Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 103 (Thursday, July 25, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 103 (Thursday, July 25, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H5633-H5704]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 2030
HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). Pursuant to House Resolution
502 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 5005.

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5005) to establish the Department of Homeland Security, and for
other purposes, with Mr. LaHood in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) each will control 45 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, as Ronald Reagan once said, ``History teaches that wars
begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.''
President George W. Bush has heeded this call. He has asked us to
undertake the most significant transformation of our government in half
a century. If we are to do this, it is essential that we understand why
it is necessary to do so. We must start with a precise understanding of
why an enormous transformation of our government is required.
Mr. Chairman, the world has changed. It is a much different world
than it was in 1947 when the last transformation of our government took
place. It is a far different place than it was a mere 10 months ago.
Our place in the world stage will never be as we have known it.
Mr. Chairman, what will it take to defend freedom under such
circumstances? As the greatest, most free Nation the world has ever
known, how do we protect our citizens and our culture from the forces
who hate us? Do we lock up our doors and bar the windows? Are we
perhaps in danger of sacrificing our liberty in the name of security?
The answer is that we are here today to act to defend individual
liberty as much as we are here to defend personal safety. The enemies
we now face take advantage of our free society to destroy us. They do
so precisely because they hate the idea that we have the ability to
choose for ourselves. We cannot grant them the victory they seek

[[Page H5634]]

by relinquishing our freedoms or closing our society.
This is an enemy not constrained by traditional borders. It is not
constrained by any moral compass that distinguishes between the lives
of civilians, women and children. To fight such an enemy, new solutions
are required.
Here at home, the need for new solutions is great. Our ability to
deal with foreign terrorists remains limited. Many of our security
resources are scattered, our technology is outdated on too many
occasions, and the missions of our agencies on the front lines of
terrorism are unfocused. This, Mr. Chairman, makes us vulnerable. As
long as we are vulnerable, our enemies will believe the price of
aggression is one they can afford.
We cannot allow ourselves to forget just how real the threat has
become. Although we may find ourselves safe while terrorist cells are
confused and on the run, our short-term success should not inspire
complacency. In this battle, time is of the essence. We must not take
any more time than is absolutely necessary to do this job and to do it
right.
The enemies of freedom present a great challenge to our society. Our
response must be even greater. They must not win.
Let me close by recalling the words of our Founders. They remind us
that the government was established, Mr. Chairman, if I may quote from
what I consider the single greatest sentence ever written about
America, the first sentence in the preamble to the Constitution, we are
told by our Founding Fathers that our purpose is ``to provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare and,'' Mr. Chairman, ``to
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.''
We are here tonight to heed these words. We all share an important
mission, a common mission. Let us work together to make freedom secure
as we cast our vote today.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
not to exceed 6 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the preamble to the Constitution that the distinguished
majority leader just quoted tells us that providing for the common
defense is a primary role of our government, and every elected official
takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Clearly our
Founding Fathers knew that we could do both, defend our country and
protect our liberties.
I want to say at the outset, I want to commend the distinguished
majority leader for his vigilance, indeed, his leadership, in
protecting our civil liberties in this bill.
For example, I am pleased that he rejected the so-called TIPS
program, which would have Americans reporting on Americans. Throughout
the debate, throughout the hearings, throughout the markup, he was, as
I say, ever-vigilant and a leader in protecting civil liberties. I want
to make that point of commendation and congratulations to the leader at
the outset.
We agreed on many things in the bill, but not everything; and I
wanted to commend the gentleman for a very important value that all of
us in this body share, and many Americans are concerned about at this
time.
Thank you, Mr. Leader.
Mr. Chairman, on September 11, the American people suffered a serious
blow, the intensity of which we will never forget. Out of respect for
those who died and their loved ones, we have a solemn obligation to
work together to make our country safer. For some of the families of
victims, the sound of a plane flying overhead fills them with terror.
Indeed, any warning of a possible terrorist act intensifies their
grief.
As the senior Democrat on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, and as the distinguished chairman presiding, where he
also serves, we know full well the dangers our country faces from the
terrorists. We have before us today a historic opportunity to shape a
Department of Homeland Security that will make the American people
safer, while also honoring the principles and freedoms of our great
Nation.
Unfortunately, we do not have a bill before us today that measures up
to the challenge of protecting the American people in the best possible
way. There are serious problems with the bill in its current form.
For example, out of the blue, the Republicans attempted to remove
altogether the deadline for installation of devices to screen baggage
for explosives. When that failed, they needlessly extended the
deadline.
Then, ignoring the bipartisan recommendations of the Committee on
Government Reform, the Republican bill weakens good government laws and
civil service protections. By doing so, it invites problems of
corruption, favoritism, and low morale that were the reasons that the
civil service was established in the first place. Civil service is a
backbone of a democratic government. We must preserve it.
The bill before us also ignores the bipartisan agreement on liability
and instead inserts a provision so unprecedented in its sweep that it
prompted the Reserve Officers Association of the United States to write
yesterday to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), ``This is not the
time to immunize those who risk the lives of innocent American troops
through willful misconduct.''
As for the Department itself, it is a 1950s version of the
bureaucracy. I had hoped that we could set up a Department that would
be lean and agile and of the future, that would maximize the use of
technology, that would capitalize on the spirit of innovation and new
technologies. But, sadly, it does not.
Instead, we have, as I say, this bloated 1950s bureaucratic
Department which the General Accounting Office says will take between 5
and 10 years for the Department to be up and running, and, in its
current form, will cost $4.5 billion, says the Congressional Budget
Office, to set up.
Certainly we will pay any price to protect the American people, but
there appears to be an opportunity to cost $4.5 billion just on
management and rearranging Departments, money better spent on truly
protecting the American people.
Mr. Chairman, tonight we will have bipartisan amendments to correct
the problems in this bill. Unfortunately, though, the rule did not
allow us to bring the DeLauro amendment to the floor. That amendment
would have prevented those irresponsible businesses that choose profit
over patriotism by fleeing into the Bermuda Triangle, going offshore to
avoid taxes needed to pay for the war on terrorism. Instead, they are
trying to cash in on that war. We had hoped we could have an amendment
that would prevent that from happening.
I look forward to the debate and hope that bipartisanship will
prevail so that we can vote with pride in the new Department. That
bipartisanship will be, as I say, in the form of amendments which have
come from the standing committees, in most cases by unanimous vote,
certainly bipartisan; and hopefully the House will work its will in
support of bipartisanship.
Mr. Chairman, as we debate the bill tonight, we are on hallowed
ground, ground broken on September 11. We must do our very best in
memory of those who died and as a comfort to their loved ones. In that
spirit, I thank the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), one of the true entrepreneurs
and innovators in homeland defense in this body.
(Mr. THORNBERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the majority leader for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, since the end of the Cold War, there have been some
disturbing trends. One is that chemical, biological, nuclear and
radiological weapons are spreading to more and more nations and more
and more groups. In addition to that, more and more nations and more
and more groups are hostile to the United States and will seem to stop
at nothing to attack us. Study after study recognized our vulnerability
and urged us to act, and yet it has taken September 11 to give that
impetus, to force us to act, and tonight we are acting in important
ways.
It is true that organizational reform does not solve all of our
problems. We still have to have the best people, we

[[Page H5635]]

still have to have resources, we have to give the right authorities.
But as the Deutsch Commission found, a cardinal truth of government is
that policy without proper organization is effectively no policy at
all. That is why this organization is important. It does not guarantee
success; but without it, we can guarantee failure.
What we found when we tried to protect our people is dozens of
different agencies scattered across Departments all around the
government. So the idea was if we can bring some of those key
Departments and agencies together under one umbrella, with one chain of
command, they will work better together and we will be safer.
Under this legislation, one piece relates to information, so all the
cyberterrorism offices scattered around the government will be brought
together and will work together. There is a science and technology
section where several of the offices around the government will be
brought together to identify, develop, and then field technologies that
will keep us safer.
The third element is transportation and infrastructure. Ninety
percent of the people in the new Department will be devoted to border
and transportation security. If somebody thinks that this new
Department is bloated, they are going to have to get rid of some of the
people on our borders; and I do not think many of us will want to do
that.
This brings together Border Patrol, Customs, Coast Guard and
Agriculture inspectors, so they actually have the same chain of
command. They can actually use the same equipment under the same
regulations and working together have better border security.
A fourth element is emergency preparedness and response. Building
upon the strengths of FEMA with its regional offices all around the
country, this will be the key conduit of communication and training and
planning and grants for local responders, and they all support this
reorganization.
Mr. Chairman, the world has changed a lot in the last 10 years, and
our government institutions must evolve and change in order to meet
this new challenge. But this new Department also has to have the tools
to meet that challenge, and that is why some of the amendments that we
are going to consider, giving them the tools, the management
flexibility, for example, to hire computer experts away from Silicon
Valley, are so important.

{time} 2045

This bill is not perfect, but it makes us safer and it should be
supported.
Mr. Speaker, over the past several days, I have distributed to our
colleagues a series of questions and answers about creating a
Department of Homeland Security. I am including copies of them in the
Record at this point because they reflect a number of the issues which
have been raised about this proposal and some of the reasons we should
support it.

Establishing a Department of Homeland Security

Question 1: Where Did this Idea Come From?

It has been said that the idea of consolidating a number of
government agencies into a new Department of Homeland
Security was hatched in secret in the middle of the night--
and now we're being asked to vote on it less than 2 months
after it was first proposed.
Not true. Here are the facts.
As far as I know, the idea to create a new Department of
Homeland Security from some of the dozens of different
offices and agencies scattered around the Government springs
from the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st century,
popularly known as the Hart-Rudman Commission. This
bipartisan Commission was established by Congress in 1997 and
was charged with undertaking a broad, in-depth study of
America's national security challenges over the next 25
years.
The quality and experience of those serving on the
Commission was extraordinary. The Commission also had a top
rate staff.
The Commission issued three reports--one on the threats we
face, one on an overall strategy, and finally one with
specific recommendations about what should be done. Overall,
they spent 3 years carefully looking at the world and our
role in it and concluded that ``security of the American
homeland from the threats of the new century should be the
primary national security mission of the U.S. Government.''
(Just to show you the breadth of the study, their second
recommendation dealt with the adequacy of our math and
science education.)
The Commission unanimously recommended the creation of a
new Department of Homeland Security to consolidate border
security agencies, cyber terrorism offices, and emergency
response organizations, such as FEMA. Their final report was
issued publicly on February 15, 2001.
(In fairness, a number of other commissions in recent
years, such as the Marsh Commission (1997), the Deutsch
Commission (1999), the Bremer Commission (2000), and the
Gilmore Commission (2001), reached similar conclusions about
the importance of reorganizing the Government for homeland
security. Many of the principles and suggestions from them
were also in the Hart-Rudman report or have been incorporated
into the various proposals.)
On March 21, 2001, 1 introduced H.R. 1158, to implement the
Hart-Rudman recommendation and create the new Department. The
Government Reform Committee, as well as other committees,
held hearings on this issue.
After September 11, a number of other proposals were
introduced in Congress, and, of course, President Bush
appointed Governor Ridge to head a Homeland Security Office
in the White House.
Earlier this year, a bipartisan group of House and Senate
Members introduced a revised proposal, H.R. 4660, to create a
Department of Homeland Security. This bill was introduced by
Ms. Harman, Ms. Tauscher, Mr. Gibbons, and me, and was
cosponsored by 40 Members. In the Senate, it was S. 2452 by
Senators Lieberman, Specter, and Graham. A number of
additional hearings were held on these and other proposals.
The Senate bill was reported out of the Government Reform
Committee on May 22, 2002. The President announced his
proposal on June 6, 2002.
In sum, several years of study and work--inside the
Congress and out--have gone into this idea. I recommend that
you or your staff take a look at the Hart-Rudman report,
which set forth the problems and some solutions well before
September 11. A complete copy of the report can be found at
http://www.nssg.gov.

Question 2: Now Does Creating a New Department Make Us Safer? [Part 1]

Now that you know where the idea came from (see Question
1), let's get right to the heart of the matter: How does this
proposal help make us safer? After all, that is what really
matters.
One way a Department of Homeland Security can make us safer
is by bringing together under one umbrella and one chain of
command many of the government agencies responsible for
homeland security. The Hart-Rudman Commission found more than
40 government entities with some responsibility for homeland
security. After September 11, the Administration said that it
is more like 100. There is no way that many organizations
spread all around the Federal Government can effectively work
together. Their efforts are, at best, fragmented and
duplicative, or, at worst, they are at cross-purposes.
The new Department of Homeland Security would bring
together those various entities that deal with border
security, cyber terrorism, emergency response, and
countermeasures for chemical, biological, nuclear, and
radiological weapons. Only by bringing them together under
one chain of command can they be as effective as we need them
to be.
Let's take border security as one example. Currently, at
our borders we have the Border Patrol, part of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, which is in the
Department of Justice. We also have the Customs Service,
which is a part of the Department of the Treasury. We also
have the Coast Guard, an entity within the Department of
Transportation, along with the new Transportation Security
Administration (international airports are like borders). We
also have inspectors from the Department of Agriculture's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service stationed at the
border to keep out plant and livestock diseases. All of those
entities have different bosses, different equipment, and even
different regulations that govern them. No one person or
entity, is in charge,
As a side note, over 90 percent of the personnel who will
be in the new Department of Homeland Security will be from
existing agencies charged with border and transportation
security.
As Leon Panetta has said, without ``direct line authority
over the policies and funding of the agencies involved, it
will be very difficult to control and coordinate their
efforts.'' One chain of command, with direct control over
budgets, is required to make sure that all of the
communications equipment is compatible; to make sure that the
dozen or so databases these agencies have can be shared; to
have clear; consistent regulations and procedures for border
inspections, and to have clear, reliable communications with
other government agencies.
Control over our borders is essential to protecting our
homeland. We must have those organizations and individuals
responsible for border security be as effective as possible.
That means they must operate as one integrated, seamless
unit. They must have one coach, one playbook, and one
quarterback. No team can be effective without a clear chain
of command and clear direction.
Another important consideration is that first responders
need one federal contact rather than five or 40. Local
officials have repeatedly expressed frustration at not
knowing which federal agency has the lead and at not knowing
who to call in an emergency. This plan would give them one
phone number, rather than a phone book.

[[Page H5636]]

Now, of course, organizational reform is no silver bullet.
We still need more top quality people to manage our borders.
We still need the best technology we can field quickly. We
still need to review our immigration and other laws. But all
of those resources and efforts will not be as effective as
they could be without the right organizational structure to
get the most out of them.
The Deutsch Commission report said that ``a cardinal truth
of government is that policy without proper organization is
effectively no policy at all.'' President Eisenhower believed
that ``the right system does not guarantee success, but the
wrong system guarantees failure. A defective system will suck
the leadership into its cracks and fissures, wasting their
time as they seek to manage dysfunction rather than making
critical decisions.''
Homeland Security is too important to have anyone ``manage
dysfunction.'' We need the best odds we can get in order to
protect our people.

Question 3: How Does Creating a New Department Make Us Safer (Part 21)

Consolidating existing agencies into a new Department of
Homeland Security can help make us safer by integrating the
work of those agencies into one seamless unit. But it can
help make us safer in other ways, too.
One way is by making homeland security a higher priority in
the day-to-day operations of the federal government. Today,
no federal department has homeland security as its primary
mission. Rather than dozens of different agencies with some
homeland security duties, we should have:
One department whose primary mission is to protect the
homeland;
One department to secure borders, ports, modes of
transportation and critical infrastructure;
One department to coordinate communications with state and
local governments, private industry, and the American people;
One department to help train and equip first responders;
One department to focus research and development and swift
fielding of technology;
One department with a seat at the Cabinet table and
considerable bureaucratic weight in the inevitable battles
over turf and money.
Many of the agencies with responsibility for homeland
security are in departments that have other, very different
missions. To continue with the example of border security,
the Customs Service is in the Department of the Treasury,
whose primary mission is managing the financial affairs of
the country. Indeed, the primary mission of the Customs
Service for much of our history was to enforce trade laws and
collect tax revenue to help run the government. And it still
needs to do that. But even more important to the country
today is the Custom Service's responsibility to keep
chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological weapons out
of the country. In light of this new, higher priority which
we must all give to homeland security, the Customs Service
should be moved into a Department whose primary mission is
consistent with that responsibility.
We could go through similar reasoning with the other
agencies charged with border and transportation security.
Some of them have other important missions besides homeland
security which they must perform--the Coast Guard, for
example--but if we look at the overall needs and priorities
of the country, homeland security must have a greater
emphasis. The consequences of not putting homeland security
at the top of the list of priorities could certainly be
catastrophic.
Another way that the new Department can make us safer is by
helping set priorities within the homeland security mission.
We could spend the whole federal budget on homeland security
and still not be 100 percent safe. We have to look at our
vulnerabilities and set priorities, placing more resources
and attention in one area and less in another. That becomes
very hard to do when the agencies charged with setting
priorities and taking steps to reduce them are scattered
around the government.
For border security, what is more important: more people or
more technology? What if the Border Patrol decides to
emphasize one but Customs decides to emphasize the other?
Naturally, Congress plays a key role in sorting out what is
more important and what is less, but the Executive Branch
must have one coherent, integrated decision process in order
to be effective.
In sum, creating a Department of Homeland Security makes us
safer by helping make homeland security a higher national
priority and by making our homeland security efforts more
effective. It is no magic answer, but given all that is at
stake, every added measure of security counts.

Question 4: How goes This Reorganization Affect Emergency Responders?

If anyone needed a reminder that local emergency responders
are at the forefront of our homeland security efforts,
September 11 taught us that lesson in ways we will never
forget. Local police, firefighters, and emergency medical
personnel were first on the scene, and they will always be
the first to respond to any terrorist attack.
Local law enforcement are also essential to preventing
terrorist attacks. When intelligence information is received
about a threat to shopping malls, for instance, it is the
local police that will be on higher alert and try to stop an
attack.
However we reorganize federal agencies, empowering first
responders is tremendously important to making the country
safer. Organizations representing them, such as the
International Association of Chiefs of Police and the
International Association of Fire Chiefs, support creation of
a new Department of Homeland Security for very good reasons.
It will provide a ``one-stop shop'' for state and local
officials. I suspect we have all heard from frustrated local
officials who need help in finding the appropriate federal
office to deal with some problem. Rather than have a whole
directory of phone numbers of federal agencies, local
officials will have one number to call.
In addition, the Department will build upon the strengths
of FEMA, including its existing structure with ten regional
offices across the country and its close working
relationships with state and local officials.
Building upon that foundation, the new Department will
administer grants to help cities and counties acquire needed
equipment. It will help provide and set the standards for
needed training, consolidating several programs with similar
missions. It will assist communities in planning for
emergencies. Perhaps most importantly, it will provide the
primary channel of communication between the federal
government and state and local governments on homeland
security--communication that will go both ways.
For instance, if the Department receives information that
shopping malls may be a target of attack, it will communicate
with the appropriate state and local officials. On the other
hand, if several local police departments notice a suspicious
pattern of behavior, they could communicate their concerns to
the Department, and the Department may take some action.
Providing a regular channel of communication between state
and local officials and the federal government will be one of
the most important functions of the Department of Homeland
Security.
Helping coordinate and provide standards among local
responders is another. We have learned that communication
difficulties were a key problem on September 11. Helping to
ensure that all of the emergency responders in a metropolitan
area have compatible communication equipment, for example,
will be an important benefit, not just for terrorist attacks,
but for emergency response and law enforcement activities of
all kinds.
The Department of Homeland Security will empower these
local heroes by helping them do their jobs and by being their
champion in the federal government. All of our communities
will be safer as a result.

Question 5: How Do We Know if the Agencies Being Moved Will Still
Perform Their Other Missions?

Our federal government is big and complex, and a number of
government agencies have multiple missions. We expect FEMA to
respond to a disaster, whether it is caused by a hurricane or
a terrorist. We expect the Coast Guard to perform search and
rescue, protect our maritime resources, and guard our
coastline. No cabinet department has perfectly clean lines.
Yet, the way we organize ourselves does say something about
what we think is important. And given the changes in the
world and in technology, we have to put greater focus on
protecting Americans here at home. But what about all of
those other jobs?
Sometimes it is relatively easy to split an organization.
For example, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) has a section which helps provide border security.
Other sections are devoted to tasks inside the United States.
It is possible, and preferable, to move that portion of APHIS
which helps protect our border to the new Department of
Homeland Security while leaving the rest of it at the
Department of Agriculture.
Other agencies are not so easily split. In fact, the
commandant of the Coast Guard has said that dividing it would
threaten its ability to do any job properly.
The Hart-Rudman Commission called the Coast Guard a ``model
homeland security agency given its unique blend of law
enforcement, regulatory, and military authorities that allow
it to operate within, across, and beyond the U.S. border.''
In fact, if you think about it, the Coast Guard already has a
number of varied missions that have little to do with the
primary focus of the Department of Transportation. There is
no reason it will not continue to perform its many jobs, but
its critical role in protecting the United States and its
citizens will be enhanced. (Note that the Coast Guard would
be moved in the new Department as a separate entity; it would
not be merged with other border security organizations.)
A number of the agencies moving into the Department of
Homeland Security will be in an even better position to
perform their other duties. In order to fulfill its
responsibilities for homeland security, the Coast Guard will
need new ships and equipment. Those same ships and aircraft
are involved in all of the Coast Guard's tasks and will make
the entire organization stronger. It is also more likely to
get the additional resources it needs as a part of the
Department of Homeland Security.
As part of the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA will
be the critical link between the federal government and state
and local governments. It will provide grants, conduct
training, and be the pipeline for communications up and down
the line. Those capabilities and those relationships, which

[[Page H5637]]

will develop as a part of its homeland security mission, will
also enable FEMA to deal even more effectively with natural
disasters.
Another reason I feel confident that the various components
of the Department of Homeland Security will perform their
other important missions is us--the Congress. We provide
their funds, and through oversight and direction we can
ensure that the important needs of the country are met.

Question 6: How Much Will This New Department Cost?

With any significant proposal before Congress, we face the
issue of cost. In this case, the Congressional Budget Office
has estimated that the President's plan for a Department of
Homeland Security will cost about $3 billion over five years.
Some have misinterpreted this amount as the cost of the
reorganization. It is not.
In fact, the CBO report states that two-thirds of their $3
billion estimate is for new programs suggested by the
President, such as the National Bio-Weapons Defense Analysis
Center, the new intelligence analysis function, and other
newly authorized activities. We may agree with the
President's recommendation to create these new programs, but
they are for new capabilities, not reorganizing existing
ones.
According to the CBO estimate, the cost of consolidating
agencies and providing centralized leadership, coordination,
and support services in the new department is approximately
$1 billion over five years. That figure is an estimate based
on the cost of administering other, existing departments,
such as the Department of Justice. It does not consider any
cost savings from things like consolidating overhead and
support services.
The President proposed a dramatic increase in homeland
security spending in his budget for fiscal year 2003. He
believes that whatever start-up or transition costs there may
be can be accommodated within these new, higher levels of
spending.
We also have to look at the bigger picture, however.
Homeland security should not be used as an excuse to justify
new, unnecessary spending. There is no doubt we will be
spending significantly more money on real homeland security,
as we should. But, we should also do everything we can to
make sure that the money is spent wisely and efficiently.
That is a primary purpose of the new Department of Homeland
Security and should please even the most rigid budget hawk.

Question 7: how Big Should the New Department Be?

When the President first submitted his proposal for a
Department of Homeland Security, some complained that it was
not big enough because some essential agencies were not
included. Others have argued that it has too many people and
too many agencies, that it needs to be ``leaner and meaner.''
What size is just right?
The short answer is that the new Department should be
whatever size it takes to do the job. Obviously, we cannot
put every function related to homeland security in one
cabinet department. We have to choose what job we need the
Department to do and then give the Department the agencies
and tools it needs to do it.
If we want the Department to be responsible for border
security, as most everyone does, then it must have all of the
border security agencies. Border and transportation security
will, in fact, be the largest component of the new
Department. About 90 percent of the employees of the
Department of Homeland Security will be in that section. To
significantly reduce the size of the Department, you have to
either leave one of the border agencies out or you have to
have fewer people on the border. Neither of those options
makes us safer.
Most agree that the new Department should take the lead on
cyber security. If so, it needs to have the entities in the
federal government which deal with that issue.
We all know that state and local emergency responders are
on the front lines of homeland security and that we need to
assist them in doing their jobs. The new Department not only
can provide grants and training; it can also help ensure good
communication among different levels of government and even
among various emergency responders. But, it needs to build
upon the existing FEMA structure and relationships to ``hit
the ground running.''
It is important to remember that this reorganization does
not make government bigger. All of the people working for the
Border Patrol, Coast Guard, etc., will be federal employees--
with or without this new Department. The issue is not the
size of the federal workforce; it is how we can best organize
that workforce to protect our Nation.
Congressional oversight will be needed to make sure that
the bureaucracy inside the new Department is truly ``lean and
mean'' and that resources go where they count the most--on
the ground at the front lines.
It boils down to this: we should look at those areas
important to homeland security where the federal effort is
fragmented, bring them together under one chain of command,
and give them the tools they need to protect the country--
whatever size it takes to do the job.

Question 8: Why has the President asked for Management Flexibility in
the new Department?

The President's request for ``management flexibility'' has
been interpreted to mean a number of things and raised many
fears, some unnecessarily. Here is where we find ourselves:
Terrorists are always probing for weakness. They are
seeking out our vulnerabilities. They are watching what we do
and adjusting their plans accordingly. We have to be flexible
and adaptable in order to be successful. Unfortunately, those
characteristics are generally not found in government
organizations.
If we receive information that leads us to believe that we
should acquire a particular vaccine in a hurry, we need to
have a Department that can do that, within limits, without
waiting on a bill from Congress or on approval of a
reprogramming request. Some funding flexibility will be
especially important during the transition phase of the new
Department.
We face even bigger challenges with people. It takes far
too long to hire qualified personnel. It is very difficult
today to reward a federal employee who does an outstanding
job and wants to continue in the same position. It is very
difficult today to dismiss a federal employee who does not do
a satisfactory job. Most managers simply try to shove them
out of the way.
To hire people with the background and experience we need
to fight cyber attacks, the federal government must compete
with industry. The traditional civil service system hinders
our ability to do so. New incentives, flexibility in hiring
and firing, and greater flexibility in hours and benefits
will all help us get and keep the top quality people we need.
The new Department needs other kinds of flexibility as
well. Creating a new Department in a time of war, merging
various cultures and organizations, and significantly
increasing the people and resources involved will be a
tremendous management challenge. The new Secretary should
have some ability to reorganize inside the new Department as
developments warrant. He or she should also have greater
procurement and contracting authority to help identify,
develop, and then field technology as rapidly as possible.
The President has been clear that he is not trying to
overturn federal employee protections in this bill. He is
simply trying to give the new Department every chance to
work--and so should we.

question 9: If not this, what?

Creating a new cabinet department, realigning existing
agencies, creating new capabilities to fight terrorism--it
seems like a lot in one bill. Understandably, some Members
are concerned that it is too much too fast.
Well, what are our alternatives?
Of course, the easiest option is to leave things as they
are. We could reject the President's proposal and assume that
the best we can do to keep our Nation secure is keep the
current system with dozens of different agencies--each having
some homeland security responsibility.
Another option is to leave the various agencies in their
current departments but look to a White House office to
coordinate their activities, using the Drug Czar as a model.
There is certainly a place for a White House coordinator to
help set govemment-wide policies, in part because a number of
agencies involved with homeland security will not be in the
new Department. But, as Tom Ridge has learned, a White House
coordinator is no substitute for a direct chain of command
with day-to-day operational control over--and responsibility
for--key functions. A coordinator and 100 people in the White
House cannot ensure that communications equipment is
compatible, that data bases are interoperable, or that every
guard at each border crossing follows the proper procedures.
A third option is to move incrementally--combine just two
or three agencies, see how that works, and leave the door
open to adding a few more down the road. Unfortunately, we do
not have the luxury of time before we act. We need safer
borders today, and the governmental entity charged with
responsibility for our borders must have all of the pieces of
border security under one chain of command. We need to
strengthen federal support for emergency responders today,
and we need better cyber security today. We cannot wait.
We must avoid setting up the new Department to fail. If we
assign it the job of border security but do not give it
direct control over all of the people and resources at the
border, it simply cannot be effective. Going half-way is not
fair to the employees in the new agency or to the American
people.
Just as when we looked at our welfare system a few years
ago, no one can credibly argue that the present system is as
good as we can do. We must also resist the temptation to
tamper around the edges in ways that may score political
points but not count for much in dealing with future attacks.
We must do what is right.

question 10: How Should I Vote on Creating the New Department of
Homeland Security?

Over the past few days, I have tried to answer some of the
key questions and concerns about the new Department of
Homeland Security. If there is any additional information I
can provide, please let me or my office know.
As we discuss and debate all of the details involved in
realigning so many government agencies, we should also
remember the bigger picture and what is at stake.
Our country was suddenly and savagely attacked on September
11. Yet, we all recognize that the horrible tragedy of that
day

[[Page H5638]]

may be only a taste of much greater tragedy to come. I hope
not. But I also know that chemical, biological, nuclear, and
radiological weapons are spreading to more and more nations
and groups. I also know that many of those nations and groups
are hostile to the United States and have little regard for
innocent human life.
As the Gilmore Commission has said: ``The tragic attacks of
September 11, 2001, the subsequent anthrax attacks, and
persistent threats clearly demonstrate the importance of
continuing to prepare our nation to counter more effectively
the threats of terrorism. These attacks underscore the
urgency by which we must act to implement fully a
comprehensive national approach to preparedness.''
September 11 must serve as our wake-up call. We must act,
and we should not be timid about it. We will all be judged by
the adequacy of our response.
Unfortunately, it is always easier to attack and criticize
than it is to formulate specific proposals and take
responsible action. Some of the criticisms of creating the
new Department are genuine; others may be excuses to prevent
reform. We cannot let turf protection trump real security.
Of course, there are uncertainties with any new endeavor.
Even with perfect legislation, the management of this new
Department will be an enormous challenge. And even if it is
managed perfectly, there are no guarantees that future
attacks will not be successful. But, we must do everything we
can to be ready.
This reorganization will help us to be ready and to be
safer. But our work will not end there. Everyone of us will
have a continuing duty, through our committees and
individually, to pursue a host of issues related to homeland
security.
We are at war. Many lives and our vital freedoms are at
stake. Those trying to hurt us are always probing for
vulnerabilities and will stop at nothing, using any method of
attack they can get their hands on. We have no silver bullets
in this war. But it seems to me that we owe the people we
represent, those who came before, and those who will come
after us our very best efforts to preserve and secure this
great country and its people.
Creating a Department of Homeland Security will make us
safer--not perfectly safe, but safer. Please vote ``yes'' on
H.R. 5005.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the vice chair of our
Democratic Caucus and a valued member of the Select Committee on
Homeland Security.
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her
leadership on the Select Committee on Homeland Security on our side of
the aisle in leading us on some of the key issues that we wanted to
pursue.
Mr. Chairman, in the work of securing the homeland, there are no
Democrats or Republicans, there are only patriots. America has never
been so powerful. Our culture, our government, our commerce, our
ideals, our humanity, virtually everything we do and all that we stand
for has a global reach that is unprecedented in the history of
civilization. Yet, America has never been so vulnerable as it was on
September 11. I will never forget that day; it will be seared in my
memory forever, that I visited Ground Zero at the World Trade Center
with the President and my colleagues from the tri-State area.
Winston Churchill once said, ``You can always rely on America to do
the right thing, once it has exhausted the alternatives.''
Let me suggest that the gravity of the challenges we face in the wake
of September 11 impels us to prove Churchill wrong on his latter
sentiment. As we seek to protect the American people, as we work to
establish the new Department of Homeland Security, we must get this
right the first time.
Let us get this right for Kelly Colasanti of Hoboken, New Jersey,
whose husband was killed in the attack on the World Trade Center. Let
us not forget Kelly and the more than 100 constituents from my
congressional district in northern New Jersey who were killed, and all
of the other victims of the horrific attacks of September 11.
How we project American power abroad determines our success as a
global power. It defines us in the eyes of others. America now faces
the awesome responsibility to protect her people from terrorism.
How we project American power domestically is an entirely different
matter. The establishment of this new Department will have profound
implications. Let us keep that in mind as we proceed to establish a
very powerful domestic security agency. Let us also refrain from
questioning or impugning the motives of those who have a different view
as to how we protect the American people and, yes, American workers.
Let me underscore a few items.
A Nation that can put a man on the moon and lead the information age
can surely figure out a way to get the bomb detection technology we
need in just 400 airports. Secretary Mineta testified before the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 2 days ago that the TSA
would meet the deadlines. He said the same before the Select Committee
on Homeland Security. The Department's Inspector General testified that
it was premature to say TSA would not be able to meet the deadlines. As
a Congress, we need to speak with one voice that excuses and delays
will not be tolerated, and that is why I will offer an amendment with
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) to make sure the traveling
public keeps safe and we keep the TSA's feet to the fire.
Secondly, the most glaring problem, even crisis, I would say, with
government performance leading up to September 11 was an unacceptable
lack of coordination and information-sharing among Federal intelligence
and law enforcement agencies and between the agencies and State and
local authorities, first responders, and the private sector. This bill
must include mechanisms that guarantee that such coordination and
information-sharing indeed will occur. The minute that this Department
goes on line, the new Secretary should have, in real-time, all of the
intelligence and law enforcement information that he or she needs. The
Chambliss-Shays-Harman-Menendez amendment should be adopted.
Finally, Governor Ridge has repeatedly said that if the hometown is
secure, the homeland is secure. He is right. After September 11, we are
in a new national security paradigm where Main Street is the frontline.
We must fortify that frontline. We must provide our first responders
the resources, training, and guidance they need to protect America's
communities.
Now, we were asked repeatedly to provide flexibility for the
Secretary in setting up this Department. As we provide some flexibility
for the 107,000 employees about to be transferred by an act of Congress
to a new department, homeland security should not mean the insecurity
of those employees.
Yes, life in America has forever changed since September 11. Main
Street is now the frontline of a new war. But American values have not
changed and must not change. We continue to value liberty and freedom
and justice and fairness. It is in that spirit of providing for
security and preserving liberty that we will debate and offer
amendments towards this goal. Together, together, I hope, if there are
open minds and open hearts, we can provide for an even safer America,
and we can do it in a bipartisan way.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5005 which
represents the President's ambitious and historic proposal to create
the new Department of Homeland Security. I believe the President's
proposal represented a great framework for congressional consideration,
but I think the majority leader and the Select Committee on Homeland
Security chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), deserve so
much better. He has really done a yeoman's job in not only building
this program as the President requested, but creating a much stronger
bill as a result of the way he has gone about his work. His leadership
and his consultation with the committees of jurisdiction has been
tremendous, and I know he has consulted so well with those on the other
side as we process this bill.
I want to praise Governor Ridge and the administration for their
flexibility and consideration of our concerns, and I think we all owe
him and his department a debt of gratitude for the protection that he
has given our country since 9-11 and the work he is doing to ensure
homeland security as we go forward.
Ever since the anthrax attacks in this country, the threat of
bioterrorism has become much more of a reality to our people, and the
importance

[[Page H5639]]

of biomedical research activities at the Department of Health and Human
Services and NIH and the CDC has never been greater than today. This
bill literally builds upon those great research agencies, and rather
than destroying their work and taking it over and redoing it, the bill
makes it clear that NIH and CDC will remain with primary responsibility
over human health-related research, and that the new Department itself
will not engage in R&D efforts, but rather will collaborate and
coordinate with these two agencies.
More importantly, the bill retains all of the legal and budgetary
authority for these research programs within HHS. The Committee on
Energy and Commerce recommended this approach because of the terrorism-
related research currently being performed at NIH and at the CDC, which
is really dual-purpose in nature. It serves the priority and needs of
both counterterrorism, but also, traditionally, the needs of public
health. So I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and the
administration for working with us on this important change.
We also want to make clear that the bill adopts recommendations that
our committee made with respect to not only bioterrorism and public
health operations at NIH and HHS, but also the public health emergency
grant programs run by those agencies. I am pleased that the committee
adopted our committee's recommendations in this area as well.
The bill also will improve the efforts by our country's top
scientists at national laboratories to develop new methods of detecting
and preventing terrorist attacks, such as improved sensors to detect
radiological devices and new scanners to screen luggage and cargo, a
critical need as we move forward. Our Nation's ability today to screen
for radiological and nuclear materials entering our ports is woefully
inadequate. We are going to do something about it with this bill.
To address those needs, our committee recommended the bill adopt a
provision that will establish at the new Department a central
technology clearinghouse that will assist Federal agencies, State and
local governments and, even more importantly, the private sector in
evaluating, implementing, and sending out information about key
homeland security technologies such as radiation and bio-weapon
detectors.
I particularly want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Burr) of our committee, the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson),
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for their help in this
regard during the committee's deliberations.
I also want to point out that, indeed, we also recommended, and the
committee adopted in the print, within the Department a Federal
cybersecurity program that will begin to provide computer security
expertise to other Federal and civilian agencies to help improve
protection of their critical information systems.
Our committee did work in this area, and what we learned about the
vulnerability of Federal agencies to cyberattack was astounding. Today,
the business software lines told us the private sector is in similar
shape. This bill will turn it around. The cybersecurity section is a
critical component.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend this bill to all of my colleagues and
recommend its passage.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the
Committee on Government Reform.
(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, while I agree that we need homeland security
legislation, it is clear that the Federal departments are not working
together as they should to protect our Nation. The recent revelations
of missed signals and failure to communicate at the FBI and the CIA
illustrate how serious this problem is.
Unfortunately, the bill we are considering today has serious flaws.
In fact, I think it may well cause more problems than it solves.
I want to show a chart to the right. Here is how our homeland
security agencies are organized today, and I have a second chart. This
is how they will be organized after the new Department is created. We
are getting more bureaucracy and we are doing so at a tremendous cost
to the taxpayers.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, just creating and
managing a new department will cost $4.5 billion, and this does not
include additional spending that may be necessary to prevent terrorist
attacks, reduce the Nation's vulnerability to attacks, and recover from
any attacks.
Now, if this money were used at the front lines of fighting terrorism
instead of paying for a new bureaucracy, think how much better off we
might be. There is an old adage that those who do not remember the past
are condemned to repeat it, but we may do exactly this in our headlong
rush to create this new department.
The history of past reorganizations is not reassuring. Here is what
Petronius the arbiter, an advisor to the Roman Emperor Nero, said
nearly 2000 years ago, and I quote: ``We trained hard, but it seemed
that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be
reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any
situation by reorganizing, and a wonderful method it can be for
creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion,
inefficiency, and demoralization.''
The committees were able to work in a bipartisan way to achieve some
substantial improvements to the President's bill. Unfortunately, the
Select Committee on Homeland Security chose to simply reverse many of
these gains. Even worse, the Select Committee on Homeland Security
added entirely new provisions that weaken our national security. One
provision delays deadlines for improving airline safety. Another
exempts defense contractors and other large campaign contributors from
liability, even for intentional wrongdoing. This is the ultimate anti-
corporate responsibility provision imaginable.
One major defect in this bill is that it would transfer a vast array
of responsibilities that have nothing to do with homeland security such
as administrating the national flood insurance program and cleaning up
oil spills at sea.

