John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that every Member have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the legislation now before us.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes, and I yield the balance of the time to our distinguished Speaker for purposes of closing. Mr. Speaker, we have had a good debate. I believe the Members have become understanding of not only the situation but of the legislation before us. I want to particularly commend the staff of the Energy and Commerce Committee: Amy Hall, Yvette Fonteno, Christie Houlihan, Heather Foster, Jessica McNiece and Bridgett Taylor, who all did a superb job on behalf of the Congress. I also want to thank Cybele Bjorklund, Deb Mizeur, Jennifer Friedman, Chad Shearer, Brian Biles, Bobby Clark, Debbie Curtis, Ed Grossman and Jessica Shapiro from the Ways and Means Committee staff. Their really valuable contribution did much to make this possible. I want to commend my colleagues on the minority side, Mr. Camp and Mr. McCrery and Mr. Barton, and my special friend, Mr. Stark, and the distinguished Chairman Rangel for the superb job they have done. I also thank the subcommittee chairman in the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Pallone, for his outstanding job. The legislation before us is really very simple. The issues before us are not procedure. Rather, they are: Are we going to take care of our kids? For this Congress, this is perhaps the greatest opportunity we will have. We have three responsibilities to the country and to our kids: See that they are properly nourished, see that they are properly educated, and see to it that they have the health that they need so they can be meaningful contributors to the future of this country. It is not only a humanitarian and compassionate concern of this country, it is the future of the country. I know the President has indicated that he thinks that this is bad legislation. I grieve that he has come to that conclusion. He has no reason to do so. First of all, we have the pay-fors. We have taken care of the cost of this. We are seeing to it that, first of all, a modest tax on tobacco comes into play. Second, we are seeing to it that HMOs that are getting as much as 30 percent more than other HMOs are going to get 100 percent of what other HMOs get, no more, no less. We are not taking anything away from senior citizens. I think we are just taking it out of the pocket of a few people who have too much in the HMO business. Having said that, let's look to see who supports this legislation. I think that tells us as much or more as anything we can get. The NAACP, the AMA, the different health organizations, the hospital associations, the National Rural Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the March of Dimes, the Children's Defense Fund, and the National Governor's Association whose meeting I attended last weekend in Traverse City where a major concern was how are we going to provide them the means that they desperately need to provide for the health care for the children under CHIP? That was on the lips, the mind, and in the heart of every one of the governors who spoke there. I would observe that the Catholic Health Association also speaks to this because they have a concern that this is the best way we can take care of the children and we can see to it that we give a decent right to life to every American. I would offer to my colleagues, any or all of them, a list of those who do, the organizations who are supportive of this legislation; and I point out that you will find almost every organization that cares about kids or health or the well-being of our young people as supporters of this bill, including the great American labor organizations, the AFL- CIO and the UAW. That should speak clearly to us of the needs. I would point out that there are a number of misunderstandings that have been stated here. It has been said this is going to raise costs and it is going to raise the amount that is paid to individual recipients. Not so. This is a program which is going to be governed by the costs which were fixed when the legislation was first offered and first introduced and first put into law under the leadership of, for example, Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey. So it is not fiscally irresponsible. The legislation is going to do something else. It is not going to take care of illegals, nor is it going to engage in any weird practices. If there are waivers given, and they can be given, they will be given in the same fashion as they were given before, and that is by this administration saying this is something that is justified, justifiable and proper and which will help kids. I will note that they have not been overly generous in giving those particular waivers. So what we have a chance to do today, Mr. Speaker, and my friends and colleagues, is to take care of the kids, to support those who are least able to look to their own well-being and who are most defenseless and to suit them best for a healthy, growing adult life so they may contribute to a better, richer, stronger and safer America. We are doing something else. We are seeing to it that we are compassionate, and we may best be judged by that because, in doing that, we are best looked at by being those who really care for those who have the least. I urge my colleagues to vote for the CHAMP legislation. It is good. It is in the public interest. I now yield to the distinguished Speaker. Madam Speaker.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, before I call up the next speaker, I would like to point out that this bill will save 12 million kids from losing their health insurance and that it will prevent New Jersey from having a $200 billion shortfall in their SCHIP program. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I will defer to my good friend from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

Mr. DINGELL. I yield myself 15 seconds to point out to my dear friend from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) that it is the administration which gives waivers to cover parents and adults. The States do not have the authority to do so, and they must get the authority from the Federal Government, and it is from the Department of HHS that these kinds of waivers come, not elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) 2 minutes.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to yield 1 minute to my good friend and colleague from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman from Michigan so desires, I would defer to him and allow him to speak now, then I will have my remarks, and then the Speaker will close.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I believe here we have two remaining speakers. As I understand the practices of the House, it is, of course, the right of the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction to close. I am the only speaker other than our Speaker who wishes to speak and from whom we wish to hear. I would ask first my colleagues on the minority side how many more speakers they have.

