Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the word. I just wanted to rise and agree with the chairman. This is an amendment that should not be adopted. We have already spent additional significant resources on the border. We are also starting the SDI program, the Secure Borders Initiative. I happen to think it is not well planned, but my assumption is that programs like this would be part of whatever this grand scheme is that is being developed. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr. Andrews, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Pascrell and Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire. This amendment increases by $111 million funding for the fire grant and SAFER programs, bringing appropriations to these programs to slightly above the 2006 level. Fire and SAFER grants funding in the bill is currently $109 million, or 17 percent below 2006. The bill funds the regular grant program at $500 million, $40 million below 2006, and the SAFER program is funded at $50 million in the bill, which is $69 million below the 2006 funding level. My amendment would eliminate these fire grant cuts. The amendment is offset with reductions in the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, some from the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, and some from the funding for the Science and Technology Directorate. The funds from the Science and Technology are from $246 million in unobligated funding that is carried into 2006, and it is likely a large portion will carry into 2007, which is why I think the 2007 funding can be reduced. Mr. Chairman, it is a good amendment and I urge its adoption.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) for purposes of a colloquy with the chairman.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) for the purposes of a colloquy with the chairman.

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the authorizing committee.

Mr. SABO. I thank the chairman for his comments. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate Chairman Rogers on this homeland security bill which is clearly better than the administration's budget request. The President's proposed new fees and unrealistic discretionary budget cap left the Appropriations Committee with big holes to fill. As a result there are difficult homeland security funding choices to make. My concerns about our Nation's homeland security are not limited to funding. As I have said before, I had serious doubts in 2002 about the wisdom of creating a new Department of Homeland Security, and I voted against the bill. When I took on the role of ranking member on the subcommittee, I decided my job was to try and prove myself wrong. I'm sorry to say that the DHS bureaucrat mess is worse than I first imagined, and I still cannot say that my original judgment was wrong. There is modest progress in some areas. However, time and again we see failures of planning, leadership and management at DHS. Americans are holding their breath as a new hurricane season approaches. And 8 months into the fiscal year, the States in the high-threat urban areas are still waiting for DHS to release hundreds of millions of dollars in 2006 homeland grants. We regularly see broad pronouncement from DHS without the proper detail or budgets to support them. The new Secure Border Initiative is a perfect example. It appears that the administration SBInet plan is to hire private industry to think for us how to develop border security technology and systems and then sell us the solutions to them. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate Chairman Rogers on this homeland security bill which is clearly better than the Administration's budget request. The President's proposed new fees and an unrealistic discretionary budget cap left the Appropriations Committee with big holes to fill. As a result, there are difficult homeland security funding choices to make. My concerns about our nation's homeland security are not limited to funding. As I have said before, I had serious doubts in 2002 about the wisdom of creating a new Department of Homeland Security, and I voted against it. When I took on the role of ranking member on the Subcommittee, I decided that my job was to prove myself wrong. I'm sorry to say that the DHS bureaucratic mess is worse than I first imagined, and I still can't say that my original judgment was wrong. There is modest progress in some areas. However, time and again, we see failures of planning, leadership and management at DHS. Americans are holding their breath as a new hurricane season approaches. And, eight months into the fiscal year, the states and high-threat urban areas are still waiting for DHS to release hundreds of millions of dollars in '06 homeland grants. We regularly see broad policy announcements from DHS without the proper detail or budgets to support them. The new Secure Border Initiative is a perfect example. It appears that the Administration's SBInet ``plan'' is to hire private industry to think for us on how to develop border security technology and systems, and then sell us the solution they come up with. Most recently, Mr. Obey and I asked GAO to look at how DHS is handling personal information in its ADVISE program. We have long been concerned about how the Department treats Americans' privacy and due process rights. ADVISE appears to be a new variation on the highly controversial Defense Department Total Information Awareness program, that was supposed to be terminated in 2003. Regarding funding levels in this bill, my biggest reservations are about the fire grants, port and transit security and state training grant programs. Some of these programs are funded at last year's level, and some are below. I am particularly concerned about fire grants, which is one of the most successful programs that the Department administers. This bill cuts