention.
Mr. Speaker, let me just commend the gentleman for his many years of
service to this House and wish him the very best in the years to come.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), who is Chairman of the
Emergency Management Subcommittee of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
(Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Rogers for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation, in
particular the FEMA reforms. It was a tremendous effort by many, and I
want to extend my personal thanks to Chairman Rogers, Chairman Don
Young, Chairman Davis, Chairman King and Chairman Reichert. This was
truly a collaborative effort, and I think we have some important
reforms for FEMA here today.
FEMA was once one of the most well-respected organizations in the
Federal Government, but Hurricane Katrina demonstrated how badly FEMA
declined in just 3 years at DHS.
I had the privilege to serve on the Katrina Committee that did the
investigation and we laid out five principles for reforming FEMA: The
President has to be involved in big disasters; there must be a clear
chain of command; preparedness must be put back into FEMA; FEMA's
capabilities must be restored and enhanced; and, finally, we need an
all-hazard approach to disasters.
While I believe that pulling FEMA out of DHS is the best way to
embrace these principles, I recognize that it is not the only way.
These principles served as a foundation for the compromise we consider
today.

[[Page H7968]]

This bill fixes and improves FEMA. With the leadership, authority and
resources necessary to respond effectively to the next disaster. FEMA
can once again be a model Federal agency. The American people deserve
nothing less.
Before I close, I would like to thank the Emergency Management
Subcommittee staff who worked very long hours on this important
legislation: Dan Matthews, Jennifer Hall and Hugh Carroll, and also Liz
Megginson from the full committee. They did a great job, and I want to
thank them.
Mr. Speaker. I rise today to support this legislation.
Prior to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was one of the most well
respected organizations in the Federal government. Hurricane Katrina
illustrated how badly FEMA had declined in less than three short years.
I want to thank Chairman Young for his leadership and his oversight
efforts over the years to ensure that FEMA would remain a model Federal
agency. Through his leadership on this bill, I believe FEMA will not
only return to its former status, but out perform the FEMA we used to
know.
I had the honor of serving on the House Katrina Committee under
Chairman Davis. He deserves tremendous credit for leading the
investigation. He made a commitment to follow the facts wherever they
took us, and he uncovered a surprising record of actions and neglect
that undermined our Nation's disaster preparedness. Without his
leadership, we would not be here today.
There have been a lot of complaints that the House has not
consolidated jurisdiction over the DHS into one committee. Today, I can
tell you that it is a good thing that jurisdiction over DHS does not
reside with one committee.
This bill balances the need to prepare for a terrorist attack with
all of the other hazards we face. The Transportation Committee has
decades of experience with emergency management. The Homeland Security
Committee brings real expertise on terrorism matters. Between these two
committees, we came up with a good product.
I would like to thank Chairman King and Chairman Reichert. This
comprehensive reform could not have been possible without their
support, vast knowledge of preparedness issues, and strong desire for
reform.
After the Katrina Committee Investigation, we laid out 5 principles
for reforming FEMA.
First, Presidential involvement and professional disaster advice are
essential.
Second, effective response requires a clear chain of command.
Third, the four elements of emergency management need to be closely
integrated and managed, particularly preparedness and response
functions.
Fourth, FEMA's essential response capabilities must be restored and
enhanced.
And fifth, the tension between the nation's all-hazards emergency
management system and terrorism preparedness must be resolved.
While my personal opinion is that pulling FEMA out of DHS is the best
way to embrace these principles, I recognize that it is not the only
way. These five principles served as a foundation for this compromise,
which helped us achieve comprehensive reform.
This legislation elevates the Administrator to the Deputy Secretary
level and provides that the Administrator will report directly to the
Secretary. It directs the Administrator to serve as the principal
advisor to the President, the Homeland Security Council, and the
Secretary of Homeland Security for all matters relating to emergency
management and permits the President to designate the Administrator as
a member of the Cabinet in the event of natural disasters, acts of
terrorism, and other man-made disasters. Additionally, the
Administrator is given explicit responsibility for managing all
disasters.