{time} 2100

This bloats the size of the bureaucracy and dilutes the new
department's counterterrorism mission.
Another major defect is the bill lacks a strong mechanism to
coordinate the activities of the many Federal agencies with major
homeland security functions. This coordination has to occur at the
White House level to be effective, but this bill does not give the
White House Office of Homeland Security the budgetary powers it needs
to do its job. I will be offering an amendment later to address this
deficiency.
Another problem is the President's proposal include broad exemptions
from our Nation's most basic good government laws, such as civil
services laws and the Freedom of Information Act.
We fixed many of these loopholes in our committee, but the Select
Committee ignored our work. As a result, I will be offering an
amendment with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) to restore to the
employees of the new department basic civil service rights.
There are many problems in this bill that need to be fixed. I hope we
will be able to put aside partisan differences and, for the sake of our
national security, finally address them as we move forward with this
legislation.
I agree we need homeland security legislation. It is clear that
federal departments are not working together as they should to protect
our nation. Revelations of missed signals and failures to communicate
at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence
Agency illustrate how serious the problem is.
Unfortunately, the bill we are considering today has serious flaws.
In fact, I think it may well cause more problems than it solves.
Fundamentally, reorganization is a bureaucratic exercise. The bill
before us addresses organizational flow charts, the creation of five
new undersecretaries, and the appointment of 12 new assistant
secretaries. But as a professor of management at Columbia University
recently remarked, ``To think that a structural solution can bring
about a major improvement in performance is a major mistake.''

[[Page H5640]]

According to the Administration, ``responsibilities for homeland
security are dispersed among more than 100 different government
organizations.'' Indeed, this organizational chart from the White House
lists 153 different agencies, departments, and offices with a role in
homeland security.
The President's proposal will not simplify this patchwork and may
even make it worse. Even after all of the proposed changes, the federal
government would continue to have well over 100 agencies, departments,
and offices involved in homeland security. According to this chart,
prepared by the minority staff of the Appropriations Committee, the
total number of departments, agencies, and offices with a role in
homeland security actually will grow under the President's proposal,
from 153 to 160.
We are getting more bureaucracy, not less. And we are doing so at a
tremendous cost to the taxpayer.
The Administration has asserted that this new Department ``would not
`grow' government,'' and that any costs would be paid for by
``eliminating redundancies.'' According to the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO), however, just creating and managing the new Department
will cost $4.5 billion. And this does not include ``additional spending
that may be necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, reduce the nation's
vulnerability to attacks, and recover from any attacks,'' CBO says.
If this money were used at the front lines of fighting terrorism--
instead of paying for a new bureaucracy--think how much better off we
might be.
The committees of jurisdiction were able to work in a bipartisan way
to achieve some substantial improvements to the President's bill.
Unfortunately, the Select Committee chose to simply reverse many of
these gains. Even worse, the Select Committee added entirely new
provisions that weaken our national security.
One provision added by the Select Committee delays deadlines for
improving airline safety. Under current law, the Transportation
Security Administration is required to take all necessary action to
ensure that all United States airports have sufficient explosive
detection systems to screen all checked baggage no later than December
31, 2002. But under the Select Committee bill, air passengers must wait
another full year before all bags are checked for bombs.
Another new Select Committee provision exempts defense contractors
and other large campaign contributors from liability--even for
intentional wrongdoing. The Select Committee added a provision to
exempt corporations from liability when they make products the
Secretary deems ``qualified anti-terrorism technologies.'' For these
products, which could include pharmaceutical products such as the
anthrax vaccine, the Select Committee limited corporate liability,
exempted companies from punitive damages even when the companies are
fraudulent or negligent, and gave them complete immunity in state
courts. This is the ultimate anti-corporate responsibility provision
imaginable.
Yesterday, we received a letter from the Reserve Officers of the
United States opposing this provision. In their letter, the reserve
officers stated that this section ``is inconsistent with pursuing the
highest quality product for use by our armed forces as they fight
terrorism.'' Yet today, we will hear additional proposals to expand
this broad corporate exemption even further. Mr. Armey will introduce
an amendment to extend these liability exemptions to an even wider
range of potentially defective products and services.
On July 9, 2002, I joined with Representative David Obey, the Ranking
Member of the Appropriations Committee, in sending a letter to Governor
Ridge outlining a number of serious problems with the bill (attached).
This letter raised concerns with ten different areas related to the
establishment of the new Department. I ask unanimous consent that this
letter be inserted in the Record.
As the letter explains, one major defect in this bill is that it
would transfer to the new Department a vast array of responsibilities
that have nothing to do with homeland security, such as administering
the National Flood Insurance Program, cleaning up oil spills at sea,
and eradicating pests like the boll weevil. Giving the new Department
dozens of unrelated responsibilities will bloat the size of the
bureaucracy and dilute the new Department's counterterrorism mission.

Another major defect is that the bill lacks a strong mechanism to
coordinate the activities of the many federal agencies with major
homeland security functions. This coordination has to occur at the
White House level to be effective, but this bill does not give the
White House Office of Homeland Security the budgetary powers it needs
to do its job. I will offer an amendment later today that addresses
this deficiency.
A third problem is that the President's proposal included broad
exemptions from our nation's most basic ``good government'' laws. The
bill allowed the new Secretary to waive civil service laws that
prohibit patronage, protect whistleblowers, provide for collective
bargaining rights, and ensure health and retirement benefits. Under the
President's proposal, the Secretary could also ignore cornerstone
procurement principles, such as open and competitive bidding, and basic
government in sunshine laws, such as the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
We fixed many of these loopholes in the Committee on Government
Reform, but the Select Committee ignored our work. As a result, I will
be offering an amendment with Mr. Frost later today to restore to the
employees of the new Department basic civil service rights. I will also
be strongly supporting the amendment by Representative Morella to
protect collective bargaining rights, and I will be supporting an
amendment to fully restore FOIA and FACA protections.
Let me make that I am not opposed to reorganization. I am convinced
there are steps we can take that will make sense and improve the
functioning of our government. But it has to be done in a way that
minimizes disruption and bureaucracy and maximizes our ability to
confront the terrorism threats that we face. Simply rushing to
reorganize is not the solution.
A better approach would be to create a leaner, more focused
Department of Homeland Security and to strengthen the authority of the
existing White House Office of Homeland Security. The new Department
should be limited to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the
Customs Service, and the Transportation Security Administration. Such a
new Department would have less than half of the employees of the
proposal before us. Even more important, it would have a narrow,
focused mission of protecting our borders and transportation systems.
At the same time, we need to develop a detailed homeland security
strategy and to ensure that all federal agencies coordinate in
implementing the strategy. This needs to be done at the White House
level. Currently, there is an office in the White House that is
supposed to be providing this coordinating function, but it does not
have enough power to be effective. As part of a streamlined, less
bureaucratic approach to homeland security, Congress should be
codifying the White House Office of Homeland Security in statute and
giving the director of the office budgetary authority sufficient to
make agencies pay attention to the office.
There is an old adage that those who do not remember the past are
condemned to repeat it. But we may do exactly this in our headlong rush
to create the new Department. The history of past reorganizations is
not reassuring. Here is what Petronius Arbiter, an advisor to Roman
Emperor Nero, said nearly 2,000 years ago: We trained hard, but it
seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we
would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet
any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for
creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion,
inefficiency, and demoralization.

The Department of Energy was created 25 years ago and it is still
dysfunctional. The Department of Transportation was created 35 years
ago, yet as the National Journal reported, it ``still struggles to make
its components cooperate, share information, and generally play nice.''
The model we are supposed to be emulating is the creation of the
Department of Defense 50 years ago. But for over 35 years, the Defense
Department was riven with strife. In 1983, when President Reagan
ordered the invasion of Grenada, the Army and the Marines had to split
the island in half because they couldn't figure out how to cooperate.
It was not until the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 that the problems
created in the 1947 reorganization were finally addressed.
To avoid the mistakes of the past, we have to do a careful job. But
the process we are following is not encouraging. The reorganization
plan was released before the Administration completed its work on the
national strategy for homeland security. Moreover, the White House
proposal we are considering today was put together by a handful of
political appointees working in secret. The agencies with expertise
were excluded from the process. In fact, there was so little
communication between the White House and the agencies that one
important agency had to call my staff to find out how it fared under
the plan.
These days there seems to be a lot of self-congratulation going on,
which makes us all feel good. But the time for congratulations and
elaborate ceremonies comes when we have captured Osama bin Laden and
the other al Qaeda leaders, when we have arrested the criminal who
launched the anthrax attacks, and when Americans from California to New
York go to bed at night knowing that our intelligence agencies are in
the best position possible to thwart terrorism.
Our job today is not to congratulate ourselves for creating another
bureaucracy, but to

[[Page H5641]]

address the many problems in this bill that need to be fixed. I hope we
will be able to put aside partisan differences and--for the sake of our
national security--produce legislation that actually makes sense.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, July 9, 2002.
Hon. Tom Ridge,
Director, Office of Homeland Security, The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Governor Ridge: Congress is considering the
President's proposal to create a new Department of Homeland
Security on an accelerated schedule. But now that Congress
has received the legislative language that would implement
the President's plan, many issues have arisen about the
details of the proposal. We are writing in the hope that you
will be able to provide expeditious responses to these
concerns.
The issues fall into ten main areas. First, the new
Department will inherit a vast array of responsibilities that
have nothing to do with homeland security. These include
administering the National Flood Insurance Program, cleaning
up oil spills at sea, and eradicating pests like the boll
weevil. Giving the new Department dozens of responsibilities
unrelated to homeland security risks bloating the size of the
bureaucracy and diluting the new Department's
counterterrorism mission.
Second, the legislation lacks an effective mechanism to
coordinate the activities of the many federal agencies that
have major homeland security functions. The President's
submission to Congress listed 153 different agencies,
departments, and offices involved with homeland security.
After the creation of the proposed new Department, this
number actually will increase to 160 agencies, departments,
or offices with security roles. But the draft bill does not
include a mechanism for developing and implementing a unified
homeland security strategy across the entire government.
Third, there are inefficiencies and coordination problems
that will arise when parts of agencies are removed from their
existing departments and moved to the new Department. The
goal of the legislation is to make government more efficient,
but some of the proposed changes could have exactly the
opposite effect. For example, GAO has testified that programs
transferred from the Department of Health and Human Services
include ``essential public health functions that, while
important for Homeland Security, are critical to basic
public health core capacities.
Fourth, despite prior assurances that the Administration
supported reforms of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) that were passed by the House, the President's
proposal would import the INS into the new Department of
Homeland Security wholly intact and without these needed
internal reforms.
Fifth, the legislation includes broad exemptions from our
nation's most basic ``good government'' laws. The legislative
language would allow the new Secretary, in conjunction with
the Office of Personnel Management, to waive all provisions
of our civil service laws. These laws have evolved over many
decades to ensure that our government has a professional
civil service hired on the basis of merit rather than
political favoritism. Yet the proposed legislation would
allow the new Department to waive all of these protections,
including those that prohibit patronage, protect whistle-
blowers, provide for collective bargaining rights, and ensure
health and retirement benefits.
A similar approach has been taken with procurement and the
management of real property. Under the proposal, the
Secretary does not have to comply with cornerstone
procurement principles, such as open and competitive bidding.
Moreover, basic government in sunshine laws, such as the
Freedom of Information Act and the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, have been limited in their application to the new
Department.
Sixth, the President's proposal would give the new
Department extraordinary powers to avoid meaningful
congressional oversight. Not only would the new Department be
able to exempt itself from civil service, procurement, and
property laws, it would also be able to rearrange functions,
eliminate offices, and transfer large amounts of appropriated
funds without having to seek prior congressional approval.
Seventh, the proposal does not address the potential for
disruption in the nation's war against terrorism. According
to David Walker, the Comptroller General of GAO:
``[R]eorganizations of government agencies frequently
encounter start up problems and unanticipated consequences
that result from the consolidations, are unlikely to fully
overcome obstacles and challenges, and may require additional
modifications in the future to effectively achieve our
collective goals for defending the country against
terrorism.'' Although Administration officials have
compared this restructuring to the formation of the
Department of Defense in the 1940s, that reorganization
was not attempted until after the war was over, and even
then it caused confusion and inefficiencies for decades.
Eighth, there is no comprehensive national strategy for
combating terrorism to guide the new Department. Logically, a
major bureaucratic reorganization like this should be
proposed as part of a comprehensive national strategy for
providing homeland security. But in this case, the
reorganization is occurring in a vacuum. There is no national
strategy that identifies the major threats the nation, faces
and explains how the new Department will meet them. Nor is
there a comprehensive threat and risk assessment that
identifies and prioritizes threats in a coherent manner.
Ninth, the costs of this proposal have not been identified.
Although the Administration has stated that the creation of
this new Department ``would not `grow' government,'' this is
not credible. According to the nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office, even the less ambitious reorganization
proposed by Senator Lieberman will cost taxpayers over $1
billion over the next five years. Costs for the
Administration's plan inevitably will be higher.
Finally, the Administration's proposal was developed in
secret by a small group of White House advisors, without
substantive input from the agencies that handle homeland
security. It is being rushed through Congress on an
accelerated schedule. This is not normally an approach that
produces sound policy. The potential for making grave
mistakes as a result of this truncated process should be a
serious concern for all Americans.
We need to work together to address the concerns raised in
this letter and to make improvements in the legislation. Your
response to the issues and questions raised in the body of
this letter will be an important step in this process. For
this reason--and given the short time frame Congress has for
consideration of the legislation--we urge you to respond by
July 15, 2002.

I. TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS NOT RELATED TO HOMELAND SECURITY

According to the White House briefing document issued on
June 7, 2002, the Department of Homeland Security ``must be
an agile, fast-paced, and responsive organization.''
Transferring functions that do not involve homeland security
to the new Department, however, interferes with this goal.
Giving the new Department unnecessary responsibilities
inevitably will expand the size of its bureaucracy and dilute
its counterterrorism mission.
At the same time, giving vital but unrelated government
responsibilities to the Department creates the risk that
these responsibilities will be neglected and performed
poorly. As GAO has concluded, many of the unrelated functions
being given to the new Department ``represent extremely
important functions executed by the federal government that,
absent sufficient attention, could have serious implications
for their effective delivery and consequences for sectors of
our economy, health and safety, research programs and other
significant government functions.''
Despite these risks, many important government functions
that are not related to homeland security are being
transferred to the new Department. In fact, the new
Department will have to carry out over three dozen completely
unrelated missions under the President's proposal.
Section 402(3) of the President's proposal would transfer
the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which is
now currently part of the Department of Agriculture, into the
new Department. APHIS has nearly 8,000 full-time employees
(FTEs), but few have responsibility for inspecting plants and
animal products at the border. The other APHIS employees
perform functions that are critical to various sectors of the
economy, but are not related to homeland security. For
example, APHIS is responsible for:
Eradicating pests, such as the boll weevil, the citrus
canker. the gypsy moth, and various noxious weeds through
detection and control strategies throughout the United
States;
Approving animal drugs that are made from biological
materials, such as animal vaccines;
Approving field trials of genetically modified crops; and
Maintaining the missing pet network at www.missingpet.net.
Section 502(l) of the President's proposal would transfer
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) into the new
Department. To date, however, FEMA has had a limited role in
counterterrorism. According to former FEMA director James Lee
Witt, ``[o]ver the last decade FEMA has responded to more
than 500 emergency and major disaster events. Two of those
were related to terrorism (Oklahoma City and New York
City).'' In Mr. Witt's view, ``[f]olding FEMA into a homeland
or national security agency will seriously compromise the
nation's previously effective response to natural hazards.''
Major FEMA responsibilities that are unrelated to homeland
security include:
Providing flood insurance and mitigation services
(including pre-disaster mitigation, the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program, and flood mapping);
Conducting various programs to mitigate the effects of
natural disasters, such as programs to assist states in
preparing for hurricanes and the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program;
Providing temporary housing and food for homeless people;
and
Operating the National Fire Data Center and the National
Fire Incident Reporting System to reduce the loss of life
from fire-related incidents.
Section 402(4) of the President's proposal would transfer
the United States Coast Guard out of the Department of
Transportation and into the new Department. The

[[Page H5642]]

Coast Guard describes itself as a ``multi-mission, military,
maritime'' agency. Although it performs some security-related
functions, it also conducts many others unrelated to homeland
security. For example, Coast Guard responsibilities include:
Providing navigational tools to ensure that vessels can
navigate the nation's waterways;
Promulgating and enforcing boating regulations to ensure
that oceangoing vessels are safe;
Protecting the nation's fishery resources, as well as its
endangered species, by enforcing prohibitions against illegal
and excess fishing;
Protecting the maritime environment by preventing oil
spills in the nation's waters and ensuring that spills are
cleaned up expeditiously if they happen; and
Maintaining a fleet of ships that is capable of breaking
ice in order to maintain maritime mobility and monitors the
movement of glaciers.
These Coast Guard functions are essential, but they could
be jeopardized by the transfer to a new Department focused on
homeland security. Indeed, the effects of the shift in the
Administration's priorities are already being felt. According
to the Administration's homeland security budget
justification for fiscal year 2003, ``[a]fter September 11,
the Coast Guard's port secunty mission grew from
approximately 1-2 percent of daily operations to between 50-
60 percent today.'' Without a sustained commitment to its
core marine and fishery functions, the Coast Guard's ability
to protect boaters and the marine environment will be
jeopardized.
There are many other examples of unrelated functions being
transferred to the new Department. The transfer of the
Environmental Measurements Laboratory from the Department of
Energy (DOE), for example, will make the new Department
responsible for maintaining the Human Subjects Research
Database, which contains descriptions of all projects
involving human subjects that are funded by the DOE, as well
as the program that assesses the quality of 149 private
laboratories that measure radiation levels. Radiation
measurement quality control undoubtedly will seem like a
small item to the new Department of Homeland Security, but
assuring that the laboratories make accurate measurements is
important, as mistakes potentially could affect public health
and cause large unnecessary public expenditures at DOE
facilities.
Appendix A contains a list of 40 unrelated functions that
would be transferred to the new Department by the President's
proposal. While it may be impossible to create a new
Department without transferring some unrelated functions,
there would seem to be serious dangers inherent in the
wholesale transfer of unrelated functions as contemplated in
the Administration's proposal.

II. LACK OF EFFECTIVE COORDINATING MECHANISMS

At the same time that the Administration's proposal
transfers numerous unrelated functions to the new Department,
the proposal also falls to include provisions that would
ensure the coordination of the more than 100 federal entities
that will continue to have significant homeland secunty
functions.
According to the Administration, ``responsibilities for
homeland security are dispersed among more than 100 different
government organizations.'' Indeed, an organizational chart
provided by the White House listed 153 different agencies,
departments, and offices with a role in homeland security.
The While House argues that the President's proposal would
solve this problem by ``transforming and realigning the
current confusing patchwork of government activities into a
single department.
In fact, however, the President's proposal will not
simpllfv this patchwork and may even make it worse. Even
after all of the changes proposed in the President's
legislative language, the federal govemnient would continue
to have well over 100 agencies, departments, and offices
involved in homeland security. According to an analysis by
the minority staff of the Appropriations Committee, the total
number of departments, agencies, and offices with a role
in homeland security actually will grow under the
President's proposal, from 153 to 160.
One example of the continued need for coordination across
agencies involves providing emergency response. According to
the Administration: ``Currently, if a chemical or biological
attack were to occur, Americans could receive warnings and
health care information from a long list of govenrment
organizations, including HHS, FEMA, EPA, GSA, DOJ, OSHA, OPM,
USPS, DOD, USAMRIID, and the Surgeon General--not to mention
a cacophony of local agencies.''
But under the President's proposal, all but one of these 11
federal agencies (FEMA) would continue to exist, and this one
agency would be replaced by the new Department. The potential
for confusion--and the need for effective coordination--
remains as great after the creation of the new Department as
before.
In fact, in some cases, the reorganization will actually
create confusion. Currently, three separate federal agencies
are in charge of protecting the food supply: the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), which prevents adulteration of
fruits, vegetables, processed foods, and seafood; the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which regulates
environmental contaminants, such as pesticides; and the
Department of Agriculture, which regulates the safety of meat
and poultry for human consumption, as well as the spread of
plant and animal pests through food products. Leading
experts, such as the National Academy of Sciences, have
called for consolidating these diffuse authorities into a
single agency.''
The Administration's proposal, however, would further
fragment regulation of the food supply by transferring some
of Agriculture's responsibilities to the new Department,
creating a fourth food safety agency. APHIS, which is charged
with inspecting imports to ensure that pests and bugs that
could harm crops or livestock do not enter the United States,
would become part of the new Department. But the Food Safety
Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture, which
inspects domestic and imported meat and poultry for threats
to human health, would remain at Agriculture. The nonsensical
result, as GAO has observed, is that ``the focus appears to
be on enhancing protection of livestock and crops from
terrorist acts, rather than on protecting the food supply as
a whole.''
One area In which coordination is urgently needed is among
law enforcement and intelligence agencies, in particular the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA). How the new Department would
relate to these agencies is not clear, however. One of
the primary missions of the new Department is to
``[p]revent terrorist attacks within the United States.''
The Administration says that a new department with this
mission is needed because ``[t]oday no one single
government agency has homeland and security as its primary
mission.'' But the FBI has also just undergone a major
reorganization. Now, its primary mission is also
``[p]rotecting the United States from terrorist attack''--
identical to that of the new Department of Homeland
Security. As a result, rather than having no single
federal agency with homeland security as its mission, the
Administration seems to be proposing two.
Under the Administration's proposal for a new Department of
Homeland Security, there will be a new office for
intelligence and threat analysis. This office will assist in
``pulling together information and intelligence from a
variety of sources.'' Similarly, under FBI Director Mueller's
reorganization proposal, there will be a new office in the
FBI called the Office of Intelligence that will also assist
in ``pulling together bits and pieces of information that
often comes from separate sources.'' The Department of
Homeland Security's intelligence office would ``have the
ability to view the dangers facing the homeland
comprehensively, ensure that the President is briefed on
relevant information, and take necessary protective action.''
Similarly, the FBI's intelligence office will be charged with
``providing analytic products to policy makers and
investigators that will allow us to prevent terrorist acts.''
This does not appear to be a recipe for a unified approach.
The investigation of the September 11 attacks has already
revealed serious lapse in the analysis and sharing of
intelligence information. In July 2001, as FBI special agent
in Phoenix reported to this supervisors that followers of
Osama bin Laden might be training at U.S. aviation schools
and suggested a nationwide canvass of the schools. But this
warning was apparently ignored. As early as January 2001, the
CIA obtained information that two of the September 11
assailants--Nawaz al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar--met with al-
Qaeda agents in Malasya. But this information was not
provided to the INS until August 2001, by which time al-Hamzi
and al-Midhar had already entered the United States.
The Administration's proposed bill, however, does not
adequately address these problems. Although the bill gives
the Secretary of Homeland Security rights of access to
reports, assessments, and analytical information from other
agencies that relate to threats and vulnerabilities, the
Department remains primarily a ``consumer'' of intelligence
information collected by agencies outside its control after
that information is already processed by those agencies. This
passive role will not ensure that the new Department obtains
access to information that the collecting agencies deem
insignificant, such as the warning from the FBI agent about
flight schools. Although the Administration's bill allows for
the transmittal of ``raw'' intelligence from outside agencies
to the Department of Homeland Security, the Department is not
given the resources to cope with the volume and complexity of
this information. Moreover, the new Department has no
``tasking'' authority to direct what intelligence is
collected, making it difficult for the new Department to
ensure that possible threats it identifies are properly
pursued.
Another concern is the potential for confusion and
interference in the actual response to bioterrorist
incidents. The FBI will bring a law enforcement focus to the
scene of a bioterrorist event, while the new Department will
be concerned with the emergency response. Under the
President's proposal, it is unclear which will prevail. Under
Presidential Decision Directive 62, which was signed during
the previous Administration, the FBI was designated as the
lead agency for ``crisis management,'' which included efforts
to anticipate, prevent, and resolve terrorist attacks. FEMA
was designated the lead agency for ``consequence
management.'' which included broader measures to protect

[[Page H5643]]

public health and safety. The President's proposal seeks
to ``clarify'' these responsibilities by ``eliminating the
artificial distinction between `crisis management' and
`consequence management.' '' But it does not describe how
the new Department and the FBI will handle the scene of a
bioterrorist attack if they both arrive at the same time
with fundamentally conflicting interests and goals.
There are many other instances of coordination problems
that the President's proposal does not address. It is unclear
in the President's proposal, for instance, how the Department
of Homeland Security would organize and coordinate the
various different police forces that exist among federal
agencies. The Administration's proposal would transfer some
of those forces (the Federal Protective Service, which
protects buildings belonging to the General Services
Administration (GSA)), but not others (the security forces
protecting Department of Energy, Veterans, and judicial
buildings). Moreover, removing the Federal Protective Service
from GSA creates its own problems because, as GAO has
observed, ``security needs to be integrated into the
decisions about location, design and operation of federal
facilities.''
What is urgently needed is an effective entity at the While
House level that can unify the disparate federal agencies
with homeland security functions behind a comprehensive
national strategy. This is supposed to be the mission of the
White House Office of Homeland Security, which President Bush
created in October 2001, and which you head. But the proposal
does nothing to give the head of the office the kinds of
authority needed to succeed.

III. PROBLEMS WITH EXTRACTING CERTAIN AGENCIES

The sections above have raised concerns with transferring
functions unrelated to homeland security and the lack of
coordinating mechanisms regardless of whether agencies are
inside or outside the structure of the new Department. Also
of concern are the potential effects of removing certain
functions from their home agencies.
This is a particular problem for the functions being
transferred from the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS). Section 502(5) of the President's proposal would move
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Health
Emergency Preparedness and ``the functions of the Secretary
of Health and Human Services related thereto'' to the new
Department of Homeland Security. This provision makes little
sense. In the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, Congress created the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Health Emergency
Preparedness in recognition of the need to have a central
office in HHS to coordinate how the various aqencies
within the Department respond to public health
emergencies. Moving this office to another department will
not eliminate the need for a coordinating office within
HHS. It will simply recreate the same problems within HBS
that Congress was attempting to fix.
Richard Falkenrath, director of policy at the White House
Office of Homeland Security, was asked about this problem
during a briefing for staff on July 1, 2002. He answered that
the challenge of coordinating emergency preparedness and
response activities within HHS could be handled by ``a couple
of people'' in the Secretary's office. Obviously, this
cavalier attitude is seriously misinformed.
Section 505 is also problematic. It transfers control over
HHS programs to provide assistance for state and local
preparedness from HBS to the new Department. These funds,
which total over $1 billion, allow states and localities to
enhance their surveillance, communication, and laboratory
abilities all of which are essential for responding to
numerous public health threats, including threats that are
not related to terrorism. As GAO has stated, these programs
``Include essential public health functions that, while
Important for homeland security, are critical to basic public
health core capacities.'' As a result, GAO made the following
conclusions: ``We are concerned that this approach may
disrupt the synergy that exists in these dual-purpose
programs. We are also concerned that the separation of
control over the programs from their operations could lead to
difficulty in balancing priorities. Although the HHS programs
are important for homeland security, they are just as
important to the day-to-day needs of public health agencies
and hospitals, such as reporting on disease outbreaks and
providing alerts to the medical community. The current
proposal does not clearly provide a structure that ensures
that both the goals of homeland security and public health
will be met.
Section 403 also creates uncertainties by transferring to
the new Department vague authorities over visa processing.
Currently, approving and denying visas is an important
activity of the State Department. which processes about
400,000 immigrant visas and over six million non-immigrant
visas annually. To perform this function, the State
Department employs thousands of foreign service officers
skilled in hundreds of languages. Section 403(1) transfers
to the Secretary of Homeland Security ``exclusive
authority'' over this function, but this authority would
be exercised ``through'' the Secretary of State. As a
result, it is unclear whether the State Department must
concur in policy decisions, or whether this is merely an
administrative function. Additional statements by the
Administration have not clarified this provision. The
Administration has stated that consular officers will
remain employed by the State Department, but that the new
Secretary of Homeland Security will delegate back to the
Secretary of State some visa functions unrelated to
security.
Similar problems affect the provisions transferring
portions of the Department of Energy. The provisions in the
bill are ambiguous and potentially very broad. For example,
section 302(2)(G) of the President's proposal would transfer
``the advanced scientific computing research program and
activities'' at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory to the new
Department. Although the exact scope of this provision is
unclear, it appears to encompass parts of the Lawrence
Livermore Laboratory's Computation Directorate, which
supports other programs at the laboratory by providing
computing capacity and capability, as well as research,
advanced development, and operations and support related to
computing, computer science, and information technologies.
Such a transfer could harm the laboratory's ability to
support its key mission--safeguarding this stockpile of
nuclear weapons--as well as other core laboratory activities.
Section 302(2)(E) gives, the President authority to
transfer from DOE to the new Department any life science
activity within the biological and environmental research
program that is related to microbial pathogens. The result
would be that ongoing DNA sequencing of harmful microbes
could be transferred to the new Department, while virtually
identical work on microbes with beneficial uses (such as
microbes that break down pollution) would stay at DOE.
Splitting this highly specialized work risks weakening the
effectiveness of both.

IV. LACK OF RECOGNITION OF DISPARATE IMMIGRATION FUNCTIONS

In April, the House passed legislation (H.R. 3231)
recognizing the two distinct functions of the INS: an
immigration services function and an enforcement function. As
part of this reform effort, the bill would split the INS into
a Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and a Bureau
of Immigration Enforcement, both under the supervision of an
Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs within the
Department of Justice. The legislation aimed to correct
longstanding and widely-recognized systemic problems within
the INS by separating out its distinct and often conflicting
service and enforcement functions.
When the House immigration bill was being considered, the
Administration expressed its support. In addition, when the
White House issued its briefing document regarding the new
Department of Homeland Security, that support was reiterated.
The briefing document stated the following: ``The new
Department of Homeland Security would include the INS and
would, consistent with the President's long-standing
position, separate immigration services from immigration law
32 enforcement.''
Despite these assurances, however, the legislative language
proposed by the President would import the INS into the new
Department of Homeland Security intact and unreformed. There
are no details whatsoever regarding the structure of the INS
after it is transferred to the new Department. As a result,
the Administration's proposal fails to address internal
structural and coordination problems that hamper the
effectiveness of the INS.

V. EXEMPTIONS FROM ``GOOD GOVERNMENT'' LAWS

The Administration's proposal would create broad exemptions
to the nation's ``good government'' laws. It would make the
civil service, procurement, and property acquisition and
disposal laws essentially optional for the new Department. In
addition, the President's proposal would weaken valuable
sunshine laws, such as the Freedom of Information Act and the
Federal Advisory Committee Act. The bill would also create a
weak management and oversight structure by not fully applying
the Chief Financial Officers Act, the law governing Chief
Information Officers, and the Inspector General Act.
A. Exemption From Civil Service Protections
The nation's civil service laws have evolved over many
decades to ensure that the government has a professional
civil service hired on the basis of merit rather than
political favoritism. Section 730 of the President's
proposal, however, would give the Secretary the authority to
create an alternative personnel system. The only limitation
in the statute is that the system should be ``flexible,
contemporary and grounded in the public employment principles
of merit and fitness.''
Under the President's proposal, employees of the new
Department could be exempted from essential provisions of
title 5 of the United States Code. No rationale has been
offered to explain why affording these basic protections for
federal workers and their families would undermine the
mission of the new Department. The civil service
provisions that become optional include the following:
The prohibition on discrimination against employees on the
basis of political affiliation and on coercing political
activity (anti-patronage protection);
The prohibition on hiring or promoting a relative (anti-
nepotism protection);
The prohibition on reprisal against employees for the
lawful disclosure of information about illegal and wasteful
government activity (whistleblower protection);

[[Page H5644]]

The preferences for veterans in hiring and in reductions-
in-force;
The protection from arbitrary dismissal or demotion through
due process appeal rights to the Merit Systems Protection
Board;
The right to organize, join unions. and bargain
collectively with management over working conditions;
Sick and annual leave for federal employees and family and
medical leave;
Retirement benefits, such as the Civil Service Retirement
System and the Federal Employees' Retirement System; and
Health insurance through the Federal Employees' Health
Benefits Program.
Moreover, important programs for ensuring diversity in the
federal workforce, such as the requirement to recruit
minorities, would also become optional under the proposed
legislation.
Another potential threat to the civil service laws is
section 732(b), which allows the Secretary to hire an
unlimited number of employees through ``personal service''
contracts rather than through the civil service system.
Although the rationale for this provision seems to be to
allow the new Department to obtain certain specialized
services in an emergency, there do not appear to be any
limits on its use. For example, current law requires these
types of contracts to be temporary (no longer than one year)
and subject to salary caps (no higher than the GS-15 level).
The President's proposal would allow these contracts to go on
indefinitely and at any rate. In effect, the section provides
an alternative vehicle for bypassing the protections and
requirements of the civil service system.
B. Exemption From Procurement Rules
Under section 732(c) of the President's proposal, the new
Secretary could waive any and all procurement statutes and
regulations, and the Secretary would not be required to
comply with the cornerstone procurement principles of open
and competitive bidding. In a section-by-section analysis
provided by the While House, the Administration asserts that
``normal procurement operations would be subject to current
govemment-wide procurement statutes and regulations.'' To the
contrary, however, the legislative language would add the new
Department to the list of entities listed in 40 U.S.C. 474,
such as the Postal Service, which would exempt entirely the
Department from the federal government's normal acquisition
laws.
As a result, there is no guarantee that the new Department
would be getting the lowest prices, the best quality, or the
best deals. Fundamental principles of federal procurement
such as the following would not apply:
The requirement that acquisitions be publicly advertised;
The requirement that sufficient notice be given to allow
companies to respond;
The requirement that all responsible bidders be given the
chance to compete for a given acquisition; and
The requirement that all contractors be rated on the same
criteria when competing for a given contract.
These bedrock principles have helped to maintain
competition in federal contracting, which history has proven
to be the best way to ensure the best quality at the lowest
prices while maintaining a system free of favoritism or
abuse. In addition, long-standing preferences for small- and
minority-owned businesses designed to encourage their
development and access to federal contracts would no longer
be guaranteed.
Section 732(a) of the President's proposal would explicitly
grant the new Department so-called ``other transactions
authority'' for research and development contracts. This
authority was given to the Defense Department to eliminate
the open and competitive bidding process in order to attract
nontraditional contractors. In fact, however, it has been
used mainly by traditional contractors to negotiate contracts
that waive the federal government's rights to review
financial management and cost information, as well as its
rights to use new inventions discovered through research
funded by the federal taxpayer. In reviewing the use of
this authority by the Defense Department, the Inspector
General found that these types of contracts ``do not
provide the government a number of significant
protections, ensure the prudent expenditure of taxpayer
dollars, or prevent fraud.''
C. Exemption From Property Rules
The new Department will acquire a considerable inventory of
federal property, particularly through the Coast Guard, which
owns valuable real estate across the country. Sections 732(d)
and (f) of the President's proposal, however, would give the
new Department broad authority to acquire and dispose of both
real and personal property. Specifically, the Department
could acquire replacement real property through exchange or
transfer with other agencies or through the sale or long-term
lease to the private sector. In addition, the Department
would be authorized to retain the proceeds of such
transactions.
Currently, under the 1949 Property Act, federal agencies
must determine whether they own ``excess'' property they no
longer need. GSA then screens this excess property for other
federal uses. If there are no federal uses for the property,
GSA declares the property ``surplus'' and screens it for
``homeless'' or ``public benefit'' uses, such as for schools,
correctional institutions, airports, and other entitles. If
no beneficial public use is found for the property, GSA may
sell the property through negotiated sales at fair market
value without restrictions on use. The property may also be
sold to the public through a bidding process if a negotiated
sale does not occur. Under the Administration's proposal,
however, none of these procedures will apply.
The Government Reform Committee reported a comprehensive
reform of federal property laws earlier this year (H.R.
3947). This reform gave agencies more flexibility to manage
their property, but it also included safeguards to ensure
that agencies respond to community input, consider local
zoning laws, and receive fair market value. None of these
safeguards are incorporated into the Administration's
proposal.
D. Exemption From Freedom of Information Act
Section 204 of the President's proposal would exempt the
new Department from complying fully with the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). If nonfederal entities or individuals
provide information voluntarily to the new Department that
relates to infrastructure vulnerabilities or other
vulnerabilities to terrorism, that information would not be
subject to FOIA. This exemption would apply to information
that ``is or has been in the possession of the Department.''
FOIA was designed to preserve openness and accountability
in government. In order to protect sensitive information,
FOIA already contains sufficient exemptions from disclosure.
These exemptions cover critical infrastructure information.
FOIA does not require the disclosure of national security
information (exemption 1), sensitive law enforcement
information (exemption 7), or confidential business
information (exemption 4). Therefore, new exemptions to its
provisions do not appear necessary.
The danger in creating new exemptions to FOIA is that
important information about health and safety issues could be
withheld from the public. In fact, the provision is drafted
so broadly that it could be used to ``launder'' embarrassing
information through the new Department and thereby prevent
public disclosure.
One particular target of the new FOIA exemption appears to
be the ``Risk Management Plans'' that chemical plants are
required to file under the Clean Air Act. These plans inform
communities about the dangers they would face in the event of
an explosion or chemical accident in a nearby plant. Chemical
industry officials argued that Congress should restrict
public access to this information because the information
could be used by terrorists to target facilities.
Congress addressed this issue by carefully balancing the
goal of informing emergency responders and the public about
potential risks of chemical accidents with the goal of
keeping sensitive information away from terrorists. In the
Chemical Safety Information Site Security Act of 1999,
Congress concluded that information about potential ``worst
case'' scenarios should remain available to the public, but
with certain restrictions to prevent a searchable database
from being readily posted on the Internet. Congress ensured
public access to basic information about the risk management
plans, preserving the right of Americans to know about
chemical accidents that could impact their families and
communities. Under the President's proposal, however,
chemical companies could now prevent the disclosure of all
Risk Management Plans under FOIA simply by sending them to
the new Department.
E. Exemption From Federal Advisory Committee Act
Section 731 of the President's proposal would exempt
advisory committees established by the Secretary of the new
Department from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
FACA requires that any committee formed to provide advice to
the federal government, and which consists of members who are
not federal employees, must follow certain rules in order to
promote good-government values such as openness,
accountability, and a balance of viewpoints. Generally, FACA
requires that such committees announce their meetings, hold
their meetings in public, take minutes of the meetings, and
provide the opportunity for divergent viewpoints to be
represented.
To protect sensitive information, FACA includes exemptions
for information that relates to national security issues or
information that is classified. As a result, many agencies
with homeland security missions, such as the Department of
Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the
Department of Defense, currently operate under FACA without
difficulty. The President's proposal contains no explanation
why the new Department could not also comply with FACA. In
fact, the only two agencies that are exempt from FACA are the
Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Reserve.
At least 27 advisory committees that currently exist would
be transferred to the new Department under the President's
proposal. These existing advisory committees, which are
currently subject to FACA, include the Navigational Safety
Advisory Committee at the Coast Guard, the Advisory Committee
of the National Urban Search and Rescue System at FEMA, the
Advisory Committee on International Child Labor Enforcement
at the Customs Service, and the Advisory Committee on Foreign
Animal and Poultry Diseases at APHIS. When rechartered under
the Homeland Security Department, none of these advisory
committees will be subject to the FACA requirement on balance
and openness.