Mr. DINGELL. I would ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak but that our Speaker be able to close for this side.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order. After the motion is read, I will know whether to insist on the point of order or not.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, my good Republican friends will be discussing process, and we want to discuss kids and the future of the country. For that purpose, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, my friend, Mr. Pallone of New Jersey.

Mr. DINGELL. I have no objection.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, our problem is a simple one, and I say this with respect and affection to my colleague. Our Republican colleagues have chosen to allocate time with two committees on this side and one committee on that side. The end result is that there is one committee on the Republican side which is not using its time. In order to balance out the time use, Mr. Stark and I are reserving our time at this time.

Mr. DINGELL. And I make a similar reservation.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. I certainly am happy to do that with my dear friend, and I express again my respect and affection for the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise with considerable regret, and I want to speak with affection and respect for my good friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Barton), the senior member of the Republicans on the Committee on Energy and Commerce. He complained about the process in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I would like the House and this committee to know that he was afforded, first of all, every bit of notice that is required by the rules of the House, that the proceedings which were conducted in that committee were conducted in an eminently fair and proper way in full accord with the rules and the proprieties of the House. I would also like him to know that I am sure he can recall that we sought his counsel as to how it was we could put something together which, in fact, would give him a process which would enable us to address the problem of SCHIP. I would like to remind him and this committee that SCHIP is going to expire on the 30th of September. That is an important date because at which time we are going to find that all of the kids, 6 million of them, who have coverage under SCHIP will lose that coverage if something is not done by the Congress of the United States. It is our purpose, given the fact that there will be a recess in this body during the month of August, to see to it that we have this measure ready for the floor in time that the business can be dealt with and that we can handle the matter in a way which will take care of these kids. The legislation was made available to my good friend and to my Republican colleagues on the committee as soon as it could be done after the necessary discussions were held to try to frame a proper piece of legislation and to address something that responsibility of a fiscal and financial character requires, and that is to deal with the pay-fors and how we will pay for the cost of this program. We have done so, and we have arranged that the payments will be a little different than the Senate bill, but they will be sensible. First of all, we will require that the Medicare Advantage plans pay their fair share but that they are not overpaid for the services which they are providing. Some of the less fortunate are getting 11 percent more than they are entitled to, some of the more fortunate are getting 19 percent more than they are entitled to, and some of the most fortunate are getting 30 percent more than they are entitled to. It seemed like good sense to put them in a position where they could compete honestly with the other Medicare providers, and that is what we have done. We also have a modest increase in the tobacco tax. These are all issues which will be considered; and we offered my good friend and my Republican colleagues a chance to amend, debate, and to discuss this legislation. I would note for the benefit of my good friend from Texas that the rules do not require hearings and that on a number of occasions on important legislation in prior Congresses during his chairmanship and that of others of my very dear friends on the Republican side, the situation was conducted in a way in which there were no hearings and which legislation was brought directly to the committee and shot to the House floor in considerable haste. We protested this, but I have to say that, given the exigencies of the situation, the needs and the circumstances and the fact that the kids are very liable to lose their health care benefits and their insurance under SCHIP, we saw fit to bring the matter up. The House will, I hope and I think and I am informed, have this measure before us in the next little bit. We will do so with a full opportunity of everybody to debate it, to discuss where the money is coming from, what the benefits will be, and whether or not the legislation should be passed. It is my personal feeling that we have a chance here to not only save some 6 million kids who would lose all benefits, but under the legislation which has come out of the Ways and Means Committee and which was considered in the Committee on Energy and Commerce to cover not 6 million but 11 million kids that desperately need this, which will be important. I conclude with an expression of affection for my friend and colleague from Texas. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend Chairman Peterson and the members of the Agriculture Committee for completing the difficult task of bringing this bill to the floor in a bipartisan fashion. I supported the 2002 farm bill, which has served Michigan farmers well. The agricultural sector in this country is strong, and it is a good time to take a look at our farm support system and figure out how we can make it better for small farmers and specialty crop farmers. We must recognize that farming is an inherently risky enterprise; producers are exposed to both production and price risks. Therefore, it is incumbent upon our government to be there for farmers when markets fail. We cannot afford to turn our back on America's farmers and our farm policy should be structured so that those who produce the safest and most abundant food supply in the world have an adequate safety net. We should also promote research to find new uses for the agricultural products grown in our fields and to promote these products in the global marketplace. However, it is not our responsibility to give cash payouts to millionaires, dead farmers or suburbanites who have no involvement in farming but just happened to purchase a house located on farmland. In 2005, 92 percent of the total farm payments last year went to just five crops. Michigan has the second-most diverse agriculture base in the Nation and I am glad to see that for the first time, the farm legislation before us today guarantees a historic $1.5 billion in funding for fruit and vegetable programs, including the school fresh fruit and vegetable program, the farmer's market promotion program, specialty crop block grants and research and organic food programs--all of which provide valuable support for the fresh fruit and vegetable growers in Michigan. The legislation before us today strengthens incentives for farmers to conserve valuable natural resources and protect the environment. Currently, three out of four farmers are turned away from conservation programs due to lack of funding. It is unacceptable for farmers who are trying to do the right thing for the environment to be rejected because we have not allocated enough resources to help them. H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, adds $4.3 billion more to preserve farm and ranchland, improve water quality and quantity, and enhance soil conservation, air quality, and wildlife habitat on working lands. I support the Fairness amendment offered by my colleague Ron Kind not because I am dissatisfied with H.R. 2419 but because I believe that it goes one step farther towards curbing taxpayer subsidies by reforming our farm payment system to direct aid to those who need assistance. Make no mistake, the Fairness amendment does not dismantle the safety net--it just modernizes the program so that it works better for family farms and 348 Congressional Districts, including Michigan's 15th District, which would gain $6 million under the Kind proposal. The Fairness amendment does not weaken any of the commendable nutrition or conservation provisions in H.R. 2419--rather, it makes them better by adding $2 billion for nutrition programs and $3 billion for conservation programs. Moreover, it does all of this without requiring spending offsets or new taxes. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2419 contains no legislative text expressing a view on whether manure should be deemed a hazardous substance pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, CERCLA, or the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, EPCRA. The absence of any such text is proper both for parliamentary and policy reasons. The report that accompanies this legislation, however, references a ``sense of the committee'' amendment that farm animal manure should not be deemed a hazardous substance pursuant to CERCLA and EPCRA. I strongly disagree with these sentiments, which would create a blanket exemption from important environmental laws for those large concentrated animal feeding operations that pollute public drinking water supplies with phosphorous and emit more than 100 pounds per day of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide into the air. Manure is not at risk of being deemed a ``hazardous substance'' or ``hazardous waste.'' That is misinformation put forth by some. Phosphorous, however, is a ``hazardous substance'' under CERCLA and the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has determined that both ammonia and hydrogen sulfide are ``extremely hazardous substances'' for the ``reportable quantity'' reporting requirements of EPCRA. Congress clearly intended that the Superfund program deal with the improper and excessive application of fertilizer that pollutes drinking water supplies or damages natural resources. This is manifestly clear because Section 101 (22) of the Superfund statute creates an exemption from the definition of release for ``the normal application of fertilizer.'' If substances such as phosphorous that emanate from the excessive application of manure fertilizer are exempted, the only people being protected are the bad actors. These large concentrated animal feeding operations produce huge amounts of animal waste. For example, an animal feeding operation with 2 million hogs produces a volume of manure equal to the solid