Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, before I yield back my time, let me simply say to my friend from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), thank you for presiding today in a very fair and efficient manner. It is a pleasure working with the gentleman. And on Twins. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. The intention is not to preempt the ability of the States.

Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I have read the chemical bill language, and I do not understand whether that language preempts the ability of a State to adopt more stringent requirements than the Federal standards.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have left?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, well, I am not sure I should say anything. But thank you to my chairman, Mr. Rogers, for his kind comments. We have been together, I think, 6 years now, 4 years on homeland security, 2 years on transportation. As I said last night in front of the Rules Committee, the ultimate compliment I can give to somebody is to call them a pro; and Hal Rogers is a pro. It has been a pleasure to serve with him. He is on the majority party. He has a responsibility to the President of his own party. At the time, he is someone who has asked many a tough question and asked for discipline and, as he said in his opening comments, that he expects to continue to do oversight of the operations of this agency which has had many, many growing pains. It has not been an easy committee to chair as we merged all of these 22 agencies into one, with an incredible amount of chaos; and he has shown, I think, an intellect and toughness and fairness in trying to steer this agency in the right direction. It has been a privilege to work with Chairman Rogers. My friend, Dave Obey, who I have known, and known him for many years before I came to the Congress, neighbor across the border in Wisconsin, I have served with him on Appropriations for 28 years, both a personal friend and somebody who has an absolute passion for public policy and for making this institution work. It has been a real honor, Dave, to get to know you and Joan and to work with you. You are just a great human being. And to Dave Price who served with me on the Budget Committee, I am often asked, why do you leave? And, you know, particularly if the partisan nature changes and the opportunity to chair a subcommittee. And I always say, I have no reluctance in doing that because I know the next person in line is Dave Price, who is a person who has great skill as a legislator and great understanding of public policy. And I think he will do a great job, as he has done in many other roles, whatever the role might be, as either a Chair or ranking member of the subcommittee in 2 years. So it is an honor to have your kind words today. And to the staff, to all of the majority staff, Michelle, who is not here because of a family crisis and who is leaving the House and has done an incredible job, but all of the majority staff have been great to work with. I suppose a special word to Stephanie. She followed us from Transportation to Homeland Security. So I have had an opportunity to work with her in both roles. To our own personal staff on this committee, to Chris, who has worked with us, and Bev Pheto, who sits right here next to me, who has worked with us, me personally on this committee, over the last 6 years, 2 years in Transportation, 4 years in Homeland Security, who I am constantly amazed at her knowledge and her energy. She has to compete with all of you on the majority side and has remarkable knowledge and ability. It utterly amazes me. And she is a remarkable person. Marjorie Duske from my staff, who originally was an intern in our office and has now been in our office for many years working with me on Homeland Security, has worked transportation, defense, housing, you name it, from simple issues to the most complicated of issues, just been an incredible person, dedicated to public policy and doing what is right, but, at the same time, tough, hard-nosed to work with agencies to make sure that the Government does what it is supposed to do. Just incredible people who make this institution work. I simply say thank you. A couple of words about the bill, if I might. It is a good bill, and it does lots of good things. It has got additional funding. Some of the other issues we worked on, we have had a concern over how sensitive security information is handled by the Department. There are provisions here for handling that information, which I think is good. I think the changes made to FEMA strengthens the role of FEMA. I was one, along with Mr. Obey, who a year ago thought we were making a mistake as we created a new Department or agency on preparedness and how it was structured. This basically goes back to strengthening the role of FEMA within the Department. I think it is a significant improvement. Frankly, if I had my choice, I still would make FEMA a separate agency outside of this Department. I would prefer that. That is not going to happen. I think the changes in this bill represent substantial improvement. I have to say that I am concerned over how we add the money in this bill for the Department. We do it on an energy basis. I think $1.8 billion is desperately needed and will be well spent. But, at some point, we have to come back to passing budget resolutions in this body that are real. The need for additional expenditure for homeland security are not emergencies. They are going to be there on an ongoing basis in the years ahead; and, in 2005, we added $450 million as an emergency; 2006, $1.2; and $1.8 in 2007. At some point, this institution has got to get back to having budget resolutions that are real, where real choices are made, not pretending that we are not going to spend any money initially and then getting around to it by having emergency designations. That simply undermines the process. I am probably in the minority on this issue. I still remain very concerned to the degree we have given the Department discretion in distributing some of our formula funds. I do not think that they have the capacity to do it. So I hope this institution keeps an eye on how the agency does distribute formula grants or simply grants in the future. Clearly, their ability to do it on a discretionary basis, I think, needs to be examined; and I think they need much better information to do that than they have had in the past. But it is a good bill. It has been a pleasure working with Mr. Rogers and all of the other members of our subcommittee. We have a good subcommittee. I think this committee has made a great contribution. Mr. Chairman, I do have to ask one question. I understand we have a variety of other bills relating to homeland security that are authorizing bills, that seem to be hanging up the adjournment or our recess. Am I wrong that everything that is in this bill is currently authorized? All of our money can be spent that is in this bill? It is not subject to any authorization?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman. And I thank the gentleman for his good work. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. All of the money that is needed for borders, for ports, all of the money we have appropriated can be spent?

