C. Cox

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my older brother, for all the work that he did. Really, in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Texas, who, as a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security for 2 years was instrumental in writing this legislation; who, as a Member of the Committee on Rules in the 109th Congress, has been appointed by the chairman as liaison to the Select Committee on Homeland Security and has made possible the process by which we will consider this bill on the floor today. In fact, it really merits pointing out today that the Committee on Rules of the House of Representatives has played a special role in the establishment of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, for which this is the first major legislative effort on the floor this year. In the last Congress, not only the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) but also the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter); the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Rules of the Select Committee on Homeland Security; the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the full Committee on Rules; the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), who is now chairman of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack of the Select Committee on Homeland Security; and Porter Goss of Florida, who is now the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, all were Members of the Select Committee on Homeland Security in the last Congress and also Members of the Committee on Rules that worked to change the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives to make sure we would have a focus on this critical national priority that both President Bush and the leaders of this Congress have recognized as so important that we have reorganized the entire executive branch and now the legislative branch of government. That is the process by which this rule and the bill that it outlines are coming to the floor today. Since September 11, over $30 billion in terrorism preparedness funding has gone from the Federal Government to State and local governments. In this year's budget, President Bush has added to the annual amount an incremental $2 billion more. That will mean that we have had an increase in annual spending on terrorism preparedness for States and localities since 9/11 of over 2,000 percent. The question is not whether we are putting enough money into terrorism preparedness for our first responders. The question is whether the money is making it to the frontlines. And the answer to that is, no, it is not. And the question is also whether it is being spent properly, in a way that makes us more prepared. And, unfortunately, the answer to that question is, not always. There are opportunities for major improvement, and that is what this bill is all about. It is called the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responder Act because it solves both those problems. It will get the money to the frontlines faster, and it will make sure that we are spending the money based on what we know from our intelligence about terrorist threats and capabilities, our own vulnerabilities, and the consequences of terrorist attacks. I strongly support this rule and look forward to passage of the bill later today.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished vice chairman of the full Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris). (Ms. HARRIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of New York (Mr. King).

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), the former Attorney General of California.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of New York (Mr. Fossella). (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that the bill before us today expressly permits grant recipients to use, with the approval of the Secretary of Homeland Security, up to 10 percent of their covered grant funds for measures to protect critical infrastructure, and this would include building barriers, fences, gates and so on. In the case of New York, that would mean that $21 million would be available for this purpose. The question of using Federal grant funds to pay for the salaries of local law enforcement officers is a very consequential one with impacts far beyond New York. The resolution of that question and all of its complexity is beyond the scope of this bill, but I want the gentleman to know that I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I will look forward to working with him on these issues in the future.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to return the compliment to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson). This has been a collaborative effort for several years now. I also want to pay homage to the gentleman from Mississippi's (Mr. Thompson) predecessor, Mr. Turner of Texas, who also led the minority ably on this issue. Today we have an opportunity to establish a new grant process to provide better support to the brave men and women who are the first to rush into burning buildings, the people who place themselves in the line of fire to protect the innocent, the ones who save the sick and wounded under the most trying of circumstances. It is no accident that this bill has been endorsed by every major first responders group in America, by the Bush administration, by the 9/11 Commission; and, indeed, I expect it will receive a strong endorsement from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1544. By passing this bill, we will take yet another important step since September 11 to help our Nation meet the urgent challenge of terrorism in our cities and hometowns.

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

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, even though I have claimed the time in opposition to the amendment, I actually want to speak in support of the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1544, the bill that the gentleman would amend, as written requires the Department of Homeland Security to analyze risk in rural America. That is a big step forward. For example, the disruption to the agricultural and food sectors by acts of bioterrorism would result in considerable economic and health consequences. This amendment will ensure that the grants board established by H.R. 1544 contain a member with expertise in this very area. The designee of this amendment, the administrator of APHIS, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, is well versed in agro-terrorism. This is a wise choice. As a part of the USDA, APHIS is responsible for safeguarding the agriculture and food infrastructures not only from pests and diseases but also biological threats. Indeed, APHIS currently works closely with the Department of Science and Technology directorate, that is, the Department of Homeland Security's directorate, and plays an important role in agro-terrorism preparedness. Specifically, APHIS is already involved in the following: accelerating the development of countermeasures to agro-terrorism; bio- forensic capabilities; deploying diagnostic technologies; and research, development and training activities. For all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I strongly urge my colleagues on the committee and my colleagues in the House to vote in support of the Berry amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Mike Rogers).

