Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. First, let me indicate my strong agreement with the statement of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) that getting good information and getting it accurately out to our local units of government is incredibly important. We focus on homeland security in this bill, but clearly, some of the most important work, even more important than anything we do in this bill, is the work that is done by the Intelligence Community and the FBI to gather appropriate information. And I think we are still sorting out how we get that information, even to us in Congress and to local units of government; and that remains and should remain very high on our priority list. Mr. Speaker, I urge people to vote for the motion to recommit. Under the process of the House, there will be no separate debate on that motion after the debate concludes on this bill. Our motion is a reasonable one. It is a problem that exists. I think we all understand that what goes into the belly of the plane is really a problem. From the earliest days of discussion of airplane security following 9/11, my initial response was that the biggest problem was not what went in the plane itself but what went into the belly of the plane. Frankly, at one time I was not aware of the amount of cargo that was being carried. Baggage we are screening; cargo we are not. We have technology that we can use. The problem is how we put packages together and we prepackage into big containers. That gives us some trouble. We could prescreen before we repackage everything. The Department is planning pilot projects, and clearly there is technology they are going to use. They need a prod and a push. They have basically ignored the problem. There has been no interest in the industry, no real initiative from the administration and from the Department. I do not know any other way to get their attention than by putting a deadline in a bill. We would have had a little more time frame within a motion I offered in conference for planning and then implementation, but I could not offer that same motion here because of the limits of germaneness. So we have an amendment that is reasonable, gives them over a year to put a plan in place and to implement it. If there are problems that are real, they can come talk to us. It is after the start of the next fiscal year. If we want to deal with the issue of cargo security and cargo screening on airplanes, the only way we are going to get action from this agency is to put a real prod to them, and that is by adopting the motion to recommit and setting a time frame for when they have to have it done. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), he has convinced me; and to the gentleman from Northern Virginia, he convinced me also that he has a very good motion to recommit to add some money for FEMA, $1.1 billion, I understand. I, for one, had concerns when we created the Department of Homeland Security and put FEMA in it that it would mean that what was a very efficient, small, responsive governmental agency would get lost in the maze of the new Department. And in some ways, and especially as it relates to funding, I think that has happened. FEMA's funding had been allowed to dip to a very low level, down to $44 million, before the administration insisted to Congress that they should have some supplemental funding. This is not good for the program or for the country, to have such low balance. The gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Moran) motion to recommit would put the disaster relief program back on sound financial footing. So I would urge Members to vote for the Moran motion and do good things for the country and do good things for FEMA.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we meet today on the eve of September 11, I am one Member who remains very concerned about America's safety and the safety of the flying public. We can and must do more. My motion is just one important step in the right direction. This motion to instruct conferees is very straightforward. It is a motion to instruct the House conferees to insist on the highest possible level of funding for each homeland security, preparedness and disaster response program in the bill and to insist on the amendment adopted on the House floor by a vote of 278 to 146 to require the screening of cargo carried in the belly of passenger aircraft. As the conference on the fiscal year 2004 homeland security appropriations bill begins, we now have an opportunity to provide additional homeland security resources and help close known security gaps. We should do so. We should correct one of the most glaring gaps in our aviation security program, the fact that all passengers and their bags are screened for explosives and weapons, but cargo carried in the same place as passenger baggage is not screened at all. The Markey amendment adopted on the floor seeks to eliminate this air security gap. The House conferees should insist on it. Some have argued that the screening of cargo carried on passenger aircraft is impossible to do immediately and would result in a $3 billion loss to the airline industry. This is an argument of a pre-9/11 America. We now screen passengers and their baggage. We did not before. We now secure cockpits. We did not before. Where there is a will, there is a way. The Congress either does or does not have that will. I think that the American public would ``will'' us to have the cargo carried on the airplanes they fly in screened. I must point out, however, that the Markey amendment addressed only one of the homeland security gaps that exist today. There are many others. The higher levels in some of the funding differences between the House and Senate bills would help address other homeland security and preparedness shortfalls. The first affects the preparedness of our first responders. The House bill provides $3.5 billion for the Office for Domestic Preparedness, $625 million more than the Senate. If we were to accept the Senate level, our States and localities would lose $625 million in funding that helps to better equip and train our Nation's first responders. Only a few months ago, the Council on Foreign Relations released a report entitled, ``First Responders, Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared.'' The report stated that billions of dollars are needed to properly equip first responders. I do not know if their estimate is right, but I do know that a great deal of additional funding is needed. Therefore, our conferees should insist on the highest funding level possible. The second has to do with our ability to identify and respond to medical emergencies. The House bill provides $50 million for the Metropolitan Medical Response System. The Senate bill provides no funding. Not to fund this system would widen the homeland security gap that we have been trying to close. The third deals with the porousness of our northern border, which is well known. The Air and Marine Interdiction office has told us of instances of smugglers and others being caught coming across our northern border. Yet today we have no permanent air surveillance of our northern border. The Senate bill provides a total of $71 million to permanently monitor air activity along our northern border. The House bill provides no funding for this. I think we all see the need to fund this homeland security improvement. The Senate bill provides a total of $459 million for procurement and installation of airport explosive detection systems. The House