fire grants by $109 million, or 17 percent, below 2006. Our nation's firefighters have great needs that cannot be met at the funding level in this bill. I will offer an amendment later to restore fire grant and SAFER funding to slightly above the FY06 level. We still have serious gaps in air cargo security. This bill makes no real headway in closing them, and port security grant funding is also lower than I would like to see. This bill does not fund all of the additional border patrol agents and detention beds called for in the President's February budget request. Since his speech last week, we are still trying to understand the new initiatives--and the costs--that the President proposes. You can be sure, however, that the price tag for meaningful border security and immigration services and enforcement will be very steep. It will be far more than the roughly $19.4 billion in this bill (9 percent above 2006) that is attributed to border security and immigration. As an example, individuals in my district--and I suspect yours--have waited more than two years for the federal government to run security name checks to process their immigration paperwork. These people are doing things legally. As far as I can tell, the funding the President proposes in his new plan won't address this issue. I can only imagine the size of the backlog that would be created by his plan or other significant changes in immigration law. I make these observations not to criticize the Chairman. I simply want to clarify for Members that even though this bill increases homeland security funding, it does not get us where we need to be in protecting the nation. Lastly, I am very concerned that--nearly 5 years after 9/11--the federal government is still failing to secure the vast majority of chemical facilities in this country. They are prime targets for a catastrophic terrorist attack, and there is precious little being done to protect many of them. The administration acknowledges the chemical security dilemma we face, but will not act without new legal authority to make and enforce chemical security regulations. The Congress--for more than four years-- has failed to act. Competing legislation in the House and Senate authorizing committees has gone nowhere. What are we waiting for? I was very disappointed that the Rules Committee refused to protect my chemical security language--Section 536--which was added to this bill in the Appropriations Committee. These provisions would give DHS the legal authority that Secretary Chertoff says he needs to regulate U.S. chemical facilities that pose the greatest risk to Americans. Congress addressed a small part of the chemical security problem in 2002. We enacted security requirements for chemical facilities on ports under the Maritime Transportation Security Act, and the Coast Guard is doing a good job of enforcing them. Under the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, the EPA also oversees security at the nation's drinking water facilities. Section 536 would not re-regulate them. The problem is that there are thousands of other chemical plants and storage facilities without federal security standards or oversight. An attack on one of them has the potential to kill or injure tens of thousands of people. DHS has said that 20 percent of the 3,400 chemical facilities it identifies as ``high-risk'' adhere to no security guidelines. Yet, Congress appears content to leave security at these facilities to the good conscience of their operators. I urge my colleagues to refrain from making a point of order against the chemical security provisions in this bill. The American people have waited too long for Congress to take responsible action to prevent a catastrophic attack on a chemical facility. If the Congress produces chemical security legislation that the President can sign into law this year, then the Section 536 would be unnecessary. I suspect, however, that Congress will adjourn without doing so. And then--without Section 536--where will we be? Will the American people have to endure another year without chemical security protections? In closing, I will say that this is not a perfect bill. Given the allocation provided, however, it is one that I will support.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his kind comments. It has been a privilege to work with you over these last 6 years; the first 2 years in the well-established Transportation Committee, the last 4 years in the brand new endeavor of Homeland Security, with the whole process of building and trying to help a new agency get going. I have found you a great person to work with. I have the utmost respect for you. You are a real pro. You know what you are doing. And so I have great respect and admiration for the work that you do. I would much rather have had a different role than being ranking member, but at the same time that I am expressing my gratitude to you, I also spent 4 years with Mr. Wolf on the Transportation Committee, and I found him also a very good person to work with, a person like you, open to suggestions from the minority, and a real pro in handling the transportation bill that I did with Mr. Wolf. So despite my wishes that the roles would have been reversed, it has been a real privilege and honor to work with you. Also, throughout that time, we have had great staff to work with. On my side, Bev Pheto, from our minority staff; Marge Duske from my personal staff; and Chris Martin, who also has been with our committee, who has been great to work with; Mr. Obey, the ranking member of the full committee, who I have worked with closely; and on the majority staff, Michelle, who I expect you will be talking about her future, who has done a great job; and Stephanie, who I not only had a chance to work with on Homeland Security but worked with in Transportation before that; and Ted; and Jeff; and Ben; and Brett; and Kelly; and Will; and Meg; thank you to all of the staff. It is an excellent professional staff that we can all be proud of.