Bennie Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, ``National Preparedness Month,'' an initiative of the Department of Homeland Security and the American Red Cross to ``encourage Americans to take simple steps to prepare for emergencies in their homes, businesses and schools'' began on September 1st. As the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, I serve as the Honorary Congressional Co-Chair. I was filled with sadness and disbelief when a press release from the Department came across my desk on Thursday announcing the initiative, saying that it would help Americans take simple steps such as ``get a kit, make a plan, be informed, and get involved.'' The release seemed hollow and inappropriate in light of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and my home State of Mississippi. My message to the Department and others in government is simple: we will need more than a few emergency kits and press releases to ensure that our Nation is adequately prepared to respond to a natural disaster or terrorist attack. Hurricane Katrina was an unprecedented natural disaster, but to government officials tasked with protecting our Nation's communities, it should not have been a surprise. Risk assessments have long told us that the Gulf Coast was in danger. The New Orleans Times-Picayune did a series of articles as early as 2002 about the risks to New Orleans from a hurricane. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has created reports and conducted exercises on Gulf Coast preparedness and response issues. Yet, it pains me that here we are a week after the hurricane struck with potentially thousands of deaths, communities razed, a city underwater and under siege, and gasoline shortages and price gouging across the Nation. From what I am seeing here in Mississippi, our government failed in both its preparedness and its response to this disaster. I also believe that if terrorists, rather than a hurricane, had attacked the Gulf Coast--the result would have been no different. It appears our preparedness plans did not anticipate that thousands of people would be stranded in a stadium or convention center. Or that citizens would be roaming the streets begging for food and water and seeking shelter wherever they can find dry spots--as they're doing in Mississippi. Instead of a well-prepared plan, victims have had to rely on ad hoc charity from cities with big hearts such as Houston that are opening up venues to house now-homeless evacuees. I have even heard that people are being put on two-day bus rides to Washington, DC, for shelter. While Washington should be commended for opening the DC Armory to victims, there is something wrong with having to put evacuees who have lost everything on buses for several days so far from what might be left, if anything, of their communities. How will families and friends of these evacuees know how to find them? The same could be asked of those who are being turned away from the Astrodome and moved on to Dallas or San Antonio. I also wonder how an electrical outage could take down such critical infrastructure as two oil and gas pipelines servicing a large section of the country? In 1998, President Clinton issued a presidential directive that required the government to look at pipeline and electrical grid security. In December 2003, President Bush issued a homeland security directive that repackaged the government's efforts. The last several years in Congress, we have continually heard that the administration and private sector are working to secure our critical infrastructure. Yet, a power outage managed to cripple the pipelines, resulting in skyrocketing gas prices across the Nation. Overnight, some communities saw gas prices rise 40 cents, others $2.00. What message does this send to terrorists if our petroleum systems are so vulnerable? I also wonder what extra steps the Federal Government and the energy sector are taking today to ensure that these facilities are bolstered against attack from terrorists who might try to exploit the current situation. Despite the increasing threat of hurricanes, especially this year, our government continued to cut the funding of the Army Corps of Engineers, thereby cutting the funding for flood control projects. In 2005, President Bush only requested $3.9 million for the floor projects in New Orleans, although the Army Corps of Engineers said it would be able to spend $20 million if the funds were only provided. Congress increased the funding to $5.5 million, which still was insufficient to fund new construction contracts to secure the levees. For Fiscal Year 2006, the President has asked for even less, requesting only $3 million. Allowing dams and levees to remain vulnerable to disaster and attack simply is unacceptable. The administration must focus on the very real threats to our communities, towns, and cities if we are to secure our Nation. Preparedness is our prime defense against natural disasters and terrorist attacks. What Americans face today is a result of what happens when our government fails to prepare. Natural disaster or terrorist attack--our government must do better. We all deserve better.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from New York yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Frederick Douglass once said, ``The life of a nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful and virtuous.'' I have heard a lot of comments the last few weeks from folks saying this bill is needed for the war on terrorism. The way they talk about it sounds like our Nation might fall to pieces without it. As the ranking member on the Committee on Homeland Security and someone who has seen firsthand what our government is and is not doing to keep us safe at home, I am here to set the record straight. The bill today is about eliminating the sunsets of a handful of provisions in the PATRIOT Act and the 9/11 bill. Some of these provisions are untested and we do not know how helpful they are because the President has not provided information. Others, such as the library snooping