Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

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

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, on March 28, 2004, the State of Hockey made history once again. The University of Minnesota Golden Gopher women's ice hockey team defeated Harvard 6-2 to win the NCAA women's ice hockey championship. This marks the first NCAA championship for any women's sport at the University of Minnesota and was a true Minnesota effort as 12 of the 20 women on the roster are Minnesotans. Winning the national championship was the crown jewel on an already spectacular season. The Golden Gophers defeated Dartmouth in the national semifinal 5-1 and former national champions the University of Minnesota-Duluth for the Western Collegiate Hockey Association championship. The Golden Gophers' final record for 2003-2004 was a stunning 30 wins, 4 losses and 2 ties. The Gophers' championship season also yielded a number of individual honors. Coach Laura Halldorson was named the American Hockey Coaches Association's Division I Women's Coach of the Year. Sophomore Krissy Wendell was named tournament MVP. Five Golden Gophers were named to the NCAA all-tournament team: Krissy Wendell, Natalie Darwitz, Allie Sanchez, Jody Horak, and Kelly Stephens. This represents the most national all-tournament honors awarded to any Golden Gophers team in history. Mr. Speaker, Minnesota is, and will always remain, the State of Hockey. I congratulate the players, coaches, staff, and fans for this wonderful achievement. And with most of the team back next year, we hope to be back here celebrating again.

Mr. SABO

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that 20 minutes would be controlled by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and 20 minutes by someone else on the other side.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise in opposition to the amendment. The amendment is well-intentioned. However, one of the problems we have in this bill constantly is that while we call it homeland security, it incorporates many pre-existing programs that provide very crucial and important services in this country. One of the things that we have been involved with for a long, long time through FEMA is dealing with floods. The mapping program is already reduced from last year's level, and this would be another $20 million reduction in that very important program. I think while the amendment is well-intentioned, where the money comes from does not make sense to me.

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

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides $5 million for the Department of Homeland Security to analyze whether critical infrastructure facilities should be required to provide information about their security vulnerabilities to the Department. These resources are needed because the Bush administration is not working aggressively enough with the owners of critical infrastructure such as chemical plants to identify and address security issues. This modest amount of money to focus the analysis on vulnerable facilities could save us countless lives and resources in the future. The Department currently lacks meaningful security information on these facilities and is in no hurry to collect it or require it to be provided. Under its current plan, the Department will take years to gather information for all of the 30,000 entities classified as critical infrastructure. In fact, this year DHS only plans again to gather information on 4,000 such entities. For one sector of the U.S. critical infrastructure, chemical facilities, the General Accounting Office found that no comprehensive information exists on the industry's security vulnerabilities, and many facilities have neither assessed their vulnerabilities nor improved their security. This is the state we are in today, despite years of warnings from experts and the FBI having identified chemical facilities as clear terrorist targets. According to GAO, there are 709 chemical facilities in the U.S. where a ``worst case'' release would affect 100,000 or more Americans. Members may want to take a close look at this map to see where these facilities are located in their States. There are about 2,300 more facilities where a ``worst case'' chemical release could affect over 10,000 people and about 15,000 chemical facilities that use or store at least one of 140 hazardous chemicals. In an appropriations hearing this spring, the Under Secretary responsible for infrastructure protection described what the Department has been doing to address security concerns. He said: ``When we visited in the first round, we were first about helping them assess the situation . . . we have returned in personal visits or in a conference call and attempted to start to develop plans, what I call operational plans, to truly improve the security of the facility.'' Conference calls to develop security plans? Are we really serious? More than 2\1/2\ years after 9/11 the Bush administration still thinks that improved chemical facility and critical infrastructure security can be controlled. I think that the Department should be reviewing vulnerability assessment, not conducting them. That is the heart of what we are saying here. The Department should be reviewing vulnerability assessments done by the plants, not conducting them. They should be reviewing security plans, not making them. They should be checking on facilities to make sure that the security improvements identified in the plans are made. Is this something unique, something new? No. The fact is the Federal Government already requires such security measures for ports, water utilities, and, believe it or not, chemical facilities that have water access. So if their chemical plant has water access, the requirements to do vulnerability assessments exists; if they are not on a waterway, then it does not exist. For some reason unknown to me, we do not require them for these other critical infrastructures. While I prefer to offer an amendment that requires such assessments and security plans to be provided for Department review, it would not be in order. However, at a minimum the Department should seriously evaluate the path it takes in gathering this critical infrastructure information. I urge the Members to support this crucial amendment.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, this is a provision that fundamentally continues what is existing law that is applied for this. I think it is unfortunate that the point of order is raised. I think this amendment deals with some of the most sensitive privacy issues that are involved with the Department of Homeland Security. On the other hand, I understand that this is legislation in the bill, and, unfortunately, it is being struck.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, we have a growing list of Members who want to give speeches, and I ask the gentleman to withdraw the request for 1 minute.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with that, with the exception that the time on our side should be controlled by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), who is authoring the amendment.

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

Mr. SABO. I think that has been done.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, continuing to reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to find out whether I should pursue the point of order or not, and I get different interpretations of the gentleman's amendment and what it is intended to do. If it does not do much or anything, then I think the amendment is in order. On the other hand, the rules say we cannot legislate on an appropriation bill, and if it does something, then it seems to me it may not be in order.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, so the gentleman's judgment is the amendment does not do anything?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I know we have Members' concerned and who want to discuss this issue. But the amendment has left me confused. But I do recall a year ago I was confused by an amendment and after some discussion, the House voted the amendment down. And so I am still trying to sort out if it does something or does not do something.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Colorado agree?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order and reserve my time. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa). (Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time, which I think is 30 seconds, to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).