waste stream of a U.S. city of about 2.7 million--a city similar in size to Chicago's 2.8 million population. The Environmental Protection Agency has found that large-scale concentrated animal feeding operations present significant human health and environmental risks. Let me quote EPA's findings: ``Significant human health and environmental risks are generally associated with large-scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, CAFOs. Improper handling of manure from feedlots, lagoons and improper land application can result in excessive nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous); pathogens (i.e., fecal coli form); and other pollutants in the water. This pollution can kill fish, cause excessive algae growth, and contaminate drinking water. In addition, emissions of air pollutants from very large CAFOs may result in significant health effects for nearby residents.'' A blanket exemption from CERCLA for excessive application of manure fertilizer would also shift the costs onto community water systems and their ratepayers for additional treatment to make water potable. I attach the July 23, 2007, letter from the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies that highlights the serious consequences that any such an exemption would have for the quality our Nation's drinking water supplies. Mr. Chairman, the Farm Bill Extension Act also makes changes to the Rural Utilities Service broadband loan and loan guarantee program. While this program is in dire need of reform, I am concerned about several provisions in the measure as drafted. The measure wisely limits loans and loan guarantees in areas where consumers already have broadband service available to them. I am deeply concerned, however, that it describes those areas where broadband is available too broadly, so that applications to provide broadband to large areas of a community that currently have no broadband service at all would be denied. The bill also prohibits support in areas where more than 75 percent of households have access to broadband. National satellite broadband providers can in theory reach close to 100 percent of households. However, while satellite-delivered broadband is a rapidly-improving and valuable service, particularly in remote areas, today it is often not comparable to terrestrially-delivered broadband. It typically cannot reach the same speeds and is more expensive and subject to outages in heavy rainstorms and other severe weather. While I appreciate the bill's commitment to technological neutrality, if satellite-delivered broadband is not excluded from the 75-percent requirement, there may be few areas that would be eligible for loans. When it comes to broadband service, speed is critical, and the measure could also be improved by giving priority to applications that, other things being equal, propose to offer higher broadband speeds to consumers. I also strongly disagree with creating within the Department of Agriculture a National Center for Rural Telecommunications Assessment to increase broadband penetration and develop assessments of broadband availability in rural areas. These are matters that fall squarely within the expertise of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and should be left to that agency's expertise. Likewise, any report describing a comprehensive rural broadband strategy should be developed by the FCC rather than by the Department of Agriculture. I applaud the goal of working toward universal broadband availability and urge my colleagues to ensure that we attain that goal by allowing the FCC, the agency with the most expertise, to spearhead that effort. Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, Washington, DC, July 23, 2007. Subject: Oppose CERCLA Animal Waste Exemption in Farm Bill. Dear Representatives: As the House of Representatives prepares this week to consider legislation to reauthorize the Farm Bill, we urge you to reject language that would exempt components of animal waste from designation as a hazardous substance pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Enactment of such an exemption would bring about serious consequences for the quality of America's drinking water supplies. During last week's markup of the legislation, the Agriculture Committee adopted an amendment expressing the ``sense of the committee that farm animal manure should not be considered as hazardous substance'' under CERCLA. This follows the introduction earlier this year of legislation in the House and Senate that would specifically exempt animal waste and its components from the law. As representatives of community drinking water systems, we believe it is important to note that animal manure itself is not currently considered a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant under CERCLA. Moreover, the law already contains an exemption for the normal application of fertilizer that includes manure. However, phosphorus and other CERCLA-regulated hazardous substances that are known to compromise the quality of drinking water are commonly present in animal manure. If Congress were to provide a blanket CERCLA exemption for animal waste, consolidated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) would be free to discharge manure containing such hazardous substances into the environment without regard to its impact or liability for its damages. As a result, the costs of additional treatment to make water potable would be forced upon community water systems and their ratepayers, unfairly shifting the burden of cleanup away from polluters. Later this year, Congress will celebrate the 35th anniversary ofthe Clean Water Act, landmark legislation modeled on the belief that all Americans must share the responsibility of maintaining the health of our nation's water supply. Exempting CAFOs from their fair share of this duty not only threatens to reverse the water quality gains that have been realized over the recent decades, but would also set a dangerous precedent encouraging other polluters to seek waivers from our environmental laws. Again, we urge you to oppose a blanket exemption for animal waste and its components from the important requirements of