provision, have never even been used, according to the administration. How good of a terrorism fighting tool is it if it has not been part of our war on terror yet? I am disappointed that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle refused to allow an amendment offered to extend the sunsets for a few years. Extending them will allow the President to use them, but at the same time hold them accountable for their use. The sunsets are critical in keeping this administration honest and truthful in its efforts to protect our Nation. Anyway, is the goal here today to protect Americans from terrorism at home? The attack on London 2 weeks ago was a wake-up call, yet the administration did not expand our own Nation's efforts to protect our transit system. The Nation lacks a transportation security plan for protecting its 30 million daily commuters. It was due in Congress 3 months ago. Today London was attacked again. It is time for the administration to stop hitting the snooze button. Let us give transit security the attention it needs. Let us not confuse the bill today with the real efforts to protect our Nation against terrorism. If we ask Americans, they will prefer Congress to protect subways or buses. Mr. Speaker, let us get it right. Let us protect Americans at home from real terrorist threats.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this Amendment that would properly fund the government-wide Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. In the wake of 9/11, many Americans have grown concerned that sweeping new law enforcement powers adopted to bolster national security may, in fact, be eroding the civil liberties that they were intended to protect. The freedoms we enjoy as Americans--indeed, our way of life--are at risk if our government can spy and gather information on us simply under the guise of protecting those freedoms. I know too well what happens when a government is left unchecked in its surveillance and spying efforts. While I was in college, I attended a speech given by Martin Luther King, Jr. My government responded by creating an FBI file on me. It seems like a whole generation of innocent Americans are at risk of having files created on them. Those of us in Congress tried to address potential governmental violation of civil liberties by creating a Civil Liberties Board as part of the 9/11 bill passed last December. This board was created in response to the 9/11 Commission's concerns that the government lacked ``an enhanced system of checks and balances to protect the precious liberties that are vital to our way of life.'' We intended the Board to be the mechanism by which civil liberties and privacy considerations would be elevated throughout and within the Federal Government and its myriad operations and programs. The President supported and signed the bill. And then failed to fund it less than two months later. He has failed to fund critical border and aviation initiatives contained in the bill. And he has failed to fully fund the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, giving it a mere $750,000. This lack of funding for a Board--which, by the way, he took almost 6 months to name Members for--suggests a lack of serious commitment to the preservation of civil liberties and privacy rights. Too often, this White House has chosen to simply ignore that which it doesn't like. Congress didn't vote to ask the Administration to think about having a privacy and civil liberties board. On the contrary, it voted to establish the Board and then gave the White House the power to fund it in a bill that the President said he supported. Without an adequate budget, however, the Board is only a shell--a powerless entity unequipped to accomplish the goals envisioned for it by the 9/11 Commission. Funding the Civil Liberties Board will fulfill our commitment to protect the rights of all Americans as our Nation battles against domestic and international terrorism. I strongly urge my colleagues to join in support of this amendment.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from New York. As public officials, we face many difficult decisions. This issue should not be one. The amendment before us this morning would strike a provision in this bill that bans OSHA from conducting fit tests of the respirator masks worn by our first responders. These masks are crucial to the survival of our first responders and it is only common sense that these masks must fit properly to perform as expected. We would never ask our soldiers on the battlefield to go into combat with equipment that mayor may not perform as expected. Our first responders who are our domestic defenders deserve the same treatment. We must do everything we can to help those who sacrifice so much to protect us. Only yesterday, a group of 80 arms control and security experts released a survey commissioned by Senator Lugar of Indiana which says that they believe there is a 70 percent chance of a WMD attack in the next 10 years. We all agree that we should focus our efforts on preventing any future WMD attack, but we must ensure that our first responders are adequately protected should an attack take place. I strongly support the amendment offered by Mr. Owens and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the importance of several issues of historical and contemporary significance involving racial violence in the State of Mississippi. On Friday, June 10, 2005, the Washington Post ran an article detailing the story of James Cameron; the only living survivor of a lynching. Cameron, a 91 year old native of Marion, Indiana, recalled the ordeal in which he was falsely accused of a rape and murder and then attacked by a mob of white citizens after being arrested and jailed. Once the mob had beaten, kicked, and humiliated three innocent men; they were all lynched. At some point during this process, someone cried out to the mob that James Cameron had nothing to do with the murder, and so he was then taken back to jail where he was eventually detained on robbery charges. Today, James Cameron is alive to see