Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SABO. I just want to make sure where we are in the bill. Let me describe the problem. I think the last number read was the number on the bottom of page 22. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) had an amendment that would have come after that but before the top of page 23; but I think, in fact, the current amendment is amending the number on the top of page 23.

Mr. SABO. After this amendment?

Mr. SABO. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I join everyone else in congratulating the New York/New Jersey delegation on their enthusiasm and their vigor. This Congress has responded. It has promised New York in a rather dramatic fashion post-9/11. But let us be clear about what we are doing today. We are very substantially reducing the funding for local responders, fire, police, emergency personnel all over the country. We are doing that before this amendment and dramatically more if this amendment is adopted. The basic formula grant in 2004 was $1.690 billion. Under this bill it is $1.250 billion, a drop of $440 million. This amendment would reduce it by another $446 million. The Urban Area Security Initiative, $721 million last year, $1 billion, under this bill, already an increase of $279 million plus another $446 million under this amendment for more than a doubling of this program, while the other program would be virtually cut in half, that deals with the balance of the country, most of the rural and moderate size communities in this country and many fairly large size communities. Another thing that sort of strikes me in all this discussion, I hear about the initial grants in proportion of grantees that happened later on and that some terrible thing happened because the numbers increased. I recall that first grant by the agency. I asked them a question: What were the criteria they used to distribute these funds? I waited and waited and waited for an answer. I talked to a high up official, and they said, We will see you in a week, and I would wait another month or two. I am still waiting. We finally did have a briefing before the second round of grants were awarded, at which point we had some criteria. But this is no great science. I wish we had this total understanding where threats were in this country. Clearly large urban areas like New York, like the District of Columbia, are threats. But so are many other parts of this country. And in many parts of the country, the need for technical assistance, for training, for specialized equipment, it is probably more substantial than it is even in some of our larger urbanized areas. And these formula funds do not flow out willy-nilly sort of around the country. We have to develop a State plan and a regional plan to get these funds. So it is not a dab here and a dab there. But States have to work at it; local communities have to work at it. They have to have regional approaches. They have to use these funds where they make sense to deal and respond to real projected threats. So, Mr. Chairman, I wish we had all the money we needed. The fact is the base bill in total has some reduction in funding for local responders. The basic formula grant would be further reduced in a significant fashion by this amendment, while the urban security initiative, which is already receiving an increase, would have a substantial increase. I do not think that is fair. I think we need to be fair to the totality of our country. In my judgment, the base bill, if anything, is skewed too much in changing money away from the basic formula grant. So I would urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, those are decisions that are at a higher pay level than mine, and I have to object.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, while I objected to a time limit a short time ago, let me suggest that if only those Members that had something unique and new to say chose to speak, we might be able to vote fairly soon.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me time. I rise in opposition to the rule on the fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security appropriations bill. The President's 2005 Homeland Security budget request falls short. This bill represents an improvement; however, I have serious concerns about some of the program funding levels and the policy decisions which a rule would prevent us from addressing. The rule fails to waive points of order against the Obey amendment. The bill contains deep cuts in first responder funding, which is $327 million below 2004 enacted levels. The House-passed budget resolution and the resulting Homeland Security allocation restricts this bill from doing more to protect our borders and ports and other critical infrastructure. To address some of the most critical needs, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered an amendment in the Committee on Appropriations to provide a contingent Homeland Security emergency reserve of $3 billion available to the President upon request. The amendment is common sense, yet Members cannot vote on it because this rule fails to waive points of order against it. The Committee on Rules also failed to make in order an amendment that I offered the Committee on Appropriations on chemical plant security. My amendment would direct the Department of Homeland Security to require both vulnerability assessments and security plans for chemical facilities and to provide oversight of the action taken by these facilities to improve security. The decisions on which chemical facilities must comply would be left to the department based on risk. It is widely known that chemical facilities are clear terrorist threats and there are about 3,000 such U.S. facilities where a release would affect over 10,000 Americans. Despite years of such warnings from many experts, the General Accounting Office reported in 2003 that no comprehensive information exists on the security vulnerabilities facing the chemical industry, and many facilities have neither assessed their vulnerability nor their security. We should not wait any longer to protect this glaring problem, but this rule prevents us from taking prudent action. As Warren Rudman recently said, ``You have to only look at television footage from Bhopal in India when an accident occurred to recognize how serious a disaster this would be. If you were terrorists and you decided to cause a major disaster, why would you not go to a plant that, if you could penetrate it and blow a part of it up, would cause fumes to waft over the entire area to kill who knows how many people?'' Last, I am disappointed that this rule leaves unprotected the most critical element of the CAPPS II passenger prescreening provision. This bill language mandates that the GAO review the methodology used by TSA to determine which passengers may be terrorists. This is the most sensitive aspect of the CAPPS II, with broad implications for Americans' privacy and civil liberties, and GAO has not yet been able to review it. In closing, I believe this rule prevents the House from addressing some of the most critical Homeland Security funding and policy issues. I urge Members to defeat the previous question and, if that is defeated, to defeat the rule.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the important work that is being done to aid victims of torture, and to reemphasize my support for the reauthorization of the Torture Victims Relief Act, TVRA. Minneapolis, Minnesota, is home to the United States first comprehensive torture treatment center, the Center for Victims of Torture, CVT. When CVT opened in 1985 they were the first center in the United States and only the third in the entire world. Freedom from torture is a universal and fundamental human right. Yet torture continues to take place in more than 120 countries worldwide. It is estimated that one-third of the world's 12 million refugees are victims of torture. Politicians, journalists, teachers, students, religious leaders, trade union and human rights activists are all targets. The aim of torture is not to kill the victim, but to break down the victim's personality. Crippled, traumatized, and humiliated, the victims are returned to their communities as a warning to others. Torture is fundamentally a political weapon, employed by repressive regimes to shape cultures through fear. For over a decade, what the clients in Minnesota have taught us, as well as victims from over 70 other nations of the world, is that torture: Targets leadership of the opposition, to snuff out creativity and emerging movements, which may threaten the regimes corrupt hold on society; Sends a message of fear throughout the network of that leader's family and community of followers and admirers. As a bishop from Africa once said about the meaning of torture, the message is clear: ``If they'll do this to me, what will they do to my flock?'' In Minnesota we have also learned how traumas of this severity and scale have a trans-generational effect, shaping the health, the hopes and the aspirations of future generations. Because of these significant and predictable effects, torture is the most effective weapon against democracy. Even after a dictatorial regime has fallen, as it has in Iraq, we can expect that the impact of torture will be felt for generations: leadership broken and lost; their families and communities still frightened and disengaged from public life; a profound lack of trust in public institutions, police, and courts; a lesson in forced political apathy learned and lived out every day. There are more than 500,000 torture survivors in the United States alone--refugees and asylum seekers who have fled repressive regimes. In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of victims of torture seeking help at U.S. rehabilitation centers. In the U.S. there are 34 rehabilitation centers and programs joined together under the National Consortium of Torture Treatment Programs, which was first started by the Center for Victims of Torture in Minnesota. I have seen leadership restored and people made whole after they have received care at CVT. Restoring a torture survivor to full health has a lasting benefit for the entire community. Former clients of CVT are now public school teachers, small business owners, nurses, doctors and more. I would like to commend CVT for their tireless work on behalf of torture victims in the U.S. and worldwide, and encourage my colleagues to support the reauthorization of the Torture Victims Relief Act.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, in keeping with National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I rise to honor Barbra Wiener, the founder of the Women's Cancer Resource Center (WCRC) in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Barbra founded WCRC in 1993 with the vision of providing free support and advocacy to women affected by cancer and to promote cancer prevention through environmental awareness and activism. Ms. Wiener was inspired to launch WCRC after the loss of both her mother and sister to breast cancer and her own battle with thyroid cancer. WCRC serves as an information, support, and advocacy center for women with cancer. Information services include treatment referrals, guest speakers, and a comprehensive health library. In addition, WCRC offers support groups, one-on-one support programs, therapeutic massages, and a mentoring service that matches volunteers to clients with a similar cancer diagnosis. WCRC also holds public health forums on environmental issues related to health and facilitates outreach programs that focus on cancer prevention. All of these services are provided free of charge to women with cancer. Ms. Wiener has been acknowledged for her work with several awards including the Helen Caldecott Leadership Award, an international award recognizing leadership on behalf of women. Further, the Ford Foundation recognized her and her colleagues at WCRC as finalists for the Leadership for a Changing World Award. In addition, Barbra currently serves on the boards of the Headwaters Foundation for Justice, Women's Environmental Institute, and the Minnesota Interplay Community. She is also a member of Alliance for Accountability in Breast Cancer, a national coalition of cancer activists. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and honor to represent a woman who has turned personal tragedy into an invaluable service that helps women affected by all types of cancer. It is during National Breast Cancer Awareness Month that I ask that my House colleagues pay tribute to the life work of Barbra Wiener.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Peter Agre, M.D. who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry today. Although he is now at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore where he received his M.D., I am proud to say that Dr. Agre received his bachelor's degree in chemistry from Ausgburg College in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Dr. Agre's father, the late Courtland Agre, taught chemistry at Augsburg College from the 1950s to the 1970s. Dr. Agre's award is for the discovery of transportation channels in cell walls. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences believes the work of Peter Agre and Roderick MacKinnon, with whom he shares the prize, is of great importance for our understanding of many diseases of the kidneys, heart, muscles and nervous system. Today the entire Augsburg College community, including alumni like me, congratulates Dr. Agre for a discovery that benefits all of humanity. I hope that the young people in our schools and colleges and universities are inspired by your example and will explore the exciting possibilities that lie in scientific discovery.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is accurate.

Mr. SABO. No. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I was not an advocate of the position in the conference committee. I thought we made a mistake in changing it. To be fair, the language in the bill retains some money as a separate line item, and there is language indicating the fire chiefs and the people involved in fire should be involved in the grant-making process. I personally have questions about taking a program that was well run where it was and shifting it to another agency. I have a concern that what will develop are people who do not know much about the program making the grants.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his concern. We clearly need continuing strong oversight of this program. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, when it comes to homeland security, the rhetoric flies fast and furious. Everyone wants a safer, better-prepared America against both terror threats and natural events like Hurricane Isabel. But our actions do not always match rhetoric. In most respects, this conference report does a responsible job of allocating funds within the budget constraints we face. I commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the staff for their hard work and the many thoughtful decisions that are reflected in this bill. It is a clear and substantial improvement over the administration's request. I suppose one of the things Chairman Rogers mentioned was funding for port security. And I think it is obvious that we could spend more there, but every penny that has been appropriated by Congress was money not asked for by the administration. Let me also pay particular respect to the hardworking staff. They are hardworking, they are professional, they are competent. From the minority staff, Beth Pheto; from our committee staff, Marjorie Duske; from my personal staff, Michelle Mrdeza, Jeannie Wilson, Stephanie Gupta, Jeff Ashford, Tom MacLemore, Tammy Hughes, and Brian Dunlop. They have had a big job to do, and they have done it in a professional manner. It is a simple fact, however, that the United States is not as well prepared as we can and should be to meet our homeland security challenges. We should do more. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the debate I will offer a motion to recommit that is very similar to the motion to instruct conferees that this House passed overwhelmingly 2 weeks ago. By a vote of 347 to 74, the House instructed conferees to insist on the highest possible funding levels for each homeland security preparedness and disaster response program and to require screening of cargo on passenger airplanes. This conference agreement does not do that. One troubling shortfall is first responder funding which would remain flat at the 2003 level. The House bill would have provided a 4.5 percent increase, which is $200 million more. We know from our fire chiefs, police, and other first responders that more resources for equipment and training are urgently needed. The Council on Foreign Relations independently documented these needs in its recent report, ``First Responders: Dangerously Unprepared, Drastically Underfunded.'' I might add that adding money for such things as first responders is not simply throwing money at the problem. It is a substantial need, and we need to deal with it. But homeland security preparedness is not just about more money. Across the board we need better management at the Department of Homeland Security. We need better plans. And in some areas we need more aggressive security goals. I put screening of cargo carried on passenger planes at the top of that list. Mr. Speaker, 374 Members voted to instruct conferees to insist on the House amendment to require the immediate screening of cargo carried on passenger planes. This conference agreement comes up short in that respect. Instead, the agreement directs Secretary Ridge to research, develop, and procure systems to screen cargo on passenger aircraft at the earliest possible date. I do not think that is strong enough. The Department shows no eagerness to address the cargo problem. We should give them a deadline to act. I might add that I sensed no particular interest, even, in this problem by the Department until the House passed its original amendment. Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit would set a deadline of October 31, 2004, for the Department to implement screening of cargo on passenger planes. We know who flies on passenger planes, but we still do not trust them. We still screen their bags. The same should be done with cargo shipped on these planes. Airlines and others have argued that screening air cargo is a technical challenge that requires much more time to develop. This argument is similar to those made prior to 9/11 about screening passenger baggage: it cannot be done. How quickly we seem to have reworked old ways of thinking. The motion I will offer will give the Department of Homeland Security 13 months to develop and implement a plan to screen cargo carried on passenger planes. Some may argue that is not enough time. I question how long we should make the American people wait. I would also point out that this requirement would not affect every airport. The FAA tells us that 95 percent of all cargo carried on passenger aircraft is loaded at only 44 airports. The lack of screening of cargo on passenger planes is not the only homeland security gap that exists today, but it is a huge one. Unless we make steady progress in closing these gaps, they will exist for years to come. Let me add that the known-shipper program is probably better than not having anything, but I might remind Members that the gentleman who shipped himself in an air cargo crate was working for a known-shipper. The Department's oversight of this program today basically consists of a few inspectors checking paperwork at airports. It is not a serious screening program today. So I urge the adoption of the motion to recommit.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me take a few minutes to talk about another provision in the bill which I think is important and it relates to the CAPPS2 system. TSA has been working on this system for almost a year, but there remains many unanswered questions about it. I am concerned particularly that those people who move residences a lot or do not have phone or other bills in their name, like children and some older Americans, will be singled out for further TSA screening, not based on risk, but simply because of these two factors. I am also concerned that TSA will have no real system where passengers can correct incorrect information. The provision in the bill, which I originally offered and strongly support, requires GAO to review CAPPS2 as it exists today before funding can be obligated on a planned pilot program. TSA is allowed to test the system while GAO's review is being conducted. The GAO's review would mirror the recommendations put forth by the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General in the report they submitted on May 20 on DOD's Terrorism Information Awareness Program. It is unclear how many of these recommendations, if any, have been followed by the TSA or by the Department of Homeland Security. I suspect none. Those recommendations include testing the search tools and security of the architecture, ensuring that the system is secure from hackers, and that the proper policies and processes of the system are in place. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the passenger profiling system we are using today is a sophisticated or good one. However, we as a Nation need to be very careful as we proceed. We recently heard about further problems about the TIA where a test conducted with Jet Blue, unknown to its passengers, matched up passengers and Social Security information and allowed some of this information to become public. We need to prevent this and any aviation passenger profiling system TSA develops, and that is what this provision in the bill seeks to do. The bill has good language, and I hope it is fully implemented and followed by TSA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I am, in its current form.