David Reichert

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule and the manager's amendment that was made in order under this rule. This manager's amendment will significantly weaken legislation that gained bipartisan support in Committee on Homeland Security and passed 26-0. As the chairman of the Emergency Preparedness Subcommittee last Congress, we were able to pass into law comprehensive interoperability legislation. This legislation, titled the 21st Century Communications Act, created the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications and elevated the importance of emergency communications within the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, this legislation accelerated the development of national standards for emergency communication equipment. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee has approved an amendment that would remove many key provisions and severely weaken this legislation. This amendment removes language that allows interoperability funds to be used by State and local agencies to develop standard operating procedures, training, and exercises. It is important for our first responders to have this equipment, but it is also equally important that they have the training to know how to use the equipment. Allowing this amendment on the floor that removes this provision will reduce the first responders' effectiveness due to a lack of training and planning. We saw what happened during Hurricane Katrina when there was a lack of training, a lack of planning and a lack of communication. It was disastrous. It cost lives. Next week is National Police Week. At a time when we are supposed to be honoring and supporting our first responders, and especially our law enforcement officers, across this Nation, we are limiting their abilities to protect themselves and to protect this Nation. I know this from firsthand experience. This is a problem that has been in existence for over 35 years, the lack of first responders to communicate. I responded to a call in 1974, not able to get on my radio, having to run across a yard and tackle a kid that had a rifle aimed at three other police officers, because I couldn't get through and talk to the communications center. Today, eliminating this provision will create that same situation across this Nation. It's unthinkable. It's unconscionable. It should not be happening. This should be a bipartisan bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. I thank the gentlelady for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today as a cosponsor of this resolution to honor our law enforcement officers across this Nation. I was one of the 870,000 sworn law enforcement officers that are on the job today just a couple of years ago, until I came to this House. I have to be honest and confess that my heart still lies with my fellow officers and deputies in the King County Sheriff's Office in Seattle, Washington. I was one of those officers who have been spit on, kicked, called every name that you can think of and maybe some that you can't think of, stabbed, shot at, threatened. All of those things happened in my 33-year career. But I am here today alive and well to talk about those officers that sacrificed their lives. Some of those were my good friends. Two were my partners. One was an academy mate. One was my best friend. Murdered. Shot and killed. Now, just last year the King County Sheriff's Office lost another dedicated law enforcement officer by the name of Steve Cox. Imagine you are Deputy Steve Cox and you are responding to a call on an early Saturday morning back in December. You really don't know what kind of a call you are going to. But then you hear that shots have been fired. Part of your job is to interview every person at the scene, so you start to interview these people. All of a sudden, in the middle of the interview, somebody pulls a gun, and before Deputy Cox could react, he was shot in the head and killed. He left behind a wife and a 1-year-old son. These are things that happen every day on the streets of our great Nation. We owe such a debt of gratitude to the men and women who wear the badge, whether they wear a blue uniform or green, gray or whatever color it might be, who are there to protect us from those people on our streets who choose not to obey the laws of the land. There are four people from the State of Washington who will be added to the memorial this year: Joselito Barber from the Seattle Police Department; Edwanton Thomas from the Brier Police Department; Dick Rhodes from the Kittitas County Sheriff's Office; and Deputy Steve Cox from the King County Sheriff's Office. Mr. Speaker, as you can tell, this is very close to my heart. It should be close to each and every one of us. Every time we see one of the Capitol Hill police officers or the Washington, D.C. police when we are back here, please stop and say thank you for a job well done in putting their lives and their family's lives on the line for us every day.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for allowing me time to speak this afternoon. I also want to take a moment to congratulate Chairman Thompson on bringing this legislation forward. And I do rise, Mr. Chairman, in support of H.R. 1401. A number of the speakers already have touched upon how the world has changed since September 11, but sometimes we say those words and, really, the heart and the meat of those words don't really touch our hearts. And if I could just take a moment to share a story with you. As I was traveling through my district a few months ago along the freeways just south of the city of Seattle, I looked up at one of the traffic advisory boards. Usually what you see on those advisory boards are traffic alerts: take a different route; traffic accident ahead; severe hazard is ahead; exit freeway; blocked freeway ahead. Those are the things that we are used to seeing on our traffic advisory boards in the Seattle area. But on this day, as I looked up at the traffic advisory board, what it said was, SEA-TAC Airport security alert. No gels, no liquids allowed on planes in carry-on luggage. That, to me, just struck for a moment at, really, the true change that has happened since September 11. Freedom has been impacted by the attack on the United States of America. And as we look at protecting our homeland, it is so important for our protection to be coordinated by law enforcement, by local law enforcement, for grant money to be directed toward local law enforcement and partnering with the Federal system, partnering with the Department of Transportation, partnering with the airport and the rail and security people who protect our railways, highways and airports. All of those have to be brought together and in conjunction with the private sector. That is the duty of local law enforcement to bring people together, to make our neighborhoods and communities safe. But, as I support H.R. 1401, as reported unanimously by the Committee on Homeland Security, I am in strong opposition to the manager's amendment that is up for consideration today. Under the version of this legislation, Mr. Chairman, approved by the Committee on Homeland Security, the Department of Homeland Security would be responsible for distributing rail and public transportation security grants. Unfortunately, good policy has given way to politics. And in the manager's amendment, we see the responsibility for administering these grants has shifted from the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Transportation. In a statement by the National Sheriffs' Association on this legislation, the association writes: ``Specifically, the National Sheriffs' Association, sheriffs and law enforcement officials have a vested interest in protecting national and homeland security and, in order to do so, it is paramount that an obvious and central entity exist to which sheriffs can turn to for support and assistance. Thus, the National Sheriffs' Association believes that allowing the Department of Homeland Security to maintain the primary role in the assessment and the distribution of grant monies concerning rail security will