the passage of the U.S. Senate Resolution, apologizing for and acknowledging the failure of Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation. Though it lacked the signatures of the two Senators representing the State with the most reported incidents of lynching, I commend the United States Senate for their resolution offering a formal apology to the victims of lynching and the descendants of those victims. In 1900, Congressman George White, an African American, introduced anti-lynching legislation which was fought off tooth and nail. Since then, it has taken more than 100 years for the Congress to offer an apology or acknowledge this failure. The State of Mississippi has had the most lynching reports in the Nation. Since 1882 there have been 581 reported cases of lynching in the State of Mississippi. That tallies in at a whopping 4.7 reported cases each year. These numbers do not include the unreported cases and those ``conspiracy theories'' like Raynard Johnson of Kokomo, MS, found in his yard hanging from a tree with a belt wrapped around his neck in 2000. It has been more than 40 years since the murder of Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, and Michael Schwerner, who were lynched in Philadelphia, MS, and it has been more than 50 years since the murder of Emmitt Louis Till, who was lynched in Money, MS. Today, the case of the three civil rights workers and the case of Emmitt Louis Till have been re-opened so that the State of Mississippi can finally bring forth resolution in these murders. These cases have one similar thread; they are perpetuated by the fact that there has been no justice rendered. The issuance of the U.S. Senate's apology, the re-opening of the case of the three civil rights workers and young Mr. Till are long overdue. It has taken our Nation decades to come to grips with these atrocities. The Senate apology and the justice sought in the murders do not mend the perceived racial rift that has transpired, but the actions are definitely a step in the right direction.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Rev. C.L. Woodley. Rev. Woodley currently' presides in Mound Bayou, Mississippi and is one of the last Buffalo Soldiers in the Nation. I submit the following article by Robert Smith of the Cleveland News Leader in Cleveland, Mississippi. The Rev. C.L. Woodley's moral conscience is still powerfully stirred by events he witnessed when he served in the U.S. Army during World War II. ``I pray for America. We're in bad shape and don't know it,'' the retired African Methodist Episcopal (AME) presiding elder says, reflecting on both past and present. Woodley, 85, is one of the last of the Buffalo Soldiers-- African Americans trained as horse-riding cavalrymen, who served the nation in both peacetime and war from the late 1860s up through the mid 1940s--Native Americans of the Great Plains were the source of the nickname. A native of Stringtown, Woodley was drafted in 1941 and received his cavalry instruction at Camp Funston, Kansas. He later took part in U.S. military actions in North African and Italy. However, he recalls with a laugh that he had experience as a rider before he trained with horses at Camp Funston. As a youth in the Stringtown area, in southwest Bolivar County, he was a jockey in mule races. Today, he still rides a bicycle in the mornings, he explained. Turning the pages of his photo album, Woodley commented during an interview at his home about how he and other soldiers had to cross the burning, but not sunken, remains of a bombed ship to get from their vessel to shore when they arrived at Casablanca, Morocco. He became motor-pool sergeant for a contingent of replacement troops, who supported men on the fighting line, and the sound of shells and bombs exploding became a regular feature of their environment. ``We got it so bad until you could tell the sound of a German plane from an American plane,'' he said. In addition to the dangers of combat, Woodley had disturbing experiences with which he still grapples. Among those experiences was the sight of hungry civilians begging for food--mothers asking U.S. soldiers for bits of their rations to feed to keep the civilians back. ``Our orders were to take that club and beat them back, but I told the commanding officer I didn't have the heart to do it,'' he said, adding that he is concerned about how the U.S. treats civilians in present-day conflicts, such as the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. ``I don't know whether we'll ever get out of this war. There are way too many people getting killed,'' he said, voicing anxiety that America may be losing men and women it will need in the future. He sees a national indifference to the value of life expressed both in our foreign policy and in social practices such as legalized abortion. ``God is not dead,'' Woodley warns. ``I might lie to you but that Bible's going to come true.'' When he returned to Mississippi after his Army days, Woodley studied at Campbell College in the Jackson area and became an AME clergyman. He served for more than 40 years as a presiding elder in the church, which means he was responsible for helping the bishop to supervise preachers. He became senior presiding elder of the Eight AME District, comprised of Mississippi and Louisiana. Woodley settled in Mount Bayou with his wife, Willie Thelma Woodley, who was a native of the historic settlement founded by former slaves of Joe Davis. Shelton Woodley of Mound Bayou, one of the minister's sons, says his own service in the Vietnam War helped him to appreciate and better understand his father's experiences. The elder Mr. Woodley, who stays busy keeping up the shrubbery at his home and at the Mound Bayou branch of the Bank of Bolivar County, says he hates to be idle. He recalls how hard work shaped him as a child. ``I picked 200 pounds of cotton in Stringtown, Mississippi, when I was nine years old,'' he says with a smile. Most of us are aware of the contributions that men like Rev. C.L. Woodley and the Buffalo Soldiers have made to the preservation of our Nation and our democracy. In the history of the Buffalo Soldiers there were not only men that served, but women as well. Cathy Williams, the only woman who served in 1866 as a Buffalo Soldier, also deserves recognition by the House; therefore, these are men and women of courage, bravery, and honor. The remarkable irony of the history of the Buffalo Soldiers and many other African American soldiers like Rev. Woodley is that they fought to preserve the high ideals of liberty, freedom, and democracy; however, they were fighting for principles and privileges that they themselves were being denied on their own soil. Mr. Speaker and to the Members of Congress, too many times do we celebrate the men and women of our armed services and veterans after they are no longer with us. I ask you to join in saluting Mr. Woodley and the men and women of the Buffalo Soldiers, to ensure him while he is living and well that we are grateful and indebted to him and others like him for his service in the United States Army.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply disappointed with the level of funding in this apropriations bill for the State Criminal Alien Assistanace Program which helps States and localities jail criminal aliens. The bill is better than the President's budget fiscal year 2006 request of $0 for SCAAP, but that isn't too difficult. According to the Congressional Research Service, the President's Budget request hasn't included a funding request for SCAAP since fiscal year 2003. Unfortunately, even the level provided in this bill is far below levels necessary to address the need of States and localities. Senator Feinstein and a bipartisan House group including Congressman Kolbe, the gentleman from Arizona, introduced bills that address the need for higher funding levels for SCAAP, including S. 188 and H.R. 557 calling for a SCAAP funding for fiscal year 2006 of $750 million. The President's home State of Texas is one of SCAAP's big beneficiaries. From fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 2004 the President's home State, Texas, has received over $351 million in order to incarcerate criminal aliens. But that doesn't even come close to the approximately $1.6 billion that California received in the same period or the $691 million that New York received. The need for SCAAP funds to jail criminal aliens may well be why Governors Jeb Bush of Florida, Rick Perry of Texas, Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Richard Codey of New Jersey, Kenny Guinn of Nevada, George Pataki of New York, Ruth Ann Miner of Delaware, Tom Vilsack of Iowa, Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, Sonny Perdue of Georgia, Charles Turnbull of the Virgin Islands, Christine Gregoire of Washington and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota wrote to Congress asking the appropriations committee to provide $750 million for SCAAP. Their letter made clear that ``SCAAP provides only partial, but important, reimbursement for the cost to incarcerate these individuals.'' I agree with the Governors and with Senator Feinstein and with some of our colleagues in the House that in fiscal year 2006 that the $750 million level is the correct one and that increases may well be necessary in future years. Just looking at fiscal year 2004 SCAAP awards, at the level of funding contained in this appropriations bill, California alone will eat up at least a third of the monies available through SCAAP. As the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee I believe that Congress must get its funding priorities right. We must focus on terrorists and criminal aliens. At a time when this Congress wants to outsource the enforcement of our civil immigration laws to the States, we need to set the right priorities. We need to fund SCAAP at higher levels. Incarcerating criminal aliens is strongly in the homeland security interest. Making sure that our States have the money to help the Federal Government meet this commitment is in the homeland security interest. May 6, 2005. Hon. Frank R. Wolf, Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice and Commerce and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Alan B. Mollohan, Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice and Commerce and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Wolf and Representative Mollohan: We write to express our continued support for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) and to request you appropriate $750 million for this program in Fiscal Year 2006. SCAAP is vital to states such as ours who bear a significant financial burden for the federal government's failure to control our nation's borders. Congress has provided help in maintaining this program--but more is needed. As Governors, we are well aware of the difficult choices that must be made in prioritizing funding. It is for this reason that we join together to write you now. We want to reiterate our strong support for SCAAP and to assure you of the critical importance of this program. Each year, thousands of undocumented aliens who have committed crimes in our states are incarcerated in state or local facilities. SCAAP provides only a partial, but important, reimbursement for the cost to incarcerate these individuals. Our states are committed to working with the Federal government to protect our nation. While we are doing what we can in this important effort, immigration policy and controlling the nation's borders are clear, fundamental responsibilities of the Federal government and an essential component of homeland security. Every effort should be made to help States and local governments cover a greater share of the expenses they incur to incarcerate criminal aliens. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Again, we appreciate your past support and we look forward to continuing our work with you to ensure that SCAAP remains a viable program for reimbursing State and local governments for the burden they carry to incarcerate criminal aliens. Sincerely, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California; Rick Perry, Governor of Texas; Richard J. Codey, Governor of New Jersey; George E. Pataki, Governor of New York; Thomas J. Vilsack, Governor of Iowa. Janet Napolitano, Governor of Arizona; Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico; Kenny Guinn, Governor of Nevada; Ruth Ann Miner, Governor of Delaware; Rod R. Blagojevich, Governor of Illinois. Tommy Perdue, Governor of Georgia; Charles W. Turnbull, Governor of Virgin Islands; Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida; Christine Gregorie, Governor of Washington; Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have heard a number of statements about this bill. It is an initial step in the right direction. It is not comprehensive. There are some glaring overlooks in the bill. We do not address any aviation security, we do not address chemical security. There are a number of things that we could do better in this bill. However, I have to join my chairman in recognizing the fact that this is our first attempt to do an authorization bill. It is by no means complete, but given his leadership and willingness to work in a bipartisan spirit, I am looking forward to moving this legislation and making sure that we do the right thing for this country. We have to secure this Nation. I will be offering a substitute later in the debate which obviously will cover far more areas than what this authorization bill covers that we are debating here today. Clearly, if we support the substitute, we can move closer to making America secure. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. As a ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I strongly believe this base bill is deficient in a number of significant areas. This 79-page bill fails to address a number of critical aspects of homeland security and does not deliver on the homeland security commitments made in the 9/11 Act. That is why I, like many of my colleagues in the House, felt compelled to submit amendments to the Committee on Rules for this bill. All told, there were 85 amendments offered, many of them from my colleagues on the Committee on Homeland Security. The rule before us today will allow 24 amendments to be considered by the full House. That is simply wrong. The rule blocks a meaningful debate on important amendments like the one the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) offered to close a major aviation security gap. It would have required airport workers to be physically screened before accessing planes in restricted areas of airports. The rule also denies consideration of an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California, (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Economic Security and Infrastructure Protection. It would have closed a major port security gap by requiring validation inspectors for shippers. This rule also prevents the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) from presenting her amendment to close gaps in the public transit and rail system. It also denies the House the opportunity to consider amendments offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) to improve chemical plant security, develop policies for rerouting hazardous material, and grant DHS whistleblower protections. Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on listing good amendments that were done so wrong by this rule. But instead, I will close by urging a no vote on this rule.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for his tireless efforts to see that this day came to be. He worked continuously to create a permanent Committee on Homeland Security and put in the right track to producing the bill. It took 13 hours to mark up this bill in committee, and I have to say that he never lost his patience or his good character, nor his sense of humor; but clearly, it was a bipartisan effort, and for that I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox). This bill has many good provisions in it. It rejects the section of the President's shortsighted budget that sought to hire only 210 new Border Patrol agents this year. Instead, it provided for the 2,000 border agents that everybody else agreed that we needed. It also, by creating an Assistant Secretary of Cybersecurity at DHS, finally recognizes the threat posed by cyber attacks. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) and other Democrats on this committee have sought the creation of this position for a very long time. The evaluation of the color-coded terrorist system is also welcomed. The system has provided more material for late-night comedians than effective information on threats on the public. Also, I am glad that this bill requires the Department to explain how it is working to protect agriculture and the Nation's food supply from terrorist attacks. That said, I wish this bill would have been more comprehensive. I am glad that, as the chairman mentioned, it is small only because we are a new committee, but there are some things that we overlooked. We did not mention airports or chemical plants in this legislation. I just hold up for the chairman's view and the view of the public the defense authorization bill which is sizable, and I look forward to, in the next authorization effort next year, to having a bill that is comprehensive. The present authorization bill is very, very short on content, but nonetheless it is a start. There is no comparison between the two, so I am convinced that at the end of the day Members will recognize we have a long way to go and there can be no effort or wasting time. We must do what it takes to make America secure. I hope that we work closely to close the security gaps left by this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) to include many Democratic suggestions in this bill, and I want to say that most of the provisions in his bill are good ones. But the truth is that this bill does not address a large number of dangerous security gaps. For example, this bill does not close serious security gaps in chemical plants, aviation, railroads, passenger trains and railroads, buses, border