[[Page H5645]]

In addition, the President's proposal waives important
conflict of interest laws that apply to individuals serving
on advisory committees. Under section 731, if an individual
serves on an advisory committee, the individual will be
exempt from the provisions of sections 203, 205, or 207 of
Title 18, United States Code. These sections contain
important protections. Section 207, for example, provides
that a person who serves on a committee that is advising an
agency on a specific matter cannot lobby the agency about the
same matter after leaving the advisory committee. No
rationale is provided for exempting members of advisory
committees from these protections against conflicts of
interest.
F. Exemption From Chief Financial Officer Act
Section 103(d)(4) of the President's proposal would
authorize the President to appoint the Department's Chief
Financial Officer (CFO) without Senate confirmation. Current
law requires that a CFO of a cabinet department either be:
(1) appointed by the President with Senate confirmation;
or (2) designated by the President from among agency
officials who are Senate-confirmed. In either case,
current law requires that CFOs be Senate-confirmed.
In addition, the President's proposal contains no language
making the CFO Act applicable to the new Department. The CFO
Act contains core financial management, accountability, and
reporting requirements that are at least as important for the
new Department as they are for other covered agencies, which
include all existing cabinet departments. Moreover, section
602 of the President's proposal provides that the CFO shall
report to the Secretary or to another official of the
Department as the Secretary may direct. This section is
inconsistent with the CFO Act, which requires that the CFO
report directly to the agency head regarding financial
management matters.
These exemptions from financial management requirements
make little sense. According to GAO, ``[i]t is important to
re-emphasize that the department should be brought under the
Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act and related financial
management statutes.''
G. Exemption From Chief Information Officer Legislation
The proposal does not appear to give the Chief Information
Officer (CIO) of the new Department the same status and
responsibilities as CIOs at other agencies. Section 603 of
the President's proposal provides that the CIO shall report
to the Secretary or to another official of the Department as
the Secretary may direct. The Clinger-Cohen Act, however,
requires that the CIO report directly to the agency head.
In addition, the Clinger-Cohen Act specifies numerous
responsibilities for CIOs. These include developing an
accounting, financial, and asset management system that is
reliable, consistent, and timely; developing and maintaining
information systems; and assessing and reporting on progress
made in developing information technology systems. The
President's legislative language, however, does not specify
any responsibilities for the CIO. In fact, the bill would
assign responsibility for information technology systems to
an Under Secretary for Management at the new Department, a
responsibility assigned to the CIO under the Clinger-Cohen
Act.
H. Limits on Access to Information by Inspector General
Section 710 of the President's proposal would subject the
Inspector General (IG) of the new Department to the
Secretary's control and would authorize the Secretary to
prevent the IG from doing work in areas involving certain
information. These areas are quite broad and extend to
information concerning any ``matters the disclosure of which
would, in the Secretary's judgment, constitute a serious
threat to national security.'' Under the President's
proposal, the Secretary could prohibit the IG from doing work
``if the Secretary determines that such prohibition is
necessary . . . to preserve the national security or to
prevent a significant impairment to the interests of the
United States.''
IGs at certain other agencies (such as the Defense
Department and the Justice Department) have similar
limitations on access. But in those cases, the IGs are
directed to report to Congress if the relevant Secretary
impedes their access to necessary information. In the case of
the IG for the new Department, this important check on
Secretarial interference has been eliminated. Instead, the
proposal would give the responsibility of reporting
interference with an IG investigation to the Secretary, who
would have an obvious conflict of interest in full reporting.

VI. EXEMPTION FROM CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

In addition to creating exemptions to many of the nation's
good government laws, the President's proposal would
substantially undercut Congress' ability to conduct oversight
of the new Department. Through several broad and sweeping
provisions in the President's proposal, the Secretary of the
new Department would have new powers to rewrite enacted
legislation and override budgetary decisions made by
Congress.
The President's proposal would give the Secretary of the
new Department the equivalent of a lump-sum appropriation of
more than $30 billion. In transferring the various existing
agencies to the new Department, several provisions of the
President's proposal allow the Secretary to transfer agency
balances to the new Department. Section 803(e) of the
President's proposal allows the new Secretary to allocate
those funds as the Secretary sees fit, and it expressly
overides the provision of permanent law that requires funds
transferred to be used only for the purposes for which they
were originally appropriated. Taken together, these
provisions allow the new Secretary to rewrite appropriations
relating to both homeland security and all other functions
conducted by the new Department.
Section 733(b) creates for the new Secretary a permanent
blanket grant of authority to transfer between appropriations
accounts up to 5 percent of the appropriations made each year
for agencies within the new Department, so long as the
Appropriations Committees are given 15 days notice. This
provision could allow the Secretary to transfer $2 billion or
more per year rather than addressing potential funding
misallocations through the annual congressional
appropriations process.
In addition, section 733(a) allows the Secretary to
``establish, consolidate, alter, or discontinue'' any
organizational unit in the new Department, including those
established by statute, upon 90 days notice to Congress.
Although the Coast Guard and the Secret Service are exempt
from this provision, all other agencies transferred to the
new Department could be abolished entirely with no input from
Congress.

VII. POTENTIAL FOR SERIOUS DISRUPTION IN THE WAR ON TERROR

The Administration asserts that the ``current components of
our homeland security structure will continue to function as
normal and there will be no gaps in protection as planning
for the new Department moves forward.'' Unfortunately, this
is a difficult goal to achieve, and the proposal submitted to
Congress contains no implementation plan that shows how
disruptions will be avoided.
In fact, the history of corporate and government
reorganizations is not encouraging. As a management professor
from Columbia University recently remarked, ``[t]o think that
a structural solution can bring about a major improvement in
performance is a major mistake.'' In the corporate world,
more mergers fail than succeed.'' According to one expert,
``[p]rivate-sector data show that productivity usually drops
by 50 percent in the first four to eight months following the
initial announcement of a merger, largely because employees
are preoccupied with their now uncertain future.
The model most often cited by the Administration is the
creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. But that
reorganization was not undertaken until after World War II
was over. Moreover, the newly created Defense Department was
riven with strife for decades after its creation. As recently
as 1983, when President Reagan ordered the invasion of
Grenada, the Army and the Marines had to split the island in
half because they could not figure out how to cooperate. The
original 1947 reorganization required four different
amendments, the last being the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986,
before the problems created by the 1947 reorganization were
finally addressed.
GAO has closely tracked the history of government
reorganizations. According to David Walker, the Comptroller
General of GAO: ``Often it has taken years for the
consolidated functions in new departments to effectively
build on their combined strengths, and it is not uncommon for
these structures to remain as management challenges for
decades. . . . [R]eorganizations of government agencies
frequently encounter start up problems and unanticipated
consequences that result from the consolidations, are
unlikely to fully overcome obstacles and challenges, and may
require additional modifications in the future to effectively
achieve our collective goals for defending the country
against terrorism.''
Given this history, the burden should be on the
Administration to show how this bureaucratic reorganization
can be accomplished successfully. But virtually no detail has
been provided to Congress that addresses these serious
implementation issues.

VIII. LACK OF NATIONAL STRATEGY

Most experts recommend three concrete steps for developing
an approach to homeland security: First, evaluate the threats
posed to the country; second, develop a plan for dealing with
those threats; and third, implement that plan through
whatever reorganization and realignment of resources is
necessary. It appears, however, that the Administration has
taken exactly the opposite approach: White House officials
proposed the reorganization first; they will come out with a
strategy second; and they may eventually do a comprehensive
assessment of the threats facing the country.
Experts have consistently criticized the United States for
failing to have a comprehensive national strategy for
fighting terrorism. GAO has made this finding repeatedly.''
The U.S. Commission on National Security, the bipartisan
group headed by former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary
Hart, found that ``no overarching strategic framework
guides U.S. national security policymaking or resource
allocations.'' Likewise, the independent panel headed by
Governor James Gilmore concluded that ``the United States
has no coherent, functional national strategy for
combating terrorism.''
Nine months ago, in October 2001, the White House agreed
with this assessment. In

[[Page H5646]]

the executive order creating the White House Office of
Homeland Security, President Bush recognized that developing
a national strategy was essential in the fight against
terrorism. The executive order establishing the Office
provided that: ``The mission of the Office shall be to
develop and implement the coordination of a comprehensive
national strategy to secure The United States from terrorist
threats or attacks.''
When you assumed your position, you also recognized that
developing this strategy was your top assignment, calling it
your ``main mission'' and your ``very first mission.'' In a
speech in April, you said, ``I take every word of that
executive order seriously,'' and you promised that the
strategy would be ``guided by an overarching philosophy: risk
management--focusing our resources where they will do the
most good, and achieve the maximum protection of lives and
property.''
Since that time, the national strategy has been promised
repeatedly. In the budget justification for fiscal year 2003,
the Administration made this statement: ``The United States
has never had a national blueprint for securing itself from
the threat of terrorism. This year, with the publication of
the National Strategy for Homeland Security, it will.''
Unfortunately, this strategy has not been developed. As a
result, Congress still does not have a list of priorities set
forth in a clear way and cannot gauge whether your
reorganization proposal best serves the nation's security
goals. Moreover, the new Department will have no clear
strategy to implement after it is created. As John R.
Brinkerhoff, civil defense director at FEMA under President
Reagan, has stated: ``The Bush Administration is doing the
wrong thing for the wrong reasons. . . . What worries me the
most is that we've put the cart before the horse: We're
organizing, and then we're going to figure out what to do.''

IX. COST

The Administration has stated that the creation of this new
Department ``would not `grow' government.'' According to the
Administration: ``The cost of the new elements (such as the
threat analysis unit and the state, local, and private sector
coordination functions), as well as the department-
wide management and Administration units, can be funded
from savings achieved by eliminating redundancies inherent
in the current structure.''
This is not a credible statement. CBO has examined the
costs of the reorganization proposal put forth by Senator
Lieberman (S. 2452). According to CBO, the Lieberman bill
``would cost about $1.1 billion over the 2003-2007 period.''
CBO writes: ``[A] new cabinet-level department would require
additional resources to perform certain administrative
functions, including new positions to staff the offices of
the Inspector General, general counsel, budget, and
Congressional affairs for the new department.'' In addition,
CBO states that the new Department would require additional
funding for ``centralized leadership, coordination, and
support services,'' and that ``new departmental staff would
be hired over the first two years following enactment of the
legislation.''
The Administration's proposal is significantly more
ambitious and costly than Senator Lieberman's. It includes
more agencies, such as the Transportation Security
Administration with over 40,000 employees. Moreover, it
requires the new Department to take on a host of new
functions, including:
A new office for ``Intelligence and Threat Analysis'' to
``fuse and analyze intelligence and other information
pertaining to threats to the homeland from multiple
sources,'' including a new ``system for conveying actionable
intelligence and other information'' and a new system to
``consolidate the federal government's lines of communication
with state and local public safety agencies and with the
private sector'';
A new ``state-of-the-art visa system, one in which visitors
are identified by biometric information'';
A new ``automated entry-exit system that would verify
compliance with entry conditions, student status such as work
limitations and duration of stay, for all categories of
visas'';
New ``interoperable communicattions,'' including
``equipment and systems'' for the ``hundreds of offices from
across the government and the country'' that make up the
``emergency response community'' (this would be a ``top
priority'' of the new Department); and
A new ``national system for detecting the use of biological
agents within the United States,'' including a new ``national
public health data surveillance system,'' and a new ``sensor
network to detect and report the release of bioterrorist
pathogens in densely populated areas.''
In addition to these new functions, the President's
proposal would establish an entirely new bureaucracy,
complete with a management hierarchy and accompanying staff.
According to the President's legislative language, the new
Department would have up to 22 Deputy, Under, and Assistant
Secretaries. This is more than the number of Deputy, Under,
and Assistant Secretaries at the Department of Health and
Human Services, which administers a budget about ten times
the proposed budget of the new Department of Homeland
Security.
Like CBO, GAO has also concluded that the new Department
will impose costs on the taxpayer. According to GAO,
``[n]umerous complicated issues will need to be resolved in
the short term, including a harmonization of information
technology systems, human capital systems, the physical
location of people and other assets, and many other
factors.'' As a result, GAO concludes that the President's
reorganization proposal ``will take additional resources to
make it fully effective.''
Mark Everson, Controller at the Office of Federal Financial
Management within the White House Office of Management and
Budget, was asked about these costs at a staff briefing on
July 1, 2002. He said that the Administration bad no estimate
of the transition costs of creating the new Department and no
estimate of the level of savings to be achieved by combining
agencies. The only thing he said he knew was that these
unknown costs would exactly equal these unknown savings.
Obviously, Congress needs more concrete information about
budget costs before it can legislate intelligently.

X. PROCESS

When the President made his nationally televised address on
June 6, 2002, announcing his proposal for a new Department of
Homeland Security, it came as a surprise not only to Congress
and the American people, but also to the agencies,
departments, and offices affected by the proposal. The plan
was put together with so much secrecy that ``[n]o Cabinet
secretary was directly consulted about a plan that would
strip 170,000 employees and $37 billion in funding from
existing departments. In fact, there was so little
communication between the White House and the agencies that
at least one major agency had to call the minority staff of
the Committee on Government Reform to learn whether it was
affected by the reorganization plan.
This closed process utilized by the Administration is ill-
suited to ensuring that all potential problems are identified
and addressed beforehand. Moreover, the risk of making policy
mistakes is compounded by the rushed process being used in
Congress to consider the legislation. It is not clear how in
this process the time and opportunity will be found to make
sure the legislation is done correctly

XI. CONCLUSION

The issues raised in this letter exemplify the serious
questions that should be resolved before Congress completes
work on this legislation. For this reason, we urge you to
respond in detail and in writing to the concerns raised in
this letter by July 15, before the House select committee
starts its consideration of this bill.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Government Reform.
David R. Obey,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations.

Appendix A--Transferred Functions Not Related to Homeland Security

Animal Plant Health Inspection Service

Animal Welfare Act: APHIS enforces the Animal Welfare Act,
the act that regulates the exhibition of animals in zoos and
circuses and the transportation of animals on commercial
airlines.
Biotechnology Regulatory Policy: APHIS regulates the
movement, importation, and field testing of genetically
engineered plants and microorganisms.
Canadian Geese: APHIS works with state wildlife agencies
and local governments to address problems with non-migratory,
resident Canadian geese.
Disease and Pest Detection and Eradication: APHIS is
responsible for the detection and eradication of pests and
diseases that affect crops and livestock. For example, on
September 20, 2001, APHIS implemented the accelerated
National Scrapie Eradication Program. A few of the other
pests and diseases APHIS monitors for and eradicates include:
the boll weevil; the fruit fly; rabies; the Asian Longhorned
Beetle; the citrus canker program; and the plum pox virus.
Horse Protection Act: APHIS enforces the Horse Protection
Act, the act which prohibits horses subjected to a process
called soring from participating in exhibitions, sales,
shows, or auctions.
Missing Pet: APHIS maintains the missing pets network at
www.missingpet.net.
National Poultry Improvement Plan: This is an industry/
state/federal program that establishes standards for
evaluating poultry breeding stock and hatchery products to
ensure they are free from hatchery-disseminated and egg-
transmitted diseases.
Noxious weeds: APHIS cooperates with federal, state, and
private organizations to detect and respond to infestations
of invasive plants, such as branched broomrape and small
broomrape.
Screwworm: APHIS is working to ensure that screwworm is not
reintroduced into the United States. This eradication program
is close to its goal of establishing a permanent sterile
screwworm barrier in the eastern third of Panama.
Trade Issue Resolution and Management: APHIS monitors
emerging foreign pest and disease threats at their origin
before they have an opportunity to reach U.S. ports. APHIS
also participates in trade agreements.
Veterinary Biologics: APHIS regulates veterinary biologics
including vaccines and diagnostic kits.

[[Page H5647]]

Coast Guard

International Ice Patrol: The Coast Guard has a fleet of
ships designed to break ice in cold regions to ensure that
boats are able to navigate the waterways.
Marine Safety: The Coast Guard enforces regulations to
ensure that boats and other marine equipment meet safety
standards.
Maritime Drug Interdiction: The Coast Guard interdicts
drugs illegally brought into this country on the waterways.
Maritime Law Enforcement: The Coast Guard enforces the laws
of the waterways.
Maritime Mobility Missions: The Coast Guard provides aids
to navigation and bridge administration to ensure that
vessels are able to navigate our waterways.
Oil Spill Cleanup: The Coast Guard helps to prevent oil
spills in the nation's waters and assists in their cleanup
when they occur.
Protection of Natural Resources: The Coast Guard protects
our domestic fishery resources and marine environment.
Search and Rescue: The Coast Guard, as one of its primary
missions, rescues troubled vessels and people on the nation's
waterways.

Customs

Border Drug Interdiction: The Customs Service fights
against drug smuggling at the United States border.
Copyright Protection: The Customs Service helps to enforce
the Copyright Acts.
Enforcement of Health and Safety Laws: The Customs Service
checks imports to ensure that they comply with health and
safety laws.
Fostering of Trade: The Customs Service works with the
trade community and identifies and confronts trade issues
facing the country.
Child Pornography Prevention: The Customs Service enforces
laws protecting against child pornography.
Fair Trade Protection: The Customs Service enforces a
variety of fair trade laws such as the Lanham Trade-Mark Act
and the Trade Act of 1974.
Protection of Species at Risk: The Customs Service enforces
laws protecting threatened species such as the Bald Eagle
Protection Act and the African Elephant Conservation Act as
well as the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Revenue Collection: The Customs Service provides the nation
with its second largest source of revenue.
Stolen Antiquities and Art: The Art Recovery Team works to
recover stolen pieces of art and antiquities.
Tariff Enforcement: The Customs Service ensures that U.S.
tariff laws are enforced.

Department of Energy

Energy Emergency Support: The DOE Office of Energy
Assurance assesses the potential effects of natural disasters
such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods on
energy infrastructure and provides energy emergency support
in the case of such disasters.
Human Subjects Research Database: The DOE Environmental
Measurements Laboratory (EML) maintains the Human Subjects
Research Database, which contains descriptions of all
projects involving human subjects that are funded by the DOE,
performed by DOE staff, or conducted at DOE facilities. EML
also provides direct assistance to the manager of the DOE
Protecting Human Subjects Program, such as assisting with
production of educational and guidance materials.
Quality Assessment Program for Contractor Labs: EML also
runs a quality program for DOE contractor laboratories that
measure radiation. The program tests the quality of 149
private laboratories' environmental radiological
measurements.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Emergency Food and Shelter: FEMA gives grants to providers
of emergency food and shelter for hungry and homeless people.
Hazards Mitigation Program: FEMA provides grants to states
and local governments to implement hazard mitigation measures
to reduce the loss of life and property resulting from major
natural disasters, such as hurricanes.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program: FEMA is the
lead agency on programs to improve the understanding,
characterization and predictions of earthquake hazards; to
improve model building codes and land use practices; to
reduce risk through post-earthquake investigations and
education; to develop and improve design and construction
techniques; to improve mitigation capacity; and to accelerate
the application of research results.
National Flood Insurance Program: FEMA administers the
National Flood Insurance Program, which provides insurance
coverage for events that are not covered by traditional
homeowners' policies.
Reduce Loss from Fire: FEMA runs a number of programs to
reduce the loss of life from fire-related incidents,
including the National Fire Data Center and the National Fire
Incident Reporting Systems.

Secret Service

Prevention of Counterfeiting: The Counterfeit Division of
the Secret Service has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate
counterfeiting of United States securities and obligations
including items such as food stamps and postage stamps.
Safe School Initiative: The Secret Service has partnered
with the Department of Education to help prevent violence in
schools.
Telecommunications Fraud: The Secret Service has become a
recognized expert in helping to prevent telecommunications
fraud such as the cloning of cellular telephones.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), the conference chairman and member
of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I too want to commend the
chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Armey) for I think using
exceptional grace and exceptional composure and I think real balance in
giving all the Members of the Select Committee a say, and I think as
well giving all of the committees of jurisdiction a real voice in this
process. Again, I think the gentleman did an exceptional job and he is
to be commended for his work on this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the best way to secure our homeland is to
involve all sectors of society. By creating a working relationship
between the public and private sectors, the best available technologies
and the greatest amount of knowledge can be brought to the table to
achieve a common goal of protecting our Nation from those who seek to
inflict terror within our borders. We have discussed at length in this
process the role of the government in homeland defense and that is
good. At the same time, we need to integrate the private sector into an
overall agenda of homeland defense.
During the Select Committee hearings last week, my colleagues
accepted an amendment I offered to create a position of special
assistance for the private sector to be a liaison within the Office of
the Secretary of Homeland Security.
The special assistant would be the primary contact for private sector
activities and coordination with the Department of Homeland Security.
The private sector will help combat terrorism by ensuring that
America's protectors have the best available technology to secure and
defend our homeland, from the superaccurate sensors that can detect
biologic warfare agents, to integrated computer systems that allow
government agencies to effectively communicate with State and local
officials and each other.
In addition, the special assistant will ensure that federally-funded
research and development projects that have homeland security
application are not just sitting in the lab, somewhere but are in the
lands of our Nation's defenders.
The special assistant for the private sector will play a crucial role
in coordinating the security of our nation's critical infrastructure,
an important job considering, Mr. Chairman, that 85 percent of our
critical infrastructure is owned by the private sector.
By fostering relationships between Federally funded programs and the
private sector, new and innovative technologies will help the
government and local communities with deterrence, prevention, recovery
and response.
The ultimate goal of these efforts is to ensure that our police,
firefighters, baggage screeners, cargo inspectors and other front-line
defenders have the best anti-terrorism technology America has to offer.
The private sector can play a critical role to protect and defend our
homeland.
Mr. Chairman, we must do everything possible to promote its work, so
together with the government we can better secure our great Nation. I
am delighted that we have done this that we are moving forward in this
legislation. I encourage all of my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5005, the
Homeland Security Act of 2002. This bill represents a monumental step
toward addressing the serious homeland security concerns we currently
face in America by creating a new Department of Homeland Security. I
also rise to ask the new Secretary of Homeland Security to study the
steps currently being taken by the Oklahoma Municipal League to put
into place a statewide emergency response network which utilizes the
most up-to-date wireless last-mile technology to link federal, state
and local officials in the event of a natural disaster or criminal or
terrorist activity.
The Oklahoma Municipal League has begun a successful initiative to
create a statewide broadband network for municipalities, schools,
businesses and residences through a public/private partnership.
Utilizing grants and low cost loans from industry, state and federal

[[Page H5648]]

sources, the League and member municipalities are creating the base
network for public services that will be self-sustaining through
commercial subscription services to businesses and residences.
Telecommunications fiber links are leased from carriers for backbone
links and wireless last-mile technology is used to provide local high-
speed access. The network links local governments to each other and to
state and federal offices. This network can be utilized to efficiently
coordinate the activities of first responders in the event of an
emergency.
The officials in Oklahoma have begun discussions with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency for implementing this program on a national
scale and I urge the Secretary to work with FEMA and other relevant
federal agencies to expedite this process and provide any resources
available to assist the Oklahoma Municipal League in further developing
this network. Recognizing that Homeland Security begins at the local
level, I also urge the Secretary to make other states aware of the
Oklahoma program and encourage them to use it as a model for
implementing similar networks in their own states.
I would also ask the Secretary to study the impacts of terrorism on
rural America and develop guidelines for minimizing the effects of
these incidents. This study should focus on the difficulties of
communication among state and local officials in rural areas,
particularly with respect to the ability of municipal government
officials and first responders to have real-time transmission of voice,
data and video in order to effectively response to emergency
situations. The findings of this study should provide examples of
communities that are preparing disaster response plans and educating
the public on the steps to take in the event of an emergency.
Mr. Chairman, these two studies should be conducted immediately upon
creation of the new Department of Homeland Security. The Secretary
should report back to Congress the findings of these studies within 120
days of the creation of the new Department.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, here we are crafting the first new department of
government in many years and I am a little surprised. It is Alice in
Wonderland. It is verdict first, evidence later.
A provision in this legislation would extend a deadline for screening
of checked luggage aboard aircraft by explosive detection systems out
off into the future after last year, just eight months ago in this very
Chamber, we voted 410 to 9 to set a deadline of December 31, 2002 to do
that very job. Where is the evidence that we need to do that? Where is
the evidence that should precede the verdict that this great Nation
cannot accomplish that task that we have set forth by an overwhelming
vote in this body?
I frankly am offended that we would hardly, as the ink dries on the
Transportation Security Administration law, hardly is the President's
pronouncement of a need for a Department of Homeland Security than this
body will become and begin to undermine that very security.
I am not a newcomer at this business of aviation security. I have
spent about 20 years at it in the Committee on Public Works, and then
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I am proud to say
that I held the very first hearings on aviation security as Chair of
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. And in the aftermath
of Pan Am 103, as Chair of the Aviation Authorizing Committee with my
then-ranking member, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich),
fashioned the legislation requested by President Bush to create a
Presidential Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism and served
on that commission with our distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Mr.
Hammerschmidt.
We wrote a report that made 64 recommendations to improve aviation
security, drafted those recommendations into legislative language, to
them enacted through this body and the other body and to the president
and signed them into law. And I said then, oh, there is such a
willingness in the body politic and in the Nation as a whole to
strengthen security that never will we have to worry. These provisions
will be implemented, and yet we saw the airlines lobby against 10-year
criminal background checks for screeners. It took 10 years to get that
provision of law implemented by rule. And positive passenger bag match
and deployment of explosive detection systems.
That then came September 11 and the new Transportation Security Act,
and I said then, This time we will not make a mistake. We will write
provisions in law and make them applicable by action of law, not by
bureaucratic rule making so that the will of the people and of the
Congress cannot be frustrated. And here we are 9 months later,
frustrating that will of the Congress and of the people of this country
to raise the bar of security. We raised it in law and in this bill it
is being lowered again. And lowered to create a one year, at least,
window of vulnerability for aviation security. We ought to remove that
provision and I will propose the amendment tomorrow to do so.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5005 and I
thank the majority leader for yielding me this time.
Since becoming chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard Maritime
Transportation 18 months ago, I focussed my efforts on making sure that
Congress provides the Coast Guard substantial increased monies,
additional manpower and more modern assets necessary to carry out their
multi-mission charge.
I have worked with many Members of this House from my first days as
chairman to pursue these goals, and during my tenure, I have developed
a set of guiding principles designed to make sure that the Congress is
serving the Coast Guard in the same fine way that the Coast Guard is
serving America.
As we have considered this bill and examined its effect on our
Nation's security, I have, again, had these principles frame my views.
First, we must ensure that anything we do in Washington will not
negatively effect the Coast Guard's ability to effectively carry out
all of its missions, including conducting search and rescue, stopping
drug smuggling, interdicting illegal immigration, and all the other
maritime safety commissions, as well as the critical homeland security
mission.
Congress must also ensure that the Coast Guard stays intact and
remains a ready force to meet and handle a wide range of duties,
including homeland security.
Fortunately, the Select Committee and the White House have agreed
that an intact Coast Guard doing all of its multi mission tasks is the
right way to go. I worked hard on this issue and am very pleased it is
part of this bill.
Secondly, we must ensure that the Coast Guard continues to receive
the resources it needs to keep doing the great job they have done both
before and after September 11. The Coast Guard needs substantially more
money and more modern assets to meet the challenges of the future and
to operate safely, efficiently and effectively to protect America.
The passage earlier this week of over half a billion dollars in a
supplemental appropriations bill for the Coast Guard is indeed good
news to allow the Coast Guard to continue to meet the increased cost of
defending America.
Lastly, the Coast Guard must continue to report directly to the
Secretary of Homeland Security, keeping its access at the highest
levels of administration. This point was a top priority for me from the
very first days the President's proposal was made. I was adamant that
the Coast Guard would not be lost in a bureaucratic jungle, and I want
to thank the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Menendez) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for their efforts
in joining me to ensure that the Coast Guard continues to enjoy its
open access door to the Secretary.
It is critical that the Coast Guard can report directly to the top
decision makers, and this is exactly what this bill specifies that they
do.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this legislative proposal is good for the
Coast Guard and the right direction for America at this difficult time
in our Nation's history, and I urge a strong support of this
legislation.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from

[[Page H5649]]

Michigan, (Ms. Kilpatrick), an important member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise and I support the concept of a
Department of Homeland Security, but I do not support this concept and
let me tell you why.
This concept allows 170,000 Federal employees to be transferred to an
agency where they have no rights, a brand new personnel system where
they do not have rights. They are not able to bargain collectively.
They are not able to have certain rights and are subjugated to the whim
of the Secretary.
I rise in opposition because this bill defies the appropriations
process set up in our Constitution of checks and balances. I oppose
this bill because it eliminates the process, the Congress, the
constitutional Congress, that allows our country to exist and to have
checks and balances and appropriations process and employee rights that
this legislation will take away in the name of terrorism. Yes, we need
to do something but this is not the vehicle and I hope it will not
pass.
The Secretary can waive various paycheck schedules for these
employees. He can move the employees at their whim, 170,000 employees
who have dedicated much of their lives to this government.

{time} 2115

We need more time; there is no rest for this. Yes, the terrorism is
bad. Yes, I believe the terrorists have won. Because what they have
done is frighten Americans. We are a better Nation than that. We have
an Army. We have people who are committed to this country. I believe it
is our responsibility to reject this legislation and then come back and
put the practical amendments, the practical balance that we need to
make sure that citizens are safe and make sure that our employees have
the rights that they deserve.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5005 because it eliminates
the protections and rights of many Federal employees, violates
fundamental rights under the Constitution, and defines a well-
established appropriations process. These reasons make this a bad bill
for the citizens of this nation. It takes away the fundamental rights
that we hold dear.
Black American has not enjoyed the fullness of America's
Constitutional freedoms, as have most Americans. Black Americans have
been explicitly and implicitly limited to many of our basic civil
liberties and this bill will potentially further restrict. The
limitations that we experience are even greater than most recent
immigrants. Perhaps, that is why we tend to be more liberal in defense
of them.
Most American generations have enjoyed the freedoms inherent in the
Constitution for nearly three hundred years. In the history of nations,
that is a very long time. Since 9-11, Terrorists have frightened our
nation, and now, we are afraid. For all of our braggadocio stands and
speeches, we are afraid. Our fear is making us overwhelmingly passive
to government propaganda and carelessly willing to sacrifice our
liberties to those among us who are more than glad to take them. If we
pass the Homeland Defense Act, as presently proposed, the terrorists
will have won.
The terrorists will have won because we would have destroyed our
Constitutional democracy of checks and balances. This Constitutional
innovation has stood us in good stead through our own Civil War,
through two world wars, numerous undeclared wars, racial hostilities
and a number of other internal and external conflicts.
This massive war-like structure we are calling The Department of
Homeland Defense will make the country vulnerable by weakening the very
regulatory agencies that the last two hundred and fifty years has
taught us that we need.
By making the massive shifts of personnel and responsibilities of
existing agencies to one Homeland Defense Department, focused
exclusively on terrorism, we won't be able to tell whether 19 million
pounds of tainted meat is the act of bio-terrorism or the result of
corporate misfeasance.
In 1930, France had the largest army in Europe. Watching the rise of
fascism in neighboring Germany, they decided to construct an
impenetrable defensive wall the entire 300 miles along the Franco-
German border. Originally priced at 300 million francs, with only 82
miles completed, the cost had ballooned to 23 times the original
budget. Ultimately, the cost of the Maginot Line consumed all of
France's defensive budget leaving them with a military unprepared for
the German blitzkrieg that ultimately defeated them six years later.
This so-called, Homeland Defense Act, creates for us a bureaucratic
Maginot Line, which can be circumvented by anyone who disrespects the
rules of warfare which clearly is what terrorist do. The Germans
defeated the inflexible Maginot Line by outflanking it. Using a concept
of ``unrestricted warfare,'' the Germans, disregarded the neutrality
and vulnerability of Switzerland and Belgium, went around the Maginot
Line invaded and defeated France in six weeks.
What makes the Department of Homeland Defense as vulnerable as the
French of 1940 is the obviousness of it. The ideal target of
unconscionable fanatics is anything that resembles static
vulnerability. The best offense against terrorism is the stealth of
intelligence.
What we need to defend ourselves against terrorism is not another
massive, inflexible department but exactly what this country does best.
America has the ability to invent, innovate and diffuse its
technological creations; and to build networks that multiply human
intelligence.
We can leave the departments exactly where they are and doing what
they know how to do best. What we ought to do is build inside of all
government departments, a responsive and flexible network of units,
which can respond to any sort of threat--whether it is an act of
terrorism, an accident, negligence or misfeasance. We need this
flexibility so that the country does not exist in a permanent
``yellow'' state. We do need to multiply our intelligence capability
one hundred--fold to coordinate our flex-defense network.
I suspect that most Members of Congress are students of history or at
least ``buffs.'' as I am. One of my greatest sources of current history
is my eighty-three year old father--a Navy veteran of the Second World
War. He often takes the time to give me an historical spin on what
looks like something new.
If the history of the Maginot Line is too distant and the analogy too
abstract to be instructive, then we should look at a more recent
event--The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. That Resolution appealed to
patriotism to respond to an ``unprovoked'' attack on American Naval
forces off the coast of North Vietnam. The resolution gave the
President the authority to escalate the war in Vietnam without further
authority from Congress. The resolution passed unanimously in the House
and with only Senators Morse (D-OR) and Gruening (D-AK) opposing.
With the publication of the Pentagon Papers in the New York Times, in
June and July of 1972, the American people learned that the CIA with
the full knowledge of the President had contrived the incident at
Tonkin.
Only Congress can declare war. With the passage of the Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution, Congress relinquished its Constitutional authority to
declare war to the President. Fifty thousand American lives were lost
in an undeclared war driven by an irrational rush to judgment motivated
by anger and fear.
In The Imperial President, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, Arthur
Schlesinger, traced the shifting of congressional powers to the
President. Most often, these shifts occurred as the result of a belief
that the country was in danger by either internal or external threats.
Once the shift was made, Congress never retrieved its relinquished
powers.
The values and constitutional liberties of this nation are not only
threatened by terrorists, but also, threatened by the possibilities of
a federal government without proper checks and balances. For Black
Americans, the latter threat is much more conceivable than the former.
I want to see the nation combat these despicable terrorists acts, but
not by completely centralizing the power of federal government, or
trampling on our civil liberties, or not protecting federal employees
rights.
My conscious will not permit me to agree with this bill's
construction of The Department of Homeland Defense. I will not agree
with legislation to strip civil liberties. I will not agree with a
contract that will deny workers of their rights and proper recourse for
wrong done towards them. I will not be silent to the ills of this bill,
even in the midst of a daunting and scary future, which has bred fear
through us all.
This bill would give a two-year authority to unilaterally transfer up
to two percent of appropriations between department functions. This can
be done with only 15 days of prior notice to Congress. There is an
effective process to transfer funds with Congressional approval that
works well. I will not support this bill, and hope that my colleagues
too will understand what is at stake with the passage of this bill. I
believe that we can construct a bill that will protect our employees'
rights and will not violate proper appropriation procedure or our
fundamental rights under the Constitution. For these reasons, Mr.
Speaker, I am opposed to H.R. 5005.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Portman) be permitted to control the remainder of my
time for consideration of this debate.