help maintain such a necessary and efficient Homeland Security infrastructure.'' Let me repeat that last part, please: ``Allowing the Department of Homeland Security to maintain the primary role in the assessment and distribution of grant monies concerning security will help maintain such a necessary and efficient Homeland Security infrastructure.'' In addition to this ill-conceived move, the manager's amendment makes another critical error in determining who is eligible for the $2.4 billion of funds for rail security. Again, the version of this legislation reported out of the Committee on Homeland Security allowed State, local and tribal government entities, as well as railroad carriers, to apply for these grants. Risk-based, threat-based. The manager's amendment allows eligible railroad carriers only to apply for these grants. Mr. Chairman, as a former sheriff of a major metropolitan area, I understand local law enforcement plays an important role in protecting our Nation's transit and rail systems. A cynical person might say that the manager's amendment serves as nothing more than a $2.4 billion earmark for Amtrak, though I am sure that that is not the overt intent of its author. While the manager's amendment has made some improvements to this legislation, specifically, the whistleblower provisions, I remain in strong opposition to the dangerous changes the amendment makes to the grant portion of this bill.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we are here to, and I am honored to be here to support H.R. 1284, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2007. It sounds awful cold and mechanical when you rattle it off in that way, but it means a lot to the people who serve this country. I was, as my good friend Mr. Miller said, I was in the Air Force. I served 33 years in the King County Sheriff's Office in Seattle, Washington, and I had friends who were wounded in the line of duty, partners who were wounded, partners who were killed and sacrificed their lives to protect their communities. I, myself, was nearly mortally wounded in serving our community as a sheriff's deputy. I know what it means to have a community come behind you. I know what it means to have a family stand with you. I know what it means to have your friends, your relatives, and your local government to be there with you. Our veterans deserve to know what that feeling is. They need to know the United States Government and Members of Congress are standing with them. We are soldiers here fighting with them, providing them with the benefits they need, the tools they need, the things they need to do their job, the things they need to do to protect their families, the things they need to have to provide for their families. Two weeks ago I stopped and visited a marine in a Seattle VA hospital. This marine was wounded in the neck with a .22 caliber bullet. I stood in awe at his courage as he lay paralyzed from the waist down, and I asked him what his plans were for the future, and that I was honored to meet him, and sorry that he was wounded in battle. He looked at me and smiled and said, Why feel sorry for me? Don't. I volunteered for this work. I want to protect America. You know what he said his plans for the future was? To go back to Iraq. He said, I will walk again and fight next to my brothers and sisters on the front lines. I met another soldier at Madigan Hospital, the Army hospital in Tacoma, Washington, a soldier who was standing near someone who blew themselves up, a suicide bomber. He is now suffering from a blood viral infection. He has been treated for over a year at Madigan Hospital. I said the same thing to him. I am honored to meet you. What are your plans for the future? He said, I will heal. Don't feel sorry for me. I am going back to fight with my fellow soldiers. This cost-of-living increase seems mechanical to us as we sit here in this House floor. It means a lot to the soldiers that are fighting and dying for this freedom of our citizens, of all of us here today. I am so proud to be here to stand before you and support this legislation. One of the other things that we must do, not only pass legislation that helps them provide for their families and for themselves and their future, you must reach out and make sure that those veterans who are out in our community, 624,000 veterans in the State of Washington, know what benefits are available to them. On March 31, we would hold a veterans fair just across the water from Seattle, Washington, and invite every veteran in the State to be there so they can learn how we can help them and we can honor them.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as a member of the U.S. Air Force Reserves a number of years ago, in support of our troops. It is unconscionable for the soldiers who defend our freedom to receive anything less than the finest medical care. I visited the veterans hospital in Seattle again recently and talked at length to one soldier about the quality of care he has received. I was relieved to hear that from the time he was wounded in Iraq to his treatment at Bethesda and his time at Seattle's VA Hospital, the care that he received was excellent. Unfortunately, this is not the case in every hospital for every soldier. I will soon be visiting Walter Reed to speak with soldiers there and make sure they are receiving the excellent care that they deserve. I am encouraged by the efforts to hold accountable those responsible for the appalling conditions at Walter Reed. This issue transcends party lines and requires an immediate response by all parties. This is about young men and women who have sacrificed much for our country and for our freedom. We owe it to them to correct this injustice.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I support the troops wholeheartedly and without reservation, but I cannot support a resolution that simply opposes a new strategy without offering an alternative plan to win. There is too much at stake. Many of you know that I was a cop in the Seattle area for 33 years. I was the sheriff for 8 years. And as the sheriff I had an opportunity to attend a remarkable ceremony. Every year a group of naturalized American citizens gathered to remember the circumstances of their arrival in the United States. The group is comprised of police officers from Vietnam, men that fought side by the side with our American soldiers. These Vietnamese officers assumed the greatest risks, risking their lives and endangering their families, to join the United States in their fight for freedom. When the United States pulled out of Vietnam, there were dire consequences for these brave men who risked everything to fight for the United States. The officers were rounded up. Some were imprisoned for 15 years or more and some were executed. Those who managed to flee and escape death made their way to the United States. They left everything in Vietnam, and made new lives in the United States. And they were able to enjoy the freedoms that they had fought for, but not in the country that they had hoped for. Let me just take a moment to set the stage for this ceremony. As the sheriff, I sat down at a round table with many of these Vietnamese soldiers and police officers. They came in their uniforms that they brought along with them, those that were able to escape, those that spent 15 to 17 years in a prison camp where they were beaten, where they were tortured, where they lost their freedom. They lost their dignity, but they never gave up hope. When they came here to the United States of America and they come together on this evening to celebrate their freedom, and the American flag is brought into that room, those men stand at attention and they salute. But you know what else they do? They cry. When the American flag is brought in, they cry because they lost their freedom. But now they know what it is like to have it back. It is a dramatic scene. If we leave too soon in Iraq, what happened to these Vietnamese officers could certainly happen to those Iraqi soldiers who bravely fought side by side with our troops today. I don't use this example as a way of comparing this