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, the 9/11 Commission made a series of recommendations to Congress and the administration designed to ensure the safety of Americans while protecting the liberties that form the core of our democracy. This important legislation addresses issues that reach across all aspects of the lives of Americans. The 9/11 Commission recommended that Congress ensure that first responders be able to communicate with each other across jurisdictions--firefighters with police officers, emergency medical professionals with State officials, local with State and Federal personnel. Title III, Ensuring Communications Interoperability for First Responders, establishes a grant program designed to achieve this important goal. As structured in this legislation, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grant program will complement the interoperability program already underway at the Department of Commerce. Under statute, DHS's expert on all matters relating to emergency communications is the Director of Emergency Communications. Title III of this Conference Report recognizes this statutory directive by ensuring that the Director of Emergency Communications will design and implement the grant programs' policies and guidelines. The Director will be in charge of ensuring that grant program funds are used to establish a forward-looking, nationwide, interoperable system to ensure the safety and efficient functioning of all of our first responders as they respond to natural disasters and other calamities. The Committee on Energy and Commerce looks forward to overseeing this program and receiving continual updates from the Director on the progress of DHS towards achieving nationwide interoperability through this program. I am also especially pleased that the legislation ensures that the overwhelming majority of the interoperability grant funds will be passed through to localities, because it is at the local level that our first responders are working to ensure our safety and well-being. Importantly, the legislation ties the grant funds to the implementation of statewide plans and a national plan that will act as a road map towards statewide and national interoperability. As we have learned, natural disasters and incidents do not recognize international borders. To help our first responders address trans-border incidents, Title III also establishes border interoperability pilot projects to help us ensure that our first responders are able to communicate with our neighbors to the north and south. Title IV addresses credentialing workers involved in ensuring America's safety. The Conference Report states that the DHS shall consult with the Secretary of Health and Human Services when developing credentialing standards for healthcare personnel. It is imperative that the Secretary of Health and Human Services not only be involved but also have a leadership role in developing standards for credentialing of healthcare professionals. Failing to utilize the public health expertise of the Department of Health and Human Services to its fullest extent could jeopardize efficient care and support for Americans who have been exposed to a terrorist attack or natural disaster. I look forward to working with Chairman Thompson to ensure that the required consultation is to the degree and of the depth merited by the importance of the public health of all of America's people. I want to thank the gentleman for some important clarifications that have been added to Title IX of the bill, which addresses voluntary national private sector preparedness standards. When we voted on this bill in January, I noted that Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act establishes a mandatory regulatory program regarding the accidental releases of hazardous chemicals. As part of that program, the owner or operator of a covered facility must prepare and implement a risk management plan to detect and prevent or minimize accidental releases and to provide a prompt emergency response to any such releases. I asked for clarification at that time that the bill's voluntary program was not intended to interfere with this mandatory Clean Air Act program. The conference report before us today provides that clarification. Rules of Construction, as well as requirements for consideration and coordination with other Federal agencies' preparedness programs or standards, have been included in the two new sections of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that address private sector preparedness. These provisions clarify that the private sector must continue to meet the Clean Air Act Section 