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Thank you for your great service on Rules Committee. And to the chairman, I thank him for his kind remarks. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of the base bill on homeland security funding. But there is one part of that bill which I think we could significantly improve. So I would ask Members today to vote against the previous question so that we can offer a separate concurrent resolution to the conference report which would delete from the bill four provisions as it relates to the regulation of chemical plants that, in my judgment, significantly weaken the legislation. As background, the whole question of setting security standards for chemical plants is an issue that has concerned me for a long time. We have had a void in the ability of the Secretary to act to adopt any regulation as it impacts most chemical plants in this country. This year, while we were considering the appropriations bill, we offered and adopted in committee an amendment that gave authority to the Secretary to adopt regulations relating to the security of chemical plants. We envisioned that as being a temporary solution, while the authorizers had time at some point to pass regular authorizing legislation. That was stricken by a point of view on the House floor. In the Senate, fortunately, in an amendment by Bob Byrd, adopted that same amendment. And that is what we had in conference. There then proceeded negotiations between the authorizers. And it ended up being a partisan negotiation between majority Members in the House and Senate which produced the recommended plan for the regulation of chemical plants, which the conference committee substituted for the Byrd amendment. That more detailed recommendation has not been subject to debate in either the House or the Senate or considered in that form by any of our committees. And it has four provisions which I think significantly weakens the authority of the Secretary to adopt regulations. I think we should strike them. The first one is a provision that states that: The Secretary may not disapprove a site security plan submitted under this section based on the presence or absence of a particular security measure. What that means, I frankly do not know. The reality is that any security measure is going to deal with a whole series of particular security measures. Some are going to be more important than the other. Why we limit the authority of the Secretary in this fashion is beyond me. I do not know what it means. There must be some relevance to it. But it clearly would seem to limit the ability of the Secretary to adopt a comprehensive security measure. Then we have another provision which is rather strange. And it says that if we proceed in court and any information is provided on plants to that court, then that unclassified information becomes classified when it reaches the courtroom. I know of no other instance in our government where unclassified information becomes classified because it goes to court. I have no idea what the precedent for any such action is. It is unique. It is new. And we should not have it in this bill. I do not know, as I read this bill, whether the States have the ability to adopt security standards which are stricter than the Federal law. Some read this language to say it prohibits the States from having stricter standards. I read it as being unclear, and where we turn that issue over is not to our judgment but to the courts. As I read the language, if a State adopts stricter standards and the Secretary approves them, I expect it will be challenged in court. If they adopt stricter standards and the Secretary rejects them, that will be challenged in court. In my judgment, the States should have that ability. But whether we think they should or should not have it, it is a decision we should make and not simply leave it to the vagaries of what a particular court might decide. Another provision in this bill simply says that it prohibits the public from filing any suit to enforce the provisions of this law. Again, that makes no sense to me and goes contrary to what we normally do in this country. I am glad we are finally moving forward with chemical plant security. However, the negotiations, not by the conferees on the appropriation bill but by the negotiators from the two authorizing committees, have produced a version of chemical security regulation that in my judgment is much weaker than it need be, and we should clarify it and strike those provisions. Not add anything new, but simply make sure that the Secretary has greater authority and to make sure that States have the right to adopt stricter regulation if they so desire. So I urge the rejection of the previous question so that we can offer such an amendment.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SABO. I am just curious, did the Speaker call for a vote, and did I hear some people vote aye?