conflict with Vietnam, as some have done. I believe that the two wars are very different. I use it because it could happen again. I never want to attend an event where former Iraqi soldiers are attending a similar ceremony. The fact is that we are engaged in a global war with people intent on killing us, killing Americans. And regardless of how we got into Iraq, Iraq is now the central front of this war. I understand that there are many who think we should not have entered Iraq. We now know there was faulty intelligence that led us into Iraq and to make that decision. But the war is upon us nonetheless. I am elected to deal with what is happening now. The consequences of declaring an end to the war in Iraq without victory would be felt for decades. Our enemies around the world would be emboldened. Iran and al Qaeda would declare victory. Our allies in Iraq would certainly face bloodshed and our allies around the world would question our resolve to help protect them. Our troops are clear about their dedication to their mission; they want to succeed. American soldiers dutifully responded when we asked them to go to Iraq and oust a dictator, establish an infrastructure, and train the Iraqis so that they are able to protect themselves. Now we must do what the troops have asked of us. They have given us their service, and in too many cases they have given us their lives. We must give them the opportunity for victory. Our current strategy in Iraq is failing. And yet failure is not an option, not only for the United States' security, but also for the security of the Iraqi soldiers and police officers that still fight today, side by side with our troops. In November the American people told us that they wanted a new strategy, not because they wanted to lose, but because they want to win. And now we have a new strategy before us. Is this new plan going to work? I don't know. No one in this body that will vote on this resolution, this nonbinding resolution, knows whether or not this plan will work. But what I do know is that we first must find a way to achieve victory. And simply saying ``no'' to a plan without offering an alternative won't work, and it sends a terrible message to our enemies and to our soldiers. This is an historic war. America is engaged in a war for our freedom on a scale that we have never experienced before. I understand the dissension, the questions, and the uncertainty. I understand the cost is high and the way is unclear. As a cop, I have lost partners, I have lost friends in the line of duty. I know the pain that causes. I understand the loss. It is sad. It is tragic, and you never forget. But we must remain focused, ladies and gentlemen. Please don't let those sacrifices be in vain. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution and let us send a message to our enemies and our troops alike, we will always support our young men and women who put their lives on the line for freedom and that we will give them what it takes to succeed in the missions that we have given them.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I support our troops wholeheartedly and without reservation, but I cannot support a resolution that simply opposes a new strategy without offering any alternative plan to win. There is too much at stake. Let us just think about where we are today as a country, about the global war we are in with people with intent to kill Americans and how that affects our strategy in Iraq. When considering this, we must consider our Nation's history and other difficult times of war. There have been many bleak moments in America's history, battles we have been engaged in where American victory was far from certain. In 1942, hell bent on dominating the world with his ideology, Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich systematically marched through Europe, taking the most basic freedoms from the Jewish people and killing millions. The United States entered World War II reluctantly and we were not ready for the hurdles we faced. Don't forget, there were times when victory was far from certain. The outlook was grim. Many Americans and Europeans alive today can remember how bleak those times were as the war drug on and on and on. But we didn't give up. We persevered, because we knew there was too much at stake. Eighty years before World War II, in 1862, President Lincoln faced a war that most believed could not be won. He faced vocal and unrelenting criticism for his resolve to win the Civil War. When the war began, Lincoln called for 74,000 troops for 90 days; 74,000 troops for 90 days. And history has showed us that Lincoln greatly underestimated the resources needed, because, as we know, over 620,000 soldiers were killed during that war. At a time in our history when it might have been politically expedient to win the Civil War without first achieving victory, President Lincoln pressed on, constantly seeking a new strategy, until he found one that worked because so much was at stake. Perhaps some of the resolve Lincoln displayed came from lessons he learned 15 years earlier when he entered a smaller battle. In 1848, Abraham Lincoln was an often criticized young freshman Member of this body, the House of Representatives, and was facing a difficult point in his career. Lincoln criticized the reasons President Polk gave for getting us into the Mexican-American War, a war that began before Lincoln came to office, a position that I can identify with today as I stand here. Then-Congressman Lincoln voted for a resolution that stated the Mexican-American War was ``unnecessarily and unconstitutionally'' initiated by President Polk. Lincoln thought the war was nothing more than a political move to grab land from the Mexican people. My friends, it is legitimate and in fact our duty to question the reasons why our country goes to war, and Abraham Lincoln showed us that. However, he also showed us something else. Abraham Lincoln made an incredibly important distinction that we can learn from today. A Lincoln biographer, Doris Kearns Goodwin, writes that after being criticized for that vote ``Lincoln sought to clarify his position, arguing that although he had challenged the instigation of the war he had never voted against supplies for the soldiers.'' This is an important point to make again. Lincoln sought to clarify his position, arguing that although he had challenged the instigation of the war he had never voted against supplies for the soldiers. Lincoln knew the damage of condemning a war while claiming to support the troops. Yet that is what this resolution before us does today. During the American Revolution, the men and women who had become this country's first citizens were declared by the King of England to be in rebellion. The King sent soldiers across the Atlantic to quell the uprising. In every war, it is the average citizen who stands up and fights for his neighbor's freedom. It is the same today. In response to the King of England's attack, again it was the average citizen who raised his hand, volunteered, stood up and fought for our freedom. A bookstore owner, the manager of an iron foundry and a land surveyor all stood and fought for our freedom. Those men were Henry Knox, Nathaniel Green and George Washington. During America's War for Independence, it was not clear if we would prevail then. We lost battle after battle. Troops deserted the battlefields. General Washington and his deputies persevered, continuing to engage the enemy until the tide turned, because so much was at stake. We are the United States of America today and we are free because General Washington refused to quit. We are the United States of America today and we are free because Abraham Lincoln refused to quit. And we are the United States of America today and we are free because Roosevelt and Truman refused to quit. And we are the United States of America today and we are free because of the sacrifice of the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line in Iraq, Afghanistan and all around the world, preserving our freedom. Today, the United States is engaged in another war, and just as before we face an