[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 77 (Wednesday, June 12, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3459-H3462]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4775, 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
ACT FOR FURTHER RECOVERY FROM AND RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE
UNITED STATES
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4775) making supplemental
appropriations for further recovery from and response to terrorist
attacks on the United States for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2002, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree
to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the
Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. OBEY moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the Senate amendment to H.R. 4775 be instructed to insist,
for each item directly related to the war on terrorism or
homeland security, on the higher dollar amount in either the
House bill or the Senate amendment and to disagree to any
item that appropriates additional funds earmarked for a
specific project not related to the war on terrorism or
homeland security.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will
be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 9 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct conferees directs the House
Members serving on the conference to convert what has been all too
often merely a rhetorical assault on terrorism into a real war. It
requires that we go to the higher dollar figure on any item directly
related to the war on terrorism, and it also directs that we delete
from the conference report funding for any item that is earmarked for a
specific project or individual Member of Congress. That is to ensure
that this supplemental remains focused on the job before us, fighting
terrorism, and that those engaged in that war on behalf of the American
people have the resources that they need to conduct that war.
I find that ordinary people are somewhat amazed when they find that,
despite all the rhetoric about a war on terrorism, we often continue to
decline to provide the resources needed to actually conduct that
effort. One example is the fact that the Pentagon called up 80,000
Guard and Reservists following September 11.
We need those Reserves because our regular force is overwhelmed with
all of the requirements being placed on them. If you do not believe me,
Secretary Rumsfeld has made that statement. We do not have enough
mechanics to keep all of our planes in the air, we do not have enough
MPs to protect our bases and guard prisoners. But, remarkably, when the
Pentagon told the White House budget office that it would cost $5.8
billion more than was contained in the regular fiscal 2003
appropriation bill to pay the cost of those Guards and Reservists
called up to active duty, the White House budget office told them they
could only have $4.1 billion. As a result, many of those reserves will
have to be sent home early, unless we appropriate a considerable amount
above the White House request. In my view, this is ludicrous. It is one
of those situations that continues because it is so outrageous that
nobody really believes it is going on.
The truth is that some of the same people at the other end of the
avenue who give lectures about the war on terrorism, particularly in
the OMB, are particularly stingy when it comes to providing cash that
is actually needed to conduct the effort. As a result, the resources
needed by those who are actually engaged in that effort are not getting
there and will not get there unless Congress acts to reverse the
request.
I would give the House another example. We have heard a lot of talk
in the last several days about a dirty bomb. The President and
Secretary of Energy, a former Republican Senator, a man named to that
office by the President and confirmed by the Senate when it was still
in Republican hands, a man respected on both sides of the aisle,
Secretary Abraham, has asked that we spend some money in this bill to
deny terrorists access to the radioactive materials that could be used
to build a dirty bomb. He asked that we clean up sites where we used to
make nuclear weapons and increase security at those sites. He asked
that we relocate low level radioactive materials in a central
depository. He asked that we provide more security for the movement of
nuclear weapons.
This the White House Budget Director did not say no to, they said
``hell,
[[Page H3460]]
no.'' I would like to insert in the Record at this point a letter
written by the Assistant Secretary of Energy for the Budget to OMB in
order to demonstrate what I just said.
The Secretary of Energy,
Washington, DC, March 14, 2002.
Hon. Mitchell Daniels, Jr.,
Director, Office of Management and Budget, Eisenhower
Executive Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Daniels: This letter and accompanying enclosure
transmit the Department of Energy's proposal to request
supplemental funding to meet urgent and compelling
requirements for safeguards and security, emergency response,
and energy security and assurance activities.
The Department of Energy is entrusted with the mission of
designing, developing, manufacturing, assembling,
stockpiling, refurbishing, decommissioning, and most
importantly protecting the Nation's critical nuclear complex.
To meet the Department's critical security mission, we are
storing vast amounts of materials that remain highly volatile
and subject to unthinkable consequences if placed in the
wrong hands. These materials permeate the Departmental
complex including sites under the programmatic jurisdiction
of the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Office
of Environmental Management, and the Office of Science.
