Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that the Rules Committee has not allowed me to offer my amendment to strengthen the CFIUS foreign investment review process to this bill. Americans deserve a rigorous review of foreign investments that could affect our national security. We all know now that the Bush administration was sleepwalking through the review of the Dubai Ports World transaction to acquire shipping terminals at six major U.S. ports. We should fix the process. Never again should we find that the President and the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Treasury and Defense are unaware of a foreign takeover of a critical U.S. asset until after it is approved. The bill kills the Dubai Ports World deal. It does not, however, deal with the larger problem of an inadequate foreign investment review process. An amendment I offered in committee would have fixed the problem for the future. My amendment would strengthen the CFIUS process in the following ways: all transactions that result in foreign control of any person engaged in interstate commerce would be required to undergo a full review to determine whether it affects U.S. national security. Today, foreign firms voluntarily, let me say that again, voluntarily notify us of these transactions. I believe notification must be mandatory to ensure that our government knows about all such transactions. My amendment would also retain the Secretary of the Treasury as the chairperson of the committee. Under my amendment, the President would be required to approve or disapprove all transactions. Today, if the President takes no action, the transaction is automatically approved. My amendment would extend the CFIUS review period to the full 75 days. Current practice allows most transactions to be reviewed within 30 days, with an additional 45 days of review only if flags are raised. The amendment would also require the Congress to be notified of Presidential decisions. Furthermore, Congress could overturn approvals within 30 days by a joint resolution. Today, Congress is notified of a CFIUS transaction only when the President disapproves one, and we discover about approvals, like we did in the most recent case, through the press. Under my amendment, the administration would also be required to report to Congress on foreign ownership of all U.S. critical infrastructure within 90 days of enactment of this bill. Today, no one really knows how much of our critical infrastructure is in the hands of foreign companies and foreign governments. If we fail to fix the deep flaws in the CFIUS process, our Nation will be vulnerable in the future. We should not take that chance. We should act now to strengthen the foreign investment review process. I would hope the gentleman from California, the distinguished chairman, would not insist on his point of order so the House may have a vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. I am disappointed that the Rules Committee has not allowed me to offer my amendment to strengthen the CFIUS foreign investment review process during consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill. Americans deserve a rigorous review of foreign investments that affect our national security posture. Never again should we find that the President and the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Treasury and Defense are unaware of a critical transaction until after it has been approved. As you know, the Appropriations Committee voted overwhelmingly last week to kill the Dubai World Port terminal acquisition, which, it is my understanding, requires a rule waiver to be made germane. It declined, however, to address the larger underlying process problem. My amendment would strengthen the CFIUS process in the following ways: all transactions that could result in foreign control of any person engaged in interstate commerce would be required to undergo a full review to determine whether it affects U.S. national security. Today, foreign firms voluntarily, and let me say that again, voluntarily notify us of these transactions. I believe notification must be mandatory to ensure that our government knows about all such transactions. My amendment would also retain the Secretary of the Treasury as the chairperson of the committee. The President would be required to approve or disapprove of all transactions. Today, if the President takes no action, the transaction is automatically approved. The review period would automatically extend to the full 75 days. Current practice allows most transactions to be reviewed within 30 days, with an additional 45 days only if flags are raised. Congress must be notified of Presidential decisions. Furthermore, Congress could overturn approvals within 30 days by a joint resolution. Today, Congress is notified of a CFIUS transaction only when the President disapproves one. Within 90 days of enactment, the administration would also be required to report to Congress on foreign ownership of all U.S. critical infrastructure. Today, no one really knows how much of our critical infrastructure is in the hands of foreign companies and foreign governments. Failing to fix the inherent flaws in the CFIUS process leaves our Nation vulnerable in the future. We should not take that chance. We should act now to strengthen the foreign investment review process. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so this amendment can be made in order and the House can vote on this important issue.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to celebrate Black History Month by recognizing distinguished Minnesota legislators who are civil and human rights leaders: Minnesota State Representatives Neva Walker and Keith Ellison. Representative Neva Walker was born and raised in Minneapolis, and attended the University of Minnesota. A ``community baby,'' as referred to by elders, Walker comes from a family deeply involved in the community, especially the Sabathani Community Center which is a pillar of the community and a source of assistance to many. Walker grew up with this sort of activism, and she now embodies it herself. Representative Walker was encouraged to run for office when lobbying Minneapolis City Hall on housing issues. When she learned that no African American woman had served in the Minnesota Legislature, this firmed her resolve to run for office. In 2000, Neva Walker was elected to the Minnesota House where she continues to address disparities of all kinds: health, poverty, racial profiling and out-of-home placement. Representative Walker has a son, and is the youngest of seven children herself. In addition to her service in the State House, Rep. Walker contributes with many community involvements such as the Blaisdell YMCA board, the ``GirlsBEST'' initiative through the Women's Foundation of Minnesota, and the Minneapolis Youth Coordinating Board. She takes every opportunity reach out to people, speaking to groups that range from children in daycare to college students. ``I consider myself a seed planter,'' Walker said about her efforts. ``I'm always trying to educate and bring useful information to people, especially youth, people of color and women.'' Representative Walker believes it critical to get civil rights issues back into the public's eye. Disparities in poverty and the justice system are too great to stand idly by, she said. Representative Keith Ellison was born in Detroit, attended Wayne State University and then came to