enemy that wants to destroy our way of life. Just as before we face an enemy that thinks it is winning. Just as before our country is divided. Just as before we are making mistakes. Just as before we face a moment of truth about what to do next. And just as before the consequences of losing are devastating. The enemy is clear about what their intentions are by what they say and what they do. Al Qaeda and the global movement that it has spawned have made it clear they want nuclear and biological weapons. It is clear they want to kill us, Americans. Osama bin Laden has called acquiring nuclear weapons a ``religious duty.'' The fact is we are engaged in a global war with people intent on killing Americans, and regardless of how we got into Iraq, Iraq is now the central front of that war. And yet while we debate this nonbinding resolution, what is really at stake is winning or losing. Like Lincoln, I was not in this office as the war began. I understand the arguments. I understand the questions. I have been asking questions, too, as an elected official in this body for the past 2 years, as a concerned citizen, and before that, as a veteran. I understand that there are many who think we should never have entered Iraq. We now know there was faulty intelligence that led to that decision. But the war is upon us nonetheless. I am elected to deal with what is happening now. Will we succeed? Will we win? Just as at other moments in our history, those questions stand unanswered. The consequences of declaring an end to the war in Iraq without victory would be felt for decades. Our enemies around the world would be emboldened. Iran and al Qaeda would declare victory. Our allies in Iraq would certainly face bloodshed, and our allies around the world would question our resolve to help protect them. Sergeant Eddie Jeffers is a U.S. Army infantryman serving in Ramadi, Iraq. Sergeant Jeffers has a firsthand appreciation for what is at stake in Iraq and our presence there and what it means to the Iraqi people. He writes, ``We are the hope of the Iraqi people. They want what everyone else wants in life: Safety, security, somewhere to call home. They want a country that is safe to raise their children in. They want to live on, rebuild and prosper. And America has given them that opportunity, but only if we stay true to the cause and see it to its end. But the country must unite in this endeavor. We cannot place the burden on our military alone. We must all stand and fight, whether in uniform or not. Right now the burden is all on the American soldier. Right now hope rides alone. But it can change. It must change, because there is only failure and darkness ahead for us as a country, as a people, if it doesn't.'' Sergeant Jeffers' words hit at the heart of our present challenge in Iraq. Our current strategy in Iraq is failing, and yet failure is not an option. In November, the American people told us they wanted a new strategy, not because they wanted to lose, but because they wanted to win. Now we have a new strategy before us. Is this new plan going to work? I don't know. No one in this body who is voting on this resolution knows. What I do know is that we must find a way to achieve victory, and simply saying ``no'' to a new plan without offering up an alternative will not work and sends a terrible message to our enemies and our soldiers. This is an historic war. America is engaged in a war for our freedoms on a scale that we have never experienced before. I understand the dissension, the questions and the uncertainty. I understand the cost is high and the way is often unclear. I have served in law enforcement for 33 years. I understand the loss. I have lost partners and friends in the line of duty. I understand the cost of freedom and the sacrifices that must be made. The sacrifices are hard, they are tragic and they are never forgotten, but we must remain focused and not let those sacrifices be in vain. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution. Lincoln warned us against tying a criticism of the war to support for our troops. Let us send a message to our enemies and our troops alike that we will always support our young men and women who put their lives on the line for our freedom.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 134. This resolution recognizes and honors the employees of the Department of Homeland Security for their exceptional efforts and contributions to protect and secure the Nation. Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security 4 years ago, the department has made significant steps in ensuring the safety of the American people, specifically with regard to preparing, equipping and training our first responders, protecting our skies, and securing our borders and ports. In my home State of Washington, we have almost 2,000 people working for the Department of Homeland Security, including 178 members of the Coast Guard, 337 Immigration employees and Custom Enforcement officers, and 1,282 Transportation Security Administration employees. Many of these men and women put their lives on the line every day to ensure that another 9/11 attack does not occur. In addition to protecting us from another terrorist attack, the Department of Homeland Security employees thwart human smuggling networks and disrupt the international drug trade. An example of these efforts is in 2005 a discovery of a tunnel between the United States and Canada that would have been used to smuggle drugs into the United States. Mr. Speaker, it is easy to come to this floor and come together in a bipartisan way and pass a resolution to say that we support the men and women who work in the Department of Homeland Security. It is easy to talk about morale. It is easy to criticize the men and women who protect our children, protect our neighbors and protect our communities and are out there every day. We need to show by action. We need to support them in our legislation that we pass that provides them with the tools and the resources they need to do their job. I was in law enforcement 33 years in the Seattle area. I know that when I made a life-and-death decision, I had the support of my administration, I had the support of my leadership. Our men and women who work for the Department of Homeland Security need a strong leadership. And our strong leadership can be supported by people right here in this body, by supporting them again with their resources and the tools that they need. Mr. Speaker, the employees of the Department of Homeland Security have a tough job, a very tough job. They not only need our strong words of support here today, and the support that we bring with our vote in supporting this resolution, but they need our respect, and our admiration each and every day as they are out there protecting our country, our children, and the future of our grandchildren.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, as a veteran of the United States Air Force Reserve, I am pleased to rise in support of this resolution. It is our responsibility to provide for all of our veterans' needs, whether they are on the front lines of global conflict or in the communities to which they return in civilian life. Our efforts must be proactive in their outreach and comprehensive in their scope. In a few short weeks, I will be holding a veterans resource fair to further assist Washington State veterans to discover new jobs and job training opportunities. I encourage all of my colleagues to conduct similar events in their districts. We must forge partnerships between the public and private sectors to help veterans find jobs. I am proud to work with Labor Ready, the Nation's leading provider of temporary labor to support the creation of thousands of jobs and opportunities for jobs for National Guard members and reservists across this country. This resolution is just one of many measures that we must pass in support of those among us who have made individual sacrifices to preserve our freedom. I hope that we will continue to work together in a bipartisan way to protect and promote meaningful benefits for our veterans.