[[Page H5650]]

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the majority leader, and I want to commend him for the work
he has done to put together the bill we have before us today. His
leadership on the Select Committee was fair, open, honest. We had some
good debates, and it was done in a not just bipartisan but a
nonpartisan way and I know that will continue tonight as we get through
some of these statements and then later tonight and tomorrow into the
amendment process.
Briefly responding to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick),
she will be happy to know that workers' rights are indeed preserved in
the underlying legislation. All of title V is included in the
legislation. I hope she will read it.
I would also like to say that collective bargaining is explicitly not
just permitted but guaranteed. So we are hearing a lot of statements
tonight that may be based on some information that is being passed
around that is not accurate. I hope people will read the legislation so
that we can keep to the facts.
Shaping of this legislation, Mr. Chairman, has been and will continue
to be a daunting task. All of America is looking at us to help protect
the homeland and produce a Department of Homeland Security that is
worthy of the name. It is a challenge, and we had better get it right.
This Department will be the keystone of our national strategy to
confront a menacing threat and to shut it down.
Its mission as proposed by the President is critical. First, to
prevent terrorist attacks; second, to reduce our vulnerabilities to
attack, hardening our infrastructure; third, to minimize damage should
we be attacked; and, finally, and this is very important in this new
agency, to be sure that those functions that are being transferred to
this new Department that are not related to homeland security are also
not neglected. And we will hear something about that tonight and into
the amendments.
This is all a big job, and it results in a very big agency, 170,000
employees. We know it will be a big agency. The question is, and the
gentlewoman from California raised it earlier, will it also be a lean
and agile agency to be able to respond to the threat that we find
ourselves confronting in this new century? Will this thing work? I
think we are going to determine that in our votes tonight and tomorrow.
We are going to determine whether this new agency is going to have the
ability to rationalize and bring together 22 different agencies of
Government. It is a difficult task, admittedly. It is necessary to do
it. As we have heard so many people speak so well about tonight the
necessity of consolidating and streamlining, being sure that we have
real accountability in a system that does not exist now; and I do not
think anybody would say it does when there are so many different
agencies and Departments of government responsible, nobody is
responsible.
We have got to be sure that we take these 22 different agencies and
we bring them together as a single team focused on a single mission.
This will require managerial, budget, and, yes, personnel flexibility.
Without it, the needed consolidation and streamlining just will not
happen; it will not work.
Second, beyond this huge organizational challenge, the new Department
must be able to meet an agile, deadly, and unpredictable threat, the
threat of terrorism. It must be able to do so with cleverness, with
speed and with flexibility of its own.
I believe the Select Committee bill we have before us meets these
tests. It does provide us with a 21st century agile Department, and it
must not be weakened through the amendment process if we are to
properly protect our homeland. The most fundamental responsibility we
have as Members of Congress, of course, is to protect our country and
to protect our citizens. I strongly believe the bill that we have
before us puts the pieces in place to see that with good congressional
oversight we can indeed meet that responsibility. As we work through
these amendments, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will
continue to focus on the necessity of rising to this daunting challenge
without partisanship, without rancor, but with one goal in mind, and
that is how best to protect our families.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the very distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation for the fact that the
committee did correct what I thought to be the most fundamental problem
associated with the original draft just sent down by the White House.
That draft gave unprecedented authority to bureaucrats to spend money
without congressional supervision, and I think it would have been a
threat to the Constitution itself, and I appreciate the fact that that
disastrous proposal has now been removed.
That leaves us with the question of what we think of the
organizational structure which is left, and we can have honest
differences about that. I happen to think and I happen to fear that the
remainder of this product will in fact make it more difficult rather
than less difficult for us to respond to terrorist attacks and to
prevent them, for two reasons.
First of all, this agency that is created is going to be composed of
170,000 people. That is not going to be a lean, mean, agile agency. It
is going to be a slow, cumbersome agency which I think will slow down
our ability to react. Secondly, even though some 22 offices and
agencies are being pulled into that Department, there are 111 agencies
that have something to do with homeland security that will not be tied
into that Department, and my question is who is going to coordinate
them? In my view what we need is to have a substantially upgraded and
strengthened Office of Homeland Security within the White House, and
that is the reason I personally favor Senate confirmation. Not because
it in any way weakens the occupant of that office, but because it would
put them on an equal footing in terms of prestige and clout with the
Office of Management and Budget, with the President's science advisor
and the like; and I think that is what is needed if we are going to
coordinate those 111 agencies outside the tent effectively.
I also believe the FBI needs to be substantially reshaped because
right now they simply do not have the analytical capacity that is
needed to engage in this kind of analysis as opposed to looking at what
is happening with 25,000 separate crimes around the country. It is a
very different mindset that is required, and I think the FBI director
recognizes that fact.
And, lastly, we have to look at resources. We have to commit
substantially more resources to enhancing our translation capacity
because right now the hard fact is there are thousands of pages of raw
data, raw intercepts lying on floors and sitting on shelves all over
the security agencies in this town. No one has ever looked at them
because we have not had the personnel and they have not had the focus.
That needs to be fixed if we are going to truly improve the security
posture of the country.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), a member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, one of the House's experts on homeland security.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to support this very important bill to
establish a Department of Homeland Security. I applaud the work of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority whip, who I work
with on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the members
of the Select Committee on Homeland Security who have worked tirelessly
over the past few weeks to ensure the successful implementation of the
President's plan to improve the security of our Nation, and to our
President. What a great job he has done and what great vision he has
for where this country ought to be from a homeland security standpoint,

[[Page H5651]]

and he is providing strong leadership in moving us in the direction of
that vision.
The world has changed dramatically since September 11 of last year.
Winning the war on terror means changing the mindset of our entire
government top to bottom and drastically changing the way we do
business. The new Department of Homeland Security will centralize and
coordinate our efforts to better protect our citizens.
Let me point out that one of the most important aspects of this plan
is the effort to improve the sharing of information among our Federal
agencies, as well as between Federal, State and local officials.
Last week, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and I
released a summary of our classified report on why our intelligence
agencies failed to prevent the terrorist attacks of September 11. Not
only did we find that the information technology and agencies such as
the FBI could not communicate with itself because they have a
completely outdated information infrastructure, but the right people
were not getting the right information at the right time.
We must streamline and better coordinate the sharing of information
so that our local officials like Wayne Bennett, the sheriff of Glynn
County, Georgia, or Bud Watson of the Atlanta Police Department, the
people who are on the front lines protecting our communities every day,
have the most accurate information so that they can do the best job
they can to disrupt terrorist activity and better protect our citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this landmark
legislation.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
very distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I have been watching this debate with some
interest for the last couple of hours, and I am one of those that is
standing forward tonight to say I am a vote in play on this, and I came
over here because I find my questions are not being answered by this
debate. I am hearing a lot of superlatives about streamlining and
coordination and consolidation, how we are not going to let September
11 occur again. We have got to talk about some details about what good
specifically is going to occur by making what is going to be a
tremendous change that the GAO says is going to take a decade probably
to really work out.
I am a little bit torn because some of my favorite folks and the
folks I respect the most in this body are divided on this, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), some others. But let
me just touch on a few points.
First of all, Moses did not come down from the mountaintop with gold
tablets that said this bill is the answer. There are other potential
answers out there. I think we ought to try to make our case why in some
detail this is the particular answer, what other option to me would
have been to do, what we all thought that was going to happen with
Governor Ridge from the get-go, which was he was going to be a close
confidant, adviser to the President that could have authority and
accountability and with laser-like effort could go into agencies and
correct where we saw the problems. We have rejected that, and now we
are going with the whole hog kind of thing that I am not sure we need
to go that far.
The second point I want to make is a funding issue. We had the
intelligence bill on the floor yesterday, and several speakers talked
about how we are finally going to give additional funding to
intelligence, implying that perhaps the problem all along, a lot of it,
is we have underfunded intelligence.
Part of the concern in this bill is about visas and how they have
been given out; and yet the New York Times had an article, front page
story on Monday, how we have terrible personnel policies and problems
in the State Department. No wonder we are having problems, and yet we
have not addressed the personnel issues nor have we addressed the great
infrastructure needs, security infrastructure needs of the State
Department.
Another point, as has been said, we have got to be careful about this
bigger-is-better argument. When we look at the challenges back home in
Arkansas, I do not find anyone saying let us take all the volunteer
fire departments and consolidate them into one big fire department, let
us take all the sheriff and police agencies and consolidate them into
one that that will help our coordination. We need to be, perhaps, more
focused.
My final concern is I fear that this could be a distraction. I am
just asking these as questions tonight, that in the course of doing
this huge consolidation we will forget that we need to focus on the
gaps in intelligence and the gaps in specific funding and the gaps in
specific coordination personnel needs that may be lost in the massive
consolidation that is occurring.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), a member of the Committee on Government
Reform and leader on civil service and technology issues.
(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
cybersecurity information security language included in the Chairman's
en bloc amendment. The events of September 11 and ensuing war on
terrorism have raised an unprecedented awareness of the vulnerabilities
we face. This has naturally focused more attention on security issues,
particularly with respect to information security.
From my work on the Committee on Government Reform, it is clear that
the state of Federal information security suffers from a lack of
coordinated, uniform management. Federal information systems continue
to be woefully unprotected from both malignant and benign
interruptions.

{time} 2130

Title XI in the manager's amendment incorporates the major provisions
of the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002, FISMA,
which will strengthen the information security management
infrastructure within the Federal Government.
FISMA will achieve several objectives vital to Federal information
security. Specifically, it will remove GISRA's sunset clause and
permanently require a Federal agency-wide risk-based approach to
information security management with annual independent evaluations on
agency information security practices.
Second, it will require that all agencies implement a risk-based
management approach to developing and implementing information security
measures for all information and information systems.
Third, it will streamline and make technical corrections to GISRA to
clarify and simplify its requirements.
Fourth, it strengthens the role of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology in the standard-setting process; and, finally,
it requires OMB to implement minimum and mandatory standards for
Federal information and information systems, and to consult with the
Department of Homeland Security regarding the promulgation of these
standards.
The critical infrastructure information provisions included in H.R.
5005 will promote voluntary information-sharing among our Nation's
critical infrastructure and assets. The provisions are supported by
every critical infrastructure sector.
Critical infrastructures are those systems that are essential to the
minimum operations of the economy and government. Traditionally these
sectors operated in the private sector, largely independently of one
another, and coordinated with government to protect themselves against
threats posed by traditional warfare. Today the public and private
sectors must learn how to protect themselves against unconventional
threats, such as terrorist attacks and cyberintrusions.
In Presidential Decision Directive 63, issued by the previous
administration, concerns about the Freedom of Information Act,
antitrust, and liability were identified as primary barriers to
facilitating information-sharing with the private sector. The
provisions in the amendment address these concerns by providing a
limited FOIA exemption, civil litigation protection for sharing
information, and a new process for resolving potential antitrust
concerns for information shared among

[[Page H5652]]

private sector companies for the purpose of correcting, avoiding,
communicating, or disclosing information about a critical
infrastructure threat or vulnerability.
These provisions will enable the private sector, including
information-sharing organizations, to move forward without fear from
government reprisals, and allow us to have a timely and accurate
assessment of the vulnerabilities of each sector to physical and
cyberattacks and allow for the formulation of proposals to eliminate
these vulnerabilities without increasing government regulation, or
expanding unfunded Federal mandates on the private sector, and I urge
its adoption.
We all know that the Federal, State and local governments will spend
billions and billions of dollars to fight the war against terror.
Contentious floor debates aside, we all support these efforts. But to
me, the question isn't simply how much we spend, but how well we spend
it.
Since the tragic events of 9/11 the Government, in general, and the
Office of Homeland Security, in particular has been overwhelmed by a
flood of industry proposals offering various solutions to our homeland
security challenges. Because of a lack of staffing expertise, many of
these proposals have been sitting unevaluated, perhaps denying the
Government breakthrough technology.
In February, I held a hearing in my Subcommittee on Technology and
Procurement Policy on homeland security challenges facing the
Government. One theme that was expressed unanimously by industry was
the need for an organized, cohesive, comprehensive process within the
Government to evaluate private-sector solutions to homeland security
problems. Now we have part of the solution, with the creation of the
new Department of Homeland Security in the bill on the floor today.
Chairman Armey at my request included language in a new section 309
which his based on H.R. 4629, legislation I introduced in May. This
language will close the loop and provide a vehicle to get these
solutions into government and to the front lines in the war against
terror.
Chairman Armey's Managers' amendment included a new section 309 in
the Homeland Security Act to the establish within the Department a
program to meet the current challenge faced by the Federal Government,
as well as by State and local entities, in leveraging private sector
innovation in the fight against terror. The amendment would establish a
focused effort by:
Creating a centralized Federal clearinghouse in the new Department
for information relating to terror-fighting technologies for
dissemination to Federal, State, local and private sector entities and
to issue announcements to industry seeking unique and innovative anti-
terror solutions;
Establishing a technical assistance team to assist in screening
proposals for terror-fighting technology to assess their feasibility,
scientific and technical merit and cost; and
Providing for the new Department to offer guidance, recommendation
and technical assistance to Federal, State, local and private efforts
to evaluate and use anti-terror technologies and provide information
relating to Federal funding, regulation, or acquisition regarding these
technologies.
Since September 11, we have all been struggling to understand what
changes will occur in our daily lives, in our economy, and within the
Government. We now will establish a new Department of Homeland Security
to focus and coordinate the war against terror. The new section 309 in
this landmark legislation will give the new Department the framework it
needs to examine and act on the best innovations the private sector has
to offer.
I would also like to offer my thanks to the staff of the Science and
Energy and Commerce Committees who collaborated with my staff in
crafting this consensus amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), a member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I think that this country is in dire need
of a homeland security department, and I hope and pray that the
President's proposal will work. But I think that it will not.
While I do not know what I am going to do yet on final passage, I
have very grave concerns about this being too bureaucratic, too big,
too cumbersome, and not quick enough and agile enough to deal with the
threat of al Qaeda that can move from Yemen to Hamburg to the United
States in a matter of 12 hours.
Now, when President Clinton proposed his massive health care proposal
in 1993, I thought it was too bureaucratic. I opposed it. I thought it
was too slow. When we look at this proposal, to get a decision made
from the CIA to homeland security, assess the threat, get it back up to
the Secretary, determine the reliability, go back down and then say,
yes, we have a real threat, then say should we call Indianapolis, warn
them, prevent it, harden the target, we are going from the President to
the Secretary to the infrastructure protection to the threat analysis
and back. I do not know that this is going to work. I hope it does.
The current system, Mr. Chairman, is the President and then here is
Tom Ridge. Here is the President and here is Tom Ridge in the Office of
Homeland Security. Right there and right back. Very quick. I think we
need quick.
I hope that we will take our time on this. Twenty-two departments,
$38 billion, 180,000 people versus, I think, going more toward what we
have, making Tom Ridge a Cabinet secretary, making it lean, agile,
technologically connected with e-mail and databases, and able to knock
al Qaeda out quickly before they can attack the United States again.
Not with a big bureaucracy. I urge my colleagues to go forward with
caution.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Science.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5005,
and I want to draw particular attention to the bill's appropriate focus
on science and technology.
Advancement in science and technology will be critical to the success
of every mission of the Department of Homeland Security: Improving
intelligence analysis, cybersecurity, border security, and emergency
response all will require the invention and deployment of new
technologies, ranging from new software to make computer networks more
secure, to new standards to make emergency response communications
equipment interoperable.
Like the Cold War, the war on terrorism will be won as much in the
laboratory as on the battlefield. With that in mind, the Select
Committee has followed the recommendation of the Committee on Science
and has created an Under Secretary for Science and Technology. With
this under secretary, the bill ensures that one senior official in the
new Department will be responsible and accountable for the science and
technology activities of the entire Department. This approach will
ensure that the science and technology activities of the Department
have the critical mass and the skilled leadership they need to succeed.
The language of title III gives the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology the tools needed to build the scattering of relatively small
programs being transferred into the agency into a dynamic science and
technology capability.
I want to thank the members and staff of the Select Committee for
working with us so cooperatively to ensure that the new departments
will have a strong, vigorous, and innovative science and technology
capability as called for by the National Research Council and other
expert groups. I also want to point out the Committee on Science
provisions were approved in our committee on a bipartisan, unanimous
vote.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to draw attention briefly to the
cybersecurity provisions of the bill which have been strengthened as
H.R. 5005 moved through the congressional process. The bill now
explicitly focuses on cybersecurity, one of our Nation's most serious
vulnerabilities. The manager's amendment will strengthen those
provisions even further by providing more tools and direction to ensure
the security of Federal, State, local and private sector computer
systems, and to help speed recovery if security is ever breached,
nonetheless.
I want to thank my colleagues, and I urge full support of H.R. 5005.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking member on the Committee on
Science, a committee which has three

[[Page H5653]]

amendments here tonight, and which passed unanimously and, of course,
in bipartisan fashion from that committee.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise, of course, in support of
this bill. This is not to say that I agree with every part of it, but,
in balance, I think passage of this legislation will help us better
protect our country.
I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our illustrious
minority whip, for working me in at this stage of the proceeding, and I
thank the chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Boehlert), who ushered this bill to the present status.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be present and just to be a Member of
this body in a day and time at the creation of a Department of Homeland
Security. The President of our country deserves a lot of credit for
stepping up and accepting the idea that a new department is called for
at this time.
The Congress is a deliberative body, and normally we spend years
considering an idea before coming to any type of a conclusion. In this
instance, though, the threat is great and imminent, making quick action
very necessary. I always heard ``haste makes waste,'' but quick action
means we will not get everything we want in this bill, exactly like we
want it. I know that, and the chairman of the Select Committee, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), knows that. Nevertheless, this good
start can be fixed as we go along.
I want to spend a few minutes talking about the ways in which the
Committee on Science strengthened the President's initial proposal. I
am particularly pleased that the bill before us places a clear focus on
the new Department on science and technology, two of our most potent
tools in fighting terrorism.
The single most important recommendation that the Committee on
Science made was the creation of an Under Secretary for Science and
Technology, a provision that was supported bipartisanly and unanimously
in the Committee on Science and in the Select Committee. Chairman
Boehlert is to be commended for his strong leadership on this issue.
I would also note that the President's counterterrorism strategy,
published last week, cites science and technology as one of the
heralded and one of the homeland security strategy's four foundations,
unique American strengths that cut across all mission areas, across all
levels of government, and across all sectors of society. Science and
technology are too important to be left to chance in this new
department. They need to be planned, coordinated, and directed under a
strong Under Secretariat.
Our committee made over a dozen constructive changes to the
President's proposal and our markup. The Select Committee did not
incorporate a few that I want to highlight.
One, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) recommended language to
ensure that the Department has access to universities through centers
of excellence. This is a useful component of the research and
development enterprise for the Department. However, the current
structure of this provision, with numerous criteria that the applicants
must meet and its exclusion of private research institutions, can still
be perfected in conference, and I hope that it is.
Also, Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) led the charge in blocking the
transfer of NIST's Computer Security Division to the new Department.
Ms. LOFGREN and Mr. EHLERS led the charge in blocking the transfer of
NIST's Computer Security Division to the new Department. Many high-tech
organizations have warned that this transfer would actually hurt
national security by choking off productive interactions between the
government and the private sector on computer security issues.
An amendment in the bill authored by the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Baird) explicitly directs the Under Secretary for Emergency
Preparedness and Response to treat the psychological consequences of
major disasters and to provide appropriate training for mental health
workers who must deal with the aftermath of these events.
There were also a number of good ideas accepted by the Science
Committee that are not in the base bill but which will be offered later
as Floor amendments. I urge the Members to accept our Committee's
unanimous judgment on these amendments, which include:
The amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey)
creates a Homeland Security Institute. The Institute would be a non-
profit organization assisting the Secretary in much the same way that
the RAND Corporation and the MITRE Corporation assist the Secretary of
Defense in analyzing proposals, establishing test-beds, assessing
defense vulnerabilities and strengths, and so forth. The creation of
this Institute was the major recommendation of last month's National
Research Council report on terrorism R&D.
The amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr Israel) creates an
advisory committee for the Under Secretary for Science and Technology.
The committee would review and make recommendations on general policy
issues for the Under Secretary. Most importantly, the Committee will
include representatives of the users of the Department's research
activities--emergency responders--and of citizen groups.
It includes proposed language by the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms.
Rivers) that strengthens the channels through which creative American
inventors can propose their ideas and technologies to the appropriate
government officials. Many of us have heard from constituents who fit
that description and who have asked for our help. This amendment
provides those inventors with a place to take their ideas.
Two other amendments were adopted by the Science Committee but failed
to make the list of amendments under consideration on the House Floor.
I would hope that these items may be accommodated in the conference.
First the amendment of the gentlewoman from Texas. (Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson) to clarify how the Department should classify information. The
amendment adds language requiring the Under Secretary, before issuing
R&D awards, to state definitively and in a timely manner whether the
research results will be controlled by standard classification
procedures. This policy was part of President Ronald Reagan's National
Security Decision Directive 189, promulgated in 1985.
And there is the amendment of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson)
regarding standard setting by the Department. This amendment tasked the
National Institute of Standards and Technology to work with the new
Department in standard setting for chemical, biological, nuclear and
radiological detection, and transportation standards.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of these. We need to move this bill
through the conference as quickly as possible. Homeland security is too
important a task to let politics, turf, jurisdictional concerns, or
struggles over credit get in our way.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the founder and chair of the
Congressional Fire Caucus.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I wore this bracelet for 9
months, since September 11. This bracelet was given me by the widow of
Ray Downing, one of my best friends.
Ray Downing took me through the World Trade Center in 1991 to give me
lessons that I should learn to take back to this body regarding our
ability to respond to terrorist incidents. Ray Downing was the Chief
Rescue Officer for New York City on September 11. All of those 343
firefighters that were killed worked for Ray Downing. As people were
rushing out of the building, Ray was going in with his friends. In
fact, two of his sons are firefighters today with the New York City
Fire Department.
Ray Downing became a good friend of mine after 1991. And, in fact, he
encourage me to introduce legislation in our defense bill, which I did
in 1999, creating the Gilmore Commission. The Gilmore Commission
published three documents long before 9-11 occurred. And so when my
colleagues today talk about a rush to do something, I do not know where
they have been. The Gilmore Commission, the Hart-Rudman Commission, the
Deutsch Commission, the Bremer Commission, all of this work was done
over the past 8 years. Where have my colleagues been? When were they
engaged with us?
Ray Downing was engaged. Ray Downing made recommendations for one
single Federal agency, and he made it over and over again in the
Gilmore Commission document. It was Ray Downing who led us to
understand that FEMA had to play a lead role and be a part of that
agency, not some outside entity. It was Ray Downing who told us

[[Page H5654]]

that communication was terrible in 1991, and we did not listen. We did
not do anything up until now. It was Ray Downing who told us in these
reports that our intelligence system was inadequate and it was Ray
Downing who told us that cybersecurity and asymmetric sets required a
new impetus, a new direction. Not once, not twice, but three times in
three separate volumes that each of us in this body should have read.
Mr. Chairman, I am here today because of Ray Downing. Ray Downing is
an American hero. I wore his bracelet until we found his remains 40
days ago, through DNA evidence, because we could not find his body.
When I went to the Ground Zero on September 13, his two sons were on
their knees looking for their dad.
Ray Downing told us what we should have done and we did not pay
attention. This is no rush. I say it is about time we pay attention to
the real heroes of this country, the domestic defenders who are in our
32,000 departments who have been telling us for 10 years what
recommendations we should enact.

{time} 2145

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time, and extend my compliments to my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle that have brought this bill forward. I think it is a good piece
of work, although I have some questions.
Our most important resource in homeland security is human capital. I
represent 72,000 Federal employees, and I rise to take exception to the
so-called flexibility provisions. I fear they will result in lower
morale and, thus, less effectiveness. This bill undermines the rights
and protections currently afforded to Federal employees and in certain
cases creates unfairness. The bill allows the new Department after 1
year to reduce the pay of employees transferred from other agencies.
The bill would allow the Department to establish a new human resource
management system, one that is different from other Federal employees,
and leaves to the discretion of the Secretary whether the new system
would apply to all or just some organizational units.
In addition, the bill undercuts the ability of unions to represent
employees. The bill would allow the Secretary the authority to exempt
some employees from organizing unions. Currently only the President has
that authority.
Second, those allowed to organize would not necessarily be afforded
current features such as agency recommendation of unions as the
exclusive representatives of employees, a right to have union
representation at grievances, and the requirement to mediate disputes
with unions in the case of an impasse.
The bill allows the Department to establish its own appeal system
rather than taking appeals to the Merit System Protection Board or
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
I understand that some flexibility is necessary. However, in this
respect the bill uses a meat-ax approach more akin to union busting.
Many of these proposed personnel changes are not rationally linked to
security functions. The tragedy of September 11 was linked to a lack of
coordination, information-sharing, and intelligence failures, not
unionization and not the existing grievance procedures. We are asking
our Federal employees for more to help us with homeland security while
we undermine their employment security. This is a wrong-headed approach
which I hope we will correct as we move forward in this process.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Granger), a member of the Subcommittee on Transportation of
the Committee on Appropriations.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my admiration and
appreciation for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) for his
leadership in fashioning this legislation which provides the
reorganization needed to protect America by establishing the Department
of Homeland Security.
I have been working especially hard on transportation issues in
homeland security, and tomorrow I will be speaking on those issues, but
I wanted to respond tonight to the suggestion that there is no case for
providing flexibility in this arbitrary deadline for checking baggage
for explosives.
Airport security is important to our homeland security, and we all
know that and we all want it, but we want real, not pretend, security
at our airports. To make the deadlines as we have it today, the TSA
would have to install screening machines at our airports at the rate of
one every 35 minutes for the next 5 months. To make the deadline as we
have it, screeners would have to be recruited, hired, and trained at
the rate of 4.5 seconds for the next 5 months. I can go on and on.
The American people know that cannot happen and we know it cannot
happen. That is the case for changing this deadline. Let us make this
right. Let us have real, not pretend, security at our airports. The
American people deserve and demand real security, not political
posturing from us. Let us do it right, and let us pass real
legislation, the legislation that is before us here today.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) who has been a very active participant in
making suggestions for this legislation.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am reminded of the debate
we had just a few days ago giving honorary citizenship to Marquis de
Lafayette. His words rendered during his lifetime ring very loud today.
He fought for America's freedom in the Revolution when patriots stood
side by side. His words were, ``Humanity has won its battle. Liberty
now has a country.''
I think even today as we debate this homeland security department,
and even as the winds of action whirl around us, I hope that words of
caution are relevant as we move this legislation forward to be
instructive to do what is best for the American people.
My visit to Ground Zero was as any other American because the grief
was so overwhelming I wanted to be in the process of the lost souls and
heroes that gave their lives on September 11. In tribute to them, I
think it is important to address some of the concerns with this
legislation.
I want a Department of Homeland Security. I have worked and reviewed
and looked at options and opportunities to improve the legislation.
I am disappointed that even in the rush that we would not take the
time for a full debate in the open daylight for the American people to
be engaged. We are making a historic change in the way we do business
in America. I think it is important for the Record to reflect, Mr.
Chairman, that we are concerned about due process and civil liberties;
that even though we stand together as Americans, we are concerned that
we should ensure that there is no racial profiling in this particular
legislation.
I think that we should be concerned that we have an FBI and a CIA
that works, and whether or not we have whistleblower protection. I
believe that we should reflect on these issues, and I hope as we do so,
we will find the kind of department that will work well for all
Americans.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds simply to make
the point and give the gentlewoman some comfort that section 2301,
whistleblower protection, is very much a part of this legislation. If
the gentlewoman looks at the language, it is explicitly referenced.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Wilson), the only Member of Congress who is in the National Guard.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, it is a great honor to
rise in support of H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act of 2002. I
commend the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), for
his excellent service and the members of the Select Committee for the
bipartisan nature in which this bill was put together. I also commend
the President for his leadership in working for the establishment of
the new Department.
My perspective, indeed, is as the only member of the Army National
Guard serving in Congress at this time, and I have had the privilege as
a member of the South Carolina National Guard to work with the
community agencies and with the different first responders for

[[Page H5655]]

other natural disasters that have occurred in our country. In
particular, I have worked with the situation of recovery from Hurricane
Hugo which struck our State. It was an extraordinary experience, but
working together we were able to recover in our State and ensure
domestic tranquility.
H.R. 5005 will ensure that our communities and first responders are
prepared to address all threats. I believe that it is an orderly
streamlining of agencies to focus on homeland security. In particular,
I want to commend that the Secret Service will be moved to the
Department. One of the main missions of the Secret Service is
protecting individuals and securing key events such as the Olympics and
Super Bowl. The Department will depend on this agency's protective
functions and expertise. H.R. 5005 essentially accepts the Committee on
Government Reform's recommendation.
Another point that I see in this bill is recognition that active
private sector participation in homeland security is essential. The
Select Committee authorized the Secretary of Homeland Security to have
a special liaison with the private sector to promote public-private
partnerships and promote technology integration for homeland security.
A national council for first responders is also established.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Barr), a member of both the Committee on the Judiciary and
the Committee on Government Reform.
(Mr. BARR of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, when American leaders convened on
Monday, December 8, 1941, they knew three things: They knew America was
at war; they knew that the mechanism that had been designed to alert
America to impending danger had failed; and they knew that the
mechanisms that we had in place at the time to respond to emergencies
had failed.
They indeed faced a crisis, much as the crisis that we faced the day
after the terrorist attacks on this Nation on September 11. We knew
that the existing mechanism designed to alert America to danger and to
impending attacks had failed, we knew we were at war, and we knew that
the mechanisms designed to respond quickly to emergencies in this
Nation were not adequate to meet the challenge.
We owe it to this President the same as our forefathers owed and gave
to Franklin Delano Roosevelt in December of 1941 the power and the
flexibility to respond to a threat that our Nation had never faced
before. Is the mechanism that this President is proposing and that we
have before us in the Department of Homeland Security perfect? No, it
is not. But it does grant the President the flexibility that he needs
to respond to an ever-changing threat and to make those responsible for
meeting that threat within our shores accountable.
Without flexibility and the mechanisms that we provide this
President, there can be no accountability, and without accountability,
whatever mechanisms we put in place, no matter how much money we put
behind them, they will fail. Therefore, I urge Members to adopt this
proposal to give the President the flexibility that he needs, and also
to maintain the balance included in this important proposal to ensure
that the privacy rights of American citizens are not infringed by the
exercise of these necessary powers.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of this historic piece
of legislation.
On June 6, 2002, President Bush proposed creating a permanent
Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security, to unite essential
agencies to work closely together and provide seamless coordination and
execution of homeland security functions.
The Select Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Armey, took
President Bush's proposal and made it better. The measures added by the
Select Committee clarify roles and responsibilities of the Department,
help create a world-class workforce within the civil service framework,
enhance research and development opportunities, and protect civil
liberties.
This bill goes beyond moving boxes on an organization chart. It
represents a thoughtful approach to securing our borders and protecting
our nation. It follows a rational strategy to bring together the
current disjointed hodgepodge of government activities into a single
department whose primary mission is to protect our homeland.
I'd also like to commend the work of Chairman Dan Burton. The
Committee on Government Reform, on which I serve as Vice Chair, worked
long and hard to perfect this bill. We crafted a document which served
as the base text for the Select Committee bill. We worked into the
early morning hours, marking up this legislation. We voted on nearly 40
amendments. At the end of that process, thanks to the leadership of
Chairman Burton, we approved the bill, 30 to 1.
Government Reform paid particular attention to important management
issues. Not only is creating the right organization for Homeland
Security important, so is having the management tools and flexibility
to create an agile 21st century workforce capable of responding to
emerging new threats, and protect and defend the American people. This
is, for example, the reason Committee on Government Reform recommended
to the Select Committee, granting the Secretary of Homeland Security
needed flexibility in the area of personnel management.
I recently chaired Government Reform hearing in Atlanta to examine
post 9/11 security at federal buildings outside the nation's capital.
Undercover GAO investigators attempted to infiltrate federal facilities
in Atlanta, which has the largest federal government presence outside
of Washington, D.C. We learned a very important lessons as a result of
this investigation: Organizing the proper structure and implementing
proper procedures is futile if there is no accountability, and there
can be no accountability without flexibility.
If the Secretary cannot move quickly to rectify personnel problems in
the interests of security, we will have no accountability, and we will
have failed in our most critical task--to create an effective
organization capable of responding quickly and decisively to security
threats. The Secretary must have the authority and the flexibility to
remove employees from sensitive positions should these employees pose a
threat to national security.
We do not aim to take away any employee right. We are merely
providing the Secretary the needed management flexibility to strike a
sensible balance between national security, employee rights, and the
overall needs of the government to protect its citizens.
While we have heard the hue and cry about protecting the rights of
the bureaucrats, we need to remember why we are creating this
Department in the first place: to protect our communities from the
terrorist threats that are unlike any other in the history of our
nation. I submit the safety of our communities outweights the
importance of certain civil service administrative procedures. When are
we talking about so-called ``dirty bombs'' being detonated here in the
nation's capital, and aircraft being employed as missiles to take out
our treasured institutions, I believe the proper perspective comes back
into focus.
The existing personnel system locks federal organizations into making
obsolete decisions--decisions that do not reflect the mission of the
Department or needs of American public. This bill brings accountability
and common sense to a cumbersome process, while retaining fundamental
rights for all transferred employees.
I would also like to take a few moments and discuss the issue of
privacy; specifically the privacy protections we've incorporated into
the final bill.
The Department of Homeland Security will be assembling millions of
pieces of personal information about American citizens. The though of
the federal government collecting such private details still gives me
pause. However, after spending eight years of my life at the CIA, I
understand how important collecting and analyzing foreign intelligence
information is to stopping terrorism. However, in order to protect this
information and ensure it is not improperly retained, used, or
disseminated, I fought for the inclusion of the Privacy Officer
provision, which I first proposed in the Judiciary Committee's
Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee.
This provision mandates the Privacy Officer track public complaints
regarding privacy violations, then explain to Congress how the
Department has addressed them, and what internal controls have been
established to improve privacy protection. It is vital we protect
America from those who would cause us harm, but that must not mean that
Americans sacrifice their privacy arbitrarily or any more than
absolutely necessary, and always with regard to the Bill of Rights. The
inclusion of a Privacy Officer will help to

[[Page H5656]]

prevent that from happening. The privacy officer is specifically
charged with examining legislative proposals that would minimize
privacy intrusions, and also be required to assess the privacy
implications of rules proposed by the Department. This privacy officer
will ensure that private information obtained by the new Department be
kept private, absent a sound, compelling and Constitutional reason
otherwise. These provisions will safeguard Americans' right to privacy
and preserve the freedoms and liberties central to the American
identity.
Mr. Chairman, President Bush--and Governor Ridge--are to be commended
for the job they have done over the past nine months. Since the
September 11th attacks, their swift and decisive efforts to strengthen
homeland defense have restored confidence in the American people. I
also commend all the Committees for their hard work on this bill, and
urge all Members to support this important piece of legislation.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Brown) who is a member of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the first agency to respond to
the terrorist act on September 11 was the United States Coast Guard.
Within minutes, they were guarding our ports, bridges and waterways. It
was so reassuring to know that they were out there protecting us while
other agencies were still in shock, and I want to point out, all while
under the supervision of the Department of Transportation.
I strongly oppose the transferring of the Coast Guard to the
Department of Homeland Security. Moving the Coast Guard to the new
Department is not in the best interest of the Coast Guard, the
Department of Homeland Security, or the American people. Each year the
Coast Guard conducts over 40,000 search-and-rescue cases. They inspect
U.S. and foreign flag ships, and protect many of U.S. citizens who
travel on cruise ships and ferries. Most important to my home State of
Florida, they stop drugs from entering our country. Over 80 percent of
the Coast Guard's operating budget is spent on missions that have
nothing to do with border protection or homeland security.

{time} 2200

The Republican Party is supposed to be the party of smaller
government, but today they are creating a huge monster. I do support
the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, but this Congress
cannot just rubber-stamp this legislation. It is not unpatriotic to ask
serious questions about this agency, and we should not base the process
on a symbolic date. Our constituents deserve better than that. We do
not need to create another monster. We need to create a homeland
security agency that really will protect this Nation and its citizens
from harm.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder) chairman of the Government Reform Criminal Justice
and Drug Policy Subcommittee.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important
legislation. I particularly would like to discuss a provision of the
bill that arises from an amendment that I successfully offered in the
committee with bipartisan support from the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cummings) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) to provide for a
senior-level official within the new Department to coordinate
counternarcotics matters.
I raised this issue as chairman of the Criminal Justice and Drug
Policy Subcommittee and as one of the cochairs of the Speaker's Task
Force on a Drug Free America. I believe it is extremely important, and
I would also like to thank the leadership, including Chairman Armey,
Speaker Hastert and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for working
with us on this provision.
The scope of the legislation we are considering today is much larger
than just catastrophic terrorism. One of the issues the proposed
reorganization will have an impact upon is drug interdiction.
Let me remind the House of two critical facts. First, approximately
19,000 Americans will die this year of drug-induced causes. These
tragedies happen every day in every congressional district across the
country. Thousands more Americans have to seek emergency treatment and
thousands more families are disrupted by the effects of illegal drugs.
The second is that three of the most prominent agencies involved in
this legislation, the Customs Service, the Coast Guard and the Border
Patrol, are among the preeminent agencies in the Federal Government
with respect to drug interdiction. This bill will move these agencies
into a new Cabinet Department whose stated mission and focus relate
primarily to catastrophic terrorism.
While I strongly support the overall intention of the bill, I also
believe with equal strength that our efforts to respond to potential
future acts of terrorism cannot come at the price of relaxing our
efforts against drugs. Section 768 of the bill, which is derived from
my amendment, will require the appointment of a counternarcotics
officer who will be a senior official in the Department to assure this
coordination.
The new counternarcotics officer must be a senior officer capable of
ensuring proper attention and resources to this critical mission. He or
she must also be dedicated solely and exclusively to this task. In my
view, it will not be acceptable for the new Secretary of Homeland
Security simply to add this job on top of others tasked to another
senior official.
The purpose of the provision is to ensure that there will be a
responsible official whose energies and attention are devoted to
managing the significant responsibilities of the new department in this
area. This mission is unique among all of the nonterrorism functions
and it is important that we have this senior level coordinator.
Our Subcommittee's oversight findings have long suggested the need
for such a single operational coordinator even prior to the current
reorganization.
This new Department will become the preeminent drug interdiction
agency for the federal government, and we cannot allow that mission to
continue to be run with such a lack of integration and coordination. We
must have an official in charge of this vital task, and I again very
much appreciate its inclusion in the bill. Drug control is an integral
part of Homeland Security, and I look forward to working closely with
the new Department in pursuit of this goal.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the ranking member on the
Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security and a
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, after an attack on our Nation, Franklin
D. Roosevelt told our Nation, ``We have nothing to fear but fear
itself.'' Over 61 years later, we are told we have everything to fear.
We now measure our fears by the size of the bureaucracy we could create
to deal with those fears. But I submit that we will not have responded
to the underlying conditions which have created those fears in the
first place.
This bill will not accomplish a more effective defense of our Nation
because there has been no analysis of the threat. There has been no
risk assessment. There is no sense of the actual causes of insecurity
and there is no strategy which would provide justification for sweeping
changes in 153 different agencies. Little in this bill demonstrates how
this bill will accomplish security superior to what these 153 different
agencies can now accomplish with strong leadership. $4.5 billion more
will be spent, but how do we know it will work in a new department when
there has not been any agency-by-agency analysis that justifies the
creation of a new Department?
Mr. Chairman, this House just passed a national independent
commission to investigate 9/11. We will have a new department with
170,000 employees to respond to 9/11, yet the commission which will
analyze 9/11 has not even begun its work. That is quite a feat,
especially with our President saying tonight, ``I didn't run for office
promising to make government bigger.'' 170,000 employees in this new
Department, no idea how they will integrate, 10 years for the
Department to be up and running.
In the meantime this reorganization itself will represent a threat to
the security of our Nation because it will induce paralysis and
administrative breakdown.