Furthermore, I am proud that this bill clarifies the chain of command
during the Federal response to natural disasters, acts of terrorism,
and other man-made disasters by providing that the Federal Coordinating
Officer (FCO) is in charge. The bill also prohibits the Principal
Federal Official (PFO) from directing or replacing the incident command
structure at an incident and limits the PFO's authority over Federal
and State officials, including the FCO.
Additionally, this legislation returns all grants, training, and
preparedness programs to FEMA, restoring the nexus between emergency
preparedness and response. These grants and programs include the
emergency management performance grant program, fire grants, terrorism
preparedness grants, the radiological emergency preparedness program,
the chemical stockpile emergency preparedness program, and the
metropolitan medical response system.
This bill increases FEMA's response capabilities through a variety of
tools. Through this legislation FEMA will establish robust Regional
Offices, Regional Advisory Councils, and multi-agency Regional Strike
Teams to ensure effective coordination and integration of regional
preparedness, protection, response, mitigation, and recovery activities
with State, local, and tribal governments, emergency response
providers, emergency managers, and other stakeholders. Additionally,
the Administrator is provided a number of tools for rebuilding FEMA's
professional and reserve workforces through the use of a strategic
human capital plan, recruitment and retention bonuses, and professional
development and education.
Finally, this bill establishes an all hazard national preparedness
goal and system for bringing direction, professional expertise, and
accountability to federal, state, and local preparedness activities.
This bill puts FEMA back together again and gives FEMA the tools and
authority to do its job. With the leadership, authority, and resources
necessary to respond effectively to the next disaster, FEMA can once
again be a model agency within the Federal Government.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield back my time, let me simply say to my
friend from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), thank you for presiding today in
a very fair and efficient manner. It is a pleasure working with the
gentleman. And on Twins.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, this year has been a difficult year for this bill, as
they all are. We did not have all of the allocation that we could have
used. However, I think we judiciously have spent the moneys that were
allocated to us.
There is no more important chore that the Congress has, in my
judgment, than to protect the country as best we can from its enemies
and from natural disasters. That is what this bill is all about. It is
such a huge undertaking. We have got 7,500 miles of borders with our
neighbors, we have 12,000 miles of coastline, including the Great
Lakes, 440 commercial airports with 600 million passengers a year
internally and many millions more from outside the country, rail and
subways and tunnels and bridges and cyber structures, and the financial
system. Everything we have is subject to attack, and it is a very, very
difficult chore for the government, both the executive branch and
certainly the legislative branch, to try to get our arms around the
mission and to try to find the moneys there to try to finance the
effort to defend the country against its enemies.
But I think we have done that within this bill as best we can. We
have covered practically every angle that you can think of with plenty
of funding. I am especially pleased that we found huge new sums to
spend on border security. We can't exist as a country if we can't
protect that border, and that is what this bill is all about in its
main emphasis.
Again, I want to thank Marty Sabo for his years of service and
friendship, he and Sylvia. Marty, you and Sylvia, we wish you Godspeed.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today, the House debated the
Conference Report for Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 2007. Section 535 of the conference report included a provision
that will allow individuals to import into the U.S. from Canada a 90-
day supply of a prescription drug, on their person, for their personal
use. The provision specifically exempts controlled substances and
biological products.
As the Chairman of the authorizing Committee with jurisdiction over
the regulation of drugs and biological products, it is important for me
to clarify what the language in this section means in regards to
biologic products. The exemption applies to biological products, as
that term is defined in Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act.
The legislation does not confine the exception of only to those
products licensed under Section 351 of the PHSA. This is an important
distinction. To be clear, the language exempts biologic products
licensed under the Public Health Service Act and those approved under
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
Members have also asked questions and offered various wishful
opinions as to whether the chemical security section of the 2007
Homeland Security Appropriations bill preempts state or local law.