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, I commend the Rules Committee for producing a rule that is much improved over last year, with one big exception. I am very disappointed that this rule fails to protect section 536, chemical security provisions, which I added to the bill in the Appropriations Committee. Nearly 5 years after 9/11, the vast majority of chemical facilities in this country are not properly secured. They are prime targets for a catastrophic terrorist attack. Yet there is precious little being done to protect them. The administration acknowledges this problem, but says it cannot act without new legal authority to make and enforce chemical security regulations. The Congress for more than four years has failed to act. Competing legislation in the House and the Senate authorizing committees has gone nowhere. What are we waiting for? Section 536 would end the stalemate. These provisions would give DHS the legal authority that Secretary Chertoff says he needs to regulate security at U.S. chemical facilities that pose the greatest risk to Americans. In 2002, Congress addressed a small part of the chemical security problem. I see Congressman Young on the floor and I congratulate him because the security requirements of chemical facilities on ports under the Maritime Transportation Security Act and the Coast Guard are doing a good job of enforcing them. Under the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, the EPA also oversees security at the Nation's drinking water facilities. The problem is there are thousands of other chemical plants and storage facility without Federal security standards or oversight. An attack on one of them has the potential to kill or injure tens of thousands of people. DHS has said that 20 percent of the 3,400 chemical facilities it identifies as ``high risk'' adhere to no security guidelines. If section 536 is stricken from this bill, Congress will appear content to leave security at these facilities to the conscience of their operators. To my friends who would strike 536, I say, what do we have to lose by keeping this language in the bill? If before the end of this Congress the authorizing committees can act and the President signs chemical security legislation into law, then section 536 will be unnecessary. However, I have my doubts that will happen. If section 536 is struck from this bill, I suspect that another Congress will adjourn without acting on chemical security. And then where will we be? We will go another year without security requirements at the Nation's highest-risk chemical sites. The American people waited too long for Congress to take responsible action to prevent a catastrophic attack on a chemical facility. I urge my colleagues to refrain from making a point of order against the chemical security provisions in this bill.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.

Mr. SABO. I concur in the chairman's comments. You have a good amendment, and I am glad to support it.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution. I am proud of the Minnesota National Guard and its rich history. The First Minnesota Infantry regiment answered President Lincoln's call to duty in April 1861 and those Minnesota soldiers set the tone for the tenacity and bravery that has become the ingrained ethic of the Minnesota Guard. The people who make up the Minnesota Guard are some of the brightest our state has to offer. Today, more than 2600 Minnesota National Guard members are in or en route to Kuwait for final preparations before they head to Iraq. The 1st Brigade Combat Team will be deployed to Iraq and is expected to be the only National Guard Brigade Combat Team in Iraq-- all others are from active duty Army. This is the largest deployment of the Minnesota Guard since World War II. While these brave men and women are serving our State and our country in a dangerous place, it is extremely important that we do our part to support them and their loved ones during and after the mission in Iraq. We must provide a strong network of support for families of deployed soldiers, and assist those families and soldiers during the difficult transition period following deployment. I rise today in support of this resolution, in recognition of the Minnesota Guard's rich history, and in gratitude to those Minnesotans who have answered the federal call to duty.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to take part in the celebration of National Women's History Month by recognizing accomplished leaders from the State of Minnesota: Koryne Horbal, Dee Long and Vivian Jenkins Nelsen. Koryne Horbal has blazed a trail for gender equality in Minnesota and much beyond. Her many leadership posts have included Chairwoman of the Democrat-Farmer- Labor (DFL) party, founder of the DFL Feminist Caucus, Democratic National Committee (DNC) Member representing Minnesota where she started the DNC's Women's Caucus. She also served as the U.S. Representative to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. She served in the U.N. ambassadorial role for 4 years during the Carter Administration. During that time, she and Gloria Steinem became good friends and have since worked together on many projects. Ms. Horbal has worked tirelessly on many issues, from women's rights to pay equity, from higher education to health care. She says there was one female Minnesota legislator when she began in politics and 17 when she stepped down as State Chairwoman. She led a study called Present but Powerless that examined the role of women in the DFL party and found women heavily involved but rarely in positions of power. While at the U.N., she was also partly responsible for the only treaty about women, the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women. The