[[Page H5657]]

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), a member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and also someone who has taken a
special interest in homeland security issues.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5005, the
Homeland Security Act and I commend the committee for their fine work.
Mr. Chairman, the way our country prepares for and responds to
emergencies since the events of September 11 must be a key component of
our homeland security strategy. To that end, I think the President
should be commended for putting nearly all of the Federal emergency
management and response responsibilities under the Department of
Homeland Security. By making emergency management and response a
priority under the new Department, we will change the mindset of merely
reacting to disasters to include a comprehensive plan of helping
communities better prepare for emergency situations. A broader
perspective on emergency preparedness will help our cities and towns
across the country be ready to respond to terrorist attacks, major
disasters and other emergency situations that could paralyze a
community that is ill-prepared for a surprise scenario. Initiatives
such as State-to-State pacts for emergency response situations must be
promoted in order to better use our resources that can be shared across
the country.
I think it is important to highlight a few national ``firsts''
included in this bill. Building a national incident management system
to respond to attacks, consolidating existing Federal emergency
response plans into a single national plan, and developing
comprehensive programs for interoperative communications technology.
The emergency preparedness and response portion of the Department of
Homeland Security will continue current Federal support for local
government efforts to promote structures that have a lesser chance of
being impacted by disasters. It will bring together private industry
and citizens to create model communities in high-risk areas.
Like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, every community in America, no
matter how large or how small, needs to always be prepared. A firm
structure demonstrated by the Federal Government will provide the help
and guidance that towns, cities and counties need as they continue to
ensure the safety of citizens across the country.
I support this bill wholeheartedly.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), a respected
member of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Government Reform.
Mr. TURNER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to address an amendment that I will offer on
this floor tomorrow relating to indemnity of Federal contractors who
will provide to the government sophisticated antiterrorism equipment.
The language that I will offer on the floor tomorrow was passed
unanimously by the Committee on Government Reform, but unfortunately
taken out of the bill by the Republican majority on a special panel. I
was very amused when I looked at some talking points about the
amendment I will offer tomorrow that was put out by the Republican
leadership tonight. It says, and I quote, The trial lawyers, through an
amendment expected to be offered by Representative Turner, and I might
say I find that very amusing because the amendment I am offering
tomorrow was prepared by Representative Tom Davis, and I as the
chairman and ranking member of the Technology and Procurement
Subcommittee of Government Reform, and the amendment was brought to me
by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and the Information Technology
Association of America.
What it simply asked was that we extend to the Department of Homeland
Security the authority that current law already gives to the Department
of Defense to indemnify against claims of damage over certain limits.
It has been suggested that this approach, which as I say is already in
existing law for the Department of Defense, will open the Treasury of
the United States to unlimited claims.
But I would like to point out that the amendment I offer makes it
very clear that the director of OMB and the director of Homeland
Security can limit the indemnity in any amount they see fit.
I would urge Members to join us in restoring this language tomorrow.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair tell us what the division
of time is? We have the right to close, I believe.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has 4\1/2\
minutes and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) has 3 minutes.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield the balance of
my time to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a very
important member of our Select Committee on Homeland Security, the
assistant to the minority leader, and a respected member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I have been proud to work with Chairman
Armey, Ranking Member Pelosi and all the members of the Select
Committee to craft this legislation. Every Member of the House came to
this effort with one goal, to create a department that will help us win
the war on terrorism and protect our citizens from future attacks. We
have no greater obligation under this Constitution. We share the goal,
but we differ on the details.
And while we have made great strides toward the goal, we cannot
afford to ignore the details. We face an enemy who leaves us no room
for error and we owe the American people nothing less than getting this
right the first time.
There are several areas where I believe we have made real progress,
due in large part to the hard work of our committees. I am very pleased
that the chairman heeded the bipartisan recommendation of the Committee
on Energy and Commerce and declined the administration's request to
transfer health functions from the National Institutes of Health and
the Centers for Disease Control to the new Department.
On a bipartisan recommendation of the Committee on Appropriations, we
removed provisions that would have given the administration
unprecedented power to transfer funds without congressional oversight.
And the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos) worked together to find a bipartisan compromise
on the visa issue that was accepted by the White House and three
committees. No easy task.
However, very legitimate concerns still exist. I disagree with the
committee's decision to extend the deadline for the Transportation
Security Agency to check baggage on airlines. The American public and
their children should feel safe on those airlines that the airplane is
not going to explode. The Secretary of Transportation told us he could
meet the deadlines over and over again. I am also concerned about
provisions that broaden the FOIA exemption which undermine the civil
service protections for 170,000 Federal workers, both union and
nonunion. That particular provision goes against the unanimous
bipartisan vote of the Committee on Government Reform.
I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not make in order
my amendment which would have banned the Homeland Security Department
from contracting with corporations that are owned and operated in the
United States who incorporate themselves on paper overseas for the sole
reason of avoiding U.S. taxes. These corporations have abandoned our
country at a critical time in our history, leaving senior citizens,
soldiers who are fighting overseas, and companies who are doing the
right thing, to pay the costs of the war on terrorism. They should not
be rewarded for putting profits over patriotism with the contracts from
the very department that is charged with screening our homeland and
securing our homeland.
I am optimistic that we can address these problems. And with regard
to my amendment, all we are asking these corporations to do is to pay
American taxes on American profits. These companies should not abandon
the United States of America at a time in its greatest need. The
President has told us that we are on a wartime footing. And when these
companies take their revenue overseas, they put that burden of taxation
on working men and women and those who are fighting overseas.

[[Page H5658]]

Details do matter. As I said before, we owe the American people
nothing less than getting this right the first time. We all want to
make America safe.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader. He
led the Select Committee panel, he listened to all the standing
committees, and he did a good job in presenting a fair and open process
with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 4\1/2\
minutes.

{time} 2215

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, let me say on a personal note, it is a
privilege for me to follow the gentlewoman from Connecticut. What a
privilege it was to serve together on this select committee. The
gentlewoman made it select indeed, and I want to thank her for that.
Mr. Chairman, on September 11 of last year, early in the morning, the
unthinkable happened in America. We should remind ourselves. It was the
unthinkable; so horrible, so awful, so sneaky, so vicious.
We should not fault ourselves because we had not thought about it.
Americans would not think of such an atrocity. We did not anticipate
it. We were not expecting it. We were not ready. It was a classic sneak
attack.
Four airplanes, carefully selected, loaded heavily with fuel for a
cross-coast trip, took off that morning. Nobody could have imagined
even as the hijacking went on, as vicious as it must have been at the
time it happened, nobody could have imagined what those hijackers must
have had for their destination plan.
Can you imagine the fear, the terror, of those travelers in those
first three planes, when at some point in each of those three planes,
at some point those passengers must have realized the awful thing these
hijackers had in mind?
I think often about the terror they must have felt in their hearts,
the helplessness, the hopelessness, the despair that they must have
felt. It was particularly bad, I believe, in the case of those first
three planes because they were so helpless. By the time they realized
what their destiny was, it was too late. Nothing could be done but to
realize this awful thing visited upon our land and their place in it.
But there was a fourth plane, a fourth plane, where the passengers of
the plane, by virtue of American technology, became aware of exactly
what was in the evil minds of those hijackers en route, before it was
too late, while they could act. We know from the conversations they had
over their cell phones that they huddled in the back of the plane and
they laid the best plans they could, grasped for those resources
available to them, checked their courage and their resourcefulness, and
came up with what plan was available.
We do not know the destination of that plane. Was it the White House?
Was it our own Capitol? Was it the CIA headquarters? But whatever those
evil doers in that cockpit had in mind, it was clear it was to take the
lives of far more people than were in that plane.
And this is the important thing we must remember: when America knew
the evil that it was against, America acted. With whatever they had,
they acted. And we know with those resounding words that we keep
hearing over and over and over in this great land from Todd Beamer,
``Let's roll,'' America acted with what it had.
Our victims became our heroes. When they knew what they must do, they
did it. Now the President of the United States has called upon us to
respect that, gather our resources around us, focus what we have, and
try to recognize the danger. It may come by sea, it may come by air, it
may come by land, it may come insidious ways not yet imagined. We know
it will come. But what the President of the United States called upon
us to do was to get ready, prepare ourselves, imitate as we can, the
best we can, the actions of those heroes in Flight 93.
He has given us an outline. Our 12 standing committees have acted,
each of them in accordance with their better understanding, their
knowledge, their awareness and their experience on how to best hone
these tools and bring them together, weld them and unite them in a
common course of defense and safety and security. They have trusted
their work to our select committee, and I believe we have honored it,
and honored it well. We have now brought it to the floor for a final
chance to make whatever corrections we can.
I am reminded when I think of the greatness of this institution of
Sam Rayburn from Texas, our great Speaker. We honored him from both
sides of the aisle. Sam was a man with a sense of humor. He reminded us
often, ``Don't sweat the small things.''
There are no complaints with this bill that are borne out of the big
things. We are all in agreement that we have got the right model, that
we put the right pieces together. By and large, we have honed the right
tools.
Our concerns here are about the smaller things. Look at the
amendments. They are not about big things; they are about smaller
things, the fine points, as it were. Let us have a fair contest. Let us
have the votes.
But I must tell you, we have got the right package of defense, safety
and security, honor and respect of those great heroes to carry on what
they started in Flight 93. We know the danger. We have the resources,
and we can act.
When the voting is done on these amendments and when we rise from
this committee, let us put all of our small disappointments aside and
let us try to rise with our voting card to take that tool, as Todd
Beamer would have us do, and let's roll, and defend America as they
did.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I am united with the President
and with my colleagues in our determination to win the war against
terrorism. We have a responsibility to all Americans to reduce the risk
of further attacks. There is not one person in this Congress who does
not agree that we need better coordination between Federal agencies in
order to fight the very real threat of terrorism.
This is the most important piece of legislation that we will consider
in the 107th Congress and, we all need to make certain that this new
Department of Homeland Security will make the country and our citizens
safer. This new department will be charged with assessing our
vulnerabilities, gathering and disseminating our intelligence
information, and preparing and working with our local responders. We
should all be cognizant that it was the local first responders who
answered the challenges of September 11 and if we are to ever be truly
prepared then we must properly train and equip our local police and
fire departments.
I recognize that this legislation will pass the House today and I
support its passage. However, I urge caution as we agree to the
proposed transfer of several federal agencies to the new Department of
Homeland Security, particularly the Coast Guard, and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. As we move the Coast Guard and these other
agencies into the new Department of Homeland Security, we will need to
exercise close congressional oversight to ensure that we do not
overlook the significant other functions that these agencies already
make on a daily basis and how these contributions will be maintained.
I would like to thank the Select Committee for adopting the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's recommendation for an
annual assessment of terrorist related threats to public
transportation. This language which I authored, directs the Secretary,
in consultation with the heads of other appropriate Federal departments
and agencies, to conduct an assessment of potential terrorist related
threats to all forms of public transportation and public gatherings.
The horrific events of September 11, 2001 showed that terrorists were
able to hijack our national transportation system and use it against us
as a weapon. The terrorists used America's accessibility and our
freedom of mobility to perpetrate these unspeakable evil acts. If we
are to restore America's confidence and adequately protect our
transportation infrastructure--the foundation of our economy--then we
must conduct a complete assessment of our public transportation
system's vulnerabilities. The events at LAX over the July 4 weekend
this year, once again showed how vulnerable our citizens can be while
exercising their freedom of mobility. Public transportation clearly
remains a target and we should access that threat and make the
necessary changes that can measurably improve the ability of our
transportation systems to ensure enhanced security.
I am committed to a strong, effective Homeland Security and hope that
as we move forward with this legislation, we will revisit and

[[Page H5659]]

review and in some instances restructure areas of the Department to
ultimately create an efficient and effective homeland that is secure.
We must continue to assess the Department's performance as the
protector of the homeland.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I have heard some concerns about the
Strategic National Stockpile. One of today's most serious potential
threats to our national security is bioterrorism. The CDC is an
integral part of the homeland defense, because of its ability to
identify, classify, and recommend courses of action in dealing with
biological and chemical threats.
The Strategic National Stockpile Program demonstrated its excellence
and reliability through its on time delivery of the Stockpile's 50 ton
``push packs'' on September 11, 2001 and in the numerous smaller
deployments after that date. The push packs are delivered through the
nation's public health system and deployment requires continuous
medical supervision in order to assure that the medical supplies and
pharmaceuticals are provided to the right people and used correctly as
medically recommended by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in
Atlanta, Georgia.
Being on the front lines of the war on bio-terrorism, the CDC is
prepared to respond to emergencies such as a terrorist attack using
smallpox virus, anthrax, a worldwide flu pandemic, or a large-scale
exposure to deadly toxic chemicals.
It is my hope that the transfer of the stockpile to the Department of
Homeland Security will occur with minimum disturbance to the current
program. The stockpile should remain an integral part of responding to
disease outbreaks and other public health emergencies. CDC has been
very successful in their response to all types of public health
emergencies and we need to ensure the proposed changes do not
negatively impact our ability to make our country safer.
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in support of the Davis
amendment to H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act. I believe this
amendment is crucial to making sure that the Homeland Defense
Department and other agencies in charge of Americans' safety are
adequately equipped to combat terrorism and other major disasters.
Initially after the September 11 terrorist attacks, I met with a
group of Oregonians working in high technology. They were not only
eager to offer their services in defense of our country, they also
offered many sound ideas on how best to improve our national security.
I came away from these meetings convinced that it is critical for us to
recruit the best ideas, whether from public, private, or nonprofit
sectors, in our fight against terrorism.
In the House Science Committee, I joined Representatives Lynn Rivers
and Mike Honda in offering the amendment to H.R. 5005. Today, I remain
strongly supportive of creating a technology portal within the Homeland
Security Department to reach out to the private sector. The Rivers/Wu
amendment would do just that by establishing a technology clearinghouse
to recruit innovative solutions from the private sector to enhance
homelands security.
I would also like to commend the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis,
for offering a similar amendment, which is included in the manager's
amendment. Good ideas, no matter where the proposal came from, should
be implemented.
I believe the Rivers/Wu amendment will keep an open door for talents
outside of the government to contribute to our efforts to fight
terrorism. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. chairman, I rise in support of House Resolution 5005
enacting the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
The protection of the United States from threat and terror is, and
should be, the first priority of this government. The protection that
we seek today with the creation of the new Department is for our
people, our property, and our economy. For more than 200 years, the
U.S. Customs Service has been on the frontline supporting and defending
our nation. The requirement for a strong Customs was so important that
is was the fifth Act of Congress and was the first Federal agency of
the new Republic. The many functions of Customs are as important today
as they were at the start of our nation.
Passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 is the right decision
for the country. This country is only as safe and secure as the economy
that supports it. Last year over $1 trillion in merchandise was
imported into the country. Customs collected over $20 billions of
revenue. The bill before us today helps to protect the trade functions
of the Customs Service that are so vital to the strength of this land.
It helps to protect the investment that America has made in the new
computer system that will be the cornerstone of the new Department. The
bill keeps Customs core revenue functions whole, which ensures that the
many trade and enforcement functions will be carried out.
Our bipartisan agreement in this bill:
Transfers the Customs Service in its entirety to the Department of
Homeland Security Division for Border and Transportation Security.
Identifies revenue-related offices and functions within Customs--
about 25 percent of the agency--and prohibits reorganization or
decrease in their funding or staff or reductions to Title V pay and
benefits levels.
Requries that adequate staffing of customs revenue services be
maintained, and requires notice to Congress of actions that would
reduce such service.
Maintains the Commissioner of Customs as Senate-confirmed.
Transfers all authority exercised by Customs to Homeland security
with the exception of revenue collecting authority, which would remain
at the Treasury Department. Treasury may delegate this authority to
Homeland Security.
Specifies that a portion of the Customs Merchandise Processing Fee
must go to build the new Customs computer, which Governor Ridge has
told us will likely be the cornerstone of the new Department's
architecture.
For these reasons I urge a ``yes'' vote on House Resolution 5005.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to briefly summarize the
bipartisan recommendations of the Intelligence Committee on title 2 of
H.R. 5005.
Before I offer the committee's recommendation, let me give you an
idea of why the committee took its action. If you look at the overall
structure of the new department, you will notice that the vast majority
of the organization has to do with planning, implementation, protection
and response to terrorist threats and actions. What we also know is
that combating terrorism relies very much on timely, well-coordinated
access to intelligence and other sensitive information. I would submit
that if the analytical portion of the Department doesn't work, the rest
of the Department's operations and functions are somewhat academic.

The committee's strategic vision was that the new department needs an
analytical focal point where foreign intelligence, Federal law
enforcement, and state and local information will all be analyzed
collectively in order to best understand threats, specifically to our
homeland, and to properly evaluate the weaknesses in our defenses.
Without an all-source analytic capability to validate and make sense of
threat information, the Secretary for Homeland Security will have to
rely only on Intelligence Community analysis that may be fractious,
contradictory, parochial, and incomplete, and will have to make
critical analytical judgments in a vacuum.
The HPSCI recommendations to the Select Committee, which have been
largely adopted in the Manager's amendment, provide for the
establishment of an all-source, collaborative Intelligence Analysis
Center that will fuse intelligence and other information from the
Intelligence Community, as well as Federal, State and local law
enforcement agencies and the private sector, with respect to terrorist
threats and actions against the United States. Our proposal integrates
the traditional mission of intelligence analysis with new sources of
information and sophisticated information tools.
An equally important duty of the Intelligence Analysis Center will be
to integrate intelligence and other information to produce and
disseminate strategic and tactical vulnerability assessments with
respect to terrorist threats. The Intelligence Analysis Center would be
charged with developing a comprehensive national plan to provide for
the security of key national resources and critical infrastructures.
The Intelligence Analysis Center would also review and recommend
improvements in law, policy and procedure for sharing intelligence and
other information within the Federal Government and between the
Federal, State, and local governments.
The committee believes that the proposed Intelligence Analysis Center
should be made an element of the Intelligence Community and be a funded
program within the National Foreign Intelligence Program in accordance
with the National Security Act of 1947. Making the Intelligence
Analysis Center an NFIP element will ensure that the Secretary has full
and timely access to all relevant intelligence pertaining to terrorist
threats against the United States, as well as to ensure proper
coordination between the Department and Federal intelligence and law
enforcement agencies.
The Intelligence Committee's recommendation envisions an Intelligence
Analysis Center that is agile in terms of personnel and infrastructure,
appropriately flexible in terms of its authorities and its capacity to
address rapidly changing threats to the United States, and unique to
our government in that it incorporates the best analytical practices
and capabilities found in both the government and the private sector to
defend our country and our people.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.

[[Page H5660]]

Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:

H.R. 5005

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Homeland
Security Act of 2002''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Construction; severability.
Sec. 4. Effective date.

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Sec. 101. Executive department; mission.
Sec. 102. Secretary; functions.
Sec. 103. Other officers.
Sec. 104. National Council of First Responders.

TITLE II--INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

Subtitle A--Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection

Sec. 201. Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection.
Sec. 202. Functions transferred.
Sec. 203. Access to information.
Sec. 204. Procedures for sharing information.
Sec. 205. Privacy officer.
Sec. 206. Federal cybersecurity program.

Subtitle B--Intelligence Analysis Center

Sec. 211. Intelligence Analysis Center
Sec. 212. Mission of the Intelligence Analysis Center.

TITLE III--SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Sec. 301. Under Secretary for Science and Technology.
Sec. 302. Functions transferred.
Sec. 303. Conduct of certain public health-related activities.
Sec. 304. Federally funded research and development center.
Sec. 305. Miscellaneous provisions.
Sec. 306. Homeland Security Science and Technology Coordination
Council.
Sec. 307. Conduct of research, development, demonstration, testing and
evaluation.
Sec. 308. Transfer of Plum Island Animal Disease Center, Department of
Agriculture.

TITLE IV--BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

Subtitle A--General Provisions

Sec. 401. Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security.
Sec. 402. Functions transferred.
Sec. 403. Visa issuance.
Sec. 404. Transfer of certain agricultural inspection functions of the
Department of Agriculture.
Sec. 405. Functions of Administrator of General Services.
Sec. 406. Functions of Transportation Security Administration.
Sec. 407. Preservation of Transportation Security Administration as a
distinct entity.
Sec. 408. Annual assessment of terrorist-related threats to public
transportation.
Sec. 409. Explosive detection systems.
Sec. 410. Transportation security.

Subtitle B--Immigration and Nationality Functions

Chapter 1--Immigration Enforcement

Sec. 411. Transfer of functions to under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security.
Sec. 412. Establishment of Bureau of Border Security.
Sec. 413. Professional responsibility and quality review.
Sec. 414. Employee discipline.
Sec. 415. Report on improving enforcement functions.

Chapter 2--Citizenship And Immigration Services

SUBCHAPTER A--TRANSFERS OF FUNCTIONS

Sec. 421. Establishment of Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services.
Sec. 422. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman.
Sec. 423. Professional responsibility and quality review.
Sec. 424. Employee discipline.
Sec. 425. Office of Immigration Statistics within Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Sec. 426. Preservation of Attorney General's authority.
Sec. 427. Effective date.
Sec. 428. Transition.

SUBCHAPTER B--OTHER PROVISIONS

Sec. 431. Funding for citizenship and immigration services.
Sec. 432. Backlog elimination.
Sec. 433. Report on improving immigration services.
Sec. 434. Report on responding to fluctuating needs.
Sec. 435. Application of Internet-based technologies.
Sec. 436. Children's affairs.

Chapter 3--General Provisions

Sec. 441. Abolishment of INS.
Sec. 442. Voluntary separation incentive payments.
Sec. 443. Authority to conduct a demonstration project relating to
disciplinary action.
Sec. 444. Sense of Congress.
Sec. 445. Reports and implementation plans.
Sec. 446. Immigration functions.

Subtitle C--United States Customs Service

Sec. 451. Establishment; Commissioner of Customs.
Sec. 452. Retention of customs revenue functions by Secretary of the
Treasury.
Sec. 453. Establishment and implementation of cost accounting system;
reports.
Sec. 454. Preservation of Customs funds.
Sec. 455. Separate budget request for Customs.
Sec. 456. Payment of duties and fees.
Sec. 457. Definition.
Sec. 458. GAO report to Congress.
Sec. 459. Allocation of resources by the Secretary.
Sec. 460. Reports to Congress.
Sec. 461. Customs user fees.

TITLE V--EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

Sec. 501. Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response.
Sec. 502. Functions transferred.
Sec. 503. Nuclear incident response.
Sec. 504. Definition.
Sec. 505. Conduct of certain public-health related activities.

TITLE VI--MANAGEMENT

Sec. 601. Under Secretary for Management.
Sec. 602. Chief Financial Officer.
Sec. 603. Chief Information Officer.
Sec. 604. Establishment of Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS

Subtitle A--Inspector General

Sec. 701. Authority of the Secretary.

Subtitle B--United States Secret Service

Sec. 711. Functions transferred.

Subtitle C--Critical Infrastructure Information

Sec. 721. Short title.
Sec. 722. Definitions.
Sec. 723. Designation of critical infrastructure protection program.
Sec. 724. Protection of voluntarily shared critical infrastructure
information.
Sec. 725. No private right of action.

Subtitle D--Acquisitions

Sec. 731. Research and development projects.
Sec. 732. Personal services.
Sec. 733. Special streamlined acquisition authority.
Sec. 734. Procurements from small businesses.

Subtitle E--Property

Sec. 741. Department headquarters.

Subtitle F--Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies
Act of 2002 (the SAFETY Act)

Sec. 751. Short title.
Sec. 752. Administration.
Sec. 753. Litigation management.
Sec. 754. Risk management.
Sec. 755. Definitions.

Subtitle G--Other Provisions

Sec. 761. Establishment of human resources management system.
Sec. 762. Advisory committees.
Sec. 763. Reorganization; transfer of appropriations.
Sec. 764. Miscellaneous authorities.
Sec. 765. Military activities.
Sec. 766. Regulatory authority.
Sec. 767. Provisions regarding transfers from Department of Energy.
Sec. 768. Counternarcotics officer.
Sec. 769. Office of International Affairs.
Sec. 770. Prohibition of the terrorism information and prevention
system.
Sec. 771. Review of pay and benefit plans.
Sec. 772. Role of the District of Columbia.
Sec. 773. Transfer of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

TITLE VIII--TRANSITION

Subtitle A--Reorganization Plan

Sec. 801. Definitions.
Sec. 802. Reorganization plan.

Subtitle B--Transitional Provisions

Sec. 811. Transitional authorities.
Sec. 812. Savings provisions.
Sec. 813. Terminations.
Sec. 814. Incidental transfers.
Sec. 815. National identification system not authorized.
Sec. 816. Continuity of Inspector General oversight.
Sec. 817. Reference.

TITLE IX--CONFORMING AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS

Sec. 901. Inspector General Act of 1978.
Sec. 902. Executive Schedule.
Sec. 903. United States Secret Service.
Sec. 904. Coast Guard.
Sec. 905. Strategic National Stockpile and smallpox vaccine
development.
Sec. 906. Biological agent registration; Public Health Service Act.
Sec. 907. Transfer of certain security and law enforcement functions
and authorities.
Sec. 908. Transportation security regulations.
Sec. 909. Railroad security laws.
Sec. 910. Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Sec. 911. National Oceanographic Partnership Program.
Sec. 912. Chief Financial Officer.
Sec. 913. Chief Information Officer.

TITLE X--NATIONAL HOMELAND SECURITY COUNCIL

Sec. 1001. National Homeland Security Council.

[[Page H5661]]

Sec. 1002. Function.
Sec. 1003. Membership.
Sec. 1004. Other functions and activities.
Sec. 1005. Homeland security budget.
Sec. 1006. Staff composition.
Sec. 1007. Relation to the National Security Council.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act, the following definitions apply:
(1) Each of the terms ``American homeland'' and
``homeland'' means the United States.
(2) The term ``appropriate congressional committee'' means
any committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate
having legislative or oversight jurisdiction under the Rules
of the House of Representatives or the Senate, respectively,
over the matter concerned.
(3) The term ``assets'' includes contracts, facilities,
property, records, unobligated or unexpended balances of
appropriations, and other funds or resources (other than
personnel).
(4) The term ``critical infrastructure'' has the meaning
given that term in section 1016(e) of Public Law 107-56 (42
U.S.C. 5195c(e)).
(5) The term ``Department'' means the Department of
Homeland Security.
(6) The term ``emergency response providers'' includes
Federal, State, and local emergency public safety, law
enforcement, emergency response, emergency medical (including
hospital emergency facilities), and related personnel,
agencies, and authorities.
(7) The term ``executive agency'' means an executive agency
and a military department, as defined, respectively, in
sections 105 and 102 of title 5, United States Code.
(8) The term ``functions'' includes authorities, powers,
rights, privileges, immunities, programs, projects,
activities, duties, and responsibilities.
(9) The term ``key resources'' means publicly or privately
controlled resources essential to the minimal operations of
the economy and government.
(10) The term ``local government'' means--
(A) a county, municipality, city, town, township, local
public authority, school district, special district,
intrastate district, council of governments (regardless of
whether the council of governments is incorporated as a
nonprofit corporation under State law), regional or
interstate government entity, or agency or instrumentality of
a local government;
(B) an Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or
Alaska Native village or organization; and
(C) a rural community, unincorporated town or village, or
other public entity.
(11) The term ``major disaster'' has the meaning given in
section 102(2) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
(12) The term ``personnel'' means officers and employees.
(13) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Homeland
Security.
(14) The term ``State'' means any State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any
possession of the United States.
(15) The term ``terrorism'' means any activity that--
(A) involves an act that--
(i) is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive
of critical infrastructure or key resources; and
(ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United
States or of any State or other subdivision of the United
States; and
(B) appears to be intended--
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
(16) The term ``United States'', when used in a geographic
sense, means any State of the United States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, any possession of the United
States, and any waters within the jurisdiction of the United
States.

SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION; SEVERABILITY.

Any provision of this Act held to be invalid or
unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or
circumstance, shall be construed so as to give it the maximum
effect permitted by law, unless such holding shall be one of
utter invalidity or unenforceability, in which event such
provision shall be deemed severable from this Act and shall
not affect the remainder thereof, or the application of such
provision to other persons not similarly situated or to
other, dissimilar circumstances.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall take effect thirty days after the date of
enactment or, if enacted within thirty days before January 1,
2003, on January 1, 2003.

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

SEC. 101. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT; MISSION.

(a) Establishment.--There is established a Department of
Homeland Security, as an executive department of the United
States within the meaning of title 5, United States Code.
(b) Mission.--
(1) In general.--The primary mission of the Department is
to--
(A) prevent terrorist attacks within the United States;
(B) reduce the vulnerability of the United States to
terrorism;
(C) minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from
terrorist attacks that do occur within the United States;
(D) carry out all functions of entities transferred to the
Department, including by acting as a focal point regarding
natural and manmade crises and emergency planning;
(E) ensure that the functions of the agencies and
subdivisions within the Department that are not related
directly to securing the homeland are not diminished or
neglected except by a specific explicit Act of Congress; and
(F) ensure that the overall economic security of the United
States is not diminished by efforts, activities, and programs
aimed at securing the homeland.
(2) Responsibility for Investigating and Prosecuting
Terrorism.--Except as specifically provided by law with
respect to entities transferred to the Department under this
Act, primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting
acts of terrorism shall be vested not in the Department, but
rather in Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies
with jurisdiction over the acts in question.

SEC. 102. SECRETARY; FUNCTIONS.

(a) Secretary.--(1) There is a Secretary of Homeland
Security, appointed by the President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate.
(2) The Secretary is the head of the Department and shall
have direction, authority, and control over it.
(3) All functions of all officers, employees, and
organizational units of the Department are vested in the
Secretary.
(b) Functions.--The Secretary--
(1) except as otherwise provided by this Act, may delegate
any of the Secretary's functions to any officer, employee, or
organizational unit of the Department;
(2) shall have the authority to make contracts, grants, and
cooperative agreements, and to enter into agreements with
other executive agencies, as may be necessary and proper to
carry out the Secretary's responsibilities under this Act or
otherwise provided by law; and
(3) shall take reasonable steps to ensure that information
systems and databases of the Department are compatible with
each other and with appropriate databases of other
Departments.
(c) Coordination With Non-Federal Entities.--The Secretary
shall coordinate (including the provision of training and
equipment) with State and local government personnel,
agencies, and authorities, with the private sector, and with
other entities, including by--
(1) coordinating with State and local government personnel,
agencies, and authorities, and with the private sector, to
ensure adequate planning, equipment, training, and exercise
activities;
(2) coordinating and, as appropriate, consolidating, the
Federal Government's communications and systems of
communications relating to homeland security with State and
local government personnel, agencies, and authorities, the
private sector, other entities, and the public; and
(3) distributing or, as appropriate, coordinating the
distribution of, warnings and information to State and local
government personnel, agencies, and authorities and to the
public.
(d) Meetings of National Security Council.--The Secretary
may, subject to the direction of the President, attend and
participate in meetings of the National Security Council.
(e) Issuance of Regulations.--The issuance of regulations
by the Secretary shall be governed by the provisions of
chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, except as
specifically provided in this Act, in laws granting
regulatory authorities that are transferred by this Act, and
in laws enacted after the date of enactment of this Act.
(f) Special Assistant to the Secretary.--The Secretary
shall appoint a Special Assistant to the Secretary who shall
be responsible for--
(1) creating and fostering strategic communications with
the private sector to enhance the primary mission of the
Department to protect the American homeland;
(2) advising the Secretary on the impact of the
Department's policies, regulations, processes, and actions on
the private sector;
(3) interfacing with other relevant Federal agencies with
homeland security missions to assess the impact of these
agencies' actions on the private sector;
(4) creating and managing private sector advisory councils
composed of representatives of industries and associations
designated by the Secretary to--
(A) advise the Secretary on private sector products,
applications, and solutions as they relate to homeland
security challenges; and
(B) advise the Secretary on homeland security policies,
regulations, processes, and actions that affect the
participating industries and associations;
(5) working with Federal laboratories, Federally funded
research and development centers, other Federally funded
organizations, academia, and the private sector to develop
innovative approaches to address homeland security challenges
to produce and deploy the best available technologies for
homeland security missions;
(6) promoting existing public-private partnerships and
developing new public-private partnerships to provide for
collaboration and mutual support to address homeland security
challenges; and
(7) assisting in the development and promotion of private
sector best practices to secure critical infrastructure.
(g) Standards Policy.--All standards activities of the
Department shall be conducted in accordance with section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of
1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) and Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-119.

SEC. 103. OTHER OFFICERS.

(a) Deputy Secretary; Under Secretaries.--There are the
following officers, appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate:

[[Page H5662]]

(1) A Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, who shall be
the Secretary's first assistant for purposes of subchapter
III of chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) An Under Secretary for Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection.
(3) An Under Secretary for Science and Technology.
(4) An Under Secretary for Border and Transportation
Security.
(5) An Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and
Response.
(6) An Under Secretary for Management.
(7) Not more than four Assistant Secretaries.
(8) A Chief Financial Officer.
(b) Inspector General.--There is an Inspector General, who
shall be appointed as provided in section 3(a) of the
Inspector General Act of 1978.
(c) Commandant of the Coast Guard.--To assist the Secretary
in the performance of the Secretary's functions, there is a
Commandant of the Coast Guard, who shall be appointed as
provided in section 44 of title 14, United States Code, and
who shall report directly to the Secretary. In addition to
such duties as may be provided in this Act and as assigned to
the Commandant by the Secretary, the duties of the Commandant
shall include those required by section 2 of title 14, United
States Code.
(d) Other Officers.--To assist the Secretary in the
performance of the Secretary's functions, there are the
following officers, appointed by the President:
(1) A General Counsel, who shall be the chief legal officer
of the Department.
(2) Not more than eight Assistant Secretaries.
(3) A Director of the Secret Service.
(4) A Chief Information Officer.
(e) Performance of Specific Functions.--Subject to the
provisions of this Act, every officer of the Department shall
perform the functions specified by law for the official's
office or prescribed by the Secretary.

SEC. 104. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FIRST RESPONDERS.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) First responders are key to protecting the health and
safety of our citizens against disasters.
(2) First responders are the Nation's ready reaction force
of dedicated and brave people who save lives and property
when catastrophe strikes.
(3) First responders have the knowledge, training, and
experience to save lives, often under the most difficult
conditions imaginable.
(4) First responders play an important role in helping to
develop and implement advances in life saving technology.
(5) First responders are uniquely qualified to advise the
Department of Homeland Security on the role of first
responders in defending our Nation against terrorism.
(b) Establishment and Administration.--
(1) There is established within the Department of Homeland
Security a National Council of First Responders (in this
section referred to as the ``Council'').
(2) The President shall appoint the members of the Council.
The Council shall consist of not less than 100 members, no
more than 10 of whom may be residents of the same State.
Members of the Council shall be selected from among the ranks
of police, firefighters, emergency medical technicians,
rescue workers, and hospital personnel who are employed in
communities, tribal governments, and political subdivisions
of various regions and population sizes.
(3) The Director of Homeland Security shall appoint a
Chairman of the Council.
(4) Members shall be appointed to the Council for a term of
3 years.
(5) Membership shall be staggered to provide continuity.
(6) The Council shall meet no fewer than 2 times each year.
(7) Members of the Council shall receive no compensation
for service on the Council.
(8) The Secretary shall detail a single employee from the
Department of Homeland Security to the Council for the
purposes of:
(A) Choosing meeting dates and locations.
(B) Coordinating travel.
(C) Other administrative functions as needed.
(c) Duties.--The Council shall have the following duties:
(1) Develop a plan to disseminate information on first
response best practices.
(2) Identify and educate the Secretary on the latest
technological advances in the field of first response.
(3) Identify probable emerging threats to first responders.
(4) Identify needed improvements to first response
techniques and training.
(5) Identify efficient means of communication and
coordination between first responders and local, State, and
Federal officials.
(6) Identify areas in which the Department can assist first
responders.
(7) Evaluate the adequacy and timeliness of resources being
made available to local first responders.
(d) Reporting Requirement.--The Council shall report to the
Congress by October 1 of each year on how first responders
can continue to be most effectively used to meet the ever-
changing challenges of providing homeland security for the
United States.

TITLE II--INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

Subtitle A--Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection

SEC. 201. UNDER SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND
INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION.