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

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment, notwithstanding that I rise in its support.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I too rise in opposition to this amendment. I agree with the intention of the author of the amendment to limit the number of grant awards under the Urban Area Security Initiative, but I do not agree with the thrust of the amendment, which is to, in essence, perpetuate a system that sends money exclusively to cities and ignores regions. One of the important reforms made in H.R. 1544 is that we open up the process to regional grant applications. I come from the most populated State in America: California. My county, just one of 58 counties in California, has 3 million people. Los Angeles, obviously, is an enormous urban center. But the important thing to note about both Los Angeles and New York is that the L.A. region and the New York City region are bigger and geographically more relevant than the city qua city. The municipal boundaries of New York or the municipal boundaries of Los Angeles are not nearly so important, if there is a radiological attack, for example, as understanding where that plume is going to go and what are the evacuation corridors. We have learned since 9/11 we have got to have regional collaboration. In my home county, Orange County, which as I said has 3 million people, we had two cities get Urban Area Security Initiative money. This was like the fickle finger of fate that touched those two cities and gave them all the cash and ignored the County of Orange, ignored the municipalities situated right next door to them. Happily, due to the leadership of Sheriff Mike Carona and the chairman of the Board of Supervisors Bill Campbell, and the mayor of Santa Ana, Miguel Pulido, and the mayor of Anaheim, Curt Pringle, there has been a workout, a local arrangement made to equitably distribute these urban area security initiative monies. But that is not the way the program is designed. We have made sense of it in California despite the nonsense of the Federal program itself. Perpetuating this program, trying to focus more emphasis on it is the wrong way to go. UASI is broke, and it makes no sense to place more emphasis upon it. Finally, let me say that only regional grants, not State grants, may be able to address certain unique terrorism preparedness needs, such as risks that cross interstate or international boundaries, for example, bioterrorism or agro-terrorism. In this respect, I agree with the comments made by the author of the amendment. I think that to the extent we emphasize a regional approach, a mutual-aid approach, we will find ourselves better prepared in the future. That is the aim, one of the chief aims of H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act, and for those reasons I counsel opposition to this amendment. 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 strongly support this Berry amendment. It is completely consistent with the intent of the Faster and Smarter Funding For First Responders Act. Indeed, H.R. 1544 contains many other provisions with the same purpose: to enhance Federal, State, local, regional and tribal government cooperation in the process of establishing the criteria for prioritizing applications for covered grants. For example, the bill directs the Secretary to establish a first responders task force. This task force, which will advise the Secretary of Homeland Security on preparedness benchmarks, will consist of 25 members, representative of all of the first-responder disciplines and a substantive cross- section of geography from across the Nation. The Berry amendment, in my view, will help ensure that the Grant Board's risk-based analysis adequately addresses the concerns of State, local, regional and tribal governments who, after all, have direct jurisdiction and control over the first responders who are the focal point of this legislation. This amendment will provide important comfort to covered grant applicants as the department shifts from a political, formula-driven system to one based on risk. A dramatic programmatic shift such as the one established by this bill cannot be made in a vacuum. It must be made in close coordination with the people most affected. That is the purpose of the bill as it is written. I think the Berry amendment clarifies that purpose in a useful way, and I strongly support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for the time. I rise in support of the Bass-Norwood amendment. I strongly support this amendment, and I do so for several reasons. First, since the attacks of 9/11, States and local governments are increasingly stepping up to the plate and assuming some of what have traditionally been the Federal Government's responsibilities in the area of terrorism preparedness. For example, many State and local governments have entered into agreements with the U.S. Coast Guard or with immigration and customs enforcement or other elements of the Department of Homeland Security to perform responsibilities relating to homeland security. Second, the Bass-Norwood amendment, which would permit petitioning the Secretary for reimbursement for expenses in this regard, is fiscally responsible. It would not, for example, permit grant recipients to use covered grant funds to supplant routine State or local government expenses. It does not permit, for example, reimbursement for personnel costs. The Bass-Norwood amendment is also properly targeted in scope. States and localities may defray the costs of their assumed homeland security duties only with the consent of the Secretary of Homeland Security, and States and localities that have assumed these kinds of duties have to have done so pursuant to an agreement with a Federal agency. The Federal Government, in my view, should encourage States and localities to assist the Federal Government in providing security where it would otherwise be lacking, and that is what this amendment is going to help us do. To support this policy, it is incumbent upon Congress to permit State and local governments to petition the Secretary for reimbursement. The Bass-Norwood amendment is consistent with other provisions of this bill. Specifically, H.R. 1544, the underlying bill, permits covered grant recipients to satisfy the matching requirements through in-kind contributions of goods or services, or other equipment, fuel, maintenance, personnel overtime and other costs that are associated with State and local assumption of Federal terrorism preparedness duties. For all of these reasons, I strongly support the Bass-Norwood amendment. I congratulate its authors for presenting it before the House.

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

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