Perhaps a review of the evolution of this provision would shed some
light for Members. The House Committee on Homeland Security considered
a bill in July that carried an amendment to explicitly state that the
bill would not preempt state law. Why? Because Members recognized
correctly that State or local laws that conflict with or

[[Page H7969]]

frustrate the purpose of Federal laws are preempted by the Federal law
in the absence of explicit Federal language to the contrary, and the
amendment's proponents wanted to ensure that States would not be so
constrained. However, that bill was never considered by either body of
Congress. When Senator Byrd initiated the process of using the 2007
Homeland Security Appropriations bill as a vehicle for legislating a
Federal chemical security program, and then other Members began to
venture suggestions to amend Senator Byrd's language in conference, the
Chairmen of the three authorizing Committees, one in the other body and
two in this body, were consulted.
During negotiations it was discussed and consciously decided among
the authorizing committee negotiators to not include a provision
exempting this section from Federal preemption because we do not want a
patchwork of chemical security programs, and we do not want chemical
facilities that are trying to secure themselves against threats of
terrorism caught in a bind of wondering whether their site security
complies with all law. It was only upon the agreement of the three
authorizing Committee Chairmen that the Appropriations Conferees
included the chemical security provision in the Appropriations
Conference Report.
During Appropriations Conference deliberations, some Members argued
and voted against including the chemical security section, in part
because it was silent on preemption. However, they were outvoted. We
are fully confident that courts of law, if ever faced with such a
question, will examine the State or local provision and decide for
themselves whether it conflicts with or frustrates the purpose of
Federal law, including the chemical security section of the 2007
Homeland Security Appropriations bill and Section 101(b)(1)(F) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 which states explicitly that the mission
of the Department of Homeland Security includes ensuring ``that the
overall economic security of the United States is not diminished by
efforts, activities, and programs aimed at securing the homeland.''
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the conference report we are considering
today on the House floor fails to close dangerous homeland security
loopholes that continue to put Americans at risk more than 5 years
after the 9/11 attacks.
This bill fails to include strong chemical security language that had
been agreed to, on a bipartisan basis, in the Homeland Security
Committee.
But Republicans have caved to the wishes of their allies in the
chemical industry by crafting weak provisions that do not provide the
security safeguards that are urgently needed to protect Americans.
The fact is, there are nightclubs in New York City that are harder to
get into than some of our chemical plants. This bill fails to fix the
problem.
This bill also does not contain a mandate that all of the cargo on
passenger planes be screened before it is placed onboard.
An amendment I offered to require 100 percent cargo screening on
passenger planes passed the House overwhelmingly three years ago as
part of the Department of Homeland Security's spending bill. But the
Bush administration ensured that the provision was deleted from the
final version of the bill, and Republicans have blocked it ever since.
In addition, this bill fails to provide the resources needed to
ensure that our airports have the equipment needed to detect explosives
that may be hidden in bags bound for airliners.
Earlier this month, a nonpartisan report developed by experts from
air carriers, airport operators, the Federal Government and contractors
recommended that Congress should ``continue Federal appropriations of
at least $435 million for purchase and installation of Explosive
Detection Systems, escalating annually.''
And what have Republicans in Congress decided is the appropriate
funding level for the purchase and installation of explosive detection
equipment at airports? About $150 million, or roughly one-third the
amount recommended by the experts.
This is another example of Republicans nickel-and-diming homeland
security while writing a blank check for the War in Iraq.
The foiled London bombing plot last month shined a light on the Bush
administration's bungling of the research, development and deployment
of systems that can detect liquid explosives at airports.
In its final report card, the 9/11 Commission gave the Federal
Government's checked bag screening capabilities a ``D'' and directed
that ``The TSA should expedite the installation of advanced (in-line)
baggage screening equipment.'' But almost a year later, we're still far
behind where we need to be.
This bill also does not address another aviation security weakness
that leaves us vulnerable to a terrorist attack.