The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, shall be
responsible for the following:
(1) Conducting analysis of information, including foreign
intelligence and open source information, lawfully collected
by Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies and by
elements of the intelligence community with respect to
threats of terrorist acts against the United States.
(2) Integrating information, intelligence, and intelligence
analyses to produce and disseminate infrastructure
vulnerability assessments with respect to such threats.
(3) Identifying priorities for protective and support
measures by the Department, by other executive agencies, by
State and local governments, by the private sector, and by
other entities.
(4) Reviewing, analyzing, and recommending improvements in
law, policy, and procedure for the sharing of intelligence
and other information with respect to threats against the
United States within the Federal Government and between the
Federal Government and State and local governments.
(5) Under the direction of the Secretary, developing a
comprehensive national plan to provide for the security of
key resources and critical infrastructures.
(6) Coordinating with other executive agencies, State and
local government personnel, agencies, and authorities, and
the private sector, to provide advice on implementation of
such comprehensive national plan.
(7) Supporting the intelligence and information
requirements of the Department.
(8) Administering the Homeland Security Advisory System,
exercising primary responsibility for public advisories
relating to terrorist threats, and (in coordination with
other executive agencies) providing specific warning
information to State and local government personnel,
agencies, and authorities, the private sector, other
entities, and the public, as well as advice about appropriate
protective actions and countermeasures.

SEC. 202. FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED.

In accordance with title VIII, there shall be transferred
to the Secretary the functions, personnel, assets, and
obligations of the following:
(1) The National Infrastructure Protection Center of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (other than the Computer
Investigations and Operations Section), including the
functions of the Attorney General relating thereto.
(2) The National Communications System of the Department of
Defense, including the functions of the Secretary of Defense
relating thereto.
(3) The Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office of the
Department of Commerce, including the functions of the
Secretary of Commerce relating thereto.
(4) The Energy Security and Assurance Program of the
Department of Energy, including the National Infrastructure
Simulation and Analysis Center and the functions of the
Secretary of Energy relating thereto.
(5) The Federal Computer Incident Response Center of the
General Services Administration, including the functions of
the Administrator of General Services relating thereto.

SEC. 203. ACCESS TO INFORMATION.

The Secretary shall have access to all reports,
assessments, and analytical information relating to threats
of terrorism in the United States and to other areas of
responsibility described in section 101(b), and to all
information concerning infrastructure or other
vulnerabilities of the United States to terrorism, whether or
not such information has been analyzed, that may be
collected, possessed, or prepared by any executive agency,
except as otherwise directed by the President. The Secretary
shall also have access to other information relating to the
foregoing matters that may be collected, possessed, or
prepared by an executive agency, as the President may further
provide. With respect to the material to which the Secretary
has access under this section--
(1) the Secretary may obtain such material by request, and
may enter into cooperative arrangements with other executive
agencies to share such material on a regular or routine
basis, including requests or arrangements involving broad
categories of material;
(2) regardless of whether the Secretary has made any
request or entered into any cooperative arrangement pursuant
to paragraph (1), all executive agencies promptly shall
provide to the Secretary--
(A) all reports, assessments, and analytical information
relating to threats of terrorism in the United States and to
other areas of responsibility described in section 101(b);
(B) all information concerning infrastructure or other
vulnerabilities of the United States to terrorism, whether or
not such information has been analyzed;
(C) all information relating to significant and credible
threats of terrorism in the United States, whether or not
such information has been analyzed, if the President has
provided that the Secretary shall have access to such
information; and
(D) such other material as the President may further
provide;
(3) the Secretary shall have full access and input with
respect to information from any national collaborative
information analysis capability (as referred to in section
924 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2002 (Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1199)) established
jointly by the Secretary of Defense and the Director of
Central Intelligence; and
(4) the Secretary shall ensure that any material received
pursuant to this section is protected from unauthorized
disclosure and handled and used only for the performance of
official duties, and that any intelligence information shared
under this section shall be transmitted, retained, and
disseminated consistent with the authority of the Director of
Central Intelligence to protect intelligence sources and

[[Page H5663]]

methods under the National Security Act and related
procedures or, as appropriate, similar authorities of the
Attorney General concerning sensitive law enforcement
information.

SEC. 204. PROCEDURES FOR SHARING INFORMATION.

The Secretary shall establish procedures on the use of
information shared under this title that--
(1) limit the redissemination of such information to ensure
that it is not used for an unauthorized purpose;
(2) ensure the security and confidentiality of such
information;
(3) protect the constitutional and statutory rights of any
individuals who are subjects of such information; and
(4) provide data integrity through the timely removal and
destruction of obsolete or erroneous names and information.

SEC. 205. PRIVACY OFFICER.

The Secretary shall appoint a senior official in the
Department to assume primary responsibility for privacy
policy, including--
(1) assuring that the use of information technologies
sustain, and do not erode, privacy protections relating to
the use, collection, and disclosure of personal information;
(2) assuring that personal information contained in Privacy
Act systems of records is handled in full compliance with
fair information practices as set out in the Privacy Act of
1974;
(3) evaluating legislative proposals involving collection,
use, and disclosure of personal information by the Federal
Government;
(4) conducting a privacy impact assessment of proposed
rules of the Department or that of the Department on the
privacy of personal information, including the type of
personal information collected and the number of people
affected; and
(5) preparing a report to Congress on an annual basis on
activities of the Department that affect privacy, including
complaints of privacy violations, implementation of the
Privacy Act of 1974, internal controls, and other matters.

SEC. 206. FEDERAL CYBERSECURITY PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Under
Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection, shall establish and manage a program to improve
the security of Federal critical information systems,
including carrying out responsibilities under paragraphs (1)
and (2) of section 201 that relate to such systems.
(b) Duties.--The duties of the Secretary under subsection
(a) are--
(1) to evaluate the increased use by civilian executive
agencies of techniques and tools to enhance the security of
Federal critical information systems, including, as
appropriate, consideration of cryptography;
(2) to provide assistance to civilian executive agencies in
protecting the security of Federal critical information
systems, including identification of significant risks to
such systems; and
(3) to coordinate research and development for critical
information systems relating to supervisory control and data
acquisition systems, including, as appropriate, the
establishment of a test bed.
(c) Federal Information System Security Team.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out subsection (b)(2), the
Secretary shall establish, manage, and support a Federal
information system security team whose purpose is to provide
technical expertise to civilian executive agencies to assist
such agencies in securing Federal critical information
systems by conducting information security audits of such
systems, including conducting tests of the effectiveness of
information security control techniques and performing
logical access control tests of interconnected computer
systems and networks, and related vulnerability assessment
techniques.
(2) Team members.--The Secretary shall ensure that the team
under paragraph (1) includes technical experts and auditors,
computer scientists, and computer forensics analysts whose
technical competence enables the team to conduct audits under
such paragraph.
(3) Agency agreements regarding audits.--Each civilian
executive agency may enter into an agreement with the team
under paragraph (1) for the conduct of audits under such
paragraph of the Federal critical information systems of the
agency. Such agreement shall establish the terms of the audit
and shall include provisions to minimize the extent to which
the audit disrupts the operations of the agency.
(4) Reports.--Promptly after completing an audit under
paragraph (1) of a civilian executive agency, the team under
such paragraph shall prepare a report summarizing the
findings of the audit and making recommendations for
corrective action. Such report shall be submitted to the
Secretary, the head of such agency, and the Inspector General
of the agency (if any), and upon request of any congressional
committee with jurisdiction over such agency, to such
committee.
(d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``Federal critical information system'' means an
``information system'' as defined in section 3502 of title
44, United States Code, that--
(1) is, or is a component of, a key resource or critical
infrastructure;
(2) is used or operated by a civilian executive agency or
by a contractor of such an agency; and
(3) does not include any national security system as
defined in section 5142 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996.

Subtitle B--Intelligence Analysis Center

SEC. 211. INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS CENTER.

(a) Establishment; NFIP Agency.--(1) There is established
within the Department the Intelligence Analysis Center. The
Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection shall be the head of the Intelligence Analysis
Center.
(2) The Intelligence Analysis Center is a program of the
intelligence community for purposes of the National Foreign
Intelligence Program (as defined in section 3(6) of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(6))).
(b) Functions.--The Under Secretary for Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, through the
Intelligence Analysis Center, shall carry out the duties
specified in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (6), and (7) of
section 201(b).
(c) Detail of Certain Personnel.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary and the Director of Central
Intelligence, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General,
the Secretary of State, or the head of another agency or
department as the case may be, shall enter into cooperative
arrangements to provide for an appropriate number of
individuals to be detailed to the Under Secretary to perform
analytical functions and duties with respect to the mission
of the Department from the following agencies:
(A) The Central Intelligence Agency.
(B) The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(C) The National Security Agency.
(D) The National Imagery and Mapping Agency.
(E) The Department of State.
(F) The Defense Intelligence Agency.
(G) Any other agency or department that the President
determines appropriate.
(2) Terms of detail.--Any officer or employee of the United
States or a member of the Armed Forces who is detailed to the
Under Secretary under paragraph (1) shall be detailed on a
reimbursable basis for a period of less than two years for
the performance of temporary functions as required by the
Under Secretary.
(d) Inclusion of Office of Intelligence as an Element of
the Intelligence Community.--Section 3(4) of the National
Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (I);
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (J) as subparagraph (K);
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (I) the following new
subparagraph:
``(J) the Intelligence Analysis Center of the Department of
Homeland Security; and''.

SEC. 212. MISSION OF THE INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS CENTER.

(a) In General.--The mission of the Intelligence Analysis
Center is as follows:
(1) Analysis and production.--
(A) Correlating and evaluating information and intelligence
related to the mission of the Department collected from all
sources available.
(B) Producing all-source collaborative intelligence
analysis, warnings, tactical assessments, and strategic
assessments of the terrorist threat and infrastructure
vulnerabilities of the United States.
(C) Providing appropriate dissemination of such
assessments.
(D) Improving the lines of communication with respect to
homeland security between the Federal Government and State
and local public safety agencies and the private sector
through the timely dissemination of information pertaining to
threats of acts of terrorism against the United States.
(2) Coordination of information.--Coordinating with
elements of the intelligence community and with Federal,
State, and local law enforcement agencies, and the private
sector as appropriate.
(3) Additional Duties.--Performing such other functions as
the Secretary may direct.
(b) Strategic and Tactical Missions of the Intelligence
Analysis Center.--The Under Secretary shall conduct strategic
and tactical assessments and warnings through the
Intelligence Analysis Center, including research, analysis,
and the production of assessments on the following as they
relate to the mission of the Department:
(1) Domestic terrorism.
(2) International terrorism.
(3) Counterintelligence.
(4) Transnational crime.
(5) Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
(6) Illicit financing of terrorist activities.
(7) Cybersecurity and cybercrime.
(8) Key resources and critical infrastructures.
(c) Staffing of the Intelligence Analysis Center.--
(1) Functions transferred.--In accordance with title VIII,
for purposes of carrying out this title, there is transferred
to the Under Secretary the functions, personnel, assets, and
liabilities of the following entities:
(A) The National Infrastructure Protection Center of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (other than the Computer
Investigations and Operations Section).
(B) The Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office of the
Department of Commerce.
(C) The Federal Computer Incident Response Center of the
General Services Administration.
(D) The National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis
Center of the Department of Energy.
(E) The National Communications System of the Department of
Defense.
(F) The intelligence element of the Coast Guard.
(G) The intelligence element of the United States Customs
Service.
(H) The intelligence element of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
(I) The intelligence element of the Transportation Security
Administration.
(J) The intelligence element of the Federal Protective
Service.
(2) Structure.--It is the sense of Congress that the Under
Secretary should model the Intelligence Analysis Center on
the technical, analytic approach of the Information Dominance
Center of the Department of the Army to the maximum extent
feasible and appropriate.

[[Page H5664]]

TITLE III--SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

SEC. 301. UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.

The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for
Science and Technology, shall have responsibility for--
(1) developing, in consultation with other appropriate
executive agencies, a national policy and strategic plan for,
identifying priorities, goals, objectives and policies for,
and coordinating the Federal Government's civilian efforts to
identify and develop countermeasures to chemical, biological
radiological, nuclear and other emerging terrorist threats,
including the development of comprehensive, research-based
definable goals for such efforts and development of annual
measurable objectives and specific targets to accomplish and
evaluate the goals for such efforts;
(2) establishing and administering the primary research and
development activities of the Department, including the long-
term research and development needs and capabilities for all
elements of the Department;
(3) conducting basic and applied research, development,
demonstration, testing, and evaluation activities that are
relevant to any or all elements of the Department, through
both intramural and extramural programs; provided that such
responsibility does not extend to human health-related
research and development activities;
(4) coordinating and integrating all research, development,
demonstration, testing, and evaluation activities of the
Department;
(5) coordinating with other appropriate executive agencies
in developing and carrying out the science and technology
agenda of the Department to reduce duplication and identify
unmet needs;
(6) establishing Federal priorities for research,
development, demonstration, testing, and, as appropriate,
procurement and transitional operation of technology and
systems--
(A) for preventing the importation of chemical, biological,
radiological, and nuclear weapons and related materials;
(B) for detecting, preventing, and protecting against
terrorist attacks that involve such weapons or related
materials; and
(C) for interoperability of communications systems for
emergency response providers;
(7) ensuring that the research, development, demonstration,
testing, and evaluation activities of the Department are
aligned with the Department's procurement needs;
(8) facilitating the deployment of technology that will
serve to enhance homeland security, including through the
establishment of a centralized Federal repository for
information relating to technologies described in
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (6) for
dissemination to Federal, State, and local government and
private sector entities, and for information for persons
seeking guidance on how to pursue proposals to develop or
deploy technologies that would contribute to homeland
security;
(9) providing guidance, recommendations, and technical
assistance as appropriate to assist Federal, State, and local
government and private sector efforts to evaluate and
implement the use of technologies described in subparagraphs
(A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (6); and
(10) developing and overseeing the administration of
guidelines for merit review of research and development
projects throughout the Department, and for the dissemination
of research conducted or sponsored by the Department.

SEC. 302. FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED.

In accordance with title VIII, there shall be transferred
to the Secretary the functions, personnel, assets, and
obligations of the following:
(1) The program under section 351A of the Public Health
Service Act, and functions thereof, including the functions
of the Secretary of Health and Human Services relating
thereto, subject to the amendments made by section 906(a)(3),
except that such transfer shall not occur unless the program
under section 212 of the Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection
Act of 2002 (subtitle B of title II of Public Law 107-188),
and functions thereof, including the functions of the
Secretary of Agriculture relating thereto, is transferred to
the Department.
(2) Programs and activities of the Department of Energy,
including the functions of the Secretary of Energy relating
thereto (but not including programs and activities relating
to the strategic nuclear defense posture of the United
States), as follows:
(A) The programs and activities relating to chemical and
biological national security, and supporting programs and
activities directly related to homeland security, of the non-
proliferation and verification research and development
program.
(B) The programs and activities relating to nuclear
smuggling, and other programs and activities directly related
to homeland security, within the proliferation detection
program of the non-proliferation and verification research
and development program.
(C) Those aspects of the nuclear assessment program of the
international materials protection and cooperation program
that are directly related to homeland security.
(D) Such life sciences activities of the biological and
environmental research program related to microbial pathogens
as may be designated by the President for transfer to the
Department and that are directly related to homeland
security.
(E) The Environmental Measurements Laboratory.
(F) The advanced scientific computing research program and
activities at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
(3) The homeland security projects within the Chemical
Biological Defense Program of the Department of Defense known
as the Biological Defense Homeland Security Support Program
and the Biological Counter-Terrorism Research Program.

SEC. 303. CONDUCT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC HEALTH-RELATED
ACTIVITIES.

With respect to civilian human health-related research and
development activities relating to countermeasures for
chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear and other
emerging terrorist threats carried out by the Department of
Health and Human Services (including the Public Health
Service), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
set priorities, goals, objectives, and policies and develop a
coordinated strategy for such activities in collaboration
with the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure consistency
with the national policy and strategic plan developed
pursuant to section 301(1).

SEC. 304. FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER.

The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for
Science and Technology, shall have the authority to establish
or contract with one or more federally funded research and
development centers to provide independent analysis of
homeland security issues, or to carry out other
responsibilities under this Act, including coordinating and
integrating both the extramural and intramural programs
described in section 307.

SEC. 305. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

(a) Classification.--To the greatest extent practicable,
research conducted or supported by the Department shall be
unclassified.
(b) Construction.--Nothing in this title shall be construed
to preclude any Under Secretary of the Department from
carrying out research, development, demonstration, or
deployment activities, as long as such activities are
coordinated through the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology.
(c) Regulations.--The Secretary, acting through the Under
Secretary for Science and Technology, may issue necessary
regulations with respect to research, development,
demonstration, testing, and evaluation activities of the
Department, including the conducting, funding, and reviewing
of such activities.
(d) Notification of Presidential Life Sciences
Designations.--Not later than 60 days before effecting any
transfer of Department of Energy life sciences activities
pursuant to section 302(2)(D) of this Act, the President
shall notify the Congress of the proposed transfer and shall
include the reasons for the transfer and a description of the
effect of the transfer on the activities of the Department of
Energy.

SEC. 306. HOMELAND SECURITY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATION COUNCIL.

(a) Establishment and Composition.--There is established
within the Department a Homeland Security Science and
Technology Coordination Council (in this section referred to
as the ``Coordination Council''). The Coordination Council
shall be composed of all the Under Secretaries of the
Department and any other Department officials designated by
the Secretary, and shall be chaired by the Under Secretary
for Science and Technology. The Coordination Council shall
meet at the call of the chair.
(b) Responsibilities.--The Coordination Council shall--
(1) establish priorities for research, development,
demonstration, testing, and evaluation activities conducted
or supported by the Department;
(2) ensure that the priorities established under paragraph
(1) reflect the acquisition needs of the Department; and
(3) assist the Under Secretary for Science and Technology
in carrying out his responsibilities under section 301(4).

SEC. 307. CONDUCT OF RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION,
TESTING AND EVALUATION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Under
Secretary for Science and Technology, shall carry out the
responsibilities under section 301(3) through both extramural
and intramural programs.
(b) Extramural Programs.--(1) The Secretary, acting through
the Under Secretary for Science and Technology, shall operate
extramural research, development, demonstration, testing, and
evaluation programs so as to--
(A) ensure that colleges, universities, private research
institutes, and companies (and consortia thereof) from as
many areas of the United States as practicable participate;
and
(B) distribute funds through grants, cooperative
agreements, and contracts through competitions that are as
open as possible.
(2)(A) The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary
for Science and Technology, shall establish within 1 year of
the date of enactment of this Act a university-based center
or centers for homeland security. The purpose of this center
or centers shall be to establish a coordinated, university-
based system to enhance the Nation's homeland security.
(B) In selecting colleges or universities as centers for
homeland security, the Secretary shall consider the following
criteria:
(i) Demonstrated expertise in the training of first
responders.
(ii) Demonstrated expertise in responding to incidents
involving weapons of mass destruction and biological warfare.
(iii) Demonstrated expertise in emergency medical services.
(iv) Demonstrated expertise in chemical, biological,
radiological, and nuclear countermeasures.
(v) Strong affiliations with animal and plant diagnostic
laboratories.
(vi) Demonstrated expertise in food safety.
(vii) Affiliation with Department of Agriculture
laboratories or training centers.
(viii) Demonstrated expertise in water and wastewater
operations.
(ix) Demonstrated expertise in port and waterway security.

[[Page H5665]]

(x) Demonstrated expertise in multi-modal transportation.
(xi) Nationally recognized programs in information
security.
(xii) Nationally recognized programs in engineering.
(xiii) Demonstrated expertise in educational outreach and
technical assistance.
(xiv) Demonstrated expertise in border transportation and
security.
(xv) Demonstrated expertise in interdisciplinary public
policy research and communication outreach regarding science,
technology, and public policy.
(C) The Secretary shall have the discretion to establish
such centers and to consider additional criteria as necessary
to meet the evolving needs of homeland security and shall
report to Congress concerning the implementation of this
paragraph as necessary.
(D) There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as
may be necessary to carry out this paragraph.
(c) Intramural Programs.--(1) In carrying out the duties
under section 301, the Secretary, acting through the Under
Secretary for Science and Technology, may draw upon the
expertise of any laboratory of the Federal Government,
whether operated by a contractor or the Government.
(2) The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for
Science and Technology, may establish a headquarters
laboratory for the Department at any national laboratory and
may establish additional laboratory units at other national
laboratories.
(3) If the Secretary chooses to establish a headquarters
laboratory pursuant to paragraph (2), then the Secretary
shall do the following:
(A) Establish criteria for the selection of the
headquarters laboratory in consultation with the National
Academy of Sciences, appropriate Federal agencies, and other
experts.
(B) Publish the criteria in the Federal Register.
(C) Evaluate all appropriate national laboratories against
the criteria.
(D) Select a national laboratory on the basis of the
criteria.
(E) Report to the appropriate congressional committees on
which laboratory was selected, how the selected laboratory
meets the published criteria, and what duties the
headquarters laboratory shall perform.
(4) No laboratory shall begin operating as the headquarters
laboratory of the Department until at least 30 days after the
transmittal of the report required by paragraph (3)(E).

SEC. 308. TRANSFER OF PLUM ISLAND ANIMAL DISEASE CENTER,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

(a) Transfer Required.--In accordance with title VIII, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall transfer to the Secretary of
Homeland Security the Plum Island Animal Disease Center of
the Department of Agriculture, including the assets and
liabilities of the Center.
(b) Continued Department of Agriculture Access.--Upon the
transfer of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, the
Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of
Agriculture shall enter into an agreement to ensure
Department of Agriculture access to the center for research,
diagnostic, and other activities of the Department of
Agriculture.
(c) Notification.--At least 180 days before any change in
the biosafety level at the facility described in subsection
(a), the President shall notify the Congress of the change
and describe the reasons therefor. No such change may be made
until at least 180 days after the completion of the
transition period defined in section 801(2).

TITLE IV--BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

Subtitle A--General Provisions

SEC. 401. UNDER SECRETARY FOR BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION
SECURITY.

The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for
Border and Transportation Security, shall be responsible for
the following:
(1) Preventing the entry of terrorists and the instruments
of terrorism into the United States.
(2) Securing the borders, territorial waters, ports,
terminals, waterways, and air, land, and sea transportation
systems of the United States, including managing and
coordinating governmental activities at ports of entry.
(3) Carrying out the immigration enforcement functions
vested by statute in, or performed by, the Commissioner of
Immigration and Naturalization (or any officer, employee, or
component of the Immigration and Naturalization Service)
immediately before the date on which the transfer of
functions specified under section 411 takes effect.
(4) Establishing and administering rules, in accordance
with section 403, governing the granting of visas or other
forms of permission, including parole, to enter the United
States to individuals who are not a citizen or an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United
States.
(5) Except as provided in subtitle C, administering the
customs laws of the United States.
(6) Conducting the inspection and related administrative
functions of the Department of Agriculture transferred to the
Secretary of Homeland Security under section 404.
(7) In carrying out the foregoing responsibilities,
ensuring the speedy, orderly, and efficient flow of lawful
traffic and commerce.

SEC. 402. FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED.

In accordance with title VIII, there shall be transferred
to the Secretary the functions, personnel, assets, and
obligations of the following:
(1) The United States Customs Service, except as provided
in subtitle C.
(2) The Coast Guard of the Department of Transportation,
which shall be maintained as a distinct entity within the
Department, including the functions of the Secretary of
Transportation relating thereto.
(3) The Transportation Security Administration of the
Department of Transportation, including the functions of the
Secretary of Transportation, and of the Under Secretary of
Transportation for Security, relating thereto.
(4) The Federal Protective Service of the General Services
Administration, including the functions of the Administrator
of General Services relating thereto.
(5) The Office of National Preparedness of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, including the functions of the
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency relating
thereto.
(6) The Office for Domestic Preparedness of the Office of
Justice Programs of the Department of Justice, including the
functions of the Attorney General relating thereto.
(7) The National Domestic Preparedness Office of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, including the functions of
the Attorney General relating thereto.
(8) The Domestic Emergency Support Teams of the Department
of Justice, including the functions of the Attorney General
relating thereto.

SEC. 403. VISA ISSUANCE.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 104(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1104(a)) or any
other provision of law, and except as provided in subsection
(b) of this section, the Secretary--
(1) shall be vested exclusively with all authorities to
issue regulations with respect to, administer, and enforce
the provisions of such Act, and of all other immigration and
nationality laws, relating to the functions of consular
officers of the United States in connection with the granting
or refusal of visas, and shall have the authority to refuse
visas in accordance with law and to develop programs of
homeland security training for consular officers (in addition
to consular training provided by the Secretary of State),
which authorities shall be exercised through the Secretary of
State, except that the Secretary shall not have authority to
alter or reverse the decision of a consular officer to refuse
a visa to an alien; and
(2) shall have authority to confer or impose upon any
officer or employee of the United States, with the consent of
the head of the executive agency under whose jurisdiction
such officer or employee is serving, any of the functions
specified in paragraph (1).
(b) Authority of the Secretary of State.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the
Secretary of State may direct a consular officer to refuse a
visa to an alien if the Secretary of State deems such refusal
necessary or advisable in the foreign policy or security
interests of the United States.
(2) Construction regarding authority.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed as affecting the authorities of
the Secretary of State under the following provisions of law:
(A) Section 101(a)(15)(A) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(A)).
(B) Section 204(d)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) (as it will take effect upon the entry
into force of the Convention on Protection of Children and
Cooperation in Respect to Inter-Country Adoption).
(C) Section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act.
(D) Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(C)).
(E) Section 212(a)(10)(C) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(10)(C)).
(F) Section 219(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1189(a)).
(G) Section 237(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(C)).
(H) Section 401 of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 6034; Public Law
104-114).
(I) Section 613 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice,
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 1999 (as contained in section 101(b) of division A of
Public Law 105-277) (Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999; 112 Stat. 2681; H.R.
4328 (originally H.R. 4276) as amended by section 617 of
Public Law 106-553).
(J) Section 801 of H.R. 3427, the Admiral James W. Nance
and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal
Years 2000 and 2001, as enacted by reference in Public Law
106-113.
(K) Section 568 of the Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2002
(Public Law 107-115).
(3) Construction regarding delegation of authority.--
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any
delegation of authority to the Secretary of State by the
President pursuant to any proclamation issued under section
212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1182(f)).
(c) Assignment of Homeland Security Employees to Diplomatic
and Consular Posts.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to assign
employees of the Department of Homeland Security to any
diplomatic and consular posts abroad to perform the following
functions:
(A) Provide expert advice and training to consular officers
regarding specific security threats relating to individual
visa applications or classes of applications.
(B) Review any or all such applications prior to their
adjudication, either on the initiative of the employee of the
Department of Homeland Security or upon request by a consular
officer or other person charged with adjudicating such
applications.
(C) Conduct investigations with respect to matters under
the jurisdiction of the Secretary.

[[Page H5666]]

(2) Permanent assignment; participation in terrorist
lookout committee.--When appropriate, employees of the
Department of Homeland Security assigned to perform functions
described in paragraph (1) may be assigned permanently to
overseas diplomatic or consular posts with country-specific
or regional responsibility. If the Secretary so directs, any
such employee, when present at an overseas post, shall
participate in the terrorist lookout committee established
under section 304 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa
Entry Reform Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 1733).
(3) Training and hiring.--
(A) The Secretary shall ensure that any employees of the
Department of Homeland Security assigned to perform functions
described in paragraph (1) shall be provided all necessary
training to enable them to carry out such functions,
including training in foreign languages, interview
techniques, fraud detection techniques, and other skills
required by such employees, in conditions in the particular
country where each employee is assigned, and in other
appropriate areas of study.
(B) The Secretary shall promulgate regulations within 60
days of the enactment of this Act establishing foreign
language proficiency requirements for employees of the
Department performing the functions described in paragraph
(1) and providing that preference shall be given to
individuals who meet such requirements in hiring employees
for the performance of such functions.
(C) The Secretary is authorized to use the National Foreign
Affairs Training Center, on a reimbursable basis, to obtain
the training described in subparagraph (A).
(d) No Creation of Private Right of Action.--Nothing in
this section shall be construed to create or authorize a
private right of action to challenge a decision of a consular
officer or other United States official or employee to grant
or deny a visa.
(e) Study Regarding Use of Foreign Nationals.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
conduct a study of the role of foreign nationals in the
granting or refusal of visas and other documents authorizing
entry of aliens into the United States. The study shall
address the following:
(A) The proper role, if any, of foreign nationals in the
process of rendering decisions on such grants and refusals.
(B) Any security concerns involving the employment of
foreign nationals.
(C) Whether there are cost-effective alternatives to the
use of foreign nationals.
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report
containing the findings of the study conducted under
paragraph (1) to the Committee on the Judiciary, the
Committee on International Relations, and the Committee on
Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and the
Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Foreign
Relations, and the Committee on Government Affairs of the
Senate.
(f) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Science
and Technology Policy shall submit to the Congress a report
on how the provisions of this section will affect procedures
for the issuance of student visas.
(g) Visa Issuance Program for Saudi Arabia.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the date of
the enactment of this Act all third party screening,
interview waiver, or other non-interview visa issuance
programs in Saudi Arabia shall be terminated. On-site
personnel of the Department of Homeland Security shall review
all visa applications prior to adjudication. All visa
applicants in Saudi Arabia shall be interviewed unless on-
site personnel of the Department of Homeland Security
determine, in writing and pursuant to written guidelines
issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security, that the alien
is unlikely to present a risk to homeland security. The
Secretary of Homeland Security shall promulgate such
guidelines not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 404. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL INSPECTION
FUNCTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

(a) Transfer of Agricultural Import and Entry Inspection
Functions.--There shall be transferred to the Secretary of
Homeland Security the functions of the Secretary of
Agriculture relating to agricultural import and entry
inspection activities under the laws specified in subsection
(b).
(b) Covered Animal and Plant Protection Laws.--The laws
referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
(1) The Act commonly known as the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act
(the eighth paragraph under the heading ``Bureau of Animal
Industry'' in the Act of March 4, 1913; 21 U.S.C. 151 et
seq.).
(2) Section 1 of the Act of August 31, 1922 (commonly known
as the Honeybee Act; 7 U.S.C. 281).
(3) Title III of the Federal Seed Act (7 U.S.C. 1581 et
seq.).
(4) The Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).
(5) The Animal Protection Act (subtitle E of title X of
Public Law 107-171; 7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.).
(6) The Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371 et
seq.).
(7) Section 11 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1540).
(c) Exclusion of Quarantine Activities.--For purposes of
this section, the term ``functions'' does not include any
quarantine activities carried out under the laws specified in
subsection (b).
(d) Effect of Transfer.--
(1) Compliance with department of agriculture
regulations.--The authority transferred pursuant to
subsection (a) shall be exercised by the Secretary of
Homeland Security in accordance with the regulations,
policies, and procedures issued by the Secretary of
Agriculture regarding the administration of the laws
specified in subsection (b).
(2) Rulemaking coordination.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall coordinate with the Secretary of Homeland Security
whenever the Secretary of Agriculture prescribes regulations,
policies, or procedures for administering the laws specified
in subsection (b) at the locations referred to in subsection
(a).
(3) Effective administration.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture,
may issue such directives and guidelines as are necessary to
ensure the effective use of personnel of the Department of
Homeland Security to carry out the functions transferred
pursuant to subsection (a).
(e) Transfer Agreement.--
(1) Agreement required; revision.--Before the end of the
transition period, as defined in section 801(2), the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall enter into an agreement to effectuate the
transfer of functions required by subsection (a). The
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Homeland
Security may jointly revise the agreement as necessary
thereafter.
(2) Required Terms.--The agreement required by this
subsection shall specifically address the following:
(A) The supervision by the Secretary of Agriculture of the
training of employees of the Secretary of Homeland Security
to carry out the functions transferred pursuant to subsection
(a).
(B) The transfer of funds to the Secretary of Homeland
Security under subsection (f).
(3) Cooperation and reciprocity.--The Secretary of
Agriculture and the Secretary of Homeland Security may
include as part of the agreement the following:
(A) Authority for the Secretary of Homeland Security to
perform functions delegated to the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture regarding
the protection of domestic livestock and plants, but not
transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to
subsection (a).
(B) Authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to use
employees of the Department of Homeland Security to carry out
authorities delegated to the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service regarding the protection of domestic
livestock and plants.
(f) Periodic Transfer of Funds to Department of Homeland
Security.--
(1) Transfer of funds.--Out of funds collected by fees
authorized under sections 2508 and 2509 of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (21 U.S.C.
136, 136a), the Secretary of Agriculture shall transfer, from
time to time in accordance with the agreement under
subsection (e), to the Secretary of Homeland Security funds
for activities carried out by the Secretary of Homeland
Security for which such fees were collected.
(2) Limitation.--The proportion of fees collected pursuant
to such sections that are transferred to the Secretary of
Homeland Security under this subsection may not exceed the
proportion of the costs incurred by the Secretary of Homeland
Security to all costs incurred to carry out activities funded
by such fees.
(g) Transfer of Department of Agriculture Employees.--
During the transition period, the Secretary of Agriculture
shall transfer to the Secretary of Homeland Security not more
than 3,200 full-time equivalent positions of the Department
of Agriculture.
(h) Protection of Inspection Animals.--Title V of the
Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 2279e,
2279f) is amended--
(1) in section 501(a)--
(A) by inserting ``or the Department of Homeland Security''
after ``Department of Agriculture''; and
(B) by inserting ``or the Secretary of Homeland Security''
after ``Secretary of Agriculture'';
(2) by striking ``Secretary'' each place it appears (other
than in sections 501(a) and 501(e)) and inserting ``Secretary
concerned''; and
(3) by adding at the end of section 501 the following new
subsection:
``(e) Secretary Concerned Defined.--In this title, the term
`Secretary concerned' means--
``(1) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to an
animal used for purposes of official inspections by the
Department of Agriculture; and
``(2) the Secretary of Homeland Security, with respect to
an animal used for purposes of official inspections by the
Department of Homeland Security.''.

SEC. 405. FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES.

(a) Operation, Maintenance, and Protection of Federal
Buildings and Grounds.--Nothing in this Act may be construed
to affect the functions or authorities of the Administrator
of General Services with respect to the operation,
maintenance, and protection of buildings and grounds owned or
occupied by the Federal Government and under the
jurisdiction, custody, or control of the Administrator.
Except for the law enforcement and related security functions
transferred under section 402(4), the Administrator shall
retain all powers, functions, and authorities vested in the
Administrator under the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.) and other
provisions of law that are necessary for the operation,
maintenance, and protection of such buildings and grounds.
(b) Collection of Rents and Fees; Federal Buildings Fund.--
(1) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this Act may be
construed--
(A) to direct the transfer of, or affect, the authority of
the Administrator of General Services to collect rents and
fees, including fees collected for protective services; or

[[Page H5667]]

(B) to authorize the Secretary or any other official in the
Department to obligate amounts in the Federal Buildings Fund
established by section 210(f) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 490(f)).
(2) Use of transferred amounts.--Any amounts transferred by
the Administrator of General Services to the Secretary out of
rents and fees collected by the Administrator shall be used
by the Secretary solely for the protection of buildings or
grounds owned or occupied by the Federal Government.

SEC. 406. FUNCTIONS OF TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION.

(a) Consultation With Federal Aviation Administration.--The
Secretary and other officials in the Department shall consult
with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
before taking any action that might affect aviation safety,
air carrier operations, aircraft airworthiness, or the use of
airspace. The Secretary shall establish a liaison office
within the Department for the purpose of consulting with the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Transportation shall transmit to Congress a report containing
a plan for complying with the requirements of section
44901(d) of title 49, United States Code.
(c) Limitations on Statutory Construction.--
(1) Grant of authority.--Nothing in this Act may be
construed to vest in the Secretary or any other official in
the Department any authority over transportation security
that is not vested in the Under Secretary of Transportation
for Security, or in the Secretary of Transportation under
chapter 449 of title 49, United States Code, on the day
before the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Obligation of aip funds.--Nothing in this Act may be
construed to authorize the Secretary or any other official in
the Department to obligate amounts made available under
section 48103 of title 49, United States Code.

SEC. 407. PRESERVATION OF TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION AS A DISTINCT ENTITY.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, and subject to subsection (b), the Transportation
Security Administration shall be maintained as a distinct
entity within the Department under the Under Secretary for
Border Transportation and Security.
(b) Sunset.--Subsection (a) shall cease to apply two years
after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 408. ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF TERRORIST-RELATED THREATS TO
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

On an annual basis, the Secretary, in consultation with the
heads of other appropriate Federal departments and agencies,
shall conduct an assessment of terrorist-related threats to
all forms of public transportation, including public
gathering areas related to public transportation.

SEC. 409. EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS.

(a) Installation of Systems.--Section 44901(d) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(2) Modification of airport terminal buildings to
accommodate explosive detection systems.--
``(A) Notification of airports.--Not later than October 1,
2002, the Under Secretary shall notify the owner or operator
of each United States airport described in section 44903(c)
of the number and type of explosive detection systems that
will be required to be deployed at the airport in order to
screen all checked baggage by explosive detection systems
without imposing unreasonable delays on the passengers using
the airport.
``(B) Assessments of airport terminal buildings.--If the
owner or operator of a United States airport described in
section 44903(c) determines that the airport will not be able
to make the modifications to the airport's terminal buildings
that are necessary to accommodate the explosive detection
systems required under subparagraph (A) in a cost-effective
manner on or before December 31, 2002, the owner or operator
shall provide notice of that determination to the Under
Secretary not later than November 1, 2002.
``(C) Plans for making modifications to airport terminal
buildings.--
``(i) In general.--If the owner or operator of an airport
provides notice to the Under Secretary under subparagraph
(B), the Under Secretary, in consultation with the owner or
operator, shall develop, not later than December 1, 2002, a
plan for making necessary modifications to the airport's
terminal buildings so as to deploy and fully utilize
explosive detection systems to screen all checked baggage.
``(ii) Deadline.--A plan developed under this subparagraph
shall include a date for executing the plan. All such plans
shall be executed as expeditiously as practicable but not
later than December 31, 2003.
``(iii) Transmission of plans to congress.--On the date of
completion of a plan under this subparagraph, the Under
Secretary shall transmit a copy of the plan to Congress. For
security purposes, information contained in the plan shall
not be disclosed to the public.
``(D) Requirements for plans.--A plan developed and
published under subparagraph (C), shall provide for, to the
maximum extent practicable--
``(i) the deployment of explosive detection systems in the
baggage sorting area or other non-public area rather than the
lobby of an airport terminal building; and
``(ii) the deployment of state of the art explosive
detection systems that have high throughput, low false alarm
rates, and high reliability without reducing detection rates.
``(E) Use of screening methods other than eds.--
Notwithstanding the deadline in paragraph (1)(A), after
December 31, 2002, if explosive detection systems are not
screening all checked baggage at a United States airport
described in section 44903(c), such baggage shall be screened
by the methods described in subsection (e) until such time as
all checked baggage is screened by explosive detection
systems at the airport.
``(3) Purchase of explosive detection systems.--Any
explosive detection system required to be purchased under
paragraph (2)(A) shall be purchased by the Under Secretary.
``(4) Explosive detection system defined.--In this
subsection, the term `explosive detection system' means a
device, or combination of devices, that can detect different
types of explosives.''.
(b) Correction of Reference.--Section 44901(e) of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``(b)(1)(A)'' and
inserting ``(d)(1)(A)''.

