C. Cox

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, this amendment is offered jointly by myself as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on this side?

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, yes, I agree. Certainly in matters relating to cybersecurity and protection of critical infrastructure, the agencies the gentleman listed will be considered ``relevant Federal agencies.''

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe the gentleman has very clearly and accurately stated the jurisdictional question on this amendment. It has been determined that it falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security. For that reason I would propose that the Committee on Homeland Security take up this issue and use its jurisdiction to help solve this problem.

Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's understanding is correct. If the gentleman is willing to withdraw his amendment, the Committee on Homeland Security, through its chairman and ranking member, would formally request this information from the Department of Homeland Security. As the gentleman knows, the Department of Homeland Security and its Infrastructure Protection Directorate is currently focusing heavily on this part of the country and, as a result, the identification of critical assets, high-risk facilities, the implementation of security measures, and the recommendation of additional mitigation strategies for this region is something that the committee should hear on and, as a result, I would propose, with the ranking member, that we seek the information in this way. My only concern with the amendment as drafted is that it would set the precedent of establishing a national legislation requirement for IP mandates for specific regions within the States, rather than a national infrastructure strategy.

Mr. COX. The gentleman has my commitment on that subject.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would like to claim the time in opposition to the Menendez amendment.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield back 2 minutes of my time, and I yield the remaining 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), and I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi for purposes of closing debate.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), both for his generous remarks but, more importantly, for his hard work on this piece of legislation over a period of several months and, as he pointed out, through ultimately a very long, arduous markup in the committee where members on both sides had an unlimited opportunity to offer amendments and consider a variety of topics. As we conclude general debate and prepare to move into debate on the specific amendments on this bill, I think we can recognize one important fact, and that is that we are all agreed on the essence of the underlying bill. We have some things, each of us, that we might like to add to this bill, and I predict that in due course, over the rest of this year, we will have an opportunity again on this House floor to take up issues, including aviation security, chemical security, port security, and so on. But the entirety of what we do accomplish in this bill is bipartisan in nature and agreed upon by the members on both sides of the aisle, at least in the Committee on Homeland Security, and we will soon see about the House as a whole. That is because we have allocated the $32 billion, for what is now the third largest Cabinet department, in a way that demonstrably advances our number one goal of preventing terrorism in the future on American soil, directed against American citizens, protecting America's most critical infrastructure against terrorist attack, and being prepared to respond and recover should, against all our best preparations, that ever occur in the future. In order to bring us to this point, we have had to have a great deal of bipartisan assistance, all motivated by the best interests of the country from Members on both sides. I specifically want to mention the vice chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon); the chairmen and ranking members of our five subcommittees, and the Staff Directors on both sides, Ben Cohen on the Majority side and Calvin Humphreys on the minority side. The staffs have done extraordinary professional work, and their staffs are drawn from, in many cases, the executive branch, with experience about precisely the work and the programs that we are overseeing in this legislation. Many of them have come from the intelligence community, others come from the Coast Guard and other branches of the armed services. We can be very proud in this House about the institutionalization of the role of homeland security oversight and authorization that has been set in motion as a result of a decision of leadership on both sides, and I want to conclude by taking this opportunity, once again, to thank the House leadership for its very wise decision to create permanent authorizing and oversight responsibility in this Congress on an institutionalized basis, and then, today, taking the next important step of institutionalizing an annual authorization process so that together the legislative branch and the executive branch will closely collaborate on what is the essence of our national security responsibility to all Americans: making sure that we are safe and secure on American territory for the American citizens. So, Mr. Chairman, with that, I will draw this general debate to a conclusion, and I look forward to working with the body on the several amendments that have been made in order under the rule. Mr. Chairman, I will at this time introduce into the Record a series of letters exchanged between the Committee on Homeland Security and other standing committees, including the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, concerning jurisdictional issues raised by this legislation. Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC, May 18, 2005. Hon. Christopher Cox, Chairman, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your willingness to consult and work with me as you guided H.R. 1817, ``the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006'' from introduction, through the Homeland Security Committee, and to the floor. As you know, the Committee on Government Reform has been interested in a number of provisions within H.R. 1817. The Committee has been concerned that the expansion of the Department's responsibilities for information sharing in Title II, Subtitle B, Homeland Security Information Sharing and Analysis Enhancement, not lessen the Department's responsibility to follow government-wide policies and procedures for the sharing of information. In addition to the information sharing provisions of Subtitle B, the Committee has specific jurisdictional interests in the following provisions of your substitute: Sec. 201--Consolidated Background Check Process; Sec. 216--Coordination of homeland security threat analysis provided to non-Federal officials; Sec. 217--9/11 Homeland Security Fellows Program; Sec. 221-- IAIP Personnel Recruitment; Sec. 302--Technology Development and Transfer; Sec. 303--Review of Antiterrorism Activities; Title III, Subtitle B--Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity Enhancement; Sec. 334--Protection of Information; and Sec. 502--GAO Report to Congress. I would like to confirm our mutual understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 1817. As you know, H.R. 1817 was sequentially referred to the Committee on Government Reform. Because of your willingness to work with us to resolve issues of concern to the Committee and to include those improvements to the bill in your amendment in the nature of a substitute on the floor, the Committee on Government Reform did not consider H.R. 1817. However, the Committee has done so only with the understanding that this procedural route would not prejudice the Committee on Government Reform's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on this bill or similar legislation. I respectfully request your support for the appointment of outside conferees from the Committee on Government Reform should this bill or a similar Senate bill be considered in conference with the Senate. Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional Record during the House debate of this bill. If you have questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Tom Davis, Chairman.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to commend the gentleman from Florida for his leadership on oversight and investigation. I will commit to continuing to work with him on the full committee and to make sure that the IG gets the resources that he needs. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), who is a very able and well-informed Member of the committee and serves as the ranking member on the committee on oversight, which has particular responsibilities in this area. I support his view of the importance of the Inspector General's function inside the Department of Homeland Security and of the mission of fighting waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government, and specifically in the Department of Homeland Security, because it is a critical mission. The reason, however, that I cannot support the amendment is different than what I have just said. I agree with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) about the Inspector General's function and fighting waste, fraud, and abuse. First, I cannot support it because the authorization of $200 million, which is a tripling of the current budget, has no offset. It is therefore a budget buster. As I stated in general debate, what has characterized our efforts on the underlying bill is that we are operating within the parameters of the House-passed budget, and specifically the allocation for the overall Department of Homeland Security of $32 billion. When we make changes in the priorities in the bill by doing something else that is good, we have got to find somewhere to take the money from, and this amendment simply does not do it. It pulls the money from thin air. Second, the new level of funding that this would establish, the enormous increase from $83 million at present to $200 million, would create an IG office and staff and administration virtually identical in size to that which exists in the largest Cabinet Department, the Department of Defense, even though DOD's budget and empire and responsibilities are 10 times larger than the Department of Homeland Security. So there is a problem of scale. Third, not withstanding the testimony, correctly cited by my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), of former IGs about their experience and their need for more staff, the current IG has more staff. The staffing level of the Office of Inspector General already has grown significantly over the last 3 years from 475 full-time employees in fiscal year 2004, to 502 in fiscal 2005, to 540 in fiscal year 2006. And for that reason, neither the administration nor the Inspector General himself has asked for this increase that is before us in this amendment. For all of these reasons, I regretfully oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek). Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I want to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) with whom I am offering this amendment. Our amendment will authorize funds to reimburse States for training costs that they incur if they voluntarily participate in the training of their law enforcement agents for the purposes of enforcing our Nation's immigration laws. In 1996, I authored section 133 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. That section is now codified as section 287(G) of the INA. It provided and continues to provide as a piece of our permanent legislation local and State law enforcement officers with the option of being trained and deputized by the Federal Government so that they can assist with the enforcement of our immigration laws in the pursuit of their normal duties of protecting citizens from crime. Over the last 8 years, slowly but surely, we have learned how to use this facility so that the Department has entered into several memoranda of understanding, for example, with the State of Florida in September 2002, the State of Alabama in September of 2003, and very recently the County of Los Angeles in pursuit of specific authorization by the elected officials of the County of Los Angeles in February of 2005. So the reason that we are offering this amendment today is that inasmuch as this is a purely voluntary program, offering aid to State and local law enforcement that wants it that is asking for it and is volunteering for it, they should be reimbursed for their costs as first responders of helping us enforce Federal law and achieving the national mission of protecting our borders. We need to capitalize on existing law enforcement resources by ensuring that State and local law enforcement have the opportunity to receive this training that will help them to protect their local communities. In turn, those enforcement efforts will help protect the Nation from threats of terrorism. I want to emphasize just a few things. First, this amendment does not alter the fundamental voluntary nature of the participation of States and Federal Government. So no State and no subdivision of the State that does not wish in any way to be involved in the enforcement of our immigration laws will be required to do so, either under existing law or under this fund provision. Second, the purpose of the law, of the training, and of the reimbursement is to focus on crime and on people who are not only unlawfully in this country but who are committing other crimes, in particular felonies. Third, the training that is provided by the Federal Government specifically includes training in the areas of civil rights and the prevention of profiling. I want to reiterate that this amendment does not change or alter any authority that already exists in law. It merely provides funding for States for their first responders who should be reimbursed for this training. I fully support this program, and I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding; and if I might, I would like to speak first to the amendment that the gentleman has offered, and then we could engage in a colloquy on a second amendment. So, Mr. Chairman, I rise therefore in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island. As the gentleman observes, we have established in the Federal Government, through the Department of Homeland Security, the Homeland Security Center of Excellence for Behavioral and Social Research on Terrorism and Counterterrorism. This center, which is located in Maryland, was established by a $12 million grant from the Department of Homeland Security in January of this year. This is the fourth Homeland Security Center of Excellence to be established. Its expertise lies precisely in this area, and it makes a good deal of sense to rely on this newly available expertise as we redesign the homeland security advisory system. As the gentleman from Rhode Island points out, section 205 of the underlying bill, which we are amending, will already require redesign of that system to move from vague and general warnings to specific warnings that wherever possible are sector specific, industry specific and threat specific; regional in nature wherever possible. We have to stop issuing vague warnings that only serve to alarm the general public, and we have to provide useful information to the category of people who receive the warning. Using the expertise of this center will accomplish both of these important objectives. And I am very glad that the gentleman from Rhode Island has worked with the staff on the committee to address some concerns with the original draft of the amendment so that we are now completely in accord on both the language and the wisdom of the proposal. For all of those reasons, I am pleased to accept the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in its support.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, although I am in support of the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. COX. I yield myself the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to commend the gentleman from Rhode Island for his comments on and his commitment to this vitally important issue. I too am committed to citizen terrorism preparedness. I agree that the Department of Homeland Security should make it a priority to engage the American public as partners in homeland security. It simply makes sense to encourage continued dialogue between the Department and its constituency, the American people. The Department of Homeland Security has taken many important steps to foster just this kind of dialogue. For example, the Department administers the Citizen Corps Program which is specifically designed to improve civilian terrorism preparedness. In addition, the Department Science and Technology Directorate plans to establish a Center of Excellence on Domestic Preparedness and Response Capabilities. When established later this year, this center will engage in mission- oriented research to enhance citizen preparedness and improve citizen input into local, State and Federal preparedness and response efforts. As chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I believe it would be prudent for the committee to hold hearings on the purpose and effectiveness of the Department's citizen terrorism preparedness programs. I also agree with the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) that our government's preparedness is contingent upon actively and substantively engaging the citizens, and that that question must be part of our inquiry. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) as well as Members on both sides of the aisle on the Committee on Homeland Security as we examine this topic more closely. I think we all agree that citizen preparedness is simply too important to ignore. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.