Minneapolis to attend the University of Minnesota Law School. As a student, he first got involved in the anti-Apartheid movement. He and his wife have four children. ``I was raised in a household where I was encouraged to question things,'' he said. His grandfather had worked for voting rights, and Ellison grew up listening to stories of those experiences. Ellison's activism continued, and evolved into his profession as a trial lawyer, working on death penalty cases in Louisiana, as well as indigent defense work. Today at the Ellison Law Office, his legal work consists of criminal cases, civil rights cases and family law. Ellison was first elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives in 2002. He said that instead of cajoling and persuading government leaders to pursue worthy programs, he was determined to work for change from inside the system. ``When you're a community activist, you propose change,'' he said. ``But when you're in office as a public official, you make the change.'' As one of two black Representatives in Minnesota, Ellison believes he helps to improve the level of engagement for people of color in the state. ``I think all people need to have equal access to their government.'' He continues to work on issues of environmental justice, equal justice in the courts, voting rights, and public safety. He is also a cofounder of the Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota, which deals with environmental hazards posed by pollution. Ellison believes that the civil rights movement forever changed America, but that Americans must still work for economic, health, educational and social equality for all people. Mr. Speaker, Neva Walker and Keith Ellison are dedicated public servants who are making unique contributions to their communities, working for all people, but especially African Americans and other people of color, women, and the poor. They are committed to bringing the promise of America to all its people, and work day in and day out to achieve that ideal. I commend them for their activism and their service in the Minnesota Legislature, and their dedication to making their communities, our State, and our world a better place.

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. The enacted fiscal year 2006 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act provides $6.583 million for the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture and fully funds foreign treatment centers through the United States Agency for International Development. Both the House and Senate versions of the Labor HHS Appropriations bill provide $9.915 million for domestic torture treatment centers. We must continue to support a strong congressional commitment for programs under the Torture Victims Relief Act. Minneapolis, MN 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. 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 started by the Center for Victims of Torture in Minnesota. I have seen victims made whole after they 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 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, I rise in support of H.R. 3989 and join my Democratic and Republican colleagues from Minnesota in their unanimous support for designating the post office in Dennison, Minnesota as the ``Albert Harold Quie Post Office.'' Albert Quie is a well-respected former Minnesota Governor, U.S. Representative, and state senator. He grew up on a farm near his hometown of Dennison. Al Quie was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in a special election in 1958 and served here for over 20 years. Governor Quie left the U.S. House in late 1978 to return to Minnesota after his successful gubernatorial bid. While I never served alongside Governor Quie, I've always respected his integrity and humility in his commitment to public service. Again, I rise in support of naming the Dennison, MN, post office after Albert Harold Quie.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, as people around the globe observe World Food Prize Day, I am honored to recognize Norman E. Borlaug, a man who worked wonders to boost agricultural production and helped reverse widespread hunger in many countries. A former University of Minnesota instructor, Borlaug is also an alumnus, having earned his bachelor's, master's and Ph.D. there. Borlaug grew up on a farm, and became impassioned about the prospect of combating a wheat disease called rust late into his studies for his bachelor's degree. After 10 years of research, Borlaug developed a semidwarf variety of wheat that resisted rust and other diseases, was insensitive to light so that it could grow in a variety of climates, and was short and stalky enough to be heavily fertilized. In time, he would become known as the Father of the Green Revolution. By taking his wheat variety to Mexico in 1944, the country became self-sufficient in wheat production by 1956. By 1963, more than 95% of Mexico's wheat lands grew Borlaug's variety. He took his success to other countries, notably India and Pakistan, reversing food shortages and helping to feed millions of people. He went on to train agronomists from every part of the world. Borlaug was often warned that small farmers would never accept new technology. But he did not accept that judgment and worked tirelessly in the fields to earn trust, make doubters into believers, and change agriculture practices. Borlaug also clearly understood that small peasant farmers needed more than improved farming production to be successful. Helpful economic policy had to exist to support the new technology, make the needed products available, and ensure fair grain prices. He has focused much time and energy to improve food distribution within countries, as well. ``If you don't do anything, you'll never have critics,'' Borlaug was known to have said. Although people questioned his technology or criticized it, it is believed that he saved more lives than any other person who has ever lived. He has also been called a ``peaceful revolutionary'' and a ``consultant to governments of every political ideology.'' Borlaug won the esteemed Nobel Peace Prize in 1970. In 2002, he received the National Academy of Science's highest honor, the Public Welfare Medal, for his work to fight hunger. He is the recipient of more than 49 honorary doctoral degree and many scientific and civic awards from around the globe. Because there was no similar award recognizing advancement in food production, Borlaug helped found the World Food Prize, celebrated yearly in October. Mr. Speaker, as my home state celebrates Norman Borlaug Day and World Food Prize Day on October 16, I wish to extend my most humble gratitude and congratulations to this tireless and dedicated public servant. Norman Borlaug saw an opportunity to better lives, and he fought for it. He has spent a lifetime working to help countries adapt practices and policies to help them feed their people. Thank you, Norman Borlaug. This nation--and many nations--thank you.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act suggests that a number of factors are considered to measure the severity, magnitude and impact of a disaster and authorizes FEMA to provide individual assistance. I would be happy to work with the gentlewoman from Florida to get this corrected within current FEMA statutory authorities and provide equitable assistance to all victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in total agreement.