Specifically, the bill keeps in place an artificial cap that
Republicans have placed on the number of airport screeners that can be
hired. This is creating security challenges at our airports, as
passenger traffic increases, and workers are expected to be on guard
for a growing array of threats.
According to the bipartisan report released earlier this month
``without adequate capital investment, screener staffing levels would
have to increase significantly to maintain 100% electronic screening.''
But we currently have the worst of both worlds: Republicans refuse to
invest the needed funds in explosive detection equipment while they
also cap the number of screeners regardless of security needs. This is
a dangerous, wrong-headed policy that puts Americans at risk.
This bill also fails to sufficiently fund the Metropolitan Medical
Response System, a vital program designed to limit casualties in the
event of a major emergency, such as a nuclear attack or avian flu
outbreak.
Clearly, our country needs a New Direction to ensure that security
loopholes are closed and Americans are protected from terrorists
determined to inflict another devastating attack on our country.
Republicans continue to ignore glaring loopholes such as porous
security safeguards at chemical plants, failure to scan all the cargo
on passenger planes, flawed checkpoint screening equipment, and the
lack of enough TSA screeners.
As a result, Republicans are providing our nation with homeland
insecurity, rather than the real security that Americans deserve.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2007
Homeland Security Appropriations Conference Report. It includes several
provisions that I authored in the Homeland Security and Appropriations
Committees, including much-needed provisions to help first responders
communicate.
More than two years ago, I proposed legislation to require the
Department of Homeland Security to create a national interoperability
strategy. It is time that we give our first responders the tools they
need to adequately communicate with one another without having to use
many of the same tactics as Paul Revere.
This strategy is long overdue. Ten years ago, the Public Safety
Wireless Advisory Committee recommended that ``unless immediate
measures are taken to promote interoperability, public safety agencies
will not be able to adequately discharge their obligation to protect
life and property in a safe, efficient, and cost effective manner.''
Because of inadequate radios, 343 firefighters died while heroically
rescuing thousands of workers at the World Trade Center on September
11th. Last year, communications failures exacerbated the poor response
to Hurricane Katrina.
Amazingly, the Department has no real plan to solve the
communications crisis and has not made the issue a priority. This bill
will require it to complete a baseline study to assess current
capabilities; create a resource plan; expedite voluntary consensus
standards; set goals and time frames; identify obstacles; coordinate
planning with other federal as well as state, local, and private sector
partners; design backup systems in the event that primary systems fail;
and verify manufacturers' claims that equipment meets certain
standards.
Unfortunately, the conference report does not include my dedicated
communications grant program. While it is imperative that we have a
workable strategy, it can only be executed when local public safety
agencies have funding to plan, design, implement, and maintain
interoperable networks. In addition, the bill cuts funding for the
major first responder grant programs, further delaying the progress
that state and local governments should be making to increase
communications capabilities.
Although the conference report is not perfect, I am pleased that
conferees took the first step in adopting my interoperability strategy.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
pending Conference Report, and thank the Chairman of the Homeland
Security Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Hal Rogers, for his work on
this legislation.
I appreciate the fact that this bill includes important provisions
that consolidate the Noble Training Center with the Center for Domestic
Preparedness; establish a Homeland Security Education Program; and
ensure financial accountability of the Secure Border Initiative, which
is similar to a provision of my bill--H.R. 6162--that the House passed
yesterday.
In addition, this bill includes funding to add 1,500 new Border
Patrol agents. In 2004, Congress authorized 2,000 new agents be added
each year. To date, the Border Patrol has added fewer than 2,000 new
agents.
In May, the President announced that the Border Patrol will increase
its ranks by 6,000 new agents by FY 2009. At the current pace, we will
not meet this goal.

[[Page H7970]]

I look forward to working with Members of the Homeland Security
Appropriations Subcommittee to ensure that the Border Patrol will be
able to make the President's goal a reality.