The events of September 11 resulted in heightened security
throughout the complex. Our sites were directed to conduct
vulnerability assessments based on an evaluation of potential
consequences of the type of event that occurred on September
11. These security vulnerabilities were assessed on a site-
by-site basis and immediate action was taken to mitigate many
of the concerns. As a result, the Department issued Interim
Implementing Guidance to the Design Basis Threat document
that outlined the basis for initial physical security
measures. In conjunction with this guidance, I directed the
Departmental Elements to reassess their security requirements
and associated costs with a view towards maintaining the
highest level of security commensurate with the revised
threat and response strategy. Although the initial
supplemental and funds appropriated by Congress helped
respond to the most urgent near term security needs, the
Department now is unable to meet the next round of critical
security mission requirements.
The funding request of $379.7 million identified in the
enclosure is a critical down payment to the safety and
security of our Nation and its people. Failure to support
these urgent security requirements is a risk that would be
unwise.
I appreciate the time your staff has spent with us in
discussions about the Department's security concerns and
needs. However, as you can see, we need your financial
support to continue addressing the critical security
requirements that face the Department and our Nation.
Accordingly, if you and your senior staff need a more
detailed classified briefing of our requirements, threats,
and strategies, please have your staff contact Mr. Joseph
Mahaley, the Department's Director of Security, at 202-586-
3345.
My point of contact on the specifics of this funding
supplemental request is Dr. Bruce M. Carnes, the Director of
the Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/Chief
Financial Officer, who can be reached on 202-586-4171.
Sincerely,
Spencer Abraham.
____
Department of Energy,
Washington, DC.
Ms. Robin Cleveland,
Program Associate Director, National Security Division,
Office of Management and Budget, Eisenhower Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Cleveland: The Department of Energy is now at a
crucial juncture in executing our safeguards and security
program. The Department's remaining safeguards and security
budgets are not sufficient to implement the security posture
requirements that appropriately respond to the September 11th
attacks. On March 14, the Secretary transmitted to Director
Daniels supplemental funding proposals fro safeguards and
security, emergency response, and energy security. The
Secretary's transmittal letter described the underlying need
to increase our response capabilities for emergencies and
improve the security posture of Department in order to
adequately protect the public, our workers, and the
environment. We appreciate your support for our $26.4 million
supplemental request to increase emergency response efforts,
however, we are very disappointed that we did not get your
support for supplemental security funding.
We are disconcerted that OMB refused our security
supplemental request. I would have much preferred to have
heard this from you personally, and been given an opportunity
to discuss, not to mention, appeal your decision. We were
told by Energy Branch staff that the Department's security
supplemental proposals were not supported because the revised
Design Basis Threat, the document that outlines the basis for
physical security measures, has not been completed. This
isn't a tenable position for you to take, in my view. We are
not operating, and cannot operate under Interim Implementing
Guidance, and you have not provided resources to enable us to
do so.
Given our current security funding and the physical
security situation we face today, Mr. Joseph Mahaley, our
Security Director, and I would like to meet with you to
discuss our fiscal year 2002 and 2003 safeguards and security
concerns. I can be contacted on (202) 586-4171 to arrange
this discussion.
Sincerely,
Bruce M. Carnes,
Director, Office of Management,
Budget and Evaluation/CFO.
Mr. Speaker, we have much the same situation with the FBI. They have
had a huge problem with respect to their computers. The gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young) and I have tried to do everything possible to solve
that problem, both last year and this.
The FBI is ages behind in both the overall architecture of their
computer system and the security of that system. As a result, they have
failed to convert massive amounts of information into a digital format
so that it can be stored in a safe and remote location and so that it
can be shared with agents working in other parts of the country or
shared with other agencies, such as the CIA. The FBI has been asking
for the resources to make that happen. But, again, there apparently are
people running the Justice Department or people in OMB who think it
would be too expensive.
In my view, you do not have to have a master's in public policy from
Harvard or any other school to know that that is just plain nuts.
Almost any person you would meet on the street would tell you that the
$100 million the FBI is asking for to fix that system is cheap compared
to the cost of letting one of those creeps get through the system with
a dirty bomb or biological weapon or any one of the things that could
bring havoc to our cities.