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, last night, I came to the floor and joined my Democrat colleagues in supporting meaningful ethics reform. As a former law enforcement officer, I understand as well as anyone the need to abide by the strongest ethical guidelines, and I agree with and commend my Democrat colleagues for presenting a rules package that brings much-needed transparency to earmarking process. In the last Congress, I consistently supported greater public disclosure of Federal spending. I will be the first Member of this body to stand up and attach my name to earmark requests and justify the need for the expenditure. The taxpayers in my district and across our Nation deserve to know how the government spends their hard-earned dollars. But I rise against title IV because I cannot stand and support a reform package that irresponsibly attaches a rule known as PAYGO that will almost certainly lead to higher taxes on these same hard-working taxpaying Americans. Tax cuts unequivalently spur economic growth and create jobs. The tax relief Congress enacted in 2003 produced tremendous growth and a record high stock market. These tax cuts created nearly 6 million jobs across the Nation and 88,000 jobs in Washington State alone. Again, I agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that we need more fiscal discipline. That is why I supported the balanced budget amendment in the last Congress and I hope to work to enact that in this Congress. But the way to reduce the deficit is to rein in spending and cut taxes, which has proven to increase revenue. It is not to raise taxes on families and small businesses, and I fear that this provision will do that. I am deeply disappointed the earmark reform contained in this title was not attached to the ethics reforms that I enthusiastically joined my Democrat colleagues in supporting. While I support the earmark reforms that have been proposed here, I must urge my colleagues to oppose this measure so that we can work together to enact significant earmark reform.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5946, a bill to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This bill will improve the management of our nation's fishery resources, and help ensure that we have a sustainable supply of seafood for Americans. Importantly, the new bill would permit regional fishery councils to implement market-based management programs for fisheries that will improve the economics of fishing and enhance the safety of our fishing fleets. I am also pleased that the new legislation would not disrupt the ongoing efforts by the Pacific Fishery Management Council to improve the management of its groundfish fisheries. The Pacific Council is working diligently to develop a rationalization program for its groundfish fisheries. This process has been underway for more than 3 years, and is nearing completion. While the bill requires the Pacific Council to implement an appropriate groundfish management program within 24 months from the date of enactment, and to meet other requirements in the new law, it does not require the Pacific Council to begin anew in developing that program. I would like to thank Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall for their efforts on this bill, and for their willingness to work with us on issues of importance to our Pacific Northwest fisheries.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5441, the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations Conference Report. I would like to discuss the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, which is included as title VI. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science, and Technology and as one of title VI's principal authors, I proudly announce today both Chambers and both parties have come together and reached a landmark agreement in reforming FEMA. Mr. Speaker, when you Google the term ``FEMA,'' over 2 million hits pop up. Fixing FEMA has been on the forefront of the American consciousness since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita last year. Some said it couldn't be done. Mr. Speaker, we have done it. The important reforms of FEMA are based in large part on H.R. 5351, which I introduced on May 11, 2006, and which passed the Committee on Homeland Security less than 1 week later. Finally, this legislation addresses emergency communications. Congress has already appropriated billions of dollars for interoperability. However, standards are still not established. Many States do not have plans statewide and are still working on it. Before spending billions more, there are less expensive but integral reforms that must be implemented. Once these reforms occur, then and only then should we create an additional grant program. I look forward to working in a bipartisan way to create that new grant program. The American public demanded that Congress fix FEMA. This agreement does that. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5441, the ``Fiscal Year 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations Conference Report.'' In particular, I'd like to take a few moments to discuss the ``Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006,'' which is included in Title VI of H.R. 5441. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science, and Technology, and as one of Title VI's principal authors, I am especially proud to announce that both Chambers and both parties have reached this landmark agreement to overhaul the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Mr. Speaker, if you Google the term ``FEMA Reform,'' over 2 million hits will pop up. The idea of fixing FEMA has been on the forefront of the American consciousness since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita last year. And some said it couldn't be done--that Congress could not come together in a bipartisan, bicameral way to fix this problem. There were too many obstacles and too much politics. That the problem itself was simply too massive and no one knew where to begin. But Mr. Speaker, we have overcome those obstacles in the interests of the American people. And, to do so, we began by listening to those who know best what the problems are and what the solutions must be--our Nation's first responders and emergency managers. This landmark agreement will, among other things, reform FEMA by: Elevating the standing of FEMA within the Department of Homeland Security by promoting the Administrator of FEMA to the level of Deputy Secretary; Requiring that the Administrator possess a demonstrated ability in executive leadership and management experience; Directing the Administrator to serve as the principal advisor to the President and others for all matters relating to emergency management; Restoring the nexus between emergency preparedness and response; and Elevating the importance of emergency communications within the Department by establishing an Office of Emergency Communications and requiring that Office to draft a National Emergency Communications Plan and conduct a baseline operability and interoperability assessment. These and the other important reforms of FEMA in Title VI are based, in large part, on H.R. 5351, the ``National Emergency Management Reform and Enhancement Act of 2006,'' which I introduced on May 11, 2006 and which passed the Committee on Homeland Security less than one week later. As a former law enforcement officer for more than 33 years, I can assure my friends in blue that nothing in this agreement would in any way undermine the terrorism-specific focus of the Department's terrorism preparedness grants and other prevention and protection programs. In fact, my colleagues and I drafted the base text of this legislation with the direct input of our Nation's first responders. Finally, some have recently brought up the need to immediately create a new multi-billion grant program for interoperability. However, before spending additional billions of Federal dollars on interoperable communications, there are less expensive but integral reforms that must first be implemented. This agreement contains an entire subtitle of such reforms. As a former Cop and Sheriff, I know that first responders need standards in place and that States need to adopt Statewide Interoperable Communication Plans to ensure that Federal money is well spent. It is then, and only then, that we should create an additional interoperability grant program. However, once these reforms have been implemented, I look forward to working in a bipartisan way to create that new grant program. However, to be clear, Congress has already appropriated billions of dollars for emergency communications. From FY 2003 through FY 2005, recipients of DHS' terrorism preparedness grants have obligated and spent more than $2 billion on interoperability projects--the single largest use of such grant funding. Moreover, the Department of Justice's COPS program has allocated more than $300 million for interoperability to law enforcement agencies during that same period of time. Finally, in the Budget Reconciliation Act of 2005, Congress established a $1 billion interoperability grant program to be administered by the Commerce Department. Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the American public demanded that Congress fix our Nation's broken emergency management system. This agreement does that and more. It is for that reason that I urge my colleagues to support this landmark, bipartisan legislation.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I remember the day when this legislation first kind of came to our attention. I attended a meeting with some good friends from our Israeli community, Jewish community, and we had this idea. And to watch it come from that day many months ago, just a discussion around a concept, to today when the legislation has finally come together is indeed exciting; and to know, too, that it is a bipartisan effort. I congratulate the chairman, Mr. King, and his wisdom and foresight in seeing that this is an important project, an important piece of legislation and moving it forward; and his good friend and my good friend, Mr. Bennie Thompson, the ranking member of that committee; and also my good friend, my colleague from the subcommittee, Mr. Pascrell; all working hard together, the staff of the Democrats and Republicans working hard on this legislation to make it come to the floor of the House of Representatives today. As the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 4942, the Promoting Antiterrorism Capabilities Through International Cooperation Act. My subcommittee passed H.R. 4942 on March 15; and on June 14, 2006, it was approved by the full Homeland Security Committee. I congratulate again the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member and Mr. Pascrell for all their hard work and all members of the committee for their support. In just over 2 weeks since the 5-year anniversary of September 11, the 9/11 Commission's recommendations have taken center stage again as a principal guide to our Nation's homeland security measures. It is important that they take that role. In its report, the 9/11 Commission recommended, and I quote, ``the United States should engage other nations in developing a comprehensive coalition strategy against Islamist terrorism. There are several multilateral institutions in which such issues should be addressed, but the most important policies should be discussed and coordinated in a flexible contact group of leading coalition governments.'' There is no question that one of these important policies is the development of homeland security technologies that keep our country safe. H.R. 4942 implements the Commission's recommendations by applying it to the homeland security technology we develop to help our Nation's first responders prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism, national disasters, and other emergencies. Echoing the 9/11 Commission recommendation on international cooperation in the war on terrorism, the title of 4942 says it all: The Promoting Antiterrorism Capabilities Through International Cooperation Act. The United States, Israel, and our allies confront a common enemy and share similar homeland security challenges. Cooperation inside our government among Federal agencies and cooperation outside our government with Israel and our allies could very well prove to be the deciding factor in the war on terror. Specifically, H.R. 4942 enables the Department of Homeland Security's research and development arm, the Science and Technology Directorate, to coordinate international cooperative programs with our allies to advance homeland security research. The Science and Technology Directorate at the Department would coordinate joint research studies, scientist exchange programs, cooperative field exercises, and technology sharing with our strongest and most trusted allies in the war on terrorism, including Israel, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Singapore. Today, the United States cooperates with these nations to develop the best technologies to defeat our shared terrorist threat. H.R. 4942 makes those partnerships even stronger, with the force of law and the will of Congress behind them. H.R. 4942 is modeled after a partnership created by Congress in 1977 between the United States and Israel called the Bi-national Industrial Research and Development Foundation, or the so-called BIRD Foundation. The mission of the BIRD Foundation is to stimulate, promote, and support industrial research and development of mutual benefit to both nations. In 29 years, the BIRD Foundation has invested $225 million in 690 cooperative research and development projects mutually beneficial to the United States and Israel. The BIRD model serves as a solid foundation of international cooperation in homeland security research and development. The international cooperation enabled by H.R. 4942 will give our Nation access to a worldwide library of lessons learned and scientific expertise that will no doubt strengthen our own homeland security measures. It is our duty, as allies united under a common purpose, to defeat terrorism, that we join forces in the laboratory to combat our shared adversaries and meet our similar technology needs. H.R. 4942 incorporates the wisdom of the 9/11 Commission and the BIRD Foundation partnership between the United States and Israel to strengthen our hand in developing technologies that will make us all, the United States and its allies alike, safer and more secure. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this critical legislation.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and fellow Washingtonian for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill, specifically H.R. 5970. This legislation includes some tax provisions that are very important to Washington State, including an extension of the State and local sales tax deduction. The Internal Revenue Code has long allowed residents of States that have an income tax to deduct their income tax on their Federal return. However, for too long, the code penalized residents of States like mine, Washington State, which uses the sales tax as its revenue base. I am pleased that the authors of this bill have included an extension of the deductibility of State and local sales tax. Additionally, the timber tax provision is of great importance to companies like Weyerhaeuser in Washington State. I also rise to express my strong support for the provision in this bill which extends the research and development tax credit, which is so important to our Nation's high-tech industry and to all companies that innovate, companies in my district like Microsoft and Ramgen, which is a company conducting alternative energy research and creating cutting edge technology and products, which in turn creates jobs. As we all know, in the 21st century the United States is competing in a global economic environment. We as a Congress must take all reasonable steps to enable American businesses to compete. Also, the kind of jobs produced in the research-driven economy are often high- paying jobs. Consumers are the beneficiaries of new and improved products. While I support legislation to make this credit permanent, short of that, I applaud the authors of this bill for extending the credit for 2 years.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support as a sponsor of H.R. 5852, the 21st Century Emergency Communications Act of 2006. Although I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Michigan, I would like to first address before I get into my formal statement some of his comments. There have been several hearings, four hearings and a joint hearing, held on the issue of interoperability and operability under the umbrella of the Homeland Security Committee and, more specifically, through the Emergency Preparedness Subcommittee that I chair. I have only been in Congress 18 months. I was a police officer for 33 years. The last 8 years of that I was the sheriff. So I know a little bit about interoperability. I know a little bit about the inability for police officers to communicate. I know a little bit about life and death, and the ability to be in touch with your communications center or not to be in touch with your communications center, or not to have a partner present, or wait for a partner when you are facing someone with a gun. And I understand, too, the gentleman from Michigan has some experience in law enforcement and hopefully understands the importance of this bill. I would also like to point out that between 2003 and 2005, $2 billion have been spent by the Federal Government across this Nation for interoperability without any national plan, without any national standards. And that is what this bill addresses today, and that is why it is so important for first responders across this country. So there have been hearings. And not only have there been hearings, but these hearings have been held with people in attendance like firefighters, police officers, emergency management, people on the ground, people doing the job. We are not just hearing from politicians and mayors and CEOs of police departments and sheriff's offices, we are hearing from cops and firefighters, and they are supporting this bill 110 percent. So, I would like to thank Mr. Pascrell, my ranking member on my subcommittee, and I would like to thank Mr. Thompson, the ranking member of the full committee, and all those who serve on both committees, the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology and the full Homeland Security Committee, who supported this bill. When people look at Congress, they say what are we doing? Why are we not working together? On this particular issue, we did work together. This was a combined effort, this was a team effort, and it was congenial and it was an effort that was well respected by every member and every staff member on both the subcommittee and the committee. Protecting our Nation should never be an issue where Democrats and Republicans cannot come together and recognize the need for our cooperation, especially on behalf of our first responders to ensure that our communities stay safe. The Committee on Homeland Security did not just develop a bipartisan legislation overnight. Rather, it is the product of a series of hearings on the state of public safety energy communications. I presided over these hearings as chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology, as well as held countless meetings on the topic with first responders, government officials, and other interested stakeholders. Last fall, Chairman King appointed me to serve as the chairman of the Emergency Preparedness Subcommittee. I know the importance of finding solutions to this problem. That is precisely why I made interoperability the subcommittee's number one priority. Until the events of September 11, 2001, many people in this Nation believed and assumed that first responders from different disciplines and jurisdictions could actually talk to each other. It wasn't happening. It is still not happening today. Unfortunately, that was not the case then, and, as demonstrated by the inadequate responses to Hurricane Katrina, that is not the case today. In fact, inability of first responders to communicate with one another effectively led to the loss of many lives in New Orleans and in other gulf coast communities. This is simply unacceptable. It is intolerable that our Nation's law enforcement, fire service, and emergency medical services personnel still confront many of the same emergency communication problems that I did as a rookie cop when I started in 1972. To many, the word ``interoperability'' means little. It is a little confusing term that police officers, firefighters, and first responders use. But I want to just share a personal story. Back in the early 1970s when I was a deputy in a police car, I responded to a call where a young man 17 years old was high on drugs and alcohol, and he was able to gain access to his father's .308 Winchester rifle and he came from his house and he began to shoot at the neighborhood. I was the first car to arrive. A shot was fired over my police car. He ran out the back door of his house. We lost him for a while. We were able to surround the area. I was one of the officers on the perimeter. My radio didn't work, and a neighbor who saw the young man with the rifle pointed at three Seattle police officers who were coming to help the sheriffs office in the south end of the county called the neighbor across the street because she was afraid to leave her house. The neighbor across the street ran across the street to my police car and told me what was going on, because the person saw this young man ready to fire on three police officers. I grabbed my police radio and I tried to get through the communications center, and I couldn't. No one heard me. A rifle pointed at three police officers, and I could not communicate back in 1974, 1975. Three police officers' lives are now in danger. The only choice I had was to holster my weapon because there were people in the house peeking out of the window, watching the young man with the rifle pointed at the police officers, and run across the yard. That is what I did, holstered my gun, radio would not work, ran across the yard, jumped on the back of the 17-year-old with the .308 Winchester rifle and now was in a fight for my life. Interoperability is a life and death matter. This bill matters to the police officers, firefighters and first responders working in our country today. As I said earlier, the legislation before us today is based on the record made during four separate hearings, and during those hearings, the subcommittee heard testimony from a wide variety of parties including first responders, public works, utilities, hospitals, State and local officials, standards-setting organizations, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Commerce, the Federal Communications Commission, and other Federal Departments. During these hearings, the witnesses identified the same problems over and over again. We heard about the lack of an accountable senior- level official in the Department of Homeland Security to oversee interoperability. When I first came here, I was told at one of my first hearings that the Federal Government has been dealing with the problem of interoperability for 10 years; and as I have just shared with you, we have been dealing with it as police officers for over 30 years. Something needs to be done, and it needs to be done now. The absence of national voluntary consensus standards to help State and local governments to make wise decisions when purchasing communications equipment is something we heard over and over again. We also heard about the failure of the Department to condition the use of grant funds by State and local governments on approved statewide communications plans and the absence of effective coordination between Federal Departments with shared responsibility for emergency communications. H.R. 5852 will solve these and other problems that hinder the rapid deployment of interoperable emergency communication systems in our Nation. H.R. 5852 enjoys broad support from members of the Committee on Homeland Security. It is almost identical to the provisions of H.R. 5351, the National Emergency Management Reform and Enhancement Act of 2006, a comprehensive Katrina lessons-learned legislation that the Committee on Homeland Security passed 28-0. Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to send a message to our Nation's first responders that we support them in their efforts to protect us. Passage of H.R. 5852 would send such a message. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 5852. Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I will include in the Record at this point letters exchanged between the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Science regarding jurisdiction over this bill, and I thank the Science Committee and Energy and Commerce Committee for their input on this important legislation. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Washington, DC, July 24, 2006. Hon. Peter T. King, Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Ford House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Science Committee in matters being considered in H.R. 5852, the 21st Century Emergency Communications Act of 2006. The Science Committee acknowledges the importance of H.R. 5852 and the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I 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 forgo a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Science Committee, and that a copy of this letter and of your response will be included in the Congressional Record when the bill is considered on the House Floor. The Science Committee also asks that you support our request to be conferees on any provisions over which we have jurisdiction during House-Senate conference on this legislation. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Sherwood Boehlert, Chairman.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, on July 10, 2006, I missed the following rollcall votes due to an emergency landing in Denver, CO, en route to Washington DC: (1) Rollcall vote No. 358, H.R. 2563: To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems in Idaho, and for other purposes. (2) Rollcall vote No. 359, H.R. 5061: Paint Bank and Wytheville National Fish Hatcheries Conveyance Act (15 minutes). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' to rollcall vote No. 358, and ``yes'' to rollcall vote No. 359.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and express my gratitude to him for his leadership and hard work that his staff and my staff have put into this amendment, and I appreciate his willingness to help us and assist us and look forward to working with him on other issues in the coming year. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for his great work in helping local law enforcement officials strengthen their efforts to combat drugs in their communities. I rise today to offer an amendment to increase funding for local law enforcement communities to reinforce efforts to keep drugs out of our communities. During my 33 years in law enforcement, I have seen how Byrne-Justice Assistance Grants have help local law enforcement fight the war on drugs. Washington State received $9.6 million under the Byrne grant formula. Without this funding, our State would not have been able to effectively reduce violent and drug-related crimes in our communities. However, since 2001, funding for the Byrne-Justice Assistance Grants program has declined from over $1 billion in 2001 to less than $412 million in 2006. The efforts of State and local law enforcement officers account for over 90 percent of all drug arrests and prosecutions. We cannot afford to turn our backs on law enforcement if we want to continue to achieve success in the fight against drugs and gangs. My amendment would increase funding for drug task forces under Byrne JAG grants by $25 million. The offset would be $10 million from the Department of Justice salaries and expense administration accounts and $15 million from program support, operations, research and facilities under NOAA. I have the greatest respect for the President's efforts and members of the Appropriations Committee to scale back government spending. However, adequate funding for law enforcement and anti-drug task force efforts are critical in order for our police officers to protect our communities against drugs. I am not alone in my efforts to increase funding for Byrne JAG grant funding. Many Members from both sides of the aisle have been leaders in the fight to fully fund our local drug task force. I would like to especially thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) for their leadership in support of local law enforcement efforts in their fight against drugs and meth. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska.

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

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my gratitude to you for your leadership and the hard work that you and your staff have put into the fiscal year 2007 Science, State, Justice, Commerce Appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank you for your great work in helping local law enforcement and for working to increase funding in the COPS program, which is desperately needed. While there are many ways the Federal Government protects us, ultimately local law enforcement is on the front lines in our neighborhoods when it comes to fighting crime and, now, in fighting terrorism; and the COPS program provides vital assistance to them in these efforts. I spent 33 years of my life in law enforcement and served as a patrol officer all the way to the sheriff of the King County Sheriff's Office in Seattle, Washington, one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the country. As a sheriff, I have witnessed how the COPS program provided much-needed funding to King County, from school resource officers to new law enforcement technology. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government is constantly telling local law enforcement in this new post-9/11 age that we must work in partnership, that we must work together to keep our Nation safe. After all, catching a terrorist in Seattle who may want to kill people in Los Angeles is not just a local problem; it is a national problem. However, the word ``partnership'' rings hollow if the vital funds necessary to implement that partnership are not there. If local law enforcement upholds its end of the program, the vital funding is required. Too often, this funding comes from their budget without any Federal assistance. The local agencies are faced with a dilemma of either not participating in vital terror-fighting activities and programs, or joining in those efforts and shortchanging local programs that keep our families safe. Starting in 2002, funding for local law enforcement under the COPS program decreased. The COPS program received $929 million in 2003, $411 million in 2006. This does not send the right message to our local law enforcement about the commitment of Congress to work with that partnership. However, I am very grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, for being willing to listen and to work on this issue with me. With your help, this year's bill will increase total funding for the COPS program to $570.5 million. This is the first increase in COPS funding in 5 years and something to be thankful for and proud of. In addition, $99 million is included in the bill to address meth cleanup. Adequately funding the COPS program in this bill sends the right message to our local law enforcement community that the Federal Government is an equal partner and that the Federal Government is giving local police backup in this fight. While we still need to work to continue to increase funding for local law enforcement efforts in the fight against meth, I believe that this increase is a positive step in the right direction. Tight budget constraints make it impossible to fully fund every program, and I thank the chairman for recognizing the importance of local law enforcement and providing an increase in the COPS program.

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. I look forward to working with you.

Mr. REICHERT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security have until midnight tomorrow night to file a report on H.R. 5351.