While I support the overall Conference Report, I am deeply concerned
with one provision included by the other body.
This provision would require that all instructors at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center--referred to as FLET-C--be Federal
employees.
This is a terrible provision that could prevent Federal law
enforcement agencies--not just DHS--from being able to quickly and
cost-effectively train their officers and agents. Particularly in
emergency circumstances; like we experienced immediately after the 9-11
terrorist attack.
OMB Director Rob Portman wrote to Congress on September 6th regarding
DHS Appropriations and expressed his serious concern that this
provision is too restrictive.

He wrote that by preventing public-private competition, the
provision--quote: ``deprives the Department of the operational
efficiencies to be gained by competition, and limits its ability to
direct Federal resources to support other priorities.''
I have reviewed FLETC's course list and find it indefensible that
anyone would advocate that only a Federal employee can efficiently and
effectively teach some of these courses.
For example why is it that only a Federal employee can teach ``7
Habits of Highly Effective People,'' or ``Archeological Resources
Protection,'' or ``Self Leadership Through Understanding Human
Behavior?''
All of these are courses taught at FLETC facilities. All of these
courses could very easily be taught by a State or local government
official, a college professor, or a professional from the private
sector.
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the need for FLETC
training has increased dramatically, and FLETC is under significant
strain to meet these needs.
Should an emergency arise tomorrow, I am certain that this provision
will make it impossible for the Department to be able to meet any surge
in demand for training that might arise.
I urge my colleagues to consider the serious ramifications of this
provision, and join me in working to lift this ban in the future to
ensure our Federal law enforcement agencies can meet all their training
needs.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference
report to H.R. 5441, the fiscal year 2007 Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act. With this bill, the federal government
takes important steps forward on securing our border and reforming the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
It is heartening to see that Congress is beginning to wake up to the
critical importance of a secure border. Indeed, this bill provides
$21.3 billion for border protection and immigration enforcement--nearly
an 11 percent increase over last year--including $5.2 billion for the
department's Secure Border Initiative, the government's comprehensive
multi-year plan to secure America's borders and reduce illegal
migration through enhanced technology, infrastructure, and personnel.
$2.25 billion is provided for the addition of 1,500 new Border Patrol
agents, bringing the total to 14,800, and $1.2 billion for border
fencing, vehicle barriers, technology, and other infrastructure
improvements.
H.R. 5441 also takes important steps to protect against the growing
threat of border tunneling. Penalties for individuals who assist in the
construction or financing on border tunnels will be subject to much
harsher penalties--fines and imprisonment of up to 20 years. Anyone
using a border tunnel to smuggle aliens, weapons, or other goods will
be subject to a maximum term of imprisonment that is twice the
punishment that would have applied had a tunnel not been used.
In addition, I am extremely pleased that the conference committee
provided more than-expected funds to assist in the transfer of the
Shadow Wolves from the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
back to their logical home in Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE). The Shadow Wolves officers are Native Americans who combine
modem technology with ancient tracking techniques to play a critical
role in our government's counter-narcotics efforts along the 76 miles
of border and 2.8 million acres within the Tohono O'odham Nation. When
the Department of Homeland Security was originally created, the Shadow
Wolves were placed under the control of the CBP. Unfortunately,
however, the CBP's mission and methods were found to be notably
unsuited to the ways of the Shadow Wolves, whose methods employ
tracking smugglers more than merely defending a border line. This
bureaucratic misjudgment has significantly hurt the Shadow Wolves'
morale, causing their numbers to dwindle. Because of this situation, I
appreciate the conferees' decision to provide $3.1 million--a million
more than in the House bill--for ICE to pay for the newly-transferred
Shadow Wolves' salaries and other needs.
It is also important to note for our friends in Canada and Mexico
that nothing in this bill should be misrepresented as changing our
commitment to requiring a secure border ID.