bill provides $335 million. A number of our Nation's airports may not meet the December 31 deadline for electronic screening of all checked baggage due to the fact that TSA has been slow to fund needed modifications. We should provide all of the funding we can to allow TSA to act quickly. The Senate bill provides $74 more than the House for 570 new Border Patrol agents and additional inspectors. The House bill provides few staffing increases in this area. The PATRIOT Act called for tripling of the number of agents and inspectors on our northern border, and the Senate funding would result in us meeting that requirement for border agents. Lastly, the Senate bill provides $156 million more than the House bill for Disaster Relief. We have woefully underfunded the Disaster Relief program for this year and now it looks like FEMA only has enough funding to get them to the beginning of the fiscal year 2004. FEMA has been distributing only the funding that States and localities can immediately spend, so the backlog is growing. This further strains our citizens and communities that are already in distress. Because all of these important programs may help close some of today's homeland security gaps and better prepare our Nation, this motion to instruct directs the House conferees to agree to the highest funding levels possible for homeland security, preparedness, and disaster response programs and to insist on inclusion of the Markey amendment to screen air cargo on passenger aircraft. In summary, let me say that we should be doing all we can to close known security gaps today, not tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this motion to instruct conferees. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the ranking Democrat on the authorizing committee.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that I have the right to close, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, we have one speaker for the balance of our time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, today I will introduce the Public Access to Science Act, PASA, of 2003, legislation to make federally funded research available to the public. It is wrong when a breast cancer patient cannot access federally funded research paid for by her hard-earned taxes. It is wrong when a family whose child has a rare disease must pay again for access to research their tax dollars already paid for. Common sense dictates we provide the most cutting-edge research to all who may benefit from it, especially when they have already paid for it with their tax dollars. The United States Government funds basic research with the intention and the belief that the new ideas and discoveries that result will improve the lives and welfare of the people of the United States and around the world. Our government spends $45 billion a year to support scientific and medical research whose product is new knowledge for the public benefit. We must remember that government funded research belongs to, and should be readily available to, every person in the United States. Lifting restrictions that prevent the widespread sharing of federally funded research can only speed scientific advancement. I urge you to join me by cosponsoring this legislation to require research substantially funded by the Federal Government to be ineligible for copyright protection, and thus available in the public domain.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first let me congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) on the first homeland security bill and congratulate him on a job well done and also add my thanks to the staff, both minority and majority, for their hard work in putting this bill together. We really do appreciate their efforts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security appropriations bill. But I must say that in many ways I think it is premature for this bill to be the first appropriations measure brought to the floor. The Department is in serious disarray, and the committee received very little support from the Department in putting together this bill and report. In fact, many of the agencies transferred to the Department were prevented by the Department from providing responsive information to the subcommittee. Hearings could not even be arranged for four of the largest and most important of the Department's 11 major agencies. Those four agencies constitutes $9 billion, or 31 percent, of the Department's total budget. And I must say that that is an additional reason for thanking the staff, both minority and majority of this committee, for putting a bill together with the lack of information coming from the Department. In some ways the current state of the Department of Homeland Security reminds me of the situation we faced 1 year ago and still face today with TSA. The management failures of TSA are well known, and I fear that the Department of Homeland Security is going down the same path. The Department so far has failed to develop a useful road map of its security goals for the Nation. If anyone at the Department has a strategy for basic objectives, such as securing the northern border, tracking all vessels entering American waters, or ensuring that airline cargo is effectively screened, no one has been willing to share that information with us. I find that disturbing. If the Department will not define its goals, it is up to the Congress to do them. This bill provides $29.4 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Department of Homeland Security. This is only $536 million, or 1.8 percent, above fiscal 2003 funding. The gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) has managed to fill some of the most glaring funding gaps contained in President Bush's 2004 budget, specifically funding for first responder programs contained in this bill. However, the tightness in the budget resolution restricts this bill from doing more to protect our borders, secure our ports and other critical infrastructure. This does not serve our Nation well. In conclusion, while I support the bill overall, I have many concerns with the current abilities, or rather inabilities of the Department of Homeland Security to adequately address obvious homeland security gaps. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and congratulate the gentlewoman on Rice's victory in the NCAA baseball tournament last night.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. I would like to ask the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) a question.

Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, did I just hear correctly a little while ago that the Secretary's request of our committee for the high-threat urban grant was zero?

Mr. SABO. And our committee has recommended what?

Mr. SABO. Five hundred million. And this goes to a limited number of communities in the country?

Mr. SABO. Which criteria that many of us have trouble understanding yet. The balance of the money flows by formula to the States, including the States that are eligible for this additional $500 million?

Mr. SABO. Reclaiming my time, for those of us who come from the heartland of the country, we are having discussion over how much money should go to ports. We have allocated a significant amount, and others would like to allocate more. My assumption is most of that goes along the coast.

Mr. SABO. No. We do have a river one but fairly small. So I think it would be fair to say we made a special effort to try to allocate more money to ports, that that will go to a limited part of the country.