Mr. SABO. Then I heard the Speaker call for a vote.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I was sitting here waiting for time to expire so I could cast a vote, and I heard the motion made by the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. I come to this House debate deeply frustrated over the chaos in Iraq. I voted against authorizing President Bush to take us to war in Iraq. I believed in 2002, and am more certain today that this war has been a grave mistake. Mr. Speaker, I have nothing but respect for the honorable American service men and women who have been put into harm's way. However, the goodwill I feel for these brave Americans is contrasted by my lack of confidence in President Bush and the Defense Department leadership. Once they got us into this war, they have, time and again, ignored sound military planning and blatantly disregarded the violent, grinding reality that has steadily descended on Iraq over the past 3 years. As members of Congress, it is one of our highest duties to hold the civilian and military leadership accountable when they take our nation to war. To date, 2,500 American service men and women have been killed, and more than 18,000 more have been injured. There are no higher stakes than these. Unfortunately, H. Res. 861 does nothing to demand that the Bush administration correct its disastrous policies in Iraq. Earlier this year, General Anthony Zinni, former Commander of the U.S. Central Command, pointedly expressed the views of many, many Americans about Iraq when he said, ``We are paying the price for the lack of credible planning, or the lack of a plan. Ten years worth of planning were thrown away, troop levels dismissed out of hand. . . . These were strategic mistakes, mistakes of policy made back here.'' Mr. Speaker, my constituents and people across the nation want a clear plan for success in Iraq. Americans want to believe that there can be a successful end to this conflict, and that our soldiers, marines and other personnel will return home soon. Unfortunately, it is hard to hold onto this hope given the President's stubborn refusal to acknowledge the failures in his Iraq policy. We must change course. The United States has a critical role in helping Iraqis to build a peaceful, democratic society. I am certain, however, that an open-ended U.S. military presence in Iraq will not accomplish peace and stability there. Furthermore, waving the flag, with Congressional resolutions like H. Res 861, accomplishes nothing. With mounting casualties and the $320 billion in spending on this war, Americans deserve to hear the unvarnished truth from their President and elected representatives. I firmly believe that Congressman Murtha has the right idea with his resolution to redeploy our troops. We must make it clear to Iraqis that we support their transition to a peaceful and prosperous society. Hard-nosed diplomacy, Iraqi institution-building and support from the international community are better tools than the U.S. military to accomplish this goal. I still seek answers to questions I asked Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in appropriations hearings earlier this year: What is your plan for success in Iraq? When and under what conditions can our honorable men and women serving there come home? The House debate on H. Res. 861 will not provide the answers, and I am still waiting for a thoughtful and credible response from Secretary Rumsfeld.

Mr. SABO

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, we are told by Customs and Border Patrol that this amendment has no effect on its operation because it only shares information when it is required by international treaty, the same as what this amendment says. So to the best of my knowledge this amendment simply restates what is policy. If people want to put it in the bill, I guess that is okay because it apparently does nothing. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition; but, Mr. Chairman, I don't rise in opposition.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order against the amendment. It clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill, which is in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.

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