As we require more secure IDs to get a driver's license, to vote, and
to get a job within the U.S., you can be assured that we certainly will
require one at the borders. Working together, we can maintain our
important trade and tourism relationships while maintaining the
security or our Nation.
Last, I am pleased that this conference report will enact important
reforms to FEMA to help ward off some of the blatant examples of
mismanagement seen in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. For example,
this bill creates a smarter FEMA management structure by establishing
10 FEMA regional offices and regional directors with the ability to
coordinate and direct the federal response in times of crisis, so that
FEMA is not trying to manage future disasters from Washington. By
putting FEMA on the ground where the crisis is occurring, regional
directors will be able to coordinate more effective and timely
responses. Also, each regional office will maintain a multiagency
regional strike team, with the ability to quickly respond to
emergencies, and three national emergency response teams will be
created in case rapid supplements to the regional teams are needed.
Finally, while codifying the FEMA director's status as the principal
advisor to the President and Secretary of Homeland Security, this bill
refrains from establishing FEMA as an independent, cabinet-level
agency--a misguided notion designed more to placate the media than
institute meaningful reform.
Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Rogers and the rest of the conferees
for their hard work on this bill, and urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations Act (H.R. 5441) because $35
billion is too high a price for failure. Hurricane Katrina provided a
vivid and massive example of DHS' incompetence, but additional
instances of incompetence are on almost daily display. Just this week,
Secretary Chertoff announced with great fanfare a new risk-based port
security program. Perhaps he knows something about the terrorists that
we don't, because apparently they are more likely to target the ports
in Burns Harbor, IN and Duluth, MN than Oakland, CA. Those ports
received new funding while Oakland got nothing. The fourth-busiest port
in the nation, the gateway to Asia, in the heart of a major
metropolitan center and the high-technology headquarters of the country
is apparently at no risk of a terrorist attack.
Another recent round of urban security grants cut funding by 40
percent for New York and Washington, DC, but increased it for
Louisville and Omaha. The American people might also be interested to
know that DHS' ``National Asset Database,'' which is used to determine
how to allocate preparedness funding, lists Indiana as the state with
the most potential terrorist targets. Supposedly, the Hoosier state has
8,591 targets compared to California's 3,212. The Amish Country Popcorn
Factory in Berne, IN is on the list, but the Empire State Building is
not. I couldn't make this stuff up.
The more DHS promises to improve and stop wasting money, the worse
things get. Last year, more than half of contracts were awarded without
a full competitive bidding process, compared to 19 percent in 2003. If
it seems to you like the Katrina recovery is going awfully slow for how
much money has been spent, perhaps you aren't considering the 2,000
sets of dog booties costing $68,442; three portable shower units for
$71,170; 54 iPods worth $7,000; 37 designer rain jackets for a Customs
and Border Protection firing range that isn't used when it is raining;
and a beer brewing kit for $1,000 purchased by DHS staff.
This Homeland Security Appropriations bill does nothing to require
stronger oversight or to stop the hemorrhaging of money to our least-
vulnerable areas. The popcorn factory and petting zoo lobby will be
happy, but I am disgusted, and I urge my colleagues to join me in
voting no.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference
report and the provisions dealing with chemical plant security.
I truly regret this issue is being debated in the context of an
appropriations bill. As Chairman of one of this Body's two Committees
of jurisdiction, I am committed to engaging the policy debate in the
future on chemical plant security legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I have been astounded by the lack of real knowledge by
some professed experts about the way that chemical plants are already
regulated under existing Federal laws. When Congress resumes this
debate in the next couple of years, it is essential that all interested
persons know what their government

[[Page H7971]]

and the private sector are already doing before heaping an array of
well-intentioned mandates on government and the private sector.
America does not become more secure by piling on more laws, it just
become more regulated.
These provisions on chemical plant security are a step forward in
making America more secure--and this is the only criterion by which I
find myself supporting them. The legislation is far from perfect.
However, it does establish, for the first time, an actual, and
enforceable chemical plant security program for the whole Nation.