I would oppose spending any money that is not needed, but it is
ridiculous to go down the road we are traveling now, short-sheeting
some of the agencies who need more money now, not next year or the year
after, in order to get the job done. You do not kill terrorists just by
moving boxes on an organizational chart. You also need to back up
whatever changes you make in reorganization with adequate resources.
Those resources cost money, and we ought to provide it.
Now, the differences between the House and the Senate bills are not
large, Mr. Speaker, at least not in relative terms. They have included
earmarks for certain Members which we did not do in the House bill and
which we should not do in the conference report. They have excluded
several of the savings that are in our bill, and some of those we are
going to disagree with. But, to me it is important to keep the Guard
and Reserve funds and the other needed defense funds in this bill, and
this motion would help to do that.
There are other small but important differences. The Senate is above
the House by $5 million for U.S. Attorneys. I ordinarily would not be
standing here asking for more money for U.S. Attorneys, but my
information is that we are putting a real load on prosecutors with all
of the arrests and detentions that we have engaged in, and that that
money is needed.
{time} 1515
They are below us on the U.S. Marshals, and I know that the marshals
also need the money.
What this instruction says is take a look at the needs and go forward
with the conference report that recognizes that we are, in fact, at
war, and ought to be providing these higher levels.
Mr. Speaker, last week, the White House released a document calling
for a new Department of Homeland Security. Perhaps the most compelling
page in that document was an organization chart showing how many
different portions of the government were engaged in the war on terror.
I have a copy of that chart directly from the White House; but I would
point out that what the White House neglected to provide to Congress,
the press, or the American people, was a copy of what the organization
of the war on terror would look like after that reorganization plan was
adopted. What those charts will show is that most of the government
activities related to homeland security will still be untouched.
Now, the debate on reorganization can wait for another day. We
certainly have to have reorganization; and in some areas I think we
have to go further than the administration has so far
[[Page H3461]]
proposed. But the point I am trying to make is that we can pass all of
the reorganizations in the world, and we will still not deal with the
problem, unless we adequately provide the financial resources necessary
to demonstrate that we really mean business in closing the security
gaps that now face this country on the homeland defense front, and that
is the purpose of this motion. It simply says again, and I repeat, it
says that in each instance we should adopt the higher of the two
numbers between the Senate and the House in dealing with gaps in our
homeland defenses, and it says that we should eliminate or not include
in the conference report any dollar items that are meant for the
purpose of what are known as ``Member earmarks.''
I think that is a very plain explanation, and I would ask for a
``yes'' vote on the motion.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
might consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
for offering this motion to instruct, for it gives us an opportunity to
remind our colleagues what it is that we are doing here. We are dealing
with an emergency supplemental appropriations bill to provide for the
defense of the Nation and our homeland security. What we are talking
about is repaying to the military services the funds that they have
expended already on the war in Afghanistan. The services have used
considerable amounts of money that normally would have been reserved
for their fourth quarter training activities and maintenance
activities, quality-of-life activities. So in effect, we are paying
back money that has already been spent because of the war in
Afghanistan.
So our troops are involved, our intelligence community is involved.
We are talking about paying for the safety and security of the United
States, at home and abroad. We are talking about recovery in New York
City; and we are talking about promoting U.S. foreign policy to prevent
future terrorist attacks. In other words, we were a government
mobilized after the terrible, terrible attack on September 11 to
protect America, to protect Americans, and to do everything humanly
possible to guarantee that those tragedies are not allowed to happen
again.
So I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for giving us the
opportunity to discuss this. But I cannot support his motion to
instruct for a very simple reason, and it is not that I disagree with
some of the items that he has spoken of and that he would like to see
done. I know the gentleman from Wisconsin and I both have visited the
agencies that he has mentioned and we both understand the needs that
they have to bring their technology into the 21st century, for example.
But the gentleman from Wisconsin is an experienced expert negotiator;
and I think because of that expertise, he understands that if we were
to pass this motion to instruct, we would take away much of the
flexibility of the conference committee to resolve many of the
differences that exist between the House and the Senate.
