Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. So they know today?

Mr. SABO. If any town is doing this?

Mr. SABO. Is there some registry of that?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I know they are not hidden, but somebody has to find out. I have no idea how many endless grants they are making. The departments make an endless number of grants, and some of them flow to the State which then flow to local governments. In other cases, some go directly to ports.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I think, clearly, as the author of the amendment says, he clearly is legislating on an appropriations bill and, therefore, violating clause 2 of rule XI. By his most recent statement, he is expanding penalties for the existing law.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This is an amendment I think we voted on several years ago, in some variety of it.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I have no idea what the full impact of this amendment will be. We voted on it, I think, in the last 2 or 3 years. I think generally it has lost by a significant number of votes. What its impact on local governments is, I think is unpredictable. There are hundreds and thousands of different local units of government, potentially receiving aid under this bill, which we would cut off because of their failure to give some information to the Federal Government. I just think it is a totally wrong focus on what our problems are in this country. We have real problems with immigration. The real problems relate to how we deal with our borders. The real problem deals with how we deal with undocumented people in this country who have violated criminal laws of this country. And to start harassing every unit of government, large or small, depending on what information they send to the Federal Government, tying that to they are eligible for funding to deal with basic homeland security in this country, I think is just a serious mistake. I would hope the House would reject this amendment.

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I will give the gentleman a break. I totally agree with the gentleman. The biggest benefactor of all the airline security is the airline industry. Something happened post-9/11. We had to provide billions of dollars to loan guarantees to keep them operating. I recall where many speeches on the new Transportation Security Agency was it was going to be fully paid for. I think over half of the money comes from general revenue today. I find this amendment sort of unbelievable that the airlines would want us to do this. I totally agree with the gentleman. This amendment should be defeated.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. First, let me ask the gentleman a question: Is not a significant amount of the money that the gentleman is reducing consultant money?

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I am just afraid we are doing another miniature No Child Left Behind in this law that we passed a couple of weeks ago. It is the Federal Government again deciding how the States should run something that States have historically done. States have historically issued driver's licenses in this country. So now wise people in Washington are now telling them how to do it. Again, we are not going to pay them money to do it. Then we have all kinds of requirements that may or may not make sense. They make sense to somebody who sits down here and writes law who, I doubt, has ever administered the issuing of driver's licenses in any State. Sort of a repetition again in miniature scale of what we did in No Child Left Behind. I think that is a law which is fraught with troubles throughout the country. This is much smaller in scale, but we are repeating the same thing that we did in that law. I think it is a mistake. I think it is going to complicate life immensely for all of our citizens as they go about the process of moving around this country and getting new driver's licenses. But at a minimum, we should be doing a significant part of the funding to make sure we do not adversely impact all of the States by this wisdom that we are sending down from Washington.

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

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for his cooperation and good work in bringing this bill to the House. This bill, in its current form, represents a substantial improvement over the President's budget request. My comments are related to the bill as it stands. I am not sure, after all the points of order are made today, what will remain in the bill; but as the bill stands, there are many good things in this bill, including better funding for border enforcement and separate programs for transit and port security grants. I appreciate that the chairman worked with us to toughen up the bill on air cargo screening, chemical plant security, and privacy safeguards. The Department has a long way to go in these areas. However, this bill pushes them to improve operations and better secure our Nation. I would especially like to point out the air cargo screening provisions in this bill. One of these provisions penalizes TSA for not complying with last year's law which required a threefold air cargo screening increase. Another provision mandates that TSA utilize their equipment to screen air cargo during the downtime in checked baggage screening. This should help raise the screened percentage of air cargo even further. Last, the bill includes $30 million for three air cargo screening pilot programs, two at passenger operations and one at an all-cargo operation. The report accompanying this bill directs the Secretary to ensure that all DHS contracts with companies that collect personal information, such as ChoicePoint, will require the companies to have security procedures to properly notify individuals if their personal information is lost or stolen. The personal data of hundreds of thousands of people have been compromised in recent months. For 49 States, there is no requirement for companies to notify the affected people. We should require notification government-wide, and this provision takes an important step in the right direction. The bill also demands that the Department get its act together to develop proper standards and processes for designating the information as ``security-sensitive.'' Today, TSA has no meaningful procedures to designate ``security sensitive'' documents. This has led, I believe, to TSA withholding information from the public that should be disclosed. This bill directs the Department to limit the number of people who can designate such information to establish internal controls to audit these designations. I do have reservations about some parts of this bill, especially the funding levels for fire grants and the State homeland security formula grants. We will have an amendment relating to fire grants later. I happen to be in probably a small minority who thinks it is a mistake to distribute a portion of the State formula grant based on risk and vulnerability versus population. Let us be clear. The urban initiative grant is distributed on a discretionary basis. My observation over the last several years, when trying to get information from the Department on how they made those judgments, we rarely get good answers; at periods of time, no answers; and at other times, very ineffective answers. I have no problem with whatever the judgment of the Congress is in adjusting the minimum grant that goes to particular States. However, I think when we assume that this Department has the capacity to make risk judgments on allocating funds to all 57 States and territories, I think we overestimate their capacity to make such judgments. They have made mistakes in the past, and I just do not think they have developed the needed expertise to make the kinds of judgments we are assuming they can. If they had that capacity, then I think we might be headed in the right direction; but there is no evidence that they have that capacity today. In conclusion, however, I must say that I think we must measure this homeland security bill by asking whether the bill helps close the gaps that exist today. I think the bill does that. I think it makes substantial improvements in how the Department would operate, and I am proud to support the bill as it stands today. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), another distinguished member of our subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time and I yield back my time.

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

Mr. SABO. The concern of the committee to get a rebaselining of the Coast Guard construction program is not something that has just happened recently. I think we have been working on this for a year and a half, 2 years, something like that, to get the rebaselining. It is not a last-second whim that has occurred, but something that we have been concerned about for an extended period of time and have not gotten a response.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, our amendment increases the funding for the fire grant program by $50 million, $25 million for the SAFER program, and $25 million for the regular grant program. With the $25 million added to the SAFER program, it would be funded at $75 million, or $10 million above last year's funding. With the increase to the regular fire grant program, it would be funded at $575 million, unfortunately still a $75 million cut from last year's level. If we had more funding, and more offsets, we would have added it to this program. I might add that whatever the problems are with the larger local grant program, this is a program that has worked very efficiently and effectively. It is a proven successful program, and grant decisions are made on the basis of independent board review. The needs of our fire departments are great, and our Federal funding for the fire grant program has decreased in recent years and, actually, as a population that has grown, the number of firefighters nationwide has fallen. Firefighters still lack basic equipment. The number of firefighters with proper breathing gear and protective clothing has not substantially improved since 9/11. In 2003, Federal fire grant funding was $746 million; this year it is $715 million. This bill, with the amendment, would increase that amount to $650 million. The offset funding for the new personnel system would be decreased by $20 million, but still would have an increase of $17 million, or 47 percent under this mark. What this amendment does is it is fully funded in offsets and makes minor adjustments in the chairman's bill but, in my judgment, will result in better fire department capabilities in our local communities; and I urge support for this amendment.

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, let me just simply thank the chairman for his support of the amendment.