Let me highlight some key provisions:
First, this legislation requires chemical plants to conduct
vulnerability assessments and site security plans. Similar steps have
been required of other facilities by Congress and have passed without a
dissenting vote.
Second, this legislation requires the Department of Homeland Security
to develop risk-based, performance-based regulations for securing high
risk chemical plants within the next six months. This provision
includes a much wider scope of plant coverage than what the Senate
spending bill contained and it also makes the critical distinction that
not every chemical plant is created or operates equally, has the same
risks, or is similarly vulnerable.
Third, this legislation allows the Department to approve chemical
plant regimes that other public or private interests develop that meet
the criteria in the Department's regulations. This is crucial because
it allows parties that have already invested in protecting chemical
plants from terrorist attacks to avoid having those costs stranded
simply because they had the foresight and initiative to act before this
legislation became law.
Fourth, this is legislation protects sensitive information. We must
never make security-sensitive information about chemical plants'
available to anyone for the asking, including terrorists. Information
protections have been included in every homeland security related bill
since 9-11 and there is no good policy reason to end that practice
right now.
This provision does not shield any chemical plant from FOIA requests
for emissions data under existing Federal environmental statutes; it
merely covers vulnerability and security information. I hope we all
support this necessary protection.

Fifth, this legislation keeps the Department focused on chemical
plant security. Some people want to have the Department's mission
diluted with extraneous tasks such as regulating chemical plant
pollution, chemical plant manufacturing processes, or chemical plant
workplace relations.
We must not dismiss the volumes of environmental and manufacturing
laws and enforcement expertise at both the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, not to
mention their state counterparts, so another Agency of the Federal
government can get into the act.
Sixth, under the catch-phrase ``inherently safer technologies'' some
want to vest in the Department of Homeland Security the power to
regulate chemical feedstocks, processes, and products. One
environmental protection agency is enough, Mr. Speaker. EPA has the
authority and expertise it needs under the Safe Drinking Water Act,
Toxic Substances Control Act, Clean Air Act, and other laws to protect
our environment from harmful chemical exposure.
Let's let the Department of Homeland Security focus on protecting us
from the threat of chemical terrorism so that our plants and
communities are secure, and manufacturing facilities can continue to
meet the needs of the American consumer, the American worker, and the
American economy.
Seventh, this legislation distinguishes facilities that are already
regulated by Federal law to prevent terrorism consequences. This
includes drinking water and Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA)
facilities. Some misread this distinction as meaning drinking water and
maritime transportation facilities do not get protection. On the
contrary, the protection from terrorism we've already given them is so
good we don't want conflicting regulatory programs to interfere.
We don't want DHS, which is not an environmental or public health
agency, setting de facto drinking water standards under the guise of
security regulations. Both the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Acts and presidential directives on homeland
security place EPA in charge of drinking water facilities. Let's keep
it there.
Eighth, this legislation requires DHS to audit and inspect chemical
facilities to ensure compliance. Further, any facility not in
compliance faces civil penalties and those facilities who do not obey
an order to take corrective action face the prospect of being forced to
cease operation. Considering its consequences for dedicated workers and
its downstream impacts on interstate commerce, I trust this power would
be used, if ever, only as a last resort.
Last, this legislation prevents private rights of action against the
chemical facility solely as a means of private parties enforcing the
security provisions in this section. This bar against third-party suits
does not extend to any presently existing right a person might have
under any other law. Simply, this provision prevents self-deputized
persons from using the courts to enact national security policy.

Mr. Speaker, imperfect as the chemical security section is, it is
better than current law and should make us a more secure nation. I urge
all my colleagues to support its inclusion in this bill and adoption of
the conference report.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, two years after the bipartisan 9/11 Commission
gave the Republican led Congress and this Administration failing grades
for their efforts to secure our nation, they are still failing the
American public.
Take the issue of port security for example.