U.S. is the only industrialized country to have not signed it, she adds. Ms. Horbal, now a consultant at the Women's Resource Center at Augsburg College, says she first got involved advancing women's rights when she realized how much women were left out of the process. ``I became a feminist one year when the party was deciding about which potential candidates would run for election,'' Horbal says. ``Women weren't included in this discussion. That's what woke me up.'' Dee Long charted new territory when she assumed leadership positions historically held by men. To date, not only was Ms. Long the first female Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, she remains its only. She was also the first woman to chair a tax committee in the Minnesota Legislature, and was the first woman to chair a joint Senate/ House committee. Over the years, Ms. Long has taken the lead on many issues. But the ones that remain closest to her heart include environmental and tax issues. She helped lead the development of Minnesota's version of the Superfund legislation, where the polluter pays for hazardous waste cleanup. She also played a leading role in developing the Minnesota Livable Communities Act, which focuses on smart growth development. Today, Ms. Long works as the Director of the Environmental Tax and Incentive Program at Minnesotans for an Energy Efficient Economy. As new women politicians entered the Legislature, she advised them to not simply go to committee meetings. Know the issue backwards and forwards, and be a leader, she'd tell them. Being knowledgeable about the issues before you creates respect. She also encouraged women to get involved in issues that weren't historically women's issues, such as taxes, justice, and others. ``If you know the issues, you'll have the respect,'' she says. Vivian Jenkins Nelsen also has a long list of firsts among her accomplishments. She is the co-founder of INTER-RACE, a diversity think tank located at Augsburg College. She was a Bush Leadership Fellow at Harvard University, and is a nationally recognized diversity practitioner, trainer and researcher. She was the first black woman graduate of Dana College in Nebraska. Further, she was the first black woman professor at Augsburg College, and first such administrator at the University of Minnesota. At the University of Minnesota, she served as Director of Human Relations Training as well as Director of Administration at the Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. Ms. Nelsen was always exposed to human and civil rights work growing up, and sees her work as an extension of her parents' efforts. ``Then, they were trying to bring black people up. I am trying to help make corporate America and American policy ready and accepting of all people.'' Her father, a pastor in the Lutheran Church, worked for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and helped to organize the protest march to Selma. Ms. Nelsen recalls meeting with King as one of the critical moments that defined her path in life. She said when she met with a group of people with King, he focused his time and attention on her, because ``a kid came before everything else.'' This is a sentiment to she has taken to heart herself. Ms. Nelsen has consulted on race and gender issues for the Lutheran Church. She has also served as president of the Minnesota Women Equity Action League, which acted as the legal arm of the gender equality movement. Today at INTER-RACE, she works with Fortune 500 companies, nonprofits, and policy makers at all levels. ``My job is about helping people find their voice about justice,'' Nelsen says. ``It's about being able to look at other people's behavior, but also their own.'' Mr. Speaker, these 3 women have impacted their communities and the larger world community with a lot of hard work, determination and grit. They have fought for greater gender equity and provided leadership to make it happen. I commend each of these women for the difference they have made, and continue to make every day.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, let me just make a few comments. First, let me be clear. I have great appreciation for the work of the chairman of our committee, Mr. Rogers, and what he has done in this subcommittee. The work of his subcommittee has significantly improved the recommendations of the President over the last several years as relates to homeland security. The bills that have passed Congress have been significantly better than what we got from the administration. But I also agree with him that this bill today is about the war on terrorism. And one of the most important parts in dealing with the war on terrorism is dealing with port security and the security of containers coming into this country. I disagree with those who say that who owns and how terminals are operated is irrelevant to security. Who operates them and how they operate them is very relevant, as we have dealt with in this bill in committee. However, how we provide the other security dwarfs the importance of who and how terminals are operated. How we deal with containers coming into this country, both at our ports and our other ports of entry in this country is tremendously important. We have made some progress, but anyone who suggests that we are there in terms of port security in this country today I think is badly misinformed. We have a long ways to go, and it has been over 4 years since 9/11. We are not simply throwing money at a problem here. These are important questions, important problems that need more resources; and, frankly, in some cases, they need more vigorous action by the administration to make sure that foreign countries cooperate with us. This is an amendment that significantly improves port security and I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I understand the majority has the right to close.