The Senate bill is approximately $3 billion higher than the House
bill. It does contain some special projects that were added in the
other body which I would like to see taken from the bill, and I would
like to have the opportunity to negotiate some of those special
projects out of the bill, because from what I have seen of the bill so
far, there are numerous projects that were added there that I do not
think belong in this bill. But we have to have the ability and the
opportunity to negotiate with our counterparts in the other body to
reach a conference agreement that we can bring back to both Houses and
pass quickly and get this bill to the President.
What is happening, Mr. Speaker, is that here we are in the middle of
June. If the services do not have these monies replaced by July 1,
their planning is already set to stand down training operations, to
stand down sailing Navy ships, Navy vessels, to stand down flight
hours, training hours for pilots. I do not want that to happen. So we
need to expedite this, and we need to have the ability to conduct
negotiations that are necessary to get this conference completed, and
then passed by the House and the Senate, and then sent to the President
for his approval.
So I think the gentleman's motion is well intended, but I think it
really ties our hands behind our backs on the part of those of us who
will be part of this conference that will be leading the negotiations
with the other body.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I know my good friend from Florida, the chairman of the
committee, and I do not think that he is any happier to have to fight
this war on terrorism, at least in terms of resources, with one hand
tied behind his back, any more than I am. And I think it is fair at
this point to state what the record has been in the past on this issue.
After the tragic events of September 11, we were asked by the White
House Budget Office to provide emergency funding of an unlimited nature
for an unlimited number of years, a blank check. Both the chairman and
I said no, we were not going to write a blank check to anybody; and we
sat down and immediately worked out a compromise. Within 10 days, we
had sent to the White House a bill that contained $40 billion in
emergency resources to deal with those events.
We then proceeded to, as he said, visit security agencies all over
town. We spent almost 5 days gathering information from the security
agencies: NSA, CIA, Centers for Disease Control, FBI. You name it, we
talked to them about what their emergency needs were, and we tried to
meet them. In the end, over the threat of a veto from the White House,
we were able to put almost $4 billion in additional funds into the
appropriation bill to fight terrorism.
If we had listened to the OMB rather than our own instincts and
rather than listening to the agencies who were charged with the
responsibility for fighting that war, if we had done that instead of
listening to those agencies, we would not have fixed the problem that
the FBI had with its computer system. They had a problem under which
more than 50 percent of their computers could not even send a picture
of a terrorist to another FBI computer around the country. We fixed
that, because we appropriated more money than was requested. We added
to the security of our ports and our borders by providing more money
than was requested. So we did not have to rely on traffic cones as
deterrants on the U.S.-Canadian border in the unguarded checkpoints on
that border. We took care of that problem.
In the supplemental which is now before us, this committee has tried
to respond, even though the White House Budget Office did not. We tried
to respond fully to the request of the FBI that they be given
additional funds in order to hire the translators that are necessary so
that some of the information which is lying on the floor in some of our
security agencies can actually be reviewed. The Immigration and
Naturalization Service asked for money for which they were at least
partially denied; they asked for money so that they could institute a
new system so that they would actually know when someone had overstayed
their visa and had been asked to leave the country and had declined to
do so. The Immigration and Naturalization Service wanted a system which
would enable them to track those people so that we can give them the
thumb and get them out of the country. Our bill corrected the oversight
of OMB.
Air marshals. They still are not able to communicate directly with
the ground. The House bill makes an attempt to fix that. It also made
an attempt to correct the problem created by the White House Budget
Office declining to approve the Pentagon request for the funds needed
to reimburse them fully for the activation of the Guard and Reserves to
fill in until we can train additional personnel.
So I fully admit that this motion would cost more money than the
administration has asked for. I make no apology for it. I think it is
needed. I think the average citizen would too, and I would urge Members
to vote ``yes'' on the motion.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
[[Page H3462]]
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, let me speak briefly to the motion that is before us
insofar as it relates to parts of the supplemental that are not the
military branch part; specifically, the Transportation Security
Administration, which our subcommittee deals with. The House-passed
bill includes some $3.8 billion in the supplemental for the TSA. We
have yet to receive from the TSA the justifications for those figures.