112(r) requirements, and that the voluntary preparedness standards are not intended to supersede or interfere with the mandatory Clean Air Act program. Another important area of concern addressed by this legislation is cargo screening. One of the major security vulnerabilities facing this Nation is the threat from the detonation of a nuclear device smuggled into a port through a cargo container loaded on a ship. It is a nightmare we must prevent. Section 1701 establishes a 5-year goal of 100 percent screening for radiological devices or material in cargo containers leaving foreign ports before they ever enter the waters of the United States. This is a worthy priority, and to ensure adequate flexibility, the DHS Secretary is given authority for 2-year waivers should there be major impediments to its implementation. Section 1701 also authorizes the DHS Secretary to ``establish technological and operational standards for systems to scan containers; to ensure that the standards are consistent with the global nuclear detection architecture developed under the Homeland Security Act of 2002; and to coordinate with other Federal agencies that administer scanning or detection programs.'' The need for coordination between agencies is essential, particularly given the advanced work carried out by the Department of Energy (DOE) in setting up radiation portal monitors at ports, airports, and rail stations around the world. The DOE's ``Megaports'' program provides radiation detection equipment to key international seaports to screen cargo containers for radioactive materials, including Greece, Bahamas, Sri Lanka, Spain, Singapore, and the Netherlands. Approximately 70 ports worldwide are targeted for implementation, and installation efforts are underway at ports within Belgium, China, Dubai, Honduras, Israel, Oman, the Philippines, Thailand, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, and Taiwan. Additionally, the Megaports program is teaming with the ``Container Security Initiative'' to implement the ``Secure Freight Initiative'' pilot program at ports in the United Kingdom, Pakistan, and Honduras. The DOE's ``Second Line of Defense'' program installs radiation detection equipment at borders, airports, and feeder ports in Russia, former Soviet Union states, and other key countries. Approximately 350 sites have been identified to receive detection equipment installations. Even though this legislation authorizes the DHS Secretary to set minimum container scanning technology standards, the Conference Report properly notes that DOE has inherent capabilities to assess, through its cooperative agreements with numerous countries and port authorities, the adequacy of technical and operating procedures for cargo container scanning. To ensure the smooth continuation of DOE's cooperative relationships with numerous countries and the further expansion of the Megaports program, the Conference Report makes clear that these two agencies shall closely coordinate their activities, and requires that DHS shall consult with DOE prior to the establishment of technological or operational standards that would affect screening activities in foreign ports. As part of the coordination requirement in this section, the Conference Report directs that where the scanning technology standards affect the DOE's Megaports and SLD programs, the Secretary shall invite the DOE to participate in the development and final review of such standards, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall seek the concurrence of the Secretary of Energy. Should differences arise, I would expect that DOE and DHS would notify the relevant committees of jurisdiction in Congress. The American people are counting on the agencies carrying out cargo screening at our ports and borders to ensure that there are technically sound decisions in setting standards and selecting equipment, and that there is seamless coordination between agencies with responsibility and expertise. Title XXII makes an important modification to the Department of Commerce's interoperability grant program by including strategic technology reserves as eligible for funding. This modification recognizes the importance of a resilient and redundant network of emergency communications. In Title XXII, Congress also recognizes the expertise of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with regard to the Nation's communications and information infrastructure and directs the FCC to conduct a vulnerability assessment. This title also establishes a joint committee and a pilot project to improve communications for emergency medical and public healthcare committee. Title XXII also requires an important report on the progress of the re- banding efforts in the 800 megahertz band. As such, this title recognizes Congress's clear intent that this process proceed as expeditiously as possible so that our first responders in border areas may effectively utilize the spectrum to which they are moving. I also support the changes in Title XXIII because I believe that it will enhance and expedite the ability of our Nation's 911 centers to be able to automatically locate callers whether they are using traditional land line or mobile phones. I appreciate the Chairman's willingness to work with me, the members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and our staff as we have used our expertise to improve the legislation in this Conference Report.