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we hear a lot about the importance of identifying risk as we make security investments. And who could disagree? However, the President and Congress tend to stumble in putting a coherent risk-based philosophy into our budgets and policies. I ask the Members to consider this amendment in the context of President Bush's national security budget priorities for the coming year. The President requests $10.4 billion for missile defense next year, an increase of $1.7 billion. By comparison, the discretionary budget request for the whole Department of Homeland Security is only $400 million above this year, almost four times as large an increase simply for missile defense versus the whole Department of Homeland Security. I have a hard time seeing how the risk of an intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile attack is greater than the risk of a nuclear weapon in a cargo container coming into our country by ship. Therefore, this emergency bill is the time to address our most critical port security gaps. I understand the Senate Budget Committee chairman also believes that critical security gaps should be addressed in this bill. Protecting our seaports is a lot like protecting our airports. We need multiple security layers. With international traffic, the first security check should be overseas. The container security in this initiative, by which containers judged to be high risk are opened and inspected and all container manifests are reviewed, is operating today in only 43 of the 140 foreign ports that ship directly to the U.S. Since 2002, former Customs Commissioner Robert Bonner has been talking about the value of CSI and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has endorsed it. However, the Bush administration and the Republican Congress have been slow to fund and implement the program. This amendment would expand CSI to all overseas ports that ship directly to the U.S. and allow U.S. custom agents to review 100 percent of all container manifests. Some may argue that we should settle for CSI in 50 foreign ports by the end of 2007. What about the other 90 foreign ports that ship directly to us? You can be sure those who want to do us harm will know which foreign ports are covered by CSI and which foreign ports are not. The next critical step is to improve port security inside the U.S. The Coast Guard estimates that $7 billion is needed to bring U.S. port facilities into compliance with our maritime security law and regulations. Let me tell you where we are today. Since 9/11, Congress has provided $910 million to harden our seaports. President Bush has never requested funding directly and specifically for this purpose. Mr. Chairman, with this amendment, we could install radiation portal monitors at every U.S. land and seaport of entry. Today, less than half of these radiation detectors have been installed. Without this amendment, the Bush administration would have Americans wait until 2011 to complete this crucial security measure. Customs and Border Protection also need to do a better job in targeting cargo containers that should be opened, and in auditing trusted shippers. The General Accounting Office identified both of these issues, and this amendment would help us get these tasks done. The third critical port security step is to ensure that the people charged to protect our ports are well trained, equipped, and prepared to respond to disaster. The Coast Guard enforces port and vessel compliance with maritime security regulations. Last fall, the Coast Guard reported that its maritime security exercise revealed the need for a stronger chain of command, better guidance, and more training. The Coast Guard has also told us it has not completed its review of vessel security and has not reviewed all foreign ports that ship directly to us. This agency, which performed so well in response to Hurricane Katrina, can handle the tough jobs. Congress and the President should give the Coast Guard the right resources to do them. Mr. Chairman, as the saying goes, practice makes perfect. We may need more simulation exercises for emergency responders at every level of government in order to identify the flaws in our preparedness plans. Mr. Chairman, everyone knows that we have a dangerous gap in our emergency communications capability across the Nation. The bill provides a back-up communication package for the gulf coast, which includes trucks loaded with equipment that can be quickly moved into a disaster area and to bring up cell phones and public safety radio networks to help first responders in search and rescue efforts. We need this emergency communication equipment in other regions of the country as well. And this amendment would provide it. Mr. Chairman, the American people expect us to do more than talk about inadequate port security and disaster preparedness. They demand that we back up our talk with action. I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that a point of order is raised on this very good amendment, but I would concede the point of order.