Yet the Senate bill, if we go along with this motion, if this motion
passes and we have to go to the higher figure in the Senate bill, some
$4.7 billion, we have no justifications for it. I cannot show to my
colleagues the documents that say, this is what we actually have to
have.
In the House-passed bill, we already gave more than was requested for
several items. For example, we said, here is $20 million. Replace all
of the magnetometers in 429 airports in the country, because the new
state-of-the-art magnetometers will save the need for a lot of hand
wands that are now searching you as you go through. The new machines
will do that work for us. It will save many of us taking our shoes off
as we go through the airport and having somebody, a federally paid
employee, carry your shoes to be searched.
{time} 1530
Those requests were not in the administration request. Yet, we put it
in there, because we think it will save money down the pike. But we
have yet to receive the justifications for the monies that we included
in the House-passed version of the bill, which is significantly less
for TSA than the Senate figures.
If this motion should pass and we have to go to the higher levels in
the Senate bill, then who knows how many employees they are going to
hire. At first they said, we need 33,000 people. A few weeks later they
said, no, it is going to be more like 60,000. By the time we had our
hearing, they were up to 73,000.
We said, whoa, let us stand back and talk about this. So we put a
level in our House-passed bill that they cannot exceed in terms of the
numbers of employees of TSA during the remainder of this fiscal year,
45,000 people, max. If we have to go to the higher Senate figure, then
that personnel level is out the window.
We think it is wise to have some discipline, I say to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), on that hiring process during the remainder
of this fiscal year that is covered by the supplemental.
In addition, we also put in the bill monies to allow the air marshals
that are flying in the planes to be able to communicate independently
to ground stations. That was not requested, and yet we think it is a
very important thing at a modest cost. So I think there are a lot of
items in the House-passed bill that perhaps would be negated if we were
to have to go to the higher levels on the Senate bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would simply like to say that I completely agree with the remarks
made by the gentleman with respect to the Transportation Security
Agency. There is no question that that agency so far has been without a
clue, and they are out of control. I think the gentleman has played an
excellent role in trying to introduce them to reality.
Let me simply say that obviously that agency needs to be straightened
out, but I am sure that he understands as well that eventually that
agency is going to have to receive more money than is in either bill,
probably.
I would be, for instance, very interested in working out a proposal
under which we would appropriate the money that is needed to that
agency, but hold it in reserve until they meet the standards that the
gentleman has laid out, because I think both of us want to deal with
the problem. We simply want to make sure we are not throwing money at
an agency that does not know what to do with it.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's
thoughts, and he is correct. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. We
are right now, as the gentleman knows, in the process of gearing up for
the 2003 appropriations bills. In fact, I just got off the phone with
the Secretary of Transportation about this bill and the 2003 bills
coming up. In fact, we hope to mark up the 2003 bills in a few days,
even, which will give us the chance to take a second look and see what
is needed down the pike in 2003 without having to address that at this
particular moment in time.
So I appreciate the gentleman's idea about the need for more funds in
homeland security TSA next year, but I do not think we need it now.
I would hope that we would not pass this motion and tie the hands of
the gentlemen as they negotiate with the other body. I appreciate the
gentleman bringing this motion up because it gives us a chance to talk
about the issue, but I would hope that it would not pass, because I do
not want to tie the chairman and the ranking member's hands when they
go to do battle with the other body.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), another subcommittee
chairman on the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct conferees
of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I believe that such a
motion would prompt almost a guaranteed, if you will, veto, and would
absolutely unnecessarily restrict the ability of the conferees in
negotiating with the other body.
This is probably the most important bill that we will pass in this
Congress, and in some respects, if we were to do this, it may very well
jeopardize the passage, or if not jeopardize, certainly bog down the
process.
The President has already indicated that he would veto the bill as
being too costly, and if we move forward with this motion and go to all
those higher levels, then the bill would go well beyond and above the
funding level proposed by the Senate.
So for those reasons and the reasons that the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Rogers) had covered, and the chairman, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young), I would urge Members to vote no on the motion.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I urge a yes vote on the motion to instruct,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________