security, the ability of first responders to communicate in an emergency, the importance of protecting privacy, and a whole host of other areas where we must improve security. This bill does not even mention chemical plants or airports. How can we call this an authorization bill? My substitute, Madam Chairman, addresses all of these areas, and more. First, the substitute makes funding for homeland security a priority. The President's budget and this bill does not fulfill the commitment we made in the 9/11 Act the President signed into law in December, but this substitute meets those challenges. For example, for just a mere $92 million called for in the 9/11 Act, we could install radiation portal monitors in every port of entry in this country. My substitute offers solutions where the bill does not give the answers. For example, it protects our borders by requiring DHS to put technology in place to ensure that every mile of the border is monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It protects our ports by authorizing new port security grants. It protects airlines and prevents hijackings by installing new, in-line baggage screening systems that work better and faster. And, in an area where I strongly disagree with the chairman, we fully sponsor the development of research on how to counter shoulder-fired missiles that terrorists can use to shoot down a plane. My substitute also strengthens security requirements for chemical plants, which the GAO recently found must have security standards. Finally, my substitute also recognizes that DHS is a new agency and is not perfect. We provide new authority to protect privacy, sponsor diversity, and create a stronger Inspector General. In the end, if we are going to call something an authorization bill, let us use it to close genuine security gaps. My substitute will do that; this bill will not. There can be no more wasted time. We must do what it takes now to make America secure. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), an excellent member on the committee. (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), also a member of the committee. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have heard a number of statements about this bill. It is an initial step in the right direction. It is not comprehensive. There are some glaring overlooks in the bill. We do not address any aviation security, we do not address chemical security. There are a number of things that we could do better in this bill. However, I have to join my chairman in recognizing the fact that this is our first attempt to do an authorization bill. It is by no means complete, but given his leadership and willingness to work in a bipartisan spirit, I am looking forward to moving this legislation and making sure that we do the right thing for this country. We have to secure this Nation. I will be offering a substitute later in the debate which obviously will cover far more areas than what this authorization bill covers that we are debating here today. Clearly, if we support the substitute, we can move closer to making America secure. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I now rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), my Homeland Security Committee colleague, the ranking member on the Management, Integration and Oversight Subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, we have heard testimony time and time again on our committee about the underfunding of the office of Inspector General. We had committee testimony from three Inspector Generals indicating that the office was underfunded. Just to show you what they found in recent reviews, we found that the Department spent $31,000 on rubber plants. We also found that they spent $500,000 on an awards ceremony. Clearly these expenditures are out of line and should not have been. Testimony also revealed that had we had a more robust Office of Inspector General, we could do more oversight. So the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Meek) amendment is in order. It is something that we should do. If we look at other agencies, this Department is woefully underfunded. And for that reason I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I encourage Members to vote ``no'' on the Cox- Sensenbrenner amendment authorizing $40 million to be appropriated from the fiscal year 2006 budget to reimburse States and locals for the costs associated with having State and local law enforcement trained and certified by DHS' Immigration and Customs Enforcement to enforce immigration laws. Mr. Chairman, plain and simple, we are shirking our responsibility as a government by passing this mission on to local authority. If we have the responsibility for immigration and immigration enforcement, we should do our job. We should appropriate the money to the respective department, whatever the requirements are, rather than passing the buck to local law enforcement. Local law enforcement clearly will tell my colleagues we have enough on our plate now, do not give us further responsibility by giving us immigration. So, Mr. Chairman, while I understand my colleague's reasoning behind the amendment, it is clearly something that allows us to put this responsibility on someone else. I guarantee my colleagues, when we do this, it will come with another program in the not-too-distant future. We will give other responsibilities to the local level. I am a former mayor and a former county supervisor. Knowing law enforcement at the personal level, I am convinced that we have more than enough to do at the local level. The Federal Government should do what it is required to do on immigration. Let us not pass the buck. Let us make sure that we take the immigration responsibility and retain it at the Federal level. That is why I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on Homeland Security. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), a member of the committee.

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume in closing. (Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)