Waiving Points of Order Against Conference Report on H.R. 2360, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2006

WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2360, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (House of Representatives - October 06, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this Homeland Security conference report will be the third and one of the most important appropriations conference reports considered by Congress this session. In the wake of a wholly inadequate Federal response to Hurricane Katrina, it is this Congress's responsibility to provide the Department of Homeland Security with appropriate funding and resources. That funding must also come with proper direction and full oversight.

Unfortunately, this conference report falls far short of that standard. Hurricane Katrina revealed several institutional problems with the Department of Homeland Security, in particular with the structure of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Over the past decade, FEMA has been stripped of its duties; folded into a disorganized department; and, most disturbingly, staffed by inexperienced people.

With this bill, Congress had a golden opportunity to address the institutional disarray that has tarnished FEMA. Instead of doing the right thing, this conference report provides absolutely no guidance on how to spend billions of taxpayer dollars or how to properly restructure the agency. Furthermore, Secretary Chertoff has insisted on restructuring the Department again, for the sixth time, without any congressional oversight and hearings. He has proposed to place FEMA in the Preparedness Directorate, further splintering the agency's ability to respond quickly to disasters.

Disaster preparedness and response are intrinsically linked. FEMA must be responsible for both. Separating these duties will only hinder the Federal Government's responsiveness potential. This systematic dismantling of FEMA's authority was the primary cause of the botched Federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

Secretary Chertoff's proposal to restructure FEMA will not solve the institutional deficiencies of the agency. While FEMA was not perfect before it merged into the Department of Homeland Security, at least there existed a level of expertise and skill and FEMA's director had immediate and direct access to the President of the United States.

Experience and professionalism have been missing from FEMA under the Bush administration. Michael Brown, a product of political cronyism, is the perfect example of what happens to government without thorough oversight. Instead of having somebody with disaster experience, President Bush ended up with an Arabian horse specialist.

A year ago, when the State of Florida was ravaged by multiple hurricanes, State and Federal officials complained about the lack of preparedness and inadequate response from FEMA. Counties that were hit the hardest were overlooked while other counties that storms avoided received millions of dollars in funding. Florida lawmakers this past March urged two House committees with FEMA jurisdiction to hold hearings on what went wrong.

Even after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit 6 months later, the Republican leadership has continued to block the Florida delegation's oversight request. And now we are all paying the price for neglecting oversight of FEMA, most notably the thousands who paid with their lives and their livelihoods.

The House Republican leadership has consistently ignored proper oversight of this administration. It is clear that they do not want to ask tough questions or demand straight answers. This Congress has become a rubber stamp, and the results have been disastrous.

Mr. Speaker, Brownie did not do a ``heckuva'' job and neither has this Congress. Unfortunately, when given the opportunity to do the right thing, the Republican leadership has once again acted against the best interests of the American people. Their response to these disasters and to these deficiencies at FEMA is to install a partisan committee that will simply gloss over the most important issues surrounding the failures of FEMA. Mr. Speaker, that is not oversight. That is a whitewash.

A more effective FEMA can only be created when independent, experienced disaster specialists analyze the problems that Katrina exposed and then identify solutions. Restructuring FEMA without independent input and oversight is premature and will further plague its prevention and response capabilities.

And not only is the oversight missing, Mr. Speaker, but so is the money. While my Republican friends will highlight the $1.3 billion increase over fiscal year 2005, let us be clear that this increase is only barely above the current rate of inflation. In reality, there are several funding cuts in this conference report that significantly and adversely affect the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA programs.

This conference report cuts State and local preparedness funding by $585 million, a 19 percent cut from last year. Fire grants are funded at $60 million below the fiscal year 2005 level. Disaster relief funding is cut by $370 million, and pre-disaster mitigation funding is cut in half. Let me repeat that: Cut in half.

How can we justify cutting disaster relief and mitigation funding by $420 million? Did Katrina not demonstrate how severely unprepared and ill-equipped FEMA really is? What kind of rationale is this?

Thankfully, there are some programs in this conference report where funding levels are justifiable. For instance, the Coast Guard's ``Deepwater'' program is fully funded at $933 million, due mostly in part to the Guard's extraordinary rescue efforts after Katrina.

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what the majority is thinking. Every single disaster, pre-disaster, preparedness and response program should be fully funded. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita should have taught us that. And along with full funding, there needs to be proper oversight. Neither the two enacted relief packages totaling over $60 billion nor this conference report provide any meaningful oversight. None. No check on the flow of the money. No way to ensure the proper awarding of contracts through competitive bidding. No accountability.

Thankfully, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, offered an amendment in conference requiring the Department of Homeland Security to provide detailed information on how Katrina disaster relief funding is being spent. The specific requirements laid out in this provision force the Department of Homeland Security to send Congress weekly reports that detail any and every kind of disaster relief spending, and I applaud the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for offering this important amendment. It is an important step in the right direction, a step toward accountability.

I am also grateful to the efforts of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, who fought hard last week to instruct the conferees not to accept Secretary Chertoff's reorganization program.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that this conference report will pass by a comfortable margin, but it will not have my vote. We can do so much better than this. We need to do so much better than this, and I hope in the coming weeks and months, both the majority and the Democratic side will work together to achieve a product that we all can be proud of and that will truly ensure the homeland security of the people of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from Texas. One of my problems is the fact that this bill cuts some very important programs that I think do not deserve to be cut. It cuts first responder grants, which I think is a mistake. It underfunds communications equipment for first responders.

Just like the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Hurricane Katrina highlighted the problem of first responders having incompatible communications equipment. When Hurricane Katrina hit, emergency personnel were on at least five different channels and were hampered in communicating with one another. Yet this conference report continues to underfund interoperable communications systems. It cuts the disaster relief account. It cuts predisaster mitigation. It underfunds port security. It underfunds rail and transit security. It fails to include dedicated funding for chemical plant security. I could go on and on and on.

Homeland security is not for free. If we are not funding these agencies, and we are not funding the necessary personnel to be able to protect our country, then we are not doing a very good job at homeland security. One other thing I will say to the gentleman from Texas. I believe that we have an obligation when we spend the taxpayers' money that there is thoughtful and effective oversight. We have allocated billions and billions of dollars already in response to this hurricane with no oversight. I do not want taxpayers' money wasted, and I am uncomfortable with the fact the bill provides no oversight. The gentleman may not be, but I am.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I think one of the things that is missing in this bill is the lack of oversight. That is why some of us have great concerns about it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

First of all, let me begin by saying something nice to the majority. I would like to point out for the record that this is the first conference report in this Congress that has lain over for 3 days as required under the rules of the House, so I want to thank the Speaker and the majority leader and the members of the Rules Committee for following the rules of the House for a change. I hope we can do this more often.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me address the substance of this conference report. This conference report cuts first-responder grants. We have heard that over and over and over again. And let me just say to my colleagues on the other side who say that somehow there is money in the pipeline, well, there shouldn't be any money in the pipeline. The need is that great.

The first responders in this country, our fire fighters and our police officers, they do not want resolutions of support. They do not want your eloquent speeches. They do not want your meaningless proclamations. What they want, what they need are the resources to be able to do their job, to protect their communities.

And yet, under this conference report, three of the four major grants programs for first responders in the Department of Homeland Security are cut below fiscal year 2005 levels. It underfunds communications equipment for first responders. We have been talking about that over and over throughout this debate.

But what is particularly astonishing to me is that, despite what we saw in Katrina, where people could not communicate with each other, similar to what happened during 9/11, the conference report actually provides $15 million or 36 percent less than the amount the House provided for this equipment in the original bill back in May before Katrina ever struck.

Now we have heard a lot on the other side about budget priorities and limited moneys and funding shortfalls. But we have to get this right. This is about protecting our homeland security. This is government's first responsibility, to protect the people of this country.

You never talk about budget priorities. You never talk about money shortfalls when it comes to tax cuts that benefit mostly the richest people in this country. But yet when it comes to protecting people, providing the equipment that our first responders need, providing the equipment our communities need to protect themselves against a terrorist attack or a natural disaster, somehow we do not have the money.

I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov