C. Cox

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) to speak in support of the amendment which the gentleman offered to the Committee on Rules and was made in order under the rule.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce in a colloquy.

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

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to engage in a colloquy, if I might, with my colleague from Indiana and begin by sharing with him my support for his objectives and also my shared concern with this issue, which he has clearly identified, of overlapping jurisdictions. Before the Congress takes the next step of designating a single agency to be the lead on airspace security, it is my view that we need our full Committee on Homeland Security through hearings and oversight to take an in-depth look at the capabilities of each of the agencies involved. Additionally, Secretary Chertoff is just days away from presenting to us the results of his 90-day top-to-bottom review of the Department, and I expect that the results of that review will include issues of mission overlap and also areas needing improved coordination. So I would be glad to work with the gentleman on this precise issue and to move with alacrity if he would be willing to withdraw his amendment so that we can consider this in the committee. If that is agreeable to him, I would be happy to make that commitment at this time.

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

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, with all respect to my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), I could not disagree more strongly. The Constitution of the United States gives to our national government the responsibility to provide for the common defense. When al Qaeda turned airliners into missiles, hundreds of passengers aboard those aircraft were killed, but thousands of people in the World Trade Center Towers and in the Pentagon were also killed. And none of them was an airline passenger. Neither were the millions of Americans who suffered the economic damage of billions of dollars inflicted by al Qaeda as a result of those attacks. Homeland security, in my view, is the essence of national security. And this amendment puts that question to the test. Is homeland security merely the correlation of national security, or is it the core of what we are seeking to establish when we provide for the common defense and protecting the territory and the population of the United States? If every time the Pentagon needed a new weapons system they had to find a user fee in order to pay for it, we would have a third-world national defense. But, in fact, Mr. Chairman, as Democrats and Republicans on the Homeland Security Committee have determined, homeland security is all about providing for the common defense, and funding it is a national responsibility. For those reasons, I strongly support the amendment offered by gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. COX. Madam Chairman, I think we need to return to the amendment that is before us. There has been a lot of heat and light generated in this debate, but the amendment itself is exceptionally simple. It begins from the fact that current law provides for the training of State and local law enforcement officials to enforce Federal immigration laws. That is a voluntary program. There is no unfunded mandate in current law because there is no mandate. It is completely voluntary, and only those State and local law enforcement officials, those first responders who are seeking to partner with the Department of Homeland Security in obtaining this Federal training to enforce immigration laws, actually do so. Second, in an amendment that was adopted earlier by voice vote, we provided $40 million in Federal funding to reimburse any costs incurred by State and local volunteers, that is State and local governments who volunteer for this training, in obtaining the training. So it is not unfunded either. It is a funded, voluntary program. Lastly, what this amendment adds to existing law is simply to provide a training guide for this training that already exists and training flexibility to make sure that it meets the needs of State and local law enforcement officers. The last thing it does is it corrects existing law, section 287(g) of the INA to substitute ``the Secretary of Homeland Security'' for the words ``Attorney General.'' This is something that we did in the technical corrections bill that was unanimously passed by the Select Committee on Homeland Security in the last Congress.

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

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), but before I yield, Mr. Chairman, can the Chair tell me how much time remains on our side?

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Connecticut raises an important issue. I thank the gentleman for his leadership, not only on this issue, but across the board as an outstanding member and chairman of the Committee on homeland security.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Section 841 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 authorized the Department of Homeland Security to establish a 21st century human resources management system. That new system, referred to as MAX HR, is designed to allow the Department to respond quickly to homeland security threats, while supporting the Department's employees with modern human resources principles. I will ensure that the committee conducts a review of the new personnel regulations with special attention, I say to the gentleman, to the concerns that he raised, and I commit to working with him on any appropriate changes to those regulations, in close coordination with the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Davis) of the Committee on Government Reform, which developed the underlying legislation in this area. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I spoke just a moment ago about some of the provisions in this bill that, in my view, do not belong there, most notably the $7 billion that has no offset and, therefore, breaks the House-passed budget and is completely out of sync with the homeland security appropriation bill for which we had a large, nearly unanimous bipartisan vote yesterday. But I would like to talk in the remaining seconds available about what this bill, the Thompson substitute, does not do. It does not incorporate, inexplicably, many of the bipartisan provisions that we have already agreed upon in the base bill. I have to believe that that was a drafting oversight; but were we to substitute for the base bill, we would lose the provisions that give, for example, flexibilities to the Information Analysis Office in the Department of Homeland Security to hire more intelligence agencies, something that has been a big priority of our committee for 3 years now. We would lose the reforms of the color-coded Homeland Security Advisory System, which both Republicans and Democrats have agreed upon. As a result, we would be far better off to stick with the bipartisan provisions that are in the bill, rather than in the partisan provisions that appear in the Thompson substitute. I urge Members to reject the substitute.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, who has been a true leader on homeland security, for his hard work on this bill and his efforts to reach full agreement with the authorizing committee. I regret the fact that rescheduling this bill to earlier in the week deprived us of the time that would have enabled us to accommodate much of these discussions in advance of reaching the floor. But I want to thank the gentleman for his efforts to reach full agreement with the authorizing committee. Based on the understanding that the conferees will follow the will of the authorizing committee in advancing the House position in the conference negotiations and, to the greatest extent possible, follow the will of the authorizing committee on the provisions and conditions which are, in fact, authorizing, I will not insist on the points of order exposed to objection under the rule that we just adopted today, and I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same. Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Menendez

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I would like to commend the gentleman from Kentucky for the funding that is already in this bill that gets us to 1,500 agents, which he just described, and I am very pleased to hear that he is going to work with us to get to the 2,000 Border Patrol agents. As the gentleman knows, the Homeland Security Authorization Act, which will be on the floor this week, also authorizes funding for 2,000 new Border Patrol agents in fiscal year 2006. This is the same number that was authorized in the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Implementation Act. Moreover, an important part of 2,000 new agents is the expansion of the Border Patrol training facilities. Will the chairman work with us to ensure that the funding for these 2,000 new Border Patrol agents, who are critical to our national security, and the accompanying training infrastructure necessary to do so, will be a priority?