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

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. When the House passed the 2006 Homeland Security appropriations bill, I said that the bill represented a substantial improvement over the President's budget request. The conference report does as well. I said that the bill included better funding for border enforcement, separate programs for transit and port security. This conference report does those same things. I said that the House bill toughened up air cargo screening, privacy safeguards and the designation of security-sensitive information. This conference report includes these initiatives. However, I also said that I had reservations about some parts of the House bill, and I continue to have those concerns. I have more reservations because of changes made to the bill in conference. I am a strong minority who has strong reservations about the shift in distributing State and local grant funds from being based on population to being based on the Department of Homeland Security's assessment of risk and threat. These are funds that flow to State governments to be reallocated, at least 80 percent to local government. Last year, less than 40 percent of these grant funds went out by threat. This year 78 percent of the funding will go out by this threat measurement. I wonder how the DHS risk model and threat model will assess and treat Michigan, a border State, as compared to North Carolina, a hurricane-prone State. Only two of the Department's 15 threat scenarios are based on natural disasters. As a result, I worry that our Nation may be less prepared for the disasters that we know will occur. My observation of the Department over the last several years leave me with little confidence that they are going to make fair judgments or correct judgments in making their allocation. I am disappointed that this agreement does not do more to strengthen chemical plant security. In the conference, I offered an amendment, a simple amendment, to give the Homeland Security Secretary the authority he needs to issue requirements for security standards and plans for facilities he determines to present the greatest security risk. We should demand the Department get serious about hardening these chemical facilities. However, my amendment failed on a party-line vote. I also have reservations about Secretary Chertoff's reorganization proposal, which is rubber stamped by this conference report. This reorganization plan was submitted to Congress barely 3 months ago, and we have not taken the time to evaluate it carefully. This reorganization was developed before the Department's poor Hurricane Katrina performance. It further weakens FEMA by severing its relationship to preparedness programs. I strongly believe that this is a mistake. So, Mr. Speaker, as in so many bills, there are good things and bad things in this conference report. Members must make their own judgment. On balance, I will vote ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, on this motion, there is lots of rhetoric here, but we are simply saying, let us take the time to think. Shortly after the flood with Katrina, somebody asked me what I thought we should do. I said we should do something unusual in this place, take the time to think before we jump to a conclusion. Here we have plans by an agency developed some time ago that we really have not looked at in Congress. Maybe everything that the Secretary says is true. Maybe I am wrong and he is right; we should not have an enhanced FEMA, we should have a weakened FEMA. But let us look at it before we rush to say to do it. I do not think you can separate preparedness from people with the responsibility to carry it through. Henry Ford once said he did not want a ``planned society,'' but he wanted a ``planning society.'' The two are very fundamentally different. One is that you have a process of thinking what you are going to do, and I think ultimately it has to be tied in to those folks who were involved in implementing whatever plans you are developing, which are constantly evolving. Here we come with somebody who, it may look good to a lawyer who likes a good, concise brief, but has not been involved in the day-to- day responding to emergencies. The people I hear him talk to who respond to emergencies tell me that it is just a very fundamental mistake to separate preparedness from the people who implement those preparedness plans. So, Mr. Speaker, if you want us to take a pause, think before we act, to think before we let the Department act, vote ``yes'' on the Sabo motion if we think there is a better chance we might do it right in the end.

Mr. SABO. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules.