Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it amazes me that Secretary Chertoff thinks there has been no structural change to FEMA. I think everyone in the world knows there has been a structural change to FEMA. It was an independent, free-standing agency; now it is a weak part of a weak department. Where are the records of all these people that the Secretary has talked to? Maybe Congress, before we approve some fundamental restructuring, should hear from one, two, three, maybe five outside witnesses, maybe from some who ran FEMA when it was a good functioning agency even. There has been no outside testimony that I know of. There was not in our committee. There was not in the authorizing committee that I know of. Maybe there was someplace. But let us have some people come and testify to us so we can ask questions. That has not happened. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me quickly respond to my friend from Iowa. FEMA, we have spent the last year dismantling FEMA. What was FEMA? FEMA was not an operational agency, it was a coordinating agency. I do not understand all of this talk I am hearing today. It was working with State and local communities and making plans. It was to work with a wide variety of Federal agencies that go way beyond those that are included in the Department of Homeland Security. It existed with cabinet-level status. If the director of FEMA called a department head and they knew that the director of FEMA had the President's ear, they listened. Today I do not know that. Somebody that is three levels down in a new department that is floundering, is not working, calls some other agency and there is a slow response, surprise. Mr. Speaker, we had a system, we should have built on it. Instead, we destroyed it. We are saying okay, let us have Congress look at it a little bit. Mr. Chertoff is going to implement this on October 1. There have been hearings in Congress, three. Four questions on FEMA; one on preparedness. And that was it. That is Congress' involvement in looking at the major restructuring of this program. Any outside witnesses? No. It is about time we do our work. Before we let somebody who has not done anything in his new office except draw a plan for restructuring have unbridled authority to do it, let us have Congress do some work. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Katrina shined a bright spotlight on troubling gaps in our Nation's homeland security. We all saw what it means to be unprepared: people die and suffer needlessly. Americans are patiently waiting for competence and accountability from the Congress and the President. Our capacity to deal with catastrophe may actually have gotten worse since the Department of Homeland Security was created in 2003. The people demand that we fix what is broken. Last week, Secretary Chertoff told me about his vision for improving national preparedness and response. What he said scares the living daylights out of me. In the Department's sixth reorganization plan in 2\1/2\ years, the Secretary proposes to sever the last ties between Federal disaster preparedness and response. He unveiled this proposal in July, before Katrina; and he is still determined to implement it on October 1. With all due respect, the Secretary is dead wrong about what is most needed at the Federal level to coordinate and lead local, State, and Federal agencies in preparing for and responding to a major disaster, whether it is natural or man-made. If we have learned one thing in the past month, it should be that disaster preparedness and response must go hand in hand. Not long ago, FEMA did that well. The agency was robust, proactive and proved how good planning and coordination are critical to effective response. Congress should demand a pause before Secretary Chertoff implements more organizational changes that will further weaken FEMA. It is the first step toward fixing our broken emergency management system. This motion to instruct would do just that. It directs conferees to insist that the preparedness title of the conference agreement be in the same form as the House bill. The effect is to put a hold on the Secretary's reorganization plan for preparedness. Let me add that it lets other parts of his reorganization proceed. If he wants to take the air marshals from ICE and put them back in TSA where they were originally, fine. But this puts a hold on his preparedness plans. The House should take this stand. Otherwise, DHS will simply shuffle organizational boxes again instead of tackling head-on the problems that Hurricane Katrina laid bare. At the very least, we should take time to think through the Department's preparedness plans in light of Katrina. We need to analyze what went wrong so we know how to fix things before the next catastrophe. It should be clear to everyone that we have not yet learned those hard lessons. I see two keys to addressing the problems that Hurricane Katrina exposed: first, we need a unified, Federal ``all-hazards'' emergency management agency. It must have the stature, the resources and the clout to lead, coordinate, and demand the very best of local and State governments and other Federal agencies in planning for and responding to major disasters. Equally important, the President needs to appoint and empower well-qualified and respected emergency management professionals to lead this agency. There is no substitute for competent and accountable leadership. Mr. Speaker, before FEMA was merged with DHS, it was a robust and experienced FEMA. We can rebuild it. We still have the blueprints. If you want to take us another step in weakening FEMA, vote ``no'' on this motion to instruct. If you think we should maybe take some time to think, then vote ``yes,'' because it is the right thing to do. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise in strong support for this bill and this supplemental appropriation. The Congress clearly needs to pass it as quickly as we can, but let me make just a few random comments. I think it is obvious to most of us, or at least to me and some others, that the Federal Government probably would have responded more quickly and in a more professional manner to this crisis if FEMA existed as it existed before the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and I think that is an issue at some point we have to deal with. Secondly, I think it is appropriate that we deal with this bill quickly and as a supplemental appropriation today and do it quickly so we can meet real urgent, current needs. However, at some point, as this need and the need for a supplemental grows, at some point we should follow regular order and have the administration respond to our committees and respond to questions and to build their case for what their plans are on what I expect will be a significantly larger amount of money that is being spent. So while we proceed today, clearly we should plan, I would hope, the next time we face a bill, at least some committee hearings where Members can ask questions and the administration is required to provide some more detailed plans. Thirdly, clearly the administration, we and everyone is guessing at what some of the needs are going to be, but one concern I have, what is lacking and that I have heard no discussion of, is we have dealt with kids in college, but we have thousands of kids in elementary and secondary education who have been uprooted from their homes, been uprooted from where they were planning to go to school a very short time ago and scattered throughout the country. They are going to have some very unique problems, and I have heard no discussion by the Department of Education of providing any additional funding for these kids in whatever school districts they end up around the country. I think that clearly should be the responsibility of the Federal Government. I think they are going to have unique needs in terms of counseling, and it is going to put additional burdens for additional students on school districts; but if there are any plans for doing it, they have escaped me. So I would hope the administration, the Department of Education would move very quickly to develop some realistic plans on how we deal with kids who are going through great turmoil and are going to face the uncertainty of being in schools that they were not planning on. So we need to pass this bill, but we have got lots more work to do.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the Income Equity Act of 2005. I have long believed that the growing wage gap in our country is a big problem that we need to address. Wage disparities between high- and low-income households are the largest on record. My legislation would encourage companies to evaluate their pay scale with a focus on those paid the lowest wages. The Income Equity Act of 2005 would do two things: For tax purposes, companies are currently able to deduct reasonable employee compensation from their taxable income--up to $1 million dollars. My legislation would cap the top write-off for a company at 25 times whatever the lowest paid full-time employee earns. In other words, if the lowest paid worker makes $20,000 in a year, the highest salary write-off would be $500,000--25 times the lowest salary. But the important part is linking top to the bottom. My goal is that companies would be encouraged to evaluate their entire payscale--with an incentive to re- evaluate the lowest salaries paid. My legislation also addresses payment in the form of stocks. Our tax code currently has no jurisdiction over compensation in the form of stock options or unrestricted stock, which is where most high-paid executives are deriving the bulk of their bounty these days. I am not suggesting that we limit CEO pay. However, I believe that hard-working Americans should earn enough money to properly feed, house and clothe their families, and American businesses have a role to play. The idea for the Income Equity Act occurred to me during a Congressional trip to Mexico in the early 90s where I witnessed extraordinary wealth alongside with heart-breaking poverty. For years, we've been hearing reports of the growing gap between high wage earners and low wage earners. And this year is no different. As reported by many national magazines in annual executive pay surveys, salary increases continue to be more and more disproportionate. Business Week magazine, for example, reported that average CEO compensation rose 15 percent in the past year, while average worker compensation rose a mere 2.9 percent. And in some cases, lavish rewards continue to be heaped on executives with little to no correlation to stock performance or the fiscal health of the company. The Census Bureau's most recent report shows that the disparities between high- and middle-income and the gap between high- and low- income households are the largest (or tied for the largest) on record since this data has been available. In 1979, the total income of the top 1 percent equaled the income of the bottom 27 percent. In 2000, the total income of the top 1 percent equaled the income of the bottom 48 percent. That ratio still stands today. People at the bottom of the income ladder suffer when they can't support themselves by their wages. In the end, our entire society pays when those being left behind must rely on government support for food, housing and health care. Income inequality also threatens our democratic principles: Americans hold deeply the view that every person willing to work hard should be rewarded. But equal opportunity is undermined when most workers do not fairly share in the wealth created by their work. To illustrate this point, one person earning a minimum wage would have to work 11,660 years to earn what the top-paid CEO made in 2004-- which was $120.1 million. This is outrageous, and our government should not be in the business of encouraging or subsidizing such disparity. While developing the assembly line and Ford Motor Co., Henry Ford firmly believed that all of his employees should be able to afford to buy the cars they were making. His compensation philosophy didn't just serve his employees well. It provided Ford Motor Company with a workforce that had incredible morale, high productivity, loyalty and ongoing recruiting success. Mr. Speaker, there is no bad job, just bad pay. Removing tax deductions for excessive compensation sends the message that American taxpayers expect companies to do better by their workers.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, am I correct that the superintendent, the head of the Air Force, has indicated it is a problem and it would take him 6 years to fix the problem?

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

Mr. SABO. And the chaplain at the Air Force who blew the whistle on this problem is no longer there?

Mr. SABO. The minister of the church that I go to locally is a former Navy chaplain and also served in the Marines. He felt strongly enough about this issue it was part of his sermon yesterday. His response to the 6-year problem was that if this were a problem for the Marines, it would have been taken care of in 6 weeks or less. I would only suggest there is a problem. It is obvious it is great. The amendment is sort of mild. If the Air Force is with it, they will get it taken care of shortly before any of the reports in either of these amendments are required.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise to oppose this rule. Funding government is about money, but it is also about how that money is used. This rule leaves unprotected virtually all of the good government provisions in the homeland security appropriations bill. This rule should be defeated. What does it do? It leaves unprotected provisions that will increase the screening of air cargo trade on passenger and other aircraft. If my colleagues think we are doing a good job of screening air cargo on passenger planes today, vote for this rule. If my colleagues think we should do what Congress has said in increasing screening on air cargo on passenger planes, then vote ``no'' on this rule. This rule leaves unprotected a provision that will fund additional explosive detection equipment to check airline passengers and carry-on and checked bags. This rule leaves unprotected a provision that will ensure that passenger prescreening programs are secure and that the public's vital information is protected. This rule leaves unprotected provisions to protect taxpayers' dollars from being spent on programs that are not well planned and properly implemented. This rule leaves unprotected $84 million for checking airline crews and passengers against the government's terrorist watch list. Is that really what we want to do? This rule leaves unprotected $150 million for port security grants. This rule leaves unprotected a provision to ensure that those managing big government contracts have the proper training to do so. If you believe that the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Agency are managing contracts with quality and professional management, then vote for the rule. If you believe there are troubles, as indicated by report after report from the Inspector General and the General Accounting Office, then vote ``no'' on this rule. This rule leaves unprotected a provision to ensure that only truly sensitive information is designated as such. The Department's current approach permits everyone at TSA to designate any document as sensitive and, therefore, not releasable to the public. This rule does not allow the Obey amendment to fund the border security requirements of the Intelligence Reform Act and the REAL ID Act. This rule should be defeated. The subcommittee developed a responsible bill that provided proper and necessary Congressional oversight of critical homeland security programs. This rule allows that oversight to be decimated. The fact is that the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), did an outstanding job in developing a bill with proper oversight to present to the House. This rule would allow one-fourth, or a total of 14 pages of this bill, to be deleted. We are here to conduct serious oversight of the Department of Homeland Security, not simply to rubber stamp the administration's budget request. I oppose this rule and urge Members to vote against it.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the reason I move to strike the last word rather than speaking directly to the amendment is because I have mixed emotions. I think the problem the gentleman from New Jersey presents to us is one of the most important and most profound ones we face in the whole question of homeland security. His amendment bothers me for two reasons: One, I think there are real problems where the money is coming from; and, secondly, I am concerned that we are transferring this problem from the Federal Government to the State governments. Because dealing with chemical security and the security of chemical plants is truly a national problem and not one that should be the ultimate problem of State governments. The Department, in my judgment, has been incredibly slow in dealing with the problem. The Congress has been slow in dealing with the problem. A year ago we provided $3 million to the Department for a study on whether they should require vulnerability assessments and security plans from the chemical plants. The study has not occurred. We do have language in this bill that urges them to do more in the next year. I hope they listen to that more than what they did to the provision of $3 million last year. But I would suggest to my friend from New Jersey that the format that we should be following is really what we did in the Maritime Transportation Security Act as it relates to ports. What we required in that bill was for ports to do vulnerability assessments and produce security plans themselves, and that is what the major chemical plants in this country should be doing. We should not be assessing them, they should be developing their own vulnerability assessments and security plans. And then, as in the Maritime Security Act, where the Coast Guard assesses the plans, that is what we should be doing with chemical plants. The bulk of the responsibility for implementing those security plans should be with the chemical companies, not with the State. It should not be with the Federal Government, in my judgment, let alone with the States. And I am concerned that we are putting up the assumption that this is now becoming a responsibility we are delegating from the Federal Government to the States. So the gentleman is absolutely right. This is one of the biggest vulnerabilities that we have. The Department has not been paying attention to it. The Congress has not been willing to deal with the issue of whether this is something we want simply the Federal Government to do or whether we should be requiring the chemical plants, at least the major ones, to have the vulnerability assessments and the security plans and then they submit them to the Department for their evaluation. From there, we can move as to how you remedy the security plans and how you make judgment on the funding you need for local people who might have to respond to an emergency. So I have mixed emotions about this amendment. I have problems with their premise with the offset and the basic delegation to the States, but the amendment raises, I think, one of the most crucial problems we face in homeland security. And to the other gentleman from New Jersey, who talked about a comprehensive bill he was introducing, I think that is the direction we should be going.

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, in the supplemental bill that we just passed, there was $36 million that had been appropriated for the northern border which the Department was not spending, and with the cooperation of the chairman, we inserted specific language telling the Department to spend the $36 million on the northern border.

Mr. SABO

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, under my reservation, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve my point of order, and I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the gentleman explain the amendment to me. What is it that somebody at the Federal level has to do?

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, who would make this determination?

Mr. SABO. How would they know how to make this judgment?

Mr. SABO. How would they proceed to make this judgment?

Mr. SABO. Are all these laws filed with the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security?