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, on May 3, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security filed its report on H.R. 1817, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. At that time the committee had not yet received a Congressional Budget Office cost estimate, and it filed the report without the cost estimate required in clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Subsequently, the committee received the CBO cost estimate on H.R. 1817, and I am submitting it herewith for the Record. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the enclosed estimate be inserted into the Congressional Record at the appropriate place.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act. I am here on the floor today with the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson). He and I are here to argue today on behalf of a bill that is strongly endorsed by every single Republican and Democratic member of the Committee on Homeland Security. More than that, this legislation is supported by the Bush administration. We have received a formal statement of administration support for this bill. It is strongly endorsed by the 9/11 Commission whose recommendation that first responder funding be placed on a risk basis this bill implements. It is endorsed by scores of first responder groups, the men and women on the front lines for whom this money is intended. They worked with us over a period of over 2 years, first to identify the problems in the current grant-making system for billions of homeland security and terrorism preparedness dollars and, second, to develop a solution. The solution that today's bill presents is a simple one. We are going to move away from political formulas for allocating these billions of dollars and toward a system that relies on the intelligence that the American taxpayer already purchases at the price of billions of dollars every year, information about terrorist capabilities and intentions, information about our own critical infrastructure and vulnerabilities and information about the potential consequences of different kinds of terrorist attacks. In combination, this mix of threat, vulnerability and consequence is called risk. Funding for first responders in the future is going to be based upon risk. That is what this bill is all about. And we solve the second problem. Of the over $30 billion in terrorism preparedness moneys that the Federal Government has made available to States and localities since September 11, some 60 percent of it is not yet spent. It is stuck in the administrative pipeline. There are a number of reasons for this that our committee has discovered through field hearings across the country, hearings here in Washington, and our own investigation. But at bottom it is this: right now there is an ``ad hockery'' to the way that moneys are passed around the country. There is no predictability about when the funds might arrive, whether reimbursement will be there. And the planning, as a result, tends to take place after the money is received, slowing things down. In our new system, the planning will be moved at the front end of the process. Every State which already has a statewide terrorism preparedness plan will ensure that when these applications for grants are made, they are directly tied to that statewide plan and also directly tied to the achievement of national objectives for first responder preparedness. We will have clear standards for the first responders so that they will not have these kinds of questions about reimbursement that have plagued them in the past. We will know that what we are buying in the form of equipment and training will be directly tied to national terrorism preparedness goals. In recent days, there has been a fair amount of press coverage about abuses of homeland security spending. For example, right here in Washington, D.C., we learned that $100,000 of this grant money meant for first responder terrorism preparedness was instead spent on a Dale Carnegie course for sanitation workers, another $100,000 was spent to develop a rap song purportedly to educate young people about how to be prepared in the case of a terrorist attack. These kinds of abuses will come to an end as a result of this legislation, and our money will be directed toward keeping our first responders, who are not only first in line to protect us but first in line for the terrorists, the first to die if this system does not work right, keeping these people well trained and well equipped. I would like to thank, in addition to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), ranking member, the other members of the Committee on Homeland Security. There has been a great deal of work that has gone into this bill. The last step in bringing this to the floor was a 13- hour markup in our committee. I think what we will find today, Mr. Chairman, is that this debate will go forward in a very bipartisan fashion. We might not agree about all the details of this legislation. We may not agree when we go to conference with the Senate. And when we come back with a conference report, hopefully in just a few weeks or maybe a few months, we may not agree on every detail. But there is a big change in this bill that we all agree on, and that is that henceforth moneys for terrorism preparedness that go from Washington to States and localities to our police, to our firefighters, to our EMS personnel, to people in hospitals who will be there in case of a biological attack or indeed to treat the wounded in case of any attack, that the people who get these moneys will be assured that, first, the moneys will arrive soon, on time, right after we want them to be available; and, second, they will know how to spend it and they will know, when they spend it in accordance with their plans, they will get reimbursed for it. This will move America in the direction that we need to go to be prepared for another terrorist attack. A great deal of our work in the Committee on Homeland Security is focused on preventing terrorist attacks, as well we should be focused; but I have no doubt that someday somewhere terrorists will again strike our country; and when that happens, we are going to rely on our first responders just as we did on 9/11, and next time we want to make sure they have all the training and all the equipment that they need. This bill is a strong step in that direction. It is something that I think we can all be very proud of. I want to conclude by thanking the gentleman from Mississippi, who, as the leader of the minority, has made it possible for us to keep in mind that when the terrorists attack us, they are not going to attack Democrats or Republicans. They are going to attack Americans. And we are all Americans here, and we are all doing the right thing today. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following exchange of letters for the Record. House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC, April 25, 2005. Hon. Christopher Cox, Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Adams Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005. Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1544 and the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over certain provisions of the bill, I will agree not to request a sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and that a copy of this letter and of your response acknowledging our valid jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee report and in the Congressional Record when the bill is considered on the House Floor. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also asks that you support our request to be conferees on the provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House- Senate conference. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Don Young, Chairman.

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1544.

Mr. COX

Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, following on the remarks by my colleague from New York, who has been a strong supporter of reform in this area, I just want to correct a statement that he made. He suggested that this legislation violates the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In fact, the 9/11 Commission has expressly endorsed this legislation in precisely the form that it is coming to the floor today and the cochairman, Lee Hamilton, of the 9/11 Commission took the time to come to the Committee on Homeland Security just a few days ago to testify in solid support of this legislation. And so as we go forward with the bill, I just want the Members to know that this bill in its present form is strongly endorsed by the 9/ 11 Commission, and it implements their recommendation.