James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman's enthusiasm is wonderful. No speaker, Mr. Chairman, has impugned the gentleman's standing. In fact, I have praised the gentleman's enthusiasm for the firefighters. In fact, I have been a most enthusiastic supporter of FEMA, and then the gentleman's colleague, now Secretary in waiting for the Department of Homeland Security, was a member of this body when I held hearings on the proposal of the Reagan administration to, in effect, dismantle FEMA, and we reestablished FEMA. I asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Ridge, to be the sponsor of the legislation so that we would have bipartisan support for it. I have worked diligently to establish FEMA, and I admire the work that the gentleman from Pennsylvania in the well has done on the fire grant program; and I do not want it to be swallowed up in some huge bureaucracy and crossbred with some other program.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, it is an overcharacterization, to use the gentleman's language. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's bill, but it is not part of the Homeland Security Department. It is not part of the manager's amendment. It is not part of the legislation pending before us, and it is sort of kind of a pig in a poke, is a promise in waiting, is not a good service to the firefighters of this country.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to return to a letter of the International Association of Firefighters that was referenced in a previous debate on the floor to point out that the association says the Fire Act, meaning the small community grant program and the first responder proposal, serve different purposes and one should not subsume the other. That is what is going to happen if we swallow this agency, FEMA, up into this huge bureaucracy.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, over the past decade, the Federal Emergency Management Administration has come to be recognized as one of our most effective and widely respected Federal Government agencies. It has helped tens of thousands of our fellow citizens devastated by natural disasters, such as floods, fires, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes and blizzards. But if we transfer FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security, we run the risk of undermining the mission and the effectiveness of the one agency, I should not say the one, but one of the few agencies of this government that touches the lives of Americans daily, that works effectively and smoothly and responds to the needs of American citizens where they are when disaster strikes. Over the past several years, FEMA has responded to four federally declared disasters emerging from terrorism: the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, and the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, effectively, efficiently. Its response was never diminished by its independent status and was, in fact, enhanced by that status. Since 1976, FEMA has responded to 927 federally declared disasters and 77 emergency declarations resulting from natural hazards, floods, fire, hurricane, earthquake and tornado, responding effectively, helping Americans devastated, and, in the process, earning the respect and admiration of the Congress, of State and local officials, and other nations who have come to study our system to see how it works and try to emulate it. The former director of FEMA, James Lee Witt, who elevated the effectiveness of FEMA to this highly respected, efficient status that we all admire today, said that its effectiveness was directly dependent upon its ability to stay out of the large bureaucratic morass of Washington agencies and allowed it ``to effectively coordinate the resources of 26 Federal agencies following disaster events.'' James Lee Witt said the plan to move FEMA to the new Department ``would be a mistake.'' I concur. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. For the purpose of propounding a question to the chairman of our distinguished committee, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Alaska if he has any information about plans of the administration, any assurances in writing about the status of the first responder program and the status of the firefighter grant program in the new Department of Homeland Security?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair advise the time remaining.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. I love the enthusiasm of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Chairman. He can get fired up and enthusiastic, but let me make it clear to this body that the gentleman from Pennsylvania does not speak alone for firefighters across America. They have been misguided. I do not know who wrote their position paper for them, but it is clear that the firefighters that I have talked to in my district have said we did not think this is a particularly good idea. FEMA works well now. What is going to happen to the Office of Fire Training and the small grants for small communities when this effective agency is swallowed up into the guts of a huge bureaucracy of 170,000 people? And for all the enthusiasm of my good friend, and I admire this gentleman and we have worked together on a number of matters, for all his enthusiasm, Mr. Chairman, I warrant we will be back here a year from now when the gentleman from Pennsylvania and others who might be so misguided as to vote for keeping the position of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, be back here saying, what has happened to the money? We need more funds for FEMA; we need more funds for firefighting. It is being swallowed up by the Department; these dollars have been shifted around. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania have a firewall to protect the funds for FEMA from being swallowed up into some other part of the Department of Homeland Security? Not on my colleague's life. It is not part of this bill. There is no way to protect FEMA from the overarching, swarming arms of the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. The amendment offered by the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is well-intentioned. In true sea captain fashion, he is trying to repair the ship that has got a leak in the hull, and the leak in the hull is this scheme of taking an effective, functioning, useful agency that delivers goods, puncturing a hole in it and sending it over to the Department of Homeland Security where it serves no useful purpose to that department. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. And I do so again in support of the unanimous position of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, a wisely reported measure that would keep FEMA as an independent agency. The plan of the Select Committee would chop off one entity of FEMA and send it to another sector, another box within the Department of Homeland Security, and keep the body of FEMA intact in another box. That does not make any sense at all. That does not make any sense at all. That is why we wanted to keep the agency together. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). (Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the Brookings Institution studied this proposal for a Department of Homeland Security and reached the same conclusion as former FEMA Director James Lee Witt with this observation: ``There is very little day-to-day synergy between the preventive and protective functions of the border and transportation security entities in the Department and the emergency preparedness and response functions a consolidated FEMA contributes. There is, therefore, little to be gained in bringing these very different entities under the same organizational roof. And the costs are not insignificant. ``FEMA,'' the report says, ``would likely become less effective in performing its current mission in case of natural disasters, as time, effort, and attention are inevitably diverted to other tasks within the larger organization.'' Prior to the time when we enacted the Stafford Act which statutorily established FEMA in 1979, after we had shed its disaster, civil defense role, the Federal Government had had no coordinated or effective response to natural disasters, but FEMA became that response agency. Now, if we move this really effective agency into a big bureaucracy, we know what happens. We all know in this Chamber what happens when a small agency gets into a big department and the big appetite for more money to be shuffled around with fungible dollars that can go from one agency to the next and suddenly, FEMA's will just dissipate and fritter away. Mr. Chairman, I am in the enviable position of rising in support of the unanimous position of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in reporting out our responsibilities toward homeland security, and that is the committee reported out recommendation to keep FEMA as an independent agency. All right. This is July 2002. Let us fast forward to July 2003. The majority has prevailed. FEMA is a box in the mammoth bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security. Flood waters are swirling around your city. You call for help. You get the Department of Homeland Security. The switchboard sends your call to the Under Secretary's office which looks up ``disaster'' on their organizational chart and sends you to the Congressional Liaison Office, which then promises to get a message back to you in 24 hours. Eventually, they find FEMA, by which time you are stranded on the roof of your house waving a white handkerchief and screaming for help. FEMA, the word comes back, sorry, is looking for suspected terrorists some place in the hinterland of America and will get back to you as soon as we can. This Department of Homeland Security is a bureaucracy in search of a mission. Do not give them FEMA's mission. It is too important to waste on this misguided department. There is that old barnyard saying, ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' FEMA ain't broke. Don't fix it by ruining it and sending it into the Department of Homeland Security. It is nimble, quick, lean, effective as an independent agency today. Keep it that way. Help your city, help your State, help yourself, help your firefighter by keeping FEMA as an independent agency where it belongs and has been effective.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. In response to the gentleman from Pennsylvania who spoke a moment ago and talked about the support of local fire departments, they all ought to be reminded of the headline in the Washington Post saying, ``FEMA's Influence May Be Cut Under New Department. The influence of the Federal Emergency Management Agency may become severely diminished as Congress crafts legislation to create the new department.'' Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I wish to express my great appreciation for the cooperation of all the members on the Democratic side on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We had many, many meetings and discussions to iron out differences, to reach agreements, to reach consensus on matters, that compromise that we have offered to the majority in our committee. In particular, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) has been an absolute champion on pipeline safety; the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larson), who has been a vigorous advocate stemming from the tragedies that resulted in his own district; the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson), who, likewise, has been a vigorous advocate and a staunch supporter of strong pipeline safety legislation; and many others on our committee who have contributed long hours in the discussion and debate internally. But especially my appreciation goes to the chairman of our committee, whose patience, as I said a moment ago, is legendary. Sometimes that fuse is maybe a quarter of an inch long, but he is always willing to come back again and to discuss and to revisit issues on which it seems that there is no agreement and to find common ground. We have found common ground, and I am very appreciative. I especially am grateful to our committee staff, David Heymsfeld and Frank Mulvey, who have labored intensively on crafting this legislation and Ward McCarragher, whose many, many hours combined have produced this splendid piece of legislation which we can now support. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, the chairman's patience is legendary. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall). (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, whose years of endeavor in the vineyard have proven fruitful. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)