The Coast Guard has identified over $7.3 billion in port security
needs over the next decade, yet since 2002 we have barely provided $900
million.
Four days ago the Homeland Security Department announced its latest
round of port security grants and not one single penny was given to the
Port of Oakland in my district, even though it is the fourth busiest
container port in the country.
Instead of spending money to secure the Port of Oakland and all our
nation's ports, we are spending nearly $2 billion a week--over $321
billion so far--to fight this unnecessary war in Iraq.
A war which our intelligence services are now telling us is spawning
a whole new generation of terrorists and making us less safe.
Mr. Speaker, we should be spending taxpayer dollars to secure our
nation, not to create new terrorists.
While I support the funding in this bill, I believe we need much
more.
Democrats have proposed a new direction for America that delivers on
our homeland security needs. It's time for a change, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, while this bill provides important funding
that is very late in coming for our border security, there are still
holes in the funding Congress has passed . . . and what the 9-11
Commission said was the least the Congress should do to combat the
terrorist threat.
Let us use the Intelligence Reform bill that became law in December,
2004, as a benchmark of what this nation must do to try and control the
security of our borders: the bill mandated 10,000 Border Patrol agents
over 5 years (2,000 annually) and 40,000 detention beds over 5 years
(8,000 annually).
Here is a compilation of all the funding bills the Congress has
passed that have become law--including the bill passed today, laying
out how many Border Patrol agents and how many detention beds we have
actually funded: Emergency Supplemental in 2005 (Passed May 2005), 500
Border Patrol Agents, 1,950 Detention Beds; FY06 Homeland Security
Conference Report (Passed October 2005), 1,000 Border Patrol Agents,
1,800 Detention Beds; Emergency Supplemental in 2006 (Passed June
2006), 1,000 Border Patrol Agents, 4,000 Detention Beds;
Add in what we are passing today:
FY07 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 1,500 Border Patrol
Agents, 4,870 Detention Beds;
Our grand total of what we should have done according to the 9-11
Commission to date is: 4,000 Border Patrol Agents and 16,000 detention
beds. While we are finally caught up on paying for the least the 9-11
Commission said we should do for Border Patrol agents, we are still
1,550 short on detention beds.
Never let it be said that we did the least we could do--this Congress
is paying for less than what the 9-11 Commission said was the least we
should do. And let me add that it took a national guilt trip and
backlash to get this Congress to pay for the least amount of Border
Patrol agents the 9-11 Commission demanded.
What has appalled so many of us is that DHS is releasing thousands of
illegal immigrants into the general population of the U.S. because they
simply do not have the detention space to hold them. These illegal
immigrants--also referred to as OTMs (other than Mexicans)--are given
what they call ``walking papers'' and are released on their own
recognizance with an order to appear at a deportation hearing weeks
after their release.
In fact, they are asked where they are traveling to in order to give
them a hearing near their final destination. Of course, they rarely
return. This is hurting the morale of our U.S. Border Patrol Agents and
it is a misguided process.
Because of ``catch and release'' the number of immigrants who have
come across our borders has significantly increased. According to the
April 2006 Department of Homeland Security Inspector General report
here's what underfunding border security means: 774,112 illegal
immigrants were apprehended during the past three years. Of those,
280,987--or 36 pecent--were released largely due to a lack of
personnel, bed space and funding.

[[Page H7972]]

Our willful neglect of our border security had galled our fellow
citizens. As a political gesture, this Administration and this Congress
want to build a wall and militarize the border? That's not what we
need. We need to keep our promises to the American people and fund the
promises we made.
We must send a clear message that when you cross our borders
illegally, you will be caught and detained. I get our desperate fiscal
situation. But compromising border security is not the way to trim the
deficit.
At some point, this Congress must deal with the national security
risks that remains with the very large number of OTMs released into the
general population who are still unaccounted for. Funding the effort to
locate all the released OTMs is going to make paying for the minimum
number of agents and beds seem like child's play.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question
will be postponed.

____________________