SEC. 410. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY.

(a) Transportation Security Oversight Board.--
(1) Establishment.--Section 115(a) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``Department of
Transportation'' and inserting ``Department of Homeland
Security''.
(2) Membership.--Section 115(b)(1) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking subparagraph (G);
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (F) as
subparagraphs (B) through (G), respectively; and
(C) by inserting before subparagraph (B) (as so
redesignated) the following:
``(A) The Secretary of Homeland Security, or the
Secretary's designee.''.
(3) Chairperson.--Section 115(b)(2) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``Secretary of
Transportation'' and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland
Security''.
(b) Approval of AIP Grant Applications for Security
Activities.--Section 47106 of title 49, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Consultation With Secretary of Homeland Security.--
The Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Homeland
Security before approving an application under this
subchapter for an airport development project grant for
activities described in section 47102(3)(B)(ii) (relating to
security equipment) or section 47102(3)(B)(x) (relating to
installation of bulk explosive detection systems).''.

Subtitle B--Immigration and Nationality Functions

CHAPTER 1--IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 411. TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS TO UNDER SECRETARY FOR BORDER
AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY.

In accordance with title VIII, there shall be transferred
from the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization to
the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security
all functions performed under the following programs, and all
personnel, assets, and liabilities pertaining to such
programs, immediately before such transfer occurs:
(1) The Border Patrol program.
(2) The detention and removal program.
(3) The intelligence program.
(4) The investigations program.
(5) The inspections program.

SEC. 412. ESTABLISHMENT OF BUREAU OF BORDER SECURITY.

(a) Establishment of Bureau.--
(1) In general.--There is established in the Department of
Homeland Security a bureau to be known as the ``Bureau of
Border Security''.
(2) Assistant secretary.--The head of the Bureau of Border
Security shall be the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of
Border Security, who--
(A) shall report directly to the Under Secretary for Border
and Transportation Security; and
(B) shall have a minimum of 10 years professional
experience in law enforcement, at least 5 of which shall have
been years of service in a managerial capacity.
(3) Functions.--The Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of
Border Security--
(A) shall establish the policies for performing such
functions as are--
(i) transferred to the Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security by section 411 and delegated to the
Assistant Secretary by the Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security; or
(ii) otherwise vested in the Assistant Secretary by law;
(B) shall oversee the administration of such policies; and
(C) shall advise the Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security with respect to any policy or
operation of the Bureau of Border Security that may affect
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services of the
Department of Justice established under chapter 2, including
potentially conflicting policies or operations.
(4) Program to collect information relating to foreign
students.--The Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Border
Security shall be responsible for administering the program
to collect information relating to nonimmigrant foreign
students and other exchange program participants described in
section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372), including the
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System established
under that section, and shall use such information to carry
out the enforcement functions of the Bureau.
(5) Managerial rotation program.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date on
which the transfer of functions

[[Page H5668]]

specified under section 411 takes effect, the Assistant
Secretary of the Bureau of Border Security shall design and
implement a managerial rotation program under which employees
of such bureau holding positions involving supervisory or
managerial responsibility and classified, in accordance with
chapter 51 of title 5, United States Code, as a GS-14 or
above, shall, as a condition on further promotion--
(i) gain some experience in all the major functions
performed by such bureau; and
(ii) work in at least one local office of such bureau.
(B) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date on which
the transfer of functions specified under section 411 takes
effect, the Secretary shall submit a report to the Congress
on the implementation of such program.
(b) Chief of Policy and Strategy.--
(1) In general.--There shall be a position of Chief of
Policy and Strategy for the Bureau of Border Security.
(2) Functions.--In consultation with Bureau of Border
Security personnel in local offices, the Chief of Policy and
Strategy shall be responsible for--
(A) establishing national immigration enforcement policies
and priorities;
(B) performing policy research and analysis on immigration
enforcement issues; and
(C) coordinating immigration policy issues with the Chief
of Policy and Strategy for the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services of the Department of Justice
(established under chapter 2), and the Assistant Attorney
General for Citizenship and Immigration Services, as
appropriate.
(c) Citizenship and Immigration Services Liaison.--
(1) In general.--There shall be a position of Citizenship
and Immigration Services Liaison for the Bureau of Border
Security.
(2) Functions.--The Citizenship and Immigration Services
Liaison shall be responsible for the appropriate allocation
and coordination of resources involved in supporting shared
support functions for the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services of the Department of Justice
(established under chapter 2) and the Bureau of Border
Security, including--
(A) information resources management, including computer
databases and information technology;
(B) records and file management; and
(C) forms management.

SEC. 413. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND QUALITY REVIEW.

The Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security
shall be responsible for--
(1) conducting investigations of noncriminal allegations of
misconduct, corruption, and fraud involving any employee of
the Bureau of Border Security that are not subject to
investigation by the Inspector General for the Department;
(2) inspecting the operations of the Bureau of Border
Security and providing assessments of the quality of the
operations of such bureau as a whole and each of its
components; and
(3) providing an analysis of the management of the Bureau
of Border Security.

SEC. 414. EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE.

The Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security
may, notwithstanding any other provision of law, impose
disciplinary action, including termination of employment,
pursuant to policies and procedures applicable to employees
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, on any employee of
the Bureau of Border Security who willfully deceives the
Congress or agency leadership on any matter.

SEC. 415. REPORT ON IMPROVING ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, not later than 1 year after
being sworn into office, shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations and the Judiciary of the United States House
of Representatives and of the Senate a report with a plan
detailing how the Bureau of Border Security, after the
transfer of functions specified under section 411 takes
effect, will enforce comprehensively, effectively, and fairly
all the enforcement provisions of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) relating to such
functions.
(b) Consultation.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with the
Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the Assistant
Attorney General for Citizenship and Immigration Services,
the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the
Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, the
Commissioner of Social Security, the Director of the
Executive Office for Immigration Review, and the heads of
State and local law enforcement agencies to determine how to
most effectively conduct enforcement operations.

CHAPTER 2--CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

Subchapter A--Transfers of Functions

SEC. 421. ESTABLISHMENT OF BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES.

(a) Establishment of Bureau.--
(1) In general.--There is established in the Department of
Justice a bureau to be known as the ``Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services''.
(2) Assistant attorney general.--The head of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services shall be the Assistant
Attorney General for Citizenship and Immigration Services,
who--
(A) shall report directly to the Deputy Attorney General;
and
(B) shall have a minimum of 10 years professional
experience in the rendering of adjudications on the provision
of government benefits or services, at least 5 of which shall
have been years of service in a managerial capacity or in a
position affording comparable management experience.
(3) Functions.--The Assistant Attorney General for
Citizenship and Immigration Services--
(A) shall establish the policies for performing such
functions as are transferred to the Assistant Attorney
General by this section or this Act or otherwise vested in
the Assistant Attorney General by law;
(B) shall oversee the administration of such policies;
(C) shall advise the Deputy Attorney General with respect
to any policy or operation of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services that may affect the Bureau of Border
Security of the Department of Homeland Security, including
potentially conflicting policies or operations;
(D) shall meet regularly with the Ombudsman described in
section 422 to correct serious service problems identified by
the Ombudsman; and
(E) shall establish procedures requiring a formal response
to any recommendations submitted in the Ombudsman's annual
report to the Congress within 3 months after its submission
to the Congress.
(4) Managerial rotation program.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the effective
date specified in section 427, the Assistant Attorney General
for Citizenship and Immigration Services shall design and
implement a managerial rotation program under which employees
of such bureau holding positions involving supervisory or
managerial responsibility and classified, in accordance with
chapter 51 of title 5, United States Code, as a GS-14 or
above, shall, as a condition on further promotion--
(i) gain some experience in all the major functions
performed by such bureau; and
(ii) work in at least one field office and one service
center of such bureau.
(B) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the effective
date specified in section 427, the Attorney General shall
submit a report to the Congress on the implementation of such
program.
(5) Pilot initiatives for backlog elimination.--The
Assistant Attorney General for Citizenship and Immigration
Services is authorized to implement innovative pilot
initiatives to eliminate any remaining backlog in the
processing of immigration benefit applications, and to
prevent any backlog in the processing of such applications
from recurring, in accordance with section 204(a) of the
Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvements Act of
2000 (8 U.S.C. 1573(a)). Such initiatives may include
measures such as increasing personnel, transferring personnel
to focus on areas with the largest potential for backlog, and
streamlining paperwork.
(b) Transfer of Functions From Commissioner.--There are
transferred from the Commissioner of Immigration and
Naturalization to the Assistant Attorney General for
Citizenship and Immigration Services the following functions,
and all personnel, infrastructure, and funding provided to
the Commissioner in support of such functions immediately
before the effective date specified in section 427:
(1) Adjudications of immigrant visa petitions.
(2) Adjudications of naturalization petitions.
(3) Adjudications of asylum and refugee applications.
(4) Adjudications performed at service centers.
(5) All other adjudications performed by the Immigration
and Naturalization Service immediately before the effective
date specified in section 427.
(c) Chief of Policy and Strategy.--
(1) In general.--There shall be a position of Chief of
Policy and Strategy for the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services.
(2) Functions.--In consultation with Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services personnel in field offices, the
Chief of Policy and Strategy shall be responsible for--
(A) establishing national immigration services policies and
priorities;
(B) performing policy research and analysis on immigration
services issues; and
(C) coordinating immigration policy issues with the Chief
of Policy and Strategy for the Bureau of Border Security of
the Department of Homeland Security.
(d) General Counsel.--
(1) In general.--There shall be a position of General
Counsel for the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services.
(2) Functions.--The General Counsel shall serve as the
principal legal advisor to the Assistant Attorney General for
Citizenship and Immigration Services. The General Counsel
shall be responsible for--
(A) providing specialized legal advice, opinions,
determinations, regulations, and any other assistance to the
Assistant Attorney General for Citizenship and Immigration
Services with respect to legal matters affecting the Bureau
of Citizenship and Immigration Services; and
(B) representing the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services in visa petition appeal proceedings before the
Executive Office for Immigration Review and in other legal or
administrative proceedings involving immigration services
issues.
(e) Chief Budget Officer.--
(1) In general.--There shall be a position of Chief Budget
Officer for the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services.
(2) Functions.--
(A) In general.--The Chief Budget Officer shall be
responsible for--
(i) formulating and executing the budget of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services;
(ii) financial management of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services; and
(iii) collecting all payments, fines, and other debts for
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(3) Authority and functions of agency chief financial
officers.--The Chief Budget Officer for the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services shall have the
authorities and

[[Page H5669]]

functions described in section 902 of title 31, United States
Code, in relation to financial activities of such bureau.
(f) Chief of Congressional, Intergovernmental, and Public
Affairs.--
(1) In general.--There shall be a position of Chief of
Congressional, Intergovernmental, and Public Affairs for the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(2) Functions.--The Chief of Congressional,
Intergovernmental, and Public Affairs shall be responsible
for--
(A) providing information relating to immigration services
to the Congress, including information on specific cases
relating to immigration services issues;
(B) serving as a liaison with other Federal agencies on
immigration services issues; and
(C) responding to inquiries from the media and the general
public on immigration services issues.
(g) Border Security Liaison.--
(1) In general.--There shall be a position of Border
Security Liaison for the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services.
(2) Functions.--The Border Security Liaison shall be
responsible for the appropriate allocation and coordination
of resources involved in supporting shared support functions
for the Bureau of Border Security of the Department of
Homeland Security and the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, including--
(A) information resources management, including computer
databases and information technology;
(B) records and file management; and
(C) forms management.
(h) Chief of Office of Citizenship.--
(1) In general.--There shall be a position of Chief of the
Office of Citizenship for the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services.
(2) Functions.--The Chief of the Office of Citizenship for
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services shall be
responsible for promoting instruction and training on
citizenship responsibilities for aliens interested in
becoming naturalized citizens of the United States, including
the development of educational materials.

SEC. 422. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES OMBUDSMAN.

(a) In General.--Within the Department of Justice, there
shall be a position of Citizenship and Immigration Services
Ombudsman (in this section referred to as the ``Ombudsman'').
The Ombudsman shall report directly to the Deputy Attorney
General. The Ombudsman shall have a background in customer
service as well as immigration law.
(b) Functions.--It shall be the function of the Ombudsman--
(1) to assist individuals and employers in resolving
problems with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services;
(2) to identify areas in which individuals and employers
have problems in dealing with the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services;
(3) to the extent possible, to propose changes in the
administrative practices of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services to mitigate problems identified under
paragraph (2); and
(4) to identify potential legislative changes that may be
appropriate to mitigate such problems.
(c) Annual Reports.--
(1) Objectives.--Not later than June 30 of each calendar
year, the Ombudsman shall report to the Committee on the
Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives and
the Senate on the objectives of the Office of the Ombudsman
for the fiscal year beginning in such calendar year. Any such
report shall contain full and substantive analysis, in
addition to statistical information, and--
(A) shall identify the initiatives the Office of the
Ombudsman has taken on improving services and responsiveness
of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services;
(B) shall contain a summary of the most pervasive and
serious problems encountered by individuals and employers,
including a description of the nature of such problems;
(C) shall contain an inventory of the items described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) for which action has been taken and
the result of such action;
(D) shall contain an inventory of the items described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) for which action remains to be
completed and the period during which each item has remained
on such inventory;
(E) shall contain an inventory of the items described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) for which no action has been taken,
the period during which each item has remained on such
inventory, the reasons for the inaction, and shall identify
any official of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services who is responsible for such inaction;
(F) shall contain recommendations for such administrative
and legislative action as may be appropriate to resolve
problems encountered by individuals and employers, including
problems created by excessive backlogs in the adjudication
and processing of immigration benefit petitions and
applications; and
(G) shall include such other information as the Ombudsman
may deem advisable.
(2) Report to be submitted directly.--Each report required
under this subsection shall be provided directly to the
committees described in paragraph (1) without any prior
review or comment from the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney
General, Assistant Attorney General for Citizenship and
Immigration Services, or any other officer or employee of the
Department of Justice or the Office of Management and Budget.
(d) Other Responsibilities.--The Ombudsman--
(1) shall monitor the coverage and geographic allocation of
local offices of the Ombudsman;
(2) shall develop guidance to be distributed to all
officers and employees of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services outlining the criteria for referral of
inquiries to local offices of the Ombudsman;
(3) shall ensure that the local telephone number for each
local office of the Ombudsman is published and available to
individuals and employers served by the office; and
(4) shall meet regularly with the Assistant Attorney
General for Citizenship and Immigration Services to identify
serious service problems and to present recommendations for
such administrative action as may be appropriate to resolve
problems encountered by individuals and employers.
(e) Personnel Actions.--
(1) In general.--The Ombudsman shall have the
responsibility and authority--
(A) to appoint local ombudsmen and make available at least
1 such ombudsman for each State; and
(B) to evaluate and take personnel actions (including
dismissal) with respect to any employee of any local office
of the Ombudsman.
(2) Consultation.--The Ombudsman may consult with the
appropriate supervisory personnel of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services in carrying out the
Ombudsman's responsibilities under this subsection.
(f) Responsibilities of Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services.--The Assistant Attorney General for
Citizenship and Immigration Services shall establish
procedures requiring a formal response to all recommendations
submitted to such Assistant Attorney General by the Ombudsman
within 3 months after submission to such director.
(g) Operation of Local Offices.--
(1) In general.--Each local ombudsman--
(A) shall report to the Ombudsman or the delegate thereof;
(B) may consult with the appropriate supervisory personnel
of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
regarding the daily operation of the local office of such
ombudsman;
(C) shall, at the initial meeting with any individual or
employer seeking the assistance of such local office, notify
such individual or employer that the local offices of the
Ombudsman operate independently of any other component of the
Department of Justice and report directly to the Congress
through the Ombudsman; and
(D) at the local ombudsman's discretion, may determine not
to disclose to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services contact with, or information provided by, such
individual or employer.
(2) Maintenance of independent communications.--Each local
office of the Ombudsman shall maintain a phone, facsimile,
and other means of electronic communication access, and a
post office address, that is separate from those maintained
by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, or any
component of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services.

SEC. 423. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND QUALITY REVIEW.

(a) In General.--The Assistant Attorney General for
Citizenship and Immigration Services shall be responsible
for--
(1) conducting investigations of noncriminal allegations of
misconduct, corruption, and fraud involving any employee of
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services that are
not subject to investigation by the Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General;
(2) inspecting the operations of the Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services and providing assessments of the
quality of the operations of such bureau as a whole and each
of its components; and
(3) providing an analysis of the management of the Bureau
of Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(b) Special Considerations.--In providing assessments in
accordance with subsection (a)(2) with respect to a decision
of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, or any
of its components, consideration shall be given to--
(1) the accuracy of the findings of fact and conclusions of
law used in rendering the decision;
(2) any fraud or misrepresentation associated with the
decision; and
(3) the efficiency with which the decision was rendered.

SEC. 424. EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE.

The Assistant Attorney General for Citizenship and
Immigration Services may, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, impose disciplinary action, including termination of
employment, pursuant to policies and procedures applicable to
employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, on any
employee of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services who willfully deceives the Congress or agency
leadership on any matter.

SEC. 425. OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION STATISTICS WITHIN BUREAU OF
JUSTICE STATISTICS.

(a) In General.--Part C of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3731 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``office of immigration statistics

``Sec. 305. (a) There is established within the Bureau of
Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice an Office of
Immigration Statistics (in this section referred to as the
`Office'), which shall be headed by a Director who shall be
appointed by the Attorney General and who shall report to the
Director of Justice Statistics.
``(b) The Director of the Office shall be responsible for
the following:
``(1) Maintenance of all immigration statistical
information of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services and the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
Such statistical information shall include information and
statistics of the type contained in the publication entitled
`Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration

[[Page H5670]]

and Naturalization Service' prepared by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (as in effect on the day prior to the
effective date specified in section 427 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002), including region-by-region statistics
on the aggregate number of applications and petitions filed
by an alien (or filed on behalf of an alien) and denied by
such offices and bureaus, and the reasons for such denials,
disaggregated by category of denial and application or
petition type.
``(2) Establishment of standards of reliability and
validity for immigration statistics collected by the Bureau
of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Executive
Office for Immigration Review.
``(c) The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services
and the Executive Office for Immigration Review shall provide
statistical information to the Office of Immigration
Statistics from the operational data systems controlled by
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the
Executive Office for Immigration Review, respectively, for
the purpose of meeting the responsibilities of the
Director.''.
(b) Transfer of Functions.--There are transferred to the
Office of Immigration Statistics established under section
305 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968, as added by subsection (a), the functions performed
immediately before such transfer occurs by the Statistics
Branch of the Office of Policy and Planning of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service with respect to the
following:
(1) Adjudications of immigrant visa petitions.
(2) Adjudications of naturalization petitions.
(3) Adjudications of asylum and refugee applications.
(4) Adjudications performed at service centers.
(5) All other adjudications performed by the Immigration
and Naturalization Service.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 302(c) of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3732(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (22);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (23) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(24) collect, maintain, compile, analyze, publish, and
disseminate information and statistics involving the
functions of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services and the Executive Office for Immigration Review.''.

SEC. 426. PRESERVATION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL'S AUTHORITY.

(a) In General.--Any function for which this subchapter
vests responsibility in an official other than the Attorney
General, or which is transferred by this subchapter to such
an official, may, notwithstanding any provision of this
subchapter, be performed by the Attorney General, or the
Attorney General's delegate, in lieu of such official.
(b) References.--In a case in which the Attorney General
performs a function described in subsection (a), any
reference in any other Federal law, Executive order, rule,
regulation, document, or delegation of authority to the
official otherwise responsible for the function is deemed to
refer to the Attorney General.

SEC. 427. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Notwithstanding section 4, this subchapter, and the
amendments made by this subchapter, shall take effect on the
date on which the transfer of functions specified under
section 411 takes effect.

SEC. 428. TRANSITION.

(a) References.--With respect to any function transferred
by this subchapter to, and exercised on or after the
effective date specified in section 427 by, the Assistant
Attorney General for Citizenship and Immigration Services,
any reference in any other Federal law, Executive order,
rule, regulation, or delegation of authority, or any document
of or pertaining to a component of government from which such
function is transferred--
(1) to the head of such component is deemed to refer to the
Assistant Attorney General for Citizenship and Immigration
Services; or
(2) to such component is deemed to refer to the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services.
(b) Other Transition Issues.--
(1) Exercise of authorities.--Except as otherwise provided
by law, a Federal official to whom a function is transferred
by this subchapter may, for purposes of performing the
function, exercise all authorities under any other provision
of law that were available with respect to the performance of
that function to the official responsible for the performance
of the function immediately before the effective date
specified in section 427.
(2) Savings provisions.--Subsections (a), (b), and (c) of
section 812 shall apply to a transfer of functions under this
subchapter in the same manner as such provisions apply to a
transfer of functions under this Act to the Department of
Homeland Security.
(3) Transfer and allocation of appropriations and
personnel.--The personnel of the Department of Justice
employed in connection with the functions transferred by this
subchapter (and functions that the Attorney General
determines are properly related to the functions of the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services), and the
assets, liabilities, contracts, property, records, and
unexpended balance of appropriations, authorizations,
allocations, and other funds employed, held, used, arising
from, available to, or to be made available to, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service in connection with the
functions transferred by this subchapter, subject to section
202 of the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950,
shall be transferred to the Assistant Attorney General for
Citizenship and Immigration Services for allocation to the
appropriate component of the Department of Justice.
Unexpended funds transferred pursuant to this paragraph shall
be used only for the purposes for which the funds were
originally authorized and appropriated. The Attorney General
shall have the right to adjust or realign transfers of funds
and personnel effected pursuant to this subchapter for a
period of 2 years after the effective date specified in
section 427.
(4) Authorities of attorney general.--The Attorney General
(or a delegate of the Attorney General), at such time or
times as the Attorney General (or the delegate) shall
provide, may make such determinations as may be necessary
with regard to the functions transferred by this subchapter,
and may make such additional incidental dispositions of
personnel, assets, liabilities, grants, contracts, property,
records, and unexpended balances of appropriations,
authorizations, allocations, and other funds held, used,
arising from, available to, or to be made available in
connection with such functions, as may be necessary to carry
out the provisions of this subchapter. The Attorney General
shall provide for such further measures and dispositions as
may be necessary to effectuate the purposes of this
subchapter.

Subchapter B--Other Provisions

SEC. 431. FUNDING FOR CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES.

(a) Establishment of Fees for Adjudication and
Naturalization Services.--Section 286(m) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(m)) is amended by striking
``services, including the costs of similar services provided
without charge to asylum applicants or other immigrants.''
and inserting ``services.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations for Refugee and Asylum
Adjudications.--There are authorized to be appropriated such
sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of
sections 207 through 209 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1157-1159). All funds appropriated under this
subsection shall be deposited into the Immigration
Examinations Fee Account established under section 286(m) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(m)) and
shall remain available until expended.

SEC. 432. BACKLOG ELIMINATION.

Section 204(a)(1) of the Immigration Services and
Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000 (8 U.S.C. 1573(a)(1))
is amended by striking ``not later than one year after the
date of enactment of this Act;'' and inserting ``1 year after
the date of the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of
2002;''.

SEC. 433. REPORT ON IMPROVING IMMIGRATION SERVICES.

(a) In General.--The Attorney General, not later than 1
year after the effective date of this Act, shall submit to
the Committees on the Judiciary and Appropriations of the
United States House of Representatives and of the Senate a
report with a plan detailing how the Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services, after the transfer of functions
specified in subchapter 1 takes effect, will complete
efficiently, fairly, and within a reasonable time, the
adjudications described in paragraphs (1) through (5) of
section 421(b).
(b) Contents.--For each type of adjudication to be
undertaken by the Assistant Attorney General for Citizenship
and Immigration Services, the report shall include the
following:
(1) Any potential savings of resources that may be
implemented without affecting the quality of the
adjudication.
(2) The goal for processing time with respect to the
application.
(3) Any statutory modifications with respect to the
adjudication that the Attorney General considers advisable.
(c) Consultation.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Attorney General shall consult with the Secretary of State,
the Secretary of Labor, the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau
of Border Security of the Department of Homeland Security,
and the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration
Review to determine how to streamline and improve the process
for applying for and making adjudications described in
section 421(b) and related processes.

SEC. 434. REPORT ON RESPONDING TO FLUCTUATING NEEDS.

Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to the Congress a
report on changes in law, including changes in authorizations
of appropriations and in appropriations, that are needed to
permit the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and, after
the transfer of functions specified in subchapter 1 takes
effect, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services,
to ensure a prompt and timely response to emergent,
unforeseen, or impending changes in the number of
applications for immigration benefits, and otherwise to
ensure the accommodation of changing immigration service
needs.

SEC. 435. APPLICATION OF INTERNET-BASED TECHNOLOGIES.

(a) Establishment of Tracking System.--The Attorney
General, not later than 1 year after the effective date of
this Act, in consultation with the Technology Advisory
Committee established under subsection (c), shall establish
an Internet-based system, that will permit a person,
employer, immigrant, or nonimmigrant who has filings with the
Attorney General for any benefit under the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), access to online
information about the processing status of the filing
involved.
(b) Feasibility Study for Online Filing and Improved
Processing.--
(1) Online filing.--The Attorney General, in consultation
with the Technology Advisory Committee established under
subsection (c), shall conduct a feasibility study on the
online filing of the filings described in subsection (a). The
study shall include a review of computerization and
technology of the Immigration and Naturalization Service
relating to the immigration services and processing of
filings related

[[Page H5671]]

to immigrant services. The study shall also include an
estimate of the timeframe and cost and shall consider other
factors in implementing such a filing system, including the
feasibility of fee payment online.
(2) Report.--A report on the study under this subsection
shall be submitted to the Committees on the Judiciary of the
United States House of Representatives and the Senate not
later than 1 year after the effective date of this Act.
(c) Technology Advisory Committee.--
(1) Establishment.--The Attorney General shall establish,
not later than 60 days after the effective date of this Act,
an advisory committee (in this section referred to as the
``Technology Advisory Committee'') to assist the Attorney
General in--
(A) establishing the tracking system under subsection (a);
and
(B) conducting the study under subsection (b).
The Technology Advisory Committee shall be established after
consultation with the Committees on the Judiciary of the
United States House of Representatives and the Senate.
(2) Composition.--The Technology Advisory Committee shall
be composed of representatives from high technology companies
capable of establishing and implementing the system in an
expeditious manner, and representatives of persons who may
use the tracking system described in subsection (a) and the
online filing system described in subsection (b)(1).

SEC. 436. CHILDREN'S AFFAIRS.

(a) Transfer of Functions.--There are transferred to the
Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement of the
Department of Health and Human Services functions under the
immigration laws of the United States with respect to the
care of unaccompanied alien children that were vested by
statute in, or performed by, the Commissioner of Immigration
and Naturalization (or any officer, employee, or component of
the Immigration and Naturalization Service) immediately
before the effective date specified in subsection (d).
(b) Functions.--
(1) In general.--Pursuant to the transfer made by
subsection (a), the Director of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement shall be responsible for--
(A) coordinating and implementing the care and placement of
unaccompanied alien children who are in Federal custody by
reason of their immigration status, including developing a
plan to be submitted to the Congress on how to ensure that
qualified and independent legal counsel is timely appointed
to represent the interests of each such child, consistent
with the law regarding appointment of counsel that is in
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act;
(B) ensuring that the interests of the child are considered
in decisions and actions relating to the care and custody of
an unaccompanied alien child;
(C) making placement determinations for all unaccompanied
alien children who are in Federal custody by reason of their
immigration status;
(D) implementing the placement determinations;
(E) implementing policies with respect to the care and
placement of unaccompanied alien children;
(F) identifying a sufficient number of qualified
individuals, entities, and facilities to house unaccompanied
alien children;
(G) overseeing the infrastructure and personnel of
facilities in which unaccompanied alien children reside;
(H) reuniting unaccompanied alien children with a parent
abroad in appropriate cases;
(I) compiling, updating, and publishing at least annually a
state-by-state list of professionals or other entities
qualified to provide guardian and attorney representation
services for unaccompanied alien children;
(J) maintaining statistical information and other data on
unaccompanied alien children for whose care and placement the
Director is responsible, which shall include--
(i) biographical information, such as a child's name,
gender, date of birth, country of birth, and country of
habitual residence;
(ii) the date on which the child came into Federal custody
by reason of his or her immigration status;
(iii) information relating to the child's placement,
removal, or release from each facility in which the child has
resided;
(iv) in any case in which the child is placed in detention
or released, an explanation relating to the detention or
release; and
(v) the disposition of any actions in which the child is
the subject;
(K) collecting and compiling statistical information from
the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland
Security, and the Department of State on each department's
actions relating to unaccompanied alien children; and
(L) conducting investigations and inspections of facilities
and other entities in which unaccompanied alien children
reside.
(2) Coordination with other entities; no release on own
recognizance.--In making determinations described in
paragraph (1)(C), the Director of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement--
(A) shall consult with appropriate juvenile justice
professionals, the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services of the Department of Justice, and the
Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Border Security of the
Department of Homeland Security to ensure that such
determinations ensure that unaccompanied alien children
described in such subparagraph--
(i) are likely to appear for all hearings or proceedings in
which they are involved;
(ii) are protected from smugglers, traffickers, or others
who might seek to victimize or otherwise engage them in
criminal, harmful, or exploitive activity; and
(iii) are placed in a setting in which they not likely to
pose a danger to themselves or others; and
(B) shall not release such children upon their own
recognizance.
(3) Duties with respect to foster care.--In carrying out
the duties described in paragraph (1)(G), the Director of the
Office of Refugee Resettlement is encouraged to use the
refugee children foster care system established pursuant to
section 412(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1522(d)) for the placement of unaccompanied alien
children.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed to transfer the responsibility for adjudicating
benefit determinations under the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) from the authority of any
official of the Department of Justice, the Department of
Homeland Security, or the Department of State.
(d) Effective Date.--Notwithstanding section 4, this
section shall take effect on the date on which the transfer
of functions specified under section 411 takes effect.
(e) References.--With respect to any function transferred
by this section, any reference in any other Federal law,
Executive order, rule, regulation, or delegation of
authority, or any document of or pertaining to a component of
government from which such function is transferred--
(1) to the head of such component is deemed to refer to the
Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement; or
(2) to such component is deemed to refer to the Office of
Refugee Resettlement of the Department of Health and Human
Services.
(f) Other Transition Issues.--
(1) Exercise of authorities.--Except as otherwise provided
by law, a Federal official to whom a function is transferred
by this section may, for purposes of performing the function,
exercise all authorities under any other provision of law
that were available with respect to the performance of that
function to the official responsible for the performance of
the function immediately before the effective date specified
in subsection (d).
(2) Savings provisions.--Subsections (a), (b), and (c) of
section 812 shall apply to a transfer of functions under this
section in the same manner as such provisions apply to a
transfer of functions under this Act to the Department of
Homeland Security.
(3) Transfer and allocation of appropriations and
personnel.--The personnel of the Department of Justice
employed in connection with the functions transferred by this
section, and the assets, liabilities, contracts, property,
records, and unexpended balance of appropriations,
authorizations, allocations, and other funds employed, held,
used, arising from, available to, or to be made available to,
the Immigration and Naturalization Service in connection with
the functions transferred by this section, subject to section
202 of the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950,
shall be transferred to the Director of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement for allocation to the appropriate component of
the Department of Health and Human Services. Unexpended funds
transferred pursuant to this paragraph shall be used only for
the purposes for which the funds were originally authorized
and appropriated.
(g) Definitions.--As used in this section--
(1) the term ``placement'' means the placement of an
unaccompanied alien child in either a detention facility or
an alternative to such a facility; and
(2) the term ``unaccompanied alien child'' means a child
who--
(A) has no lawful immigration status in the United States;
(B) has not attained 18 years of age; and
(C) with respect to whom--
(i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United
States; or
(ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is
available to provide care and physical custody.

CHAPTER 3--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 441. ABOLISHMENT OF INS.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service of the
Department of Justice is abolished.

SEC. 442. VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.

(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``employee'' means an employee (as defined by
section 2105 of title 5, United States Code) who--
(A) has completed at least 3 years of current continuous
service with 1 or more covered entities; and
(B) is serving under an appointment without time
limitation;

but does not include any person under subparagraphs (A)-(G)
of section 663(a)(2) of Public Law 104-208 (5 U.S.C. 5597
note);
(2) the term ``covered entity'' means--
(A) the Immigration and Naturalization Service;
(B) the Bureau of Border Security of the Department of
Homeland Security; and
(C) the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services of
the Department of Justice; and
(3) the term ``transfer date'' means the date on which the
transfer of functions specified under section 411 takes
effect.
(b) Strategic Restructuring Plan.--Before the Attorney
General or the Secretary obligates any resources for
voluntary separation incentive payments under this section,
such official shall submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress a strategic restructuring plan, which shall
include--
(1) an organizational chart depicting the covered entities
after their restructuring pursuant to this Act;
(2) a summary description of how the authority under this
section will be used to help carry out that restructuring;
and

[[Page H5672]]

(3) the information specified in section 663(b)(2) of
Public Law 104-208 (5 U.S.C. 5597 note).

As used in the preceding sentence, the ``appropriate
committees of Congress'' are the Committees on
Appropriations, Government Reform, and the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives, and the Committees on
Appropriations, Governmental Affairs, and the Judiciary of
the Senate.
(c) Authority.--The Attorney General and the Secretary may,
to the extent necessary to help carry out their respective
strategic restructuring plan described in subsection (b),
make voluntary separation incentive payments to employees.
Any such payment--
(1) shall be paid to the employee, in a lump sum, after the
employee has separated from service;
(2) shall be paid from appropriations or funds available
for the payment of basic pay of the employee;
(3) shall be equal to the lesser of--
(A) the amount the employee would be entitled to receive
under section 5595(c) of title 5, United States Code; or
(B) an amount not to exceed $25,000, as determined by the
Attorney General or the Secretary;
(4) may not be made except in the case of any qualifying
employee who voluntarily separates (whether by retirement or
resignation) before the end of--
(A) the 3-month period beginning on the date on which such
payment is offered or made available to such employee; or
(B) the 3-year period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act,
whichever occurs first;
(5) shall not be a basis for payment, and shall not be
included in the computation, of any other type of Government
benefit; and
(6) shall not be taken into account in determining the
amount of any severance pay to which the employee may be
entitled under section 5595 of title 5, United States Code,
based on any other separation.
(d) Additional Agency Contributions to the Retirement
Fund.--
(1) In general.--In addition to any payments which it is
otherwise required to make, the Department of Justice and the
Department of Homeland Security shall, for each fiscal year
with respect to which it makes any voluntary separation
incentive payments under this section, remit to the Office of
Personnel Management for deposit in the Treasury of the
United States to the credit of the Civil Service Retirement
and Disability Fund the amount required under paragraph (2).
(2) Amount required.--The amount required under this
paragraph shall, for any fiscal year, be the amount under
subparagraph (A) or (B), whichever is greater.
(A) First method.--The amount under this subparagraph
shall, for any fiscal year, be equal to the minimum amount
necessary to offset the additional costs to the retirement
systems under title 5, United States Code (payable out of the
Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund) resulting from
the voluntary separation of the employees described in
paragraph (3), as determined under regulations of the Office
of Personnel Management.
(B) Second method.--The amount under this subparagraph
shall, for any fiscal year, be equal to 45 percent of the sum
total of the final basic pay of the employees described in
paragraph (3).
(3) Computations to be based on separations occurring in
the fiscal year involved.--The employees described in this
paragraph are those employees who receive a voluntary
separation incentive payment under this section based on
their separating from service during the fiscal year with
respect to which the payment under this subsection relates.
(4) Final basic pay defined.--In this subsection, the term
``final basic pay'' means, with respect to an employee, the
total amount of basic pay which would be payable for a year
of service by such employee, computed using the employee's
final rate of basic pay, and, if last serving on other than a
full-time basis, with appropriate adjustment therefor.
(e) Effect of Subsequent Employment with the Government.--
An individual who receives a voluntary separation incentive
payment under this section and who, within 5 years after the
date of the separation on which the payment is based, accepts
any compensated employment with the Government or works for
any agency of the Government through a personal services
contract, shall be required to pay, prior to the individual's
first day of employment, the entire amount of the incentive
payment. Such payment shall be made to the covered entity
from which the individual separated or, if made on or after
the transfer date, to the Deputy Attorney General (for
transfer to the appropriate component of the Department of
Justice, if necessary) or the Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security (for transfer to the appropriate
component of the Department of Homeland Security, if
necessary).
(f) Effect on Employment Levels.--
(1) Intended effect.--Voluntary separations under this
section are not intended to necessarily reduce the total
number of full-time equivalent positions in any covered
entity.
(2) Use of voluntary separations.--A covered entity may
redeploy or use the full-time equivalent positions vacated by
voluntary separations under this section to make other
positions available to more critical locations or more
critical occupations.

SEC. 443. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
RELATING TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION.

(a) In General.--The Attorney General and the Secretary may
each, during a period ending not later than 5 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act, conduct a demonstration
project for the purpose of determining whether one or more
changes in the policies or procedures relating to methods for
disciplining employees would result in improved personnel
management.
(b) Scope.--A demonstration project under this section--
(1) may not cover any employees apart from those employed
in or under a covered entity; and
(2) shall not be limited by any provision of chapter 43,
75, or 77 of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Procedures.--Under the demonstration project--
(1) the use of alternative means of dispute resolution (as
defined in section 571 of title 5, United States Code) shall
be encouraged, whenever appropriate; and
(2) each covered entity under the jurisdiction of the
official conducting the project shall be required to provide
for the expeditious, fair, and independent review of any
action to which section 4303 or subchapter II of chapter 75
of such title 5 would otherwise apply (except an action
described in section 7512(5) thereof).
(d) Actions Involving Discrimination.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this section, if, in the case of any
matter described in section 7702(a)(1)(B) of title 5, United
States Code, there is no judicially reviewable action under
the demonstration project within 120 days after the filing of
an appeal or other formal request for review (referred to in
subsection (c)(2)), an employee shall be entitled to file a
civil action to the same extent and in the same manner as
provided in section 7702(e)(1) of such title 5 (in the matter
following subparagraph (C) thereof).
(e) Certain Employees.--Employees shall not be included
within any project under this section if such employees are--
(1) neither managers nor supervisors; and
(2) within a unit with respect to which a labor
organization is accorded exclusive recognition under chapter
71 of title 5, United States Code.

Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, an aggrieved employee
within a unit (referred to in paragraph (2)) may elect to
participate in a complaint procedure developed under the
demonstration project in lieu of any negotiated grievance
procedure and any statutory procedure (as such term is used
in section 7121 of such title 5).
(f) Reports.--The General Accounting Office shall prepare
and submit to the Committees on Government Reform and the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committees
on Governmental Affairs and the Judiciary of the Senate
periodic reports on any demonstration project conducted under
this section, such reports to be submitted after the second
and fourth years of its operation. Upon request, the Attorney
General or the Secretary shall furnish such information as
the General Accounting Office may require to carry out this
subsection.
(g) Definition.--In this section, the term ``covered
entity'' has the meaning given such term in section
442(a)(2).

SEC. 444. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the missions of the Bureau of Border Security of the
Department of Homeland Security and the Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services of the Department of Justice are
equally important and, accordingly, they each should be
adequately funded; and
(2) the functions transferred under this subtitle should
not, after such transfers take effect, operate at levels
below those in effect prior to the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 445. REPORTS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.

(a) Division of Funds.--The Attorney General and the
Secretary, not later than 120 days after the effective date
of this Act, shall each submit to the Committees on
Appropriations and the Judiciary of the United States House
of Representatives and of the Senate a report on the proposed
division and transfer of funds, including unexpended funds,
appropriations, and fees, between the Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services and the Bureau of Border Security.
(b) Division of Personnel.--The Attorney General and the
Secretary, not later than 120 days after the effective date
of this Act, shall each submit to the Committees on
Appropriations and the Judiciary of the United States House
of Representatives and of the Senate a report on the proposed
division of personnel between the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services and the Bureau of Border Security.
(c) Implementation Plan.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General and the Secretary,
not later than 120 days after the effective date of this Act,
and every 6 months thereafter until the termination of fiscal
year 2005, shall each submit to the Committees on
Appropriations and the Judiciary of the United States House
of Representatives and of the Senate an implementation plan
to carry out this Act.
(2) Contents.--The implementation plan should include
details concerning the separation of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of Border
Security, including the following:
(A) Organizational structure, including the field
structure.
(B) Chain of command.
(C) Procedures for interaction among such bureaus.
(D) Fraud detection and investigation.
(E) The processing and handling of removal proceedings,
including expedited removal and applications for relief from
removal.
(F) Recommendations for conforming amendments to the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).

[[Page H5673]]

(G) Establishment of a transition team.
(H) Methods to phase in the costs of separating the
administrative support systems of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service in order to provide for separate
administrative support systems for the Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services and the Bureau of Border Security.
(d) Comptroller General Studies and Reports.--
(1) Status reports on transition.--Not later than 18 months
after the date on which the transfer of functions specified
under section 411 takes effect, and every 6 months
thereafter, until full implementation of this subtitle has
been completed, the Comptroller General of the United States
shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations and on the
Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives and
the Senate a report containing the following:
(A) A determination of whether the transfers of functions
made by chapters 1 and 2 have been completed, and if a
transfer of functions has not taken place, identifying the
reasons why the transfer has not taken place.
(B) If the transfers of functions made by chapters 1 and 2
have been completed, an identification of any issues that
have arisen due to the completed transfers.
(C) An identification of any issues that may arise due to
any future transfer of functions.
(2) Report on management.--Not later than 4 years after the
date on which the transfer of functions specified under
section 411 takes effect, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations and on the Judiciary of the United States
House of Representatives and the Senate a report, following a
study, containing the following:
(A) Determinations of whether the transfer of functions
from the Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Bureau
of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau of
Border Security have improved, with respect to each function
transferred, the following:
(i) Operations.
(ii) Management, including accountability and
communication.
(iii) Financial administration.
(iv) Recordkeeping, including information management and
technology.
(B) A statement of the reasons for the determinations under
subparagraph (A).
(C) Any recommendations for further improvements to the
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Bureau
of Border Security.
(3) Report on fees.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary
of the House of Representatives and of the Senate a report
examining whether the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services is likely to derive sufficient funds from fees to
carry out its functions in the absence of appropriated funds.

SEC. 446. IMMIGRATION FUNCTIONS.

(a) Annual Report.--
(1) In general.--One year after the date of the enactment
of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Attorney General
shall submit a report to the President, to the Committees on
the Judiciary and Government Reform of the United States
House of Representatives, and to the Committees on the
Judiciary and Government Affairs of the Senate, on the impact
the transfers made by this subtitle has had on immigration
functions.
(2) Matter included.--The report shall address the
following with respect to the period covered by the report:
(A) The aggregate number of all immigration applications
and petitions received, and processed, by the Department;
(B) Region-by-region statistics on the aggregate number of
immigration applications and petitions filed by an alien (or
filed on behalf of an alien) and denied, disaggregated by
category of denial and application or petition type.
(C) The quantity of backlogged immigration applications and
petitions that have been processed, the aggregate number
awaiting processing, and a detailed plan for eliminating the
backlog.
(D) The average processing period for immigration
applications and petitions, disaggregated by application or
petition type.
(E) The number and types of immigration-related grievances
filed with any official of the Department of Justice, and if
those grievances were resolved.
(F) Plans to address grievances and improve immigration
services.
(G) Whether immigration-related fees were used consistent
with legal requirements regarding such use.
(H) Whether immigration-related questions conveyed by
customers to the Department of Justice (whether conveyed in
person, by telephone, or by means of the Internet) were
answered effectively and efficiently.
(b) Sense of the Congress Regarding Immigration Services.--
It is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the quality and efficiency of immigration services
rendered by the Federal Government should be improved after
the transfers made by this subtitle take effect; and
(2) the Attorney General should undertake efforts to
guarantee that concerns regarding the quality and efficiency
of immigration services are addressed after such effective
date.

Subtitle C--United States Customs Service

SEC. 451. ESTABLISHMENT; COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS.

(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Department
the United States Customs Service, under the authority of the
Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security, which
shall be vested with those functions set forth in section
457(7), and the personnel, assets, and liabilities
attributable to those functions.
(b) Commissioner of Customs.--
(1) In General.--There shall be at the head of the Customs
Service a Commissioner of Customs, who shall be appointed by
the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate.
(2) Compensation.--Section 5314 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by striking
``Commissioner of Customs, Department of the Treasury''

and inserting
``Commissioner of Customs, Department of Homeland
Security.''.
(3) Continuation in office.--The individual serving as the
Commissioner of Customs on the day before the effective date
of this Act may serve as the Commissioner of Customs on and
after such effective date until a Commissioner of Customs is
appointed under paragraph (1).

SEC. 452. RETENTION OF CUSTOMS REVENUE FUNCTIONS BY SECRETARY
OF THE TREASURY.

(a) Retention by Secretary of the Treasury.--
(1) Retention of authority.--Notwithstanding sections
401(5), 402(1), and 808(e)(2), authority that was vested in
the Secretary of the Treasury by law before the effective
date of this Act under those provisions of law set forth in
paragraph (2) shall not be transferred to the Secretary by
reason of this Act, and on and after the effective date of
this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury may delegate any such
authority to the Secretary at the discretion of the Secretary
of the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury shall consult
with the Secretary regarding the exercise of any such
authority not delegated to the Secretary.
(2) Statutes.--The provisions of law referred to in
paragraph (1) are the following: the Tariff Act of 1930;
section 249 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (19
U.S.C. 3); section 2 of the Act of March 4, 1923 (19 U.S.C.
6); section 13031 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c); section 251 of
the Revised Statutes of the United States (19 U.S.C. 66);
section 1 of the Act of June 26, 1930 (19 U.S.C. 68); the
Foreign Trade Zones Act (19 U.S.C. 81a et seq.); section 1 of
the Act of March 2, 1911 (19 U.S.C. 198); the Trade Act of
1974; the Trade Agreements Act of 1979; the North American
Free Trade Area Implementation Act; the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act; the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act;
the Andean Trade Preference Act; the African Growth and
Opportunity Act; and any other provision of law vesting
customs revenue functions in the Secretary of the Treasury.
(b) Maintenance of Customs Revenue Functions.--
(1) Maintenance of functions.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, the Secretary may not consolidate,
alter, discontinue, or diminish those functions described in
paragraph (2) performed by the United States Customs Service
(as established under section 451) on or after the effective
date of this Act, reduce the staffing level, or the
compensation or benefits under title 5, United States Code,
of personnel attributable to such functions, or reduce the
resources attributable to such functions, and the Secretary
shall ensure that an appropriate management structure is
implemented to carry out such functions.
(2) Functions.--The functions referred to in paragraph (1)
are those functions performed by the following personnel, and
associated support staff, of the United States Customs
Service on the day before the effective date of this Act:
Import Specialists, Entry Specialists, Drawback Specialists,
National Import Specialist, Fines and Penalties Specialists,
attorneys of the Office of Regulations and Rulings, Customs
Auditors, International Trade Specialists, Financial Systems
Specialists.
(c) New Personnel.--The Secretary of the Treasury is
authorized to appoint up to 20 new personnel to work with
personnel of the Department in performing customs revenue
functions.

SEC. 453. ESTABLISHMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF COST ACCOUNTING
SYSTEM; REPORTS.

(a) Establishment and Implementation.--
(1) In general.--Not later than September 30, 2003, the
Commissioner of Customs shall, in accordance with the audit
of the Customs Service's fiscal years 2000 and 1999 financial
statements (as contained in the report of the Office of the
Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury issued on
February 23, 2001), establish and implement a cost accounting
system for expenses incurred in the operation of the Customs
Service.
(2) Additional requirement.--The cost accounting system
described in paragraph (1) shall provide for an
identification of expenses based on the type of operation,
the port at which the operation took place, the amount of
time spent on the operation by personnel of the Customs
Service, and an identification of expenses based on any other
appropriate classification necessary to provide for an
accurate and complete accounting of the expenses.
(3) Use of merchandise processing fees.--The cost
accounting system described in paragraph (1) shall provide
for an identification of all amounts expended pursuant to
section 13031(f)(2) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985.
(b) Reports.--Beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act and ending on the date on which the cost accounting
system described in subsection (a) is fully implemented, the
Commissioner of Customs shall prepare and submit to the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Finance of the Senate on a quarterly
basis a report on the progress of implementing the cost
accounting system pursuant to subsection (a).

[[Page H5674]]

SEC. 454. PRESERVATION OF CUSTOMS FUNDS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no funds
available to the United States Customs Service or collected
under paragraphs (1) through (8) of section 13031(a) of the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 may be
transferred for use by any other agency or office in the
Department.

SEC. 455. SEPARATE BUDGET REQUEST FOR CUSTOMS.

The President shall include in each budget transmitted to
the Congress under section 1105 of title 31, United States
Code, a separate budget request for the United States Customs
Service.

SEC. 456. PAYMENT OF DUTIES AND FEES.

Section 505(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.
1505(a)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by striking ``Unless merchandise'' and inserting
``Unless the entry of merchandise is covered by an import
activity summary statement, or the merchandise''; and
(B) by inserting after ``by regulation'' the following:
``(but not to exceed 10 working days after entry or release,
whichever occurs first)''; and
(2) by striking the second and third sentences and
inserting the following: ``If an import activity summary
statement is filed, the importer of record shall deposit
estimated duties and fees for entries of merchandise covered
by the import activity summary statement no later than the
15th day of the month following the month in which the
merchandise is entered or released, whichever occurs
first.''.

SEC. 457. DEFINITION.

In this subtitle, the term ``customs revenue function''
means the following:
(1) Assessing and collecting customs duties (including
antidumping and countervailing duties and duties imposed
under safeguard provisions), excise taxes, fees, and
penalties due on imported merchandise, including classifying
and valuing merchandise for purposes of such assessment.
(2) Processing and denial of entry of persons, baggage,
cargo, and mail, with respect to the assessment and
collection of import duties.
(3) Detecting and apprehending persons engaged in
fraudulent practices designed to circumvent the customs laws
of the United States.
(4) Enforcing section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and
provisions relating to import quotas and the marking of
imported merchandise, and providing Customs Recordations for
copyrights, patents, and trademarks.
(5) Collecting accurate import data for compilation of
international trade statistics.
(6) Enforcing reciprocal trade agreements.
(7) Functions performed by the following personnel, and
associated support staff, of the United States Customs
Service on the day before the effective date of this Act:
Import Specialists, Entry Specialists, Drawback Specialists,
National Import Specialist, Fines and Penalties Specialists,
attorneys of the Office of Regulations and Rulings, Customs
Auditors, International Trade Specialists, Financial Systems
Specialists.
(8) Functions performed by the following offices, with
respect to any function described in any of paragraphs (1)
through (7), and associated support staff, of the United
States Customs Service on the day before the effective date
of this Act: the Office of Information and Technology, the
Office of Laboratory Services, the Office of the Chief
Counsel, the Office of Congressional Affairs, the Office of
International Affairs, and the Office of Training and
Development.

SEC. 458. GAO REPORT TO CONGRESS.

Not later than 3 months after the effective date of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit to the Congress a report that sets forth all trade
functions performed by the executive branch, specifying each
agency that performs each such function.

SEC. 459. ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES BY THE SECRETARY.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall ensure that adequate
staffing is provided to assure that levels of customs revenue
services provided on the day before the effective date of
this Act shall continue to be provided.
(b) Notification of Congress.--The Secretary shall notify
the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate at
least 180 days prior to taking any action which would--
(1) result in any significant reduction in customs revenue
services, including hours of operation, provided at any
office within the Department or any port of entry;
(2) eliminate or relocate any office of the Department
which provides customs revenue services; or
(3) eliminate any port of entry.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``customs
revenue services'' means those customs revenue functions
described in paragraphs (1) through (6) and (8) of section
457.

SEC. 460. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

The United States Customs Service shall, on and after the
effective date of this Act, continue to submit to the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Finance of the Senate any report
required, on the day before such the effective date of this
Act, to be so submitted under any provision of law.

SEC. 461. CUSTOMS USER FEES.

Section 13031(f) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(f)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following:
``(B) amounts deposited into the Customs Commercial and
Homeland Security Automation Account under paragraph (5).'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``(other than the excess
fees determined by the Secretary under paragraph (5))''; and
(3) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
``(5)(A) There is created within the general fund of the
Treasury a separate account that shall be known as the
`Customs Commercial and Homeland Security Automation
Account'. In each of fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 there
shall be deposited into the Account from fees collected under
subsection (a)(9)(A), $350,000,000.
``(B) There is authorized to be appropriated from the
Account in fiscal years 2003 through 2005 such amounts as are
available in that Account for the development, establishment,
and implementation of the Automated Commercial Environment
computer system for the processing of merchandise that is
entered or released and for other purposes related to the
functions of the Department of Homeland Security. Amounts
appropriated pursuant to this subparagraph are authorized to
remain available until expended.
``(C) In adjusting the fee imposed by subsection (a)(9)(A)
for fiscal year 2006, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
reduce the amount estimated to be collected in fiscal year
2006 by the amount by which total fees deposited to the
Account during fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 exceed total
appropriations from that Account.''.

TITLE V--EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

SEC. 501. UNDER SECRETARY FOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND
RESPONSE.

The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for
Emergency Preparedness and Response, shall be responsible for
the following:
(1) Helping to ensure the preparedness of emergency
response providers for terrorist attacks, major disasters,
and other emergencies.
(2) With respect to the Nuclear Incident Response Team
(regardless of whether it is operating as an organizational
unit of the Department pursuant to this title)--
(A) establishing standards and certifying when those
standards have been met;
(B) conducting joint and other exercises and training and
evaluating performance; and
(C) providing funds to the Department of Energy and the
Environmental Protection Agency, as appropriate, for homeland
security planning, exercises and training, and equipment.
(3) Providing the Federal Government's response to
terrorist attacks and major disasters, including--
(A) managing such response;
(B) directing the Domestic Emergency Support Team, the
Strategic National Stockpile, the National Disaster Medical
System, and (when operating as an organizational unit of the
Department pursuant to this title) the Nuclear Incident
Response Team;
(C) overseeing the Metropolitan Medical Response System;
and
(D) coordinating other Federal response resources in the
event of a terrorist attack or major disaster.
(4) Aiding the recovery from terrorist attacks and major
disasters, interventions to treat the psychological
consequences of terrorist attacks or major disasters and
provision for training for mental health workers to allow
them to respond effectively to such attacks or disasters.
(5) Building a comprehensive national incident management
system with Federal, State, and local government personnel,
agencies, and authorities, to respond to such attacks and
disasters.
(6) Consolidating existing Federal Government emergency
response plans into a single, coordinated national response
plan.
(7) Developing comprehensive programs for developing
interoperative communications technology, and helping to
ensure that emergency response providers acquire such
technology.

SEC. 502. FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED.

In accordance with title VIII, there shall be transferred
to the Secretary the functions, personnel, assets, and
obligations of the following:
(1) Except as provided in section 402, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, including the functions of the
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency relating
thereto, and the Integrated Hazard Information System of the
Department of Defense.
(2) The Office of Emergency Preparedness, the National
Disaster Medical System, and the Metropolitan Medical
Response System of the Department of Health and Human
Services, including the functions of the Secretary of Health
and Human Services and the Assistant Secretary for Public
Health Emergency Preparedness relating thereto.
(3) The Strategic National Stockpile of the Department of
Health and Human Services, including the functions of the
Secretary of Health and Human Services relating thereto.

SEC. 503. NUCLEAR INCIDENT RESPONSE.

(a) Nuclear Incident Response Team.--At the direction of
the Secretary (in connection with an actual or threatened
terrorist attack, major disaster, or other emergency within
the United States), the Nuclear Incident Response Team shall
operate as an organizational unit of the Department. While so
operating, the Nuclear Incident Response Team shall be
subject to the direction, authority, and control of the
Secretary.
(b) Construction.--Nothing in this title shall be
understood to limit the ordinary responsibility of the
Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency for organizing, training,
equipping, and utilizing their respective entities in the
Nuclear Incident Response Team, or (subject to the provisions
of this title) from exercising direction, authority, and
control over them when they are not operating as a unit of
the Department.
(c) Indemnification of Contractors During Transition
Period.--(1) To the extent the Department of Energy has a
duty under a covered

[[Page H5675]]

contract to indemnify an element of the Nuclear Incident
Response Team, the Department and the Department of Energy
shall each have that duty, whether or not the Nuclear
Incident Response Team is operating as an organizational
element of the Department.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies only to a contract in effect on
the date of the enactment of this Act, and not to any
extension or renewal of such contract carried out after the
date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 504. DEFINITION.

For purposes of this title, the term ``Nuclear Incident
Response Team'' means a resource that includes--
(1) those entities of the Department of Energy that perform
nuclear or radiological emergency support functions
(including accident response, search response, advisory, and
technical operations functions), radiation exposure functions
at the medical assistance facility known as the Radiation
Emergency Assistance/Training Site (REAC/TS), radiological
assistance functions, and related functions; and
(2) those entities of the Environmental Protection Agency
that perform radiological emergency response and support
functions.

SEC. 505. CONDUCT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC-HEALTH RELATED
ACTIVITIES.

(a) In General.--With respect to all public health-related
activities to improve State, local, and hospital preparedness
and response to chemical, biological, radiological, and
nuclear and other emerging terrorist threats carried out by
the Department of Health and Human Services (including the
Public Health Service), the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall set priorities and preparedness goals and
further develop a coordinated strategy for such activities in
collaboration with the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(b) Evaluation of Progress.--In carrying out subsection
(a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
collaborate with the Secretary of Homeland Security in
developing specific benchmarks and outcome measurements for
evaluating progress toward achieving the priorities and goals
described in such subsection.

TITLE VI--MANAGEMENT

SEC. 601. UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Under
Secretary for Management, shall be responsible for the
management and administration of the Department, including
the following:
(1) The budget, appropriations, expenditures of funds,
accounting, and finance.
(2) Procurement.
(3) Human resources and personnel.
(4) Information technology and communications systems.
(5) Facilities, property, equipment, and other material
resources.
(6) Security for personnel, information technology and
communications systems, facilities, property, equipment, and
other material resources.
(7) Identification and tracking of performance measures
relating to the responsibilities of the Department.
(8) Grants and other assistance management programs.
(9) The transition and reorganization process, to ensure an
efficient and orderly transfer of functions and personnel to
the Department, including the development of a transition
plan.
(10) The conduct of internal audits and management analyses
of the programs and activities of the Department.
(11) Any other management duties that the Secretary may
designate.
(b) Immigration Enforcement.--
(1) In general.--In addition to the responsibilities
described in subsection (a), the Under Secretary for
Management shall be responsible for the following:
(A) Maintenance of all immigration statistical information
of the Bureau of Border Security. Such statistical
information shall include information and statistics of the
type contained in the publication entitled ``Statistical
Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service''
prepared by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (as in
effect immediately before the date on which the transfer of
functions specified under section 411 takes effect),
including region-by-region statistics on the aggregate number
of applications and petitions filed by an alien (or filed on
behalf of an alien) and denied by such bureau, and the
reasons for such denials, disaggregated by category of denial
and application or petition type.
(B) Establishment of standards of reliability and validity
for immigration statistics collected by the Bureau of Border
Security.
(2) Transfer of functions.--In accordance with title VIII,
there shall be transferred to the Under Secretary for
Management all functions performed immediately before such
transfer occurs by the Statistics Branch of the Office of
Policy and Planning of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service with respect to the following programs:
(A) The Border Patrol program.
(B) The detention and removal program.
(C) The intelligence program.
(D) The investigations program.
(E) The inspections program.

SEC. 602. CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER.

Notwithstanding section 902(a)(1) of title 31, United
States Code, the Chief Financial Officer shall report to the
Secretary, or to another official of the Department, as the
Secretary may direct.

SEC. 603. CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER.

Notwithstanding section 3506(a)(2) of title 44, United
States Code, the Chief Information Officer shall report to
the Secretary, or to another official of the Department, as
the Secretary may direct.

SEC. 604. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL
LIBERTIES.

The Secretary shall establish in the Department an Office
for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the head of which shall
be the Director for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. The
Director shall--
(1) review and assess information alleging abuses of civil
rights, civil liberties, and racial and ethnic profiling by
employees and officials of the Department;
(2) make public through the Internet, radio, television, or
newspaper advertisements information on the responsibilities
and functions of, and how to contact, the Office; and
(3) submit to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, and the appropriate committees
and subcommittees of the Congress on a semiannual basis a
report on the implementation of this section, including the
use of funds appropriated to carry out this section, and
detailing any allegations of abuses described in paragraph
(1) and any actions taken by the Department in response to
such allegations.

TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS

Subtitle A--Inspector General

SEC. 701. AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the last two sentences of
section 3(a) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, the
Inspector General shall be under the authority, direction,
and control of the Secretary with respect to audits or
investigations, or the issuance of subpoenas, that require
access to sensitive information concerning--
(1) intelligence, counterintelligence, or counterterrorism
matters;
(2) ongoing criminal investigations or proceedings;
(3) undercover operations;
(4) the identity of confidential sources, including
protected witnesses;
(5) other matters the disclosure of which would, in the
Secretary's judgment, constitute a serious threat to the
protection of any person or property authorized protection by
section 3056 of title 18, United States Code, section 202 of
title 3 of such Code, or any provision of the Presidential
Protection Assistance Act of 1976; or
(6) other matters the disclosure of which would, in the
Secretary's judgment, constitute a serious threat to national
security.
(b) Prohibition of Certain Investigations.--With respect to
the information described in subsection (a), the Secretary
may prohibit the Inspector General from carrying out or
completing any audit or investigation, or from issuing any
subpoena, after such Inspector General has decided to
initiate, carry out, or complete such audit or investigation
or to issue such subpoena, if the Secretary determines that
such prohibition is necessary to prevent the disclosure of
any information described in subsection (a), to preserve the
national security, or to prevent a significant impairment to
the interests of the United States.
(c) Notification Required.--If the Secretary exercises any
power under subsection (a) or (b), the Secretary shall notify
the Inspector General of the Department in writing stating
the reasons for such exercise. Within 30 days after receipt
of any such notice, the Inspector General shall transmit a
copy of such notice and a written response thereto that
includes (1) a statement as to whether the Inspector General
agrees or disagrees with such exercise and (2) the reasons
for any disagreement, to the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and to appropriate
committees and subcommittees of the Congress.
(d) Access to Information by Congress.--The exercise of
authority by the Secretary described in subsection (b) should
not be construed as limiting the right of Congress or any
committee of Congress to access any information it seeks.
(e) Oversight Responsibility--The Inspector General Act of
1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by inserting after section 8I
the following:

``special provisions concerning the department of homeland security

``Sec. 8J. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in
carrying out the duties and responsibilities specified in
this Act, the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland
Security shall have oversight responsibility for the internal
investigations performed by the Office of Internal Affairs of
the United States Customs Service and the Office of
Inspections of the United States Secret Service. The head of
each such office shall promptly report to the Inspector
General the significant activities being carried out by such
office.''.

Subtitle B--United States Secret Service

SEC. 711. FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED.

In accordance with title VIII, there shall be transferred
to the Secretary the functions, personnel, assets, and
obligations of the United States Secret Service, which shall
be maintained as a distinct entity within the Department,
including the functions of the Secretary of the Treasury
relating thereto.

Subtitle C--Critical Infrastructure Information

SEC. 721. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Critical Infrastructure
Information Act of 2002''.

SEC. 722. DEFINITIONS.

In this subtitle:
(1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given it
in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Covered federal agency.--The term ``covered Federal
agency'' means the Department of Homeland Security.
(3) Critical infrastructure information.--The term
``critical infrastructure information'' means information not
customarily in the public domain and related to the security
of critical infrastructure or protected systems--

[[Page H5676]]

(A) actual, potential, or threatened interference with,
attack on, compromise of, or incapacitation of critical
infrastructure or protected systems by either physical or
computer-based attack or other similar conduct (including the
misuse of or unauthorized access to all types of
communications and data transmission systems) that violates
Federal, State, or local law, harms interstate commerce of
the United States, or threatens public health or safety;
(B) the ability of any critical infrastructure or protected
system to resist such interference, compromise, or
incapacitation, including any planned or past assessment,
projection, or estimate of the vulnerability of critical
infrastructure or a protected system, including security
testing, risk evaluation thereto, risk management planning,
or risk audit; or
(C) any planned or past operational problem or solution
regarding critical infrastructure or protected systems,
including repair, recovery, reconstruction, insurance, or
continuity, to the extent it is related to such interference,
compromise, or incapacitation.
(4) Critical infrastructure protection program.--The term
``critical infrastructure protection program'' means any
component or bureau of a covered Federal agency that has been
designated by the President or any agency head to receive
critical infrastructure information.
(5) Information sharing and analysis organization.--The
term ``Information Sharing and Analysis Organization'' means
any formal or informal entity or collaboration created or
employed by public or private sector organizations, for
purposes of--
(A) gathering and analyzing critical infrastructure
information in order to better understand security problems
and interdependencies related to critical infrastructure and
protected systems, so as to ensure the availability,
integrity, and reliability thereof;
(B) communicating or disclosing critical infrastructure
information to help prevent, detect, mitigate, or recover
from the effects of a interference, compromise, or a
incapacitation problem related to critical infrastructure or
protected systems; and
(C) voluntarily disseminating critical infrastructure
information to its members, State, local, and Federal
Governments, or any other entities that may be of assistance
in carrying out the purposes specified in subparagraphs (A)
and (B).
(6) Protected system.--The term ``protected system''--
(A) means any service, physical or computer-based system,
process, or procedure that directly or indirectly affects the
viability of a facility of critical infrastructure; and
(B) includes any physical or computer-based system,
including a computer, computer system, computer or
communications network, or any component hardware or element
thereof, software program, processing instructions, or
information or data in transmission or storage therein,
irrespective of the medium of transmission or storage.
(7) Voluntary.--
(A) In general.--The term ``voluntary'', in the case of any
submittal of critical infrastructure information to a covered
Federal agency, means the submittal thereof in the absence of
such agency's exercise of legal authority to compel access to
or submission of such information and may be accomplished by
a single entity or an Information Sharing and Analysis
Organization on behalf of itself or its members.
(B) Exclusions.--The term ``voluntary''--
(i) in the case of any action brought under the securities
laws as is defined in section 3(a)(47) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(47))--

(I) does not include information or statements contained in
any documents or materials filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, or with Federal banking regulators,
pursuant to section 12(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 781(I)); and
(II) with respect to the submittal of critical
infrastructure information, does not include any disclosure
or writing that when made accompanied the solicitation of an
offer or a sale of securities; and

(ii) does not include information or statements submitted
or relied upon as a basis for making licensing or permitting
determinations, or during regulatory proceedings.

SEC. 723. DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
PROGRAM.

A critical infrastructure protection program may be
designated as such by one of the following:
(1) The President.
(2) The Secretary of Homeland Security.

SEC. 724. PROTECTION OF VOLUNTARILY SHARED CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION.

(a) Protection.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, critical infrastructure information (including the
identity of the submitting person or entity) that is
voluntarily submitted to a covered Federal agency for use by
that agency regarding the security of critical infrastructure
and protected systems, if analysis, warning, interdependency
study, recovery, reconstitution, or other informational
purpose, when accompanied by an express statement specified
in paragraph (2)--
(A) shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of
title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the
Freedom of Information Act);
(B) shall not be subject to any agency rules or judicial
doctrine regarding ex parte communications with a decision
making official;
(C) shall not, without the written consent of the person or
entity submitting such information, be used directly by such
agency, any other Federal, State, or local authority, or any
third party, in any civil action arising under Federal or
State law if such information is submitted in good faith;
(D) shall not, without the written consent of the person or
entity submitting such information, be used or disclosed by
any officer or employee of the United States for purposes
other than the purposes of this subtitle, except--
(i) in furtherance of an investigation or the prosecution
of a criminal act; or
(ii) when disclosure of the information would be--

(I) to either House of Congress, or to the extent of matter
within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee
thereof, any joint committee thereof or subcommittee of any
such joint committee; or
(II) to the Comptroller General, or any authorized
representative of the Comptroller General, in the course of
the performance of the duties of the General Accounting
Office.

(E) shall not, if provided to a State or local government
or government agency--
(i) be made available pursuant to any State or local law
requiring disclosure of information or records;
(ii) otherwise be disclosed or distributed to any party by
said State or local government or government agency without
the written consent of the person or entity submitting such
information; or
(iii) be used other than for the purpose of protecting
critical infrastructure or protected systems, or in
furtherance of an investigation or the prosecution of a
criminal act; and
(F) does not constitute a waiver of any applicable
privilege or protection provided under law, such as trade
secret protection.
(2) Express statement.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
term ``express statement'', with respect to information or
records, means--
(A) in the case of written information or records, a
written marking on the information or records substantially
similar to the following: ``This information is voluntarily
submitted to the Federal Government in expectation of
protection from disclosure as provided by the provisions of
the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002.''; or
(B) in the case of oral information, a similar written
statement submitted within a reasonable period following the
oral communication.
(b) Limitation.--No communication of critical
infrastructure information to a covered Federal agency made
pursuant to this subtitle shall be considered to be an action
subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2).
(c) Independently Obtained Information.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to limit or otherwise affect the
ability of a State, local, or Federal Government entity,
agency, or authority, or any third party, under applicable
law, to obtain critical infrastructure information in a
manner not covered by subsection (a), including any
information lawfully and properly disclosed generally or
broadly to the public and to use such information in any
manner permitted by law.
(d) Treatment of Voluntary Submittal of Information.--The
voluntary submittal to the Government of information or
records that are protected from disclosure by this subtitle
shall not be construed to constitute compliance with any
requirement to submit such information to a Federal agency
under any other provision of law.
(e) Procedures.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security shall, in consultation with appropriate
representatives of the National Security Council and the
Office of Science and Technology Policy, establish uniform
procedures for the receipt, care, and storage by Federal
agencies of critical infrastructure information that is
voluntarily submitted to the Government. The procedures shall
be established not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this subtitle.
(2) Elements.--The procedures established under paragraph
(1) shall include mechanisms regarding--
(A) the acknowledgement of receipt by Federal agencies of
critical infrastructure information that is voluntarily
submitted to the Government;
(B) the maintenance of the identification of such
information as voluntarily submitted to the Government for
purposes of and subject to the provisions of this subtitle;
(C) the care and storage of such information; and
(D) the protection and maintenance of the confidentiality
of such information so as to permit the sharing of such
information within the Federal Government and with State and
local governments, and the issuance of notices and warnings
related to the protection of critical infrastructure and
protected systems, in such manner as to protect from public
disclosure the identity of the submitting person or entity,
or information that is proprietary, business sensitive,
relates specifically to the submitting person or entity, and
is otherwise not appropriately in the public domain.
(f) Penalties.--Whoever, being an officer or employee of
the United States or of any department or agency thereof,
knowingly publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes known in
any manner or to any extent not authorized by law, any
critical infrastructure information protected from disclosure
by this subtitle coming to him in the course of this
employment or official duties or by reason of any examination
or investigation made by, or return, report, or record made
to or filed with, such department or agency or officer or
employee thereof, shall be fined under title 18 of the United
States Code, imprisoned not more that one year, or both, and
shall be removed from office or employment.
(g) Authority To Issue Warnings.--The Federal Government
may provide advisories, alerts, and warnings to relevant
companies, targeted sectors, other governmental entities, or
the

[[Page H5677]]

general public regarding potential threats to critical
infrastructure as appropriate. In issuing a warning, the
Federal Government shall take appropriate actions to protect
from disclosure--
(1) the source of any voluntarily submitted critical
infrastructure information that forms the basis for the
warning; or
(2) information that is proprietary, business sensitive,
relates specifically to the submitting person or entity, or
is otherwise not appropriately in the public domain.
(h) Authority To Delegate.--The President may delegate
authority to a critical infrastructure protection program,
designated under subsection (e), to enter into a voluntary
agreement to promote critical infrastructure security,
including with any Information Sharing and Analysis
Organization, or a plan of action as otherwise defined in
section 708 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C.
App. 2158).

SEC. 725. NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.

Nothing in this subtitle may be construed to create a
private right of action for enforcement of any provision of
this Act.

Subtitle D--Acquisitions

SEC. 731. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

(a) Authority.--During the five-year period following the
effective date of this Act, the Secretary may carry out a
pilot program under which the Secretary may exercise the
following authorities:
(1)(A) In carrying out basic, applied, and advanced
research and development projects for response to existing or
emerging terrorist threats, the Secretary may exercise the
same authority (subject to the same limitations and
conditions) with respect to such research and projects as the
Secretary of Defense may exercise under section 2371 of title
10, United States Code (except for subsections (b) and (f) of
such section), after making a determination that--
(i) the use of a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement
for such projects is not feasible or appropriate; and
(ii) use of other authority to waive Federal procurement
laws or regulations would not be feasible or appropriate to
accomplish such projects.
(B) The annual report required under subsection (h) of such
section 2371, as applied to the Secretary by this paragraph,
shall be submitted to the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(2)(A) Under the authority of paragraph (1) and subject to
the limitations of such paragraph, the Secretary may carry
out prototype projects, in accordance with the requirements
and conditions provided for carrying out prototype projects
under section 845 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160; 10 U.S.C. 2371
note).
(B) In applying the authorities of such section 845--
(i) subsection (c) thereof shall apply with respect to
prototype projects under this paragraph, except that in
applying such subsection any reference in such subsection to
the Comptroller General shall be deemed to refer to the
Comptroller General and the Inspector General of the
Department; and
(ii) the Secretary shall perform the functions of the
Secretary of Defense under subsection (d) thereof.
(b) Report.--Not later than one year after the effective
date of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Comptroller
General shall report to the Committee on Government Reform of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Governmental Affairs of the Senate on--
(1) whether use of the authorities described in subsection
(a) attracts nontraditional Government contractors and
results in the acquisition of needed technologies; and
(2) if such authorities were to be made permanent, whether
additional safeguards are needed with respect to the use of
such authorities.
(c) Definition of Nontraditional Government Contractor.--In
this section, the term ``nontraditional Government
contractor'' has the same meaning as the term
``nontraditional defense contractor'' as defined in section
845(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160; 10 U.S.C. 2371 note).

SEC. 732. PERSONAL SERVICES.

The Secretary--
(1) may procure the temporary or intermittent services of
experts or consultants (or organizations thereof) in
accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code;
and
(2) may, whenever necessary due to an urgent homeland
security need, procure temporary (not to exceed 1 year) or
intermittent personal services, including the services of
experts or consultants (or organizations thereof), without
regard to the pay limitations of such section 3109.

SEC. 733. SPECIAL STREAMLINED ACQUISITION AUTHORITY.

(a) Authority.--(1) The Secretary may use the authorities
set forth in this section with respect to any procurement
made during the period beginning on the effective date of
this Act and ending September 30, 2007, if the Secretary
determines in writing that the mission of the Department
(as described in section 101) would be seriously impaired
without the use of such authorities.
(2) The authority to make the determination described in
paragraph (1) may not be delegated by the Secretary to an
officer of the Department who is not appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(3) Not later than the date that is seven days after the
date of any determination under paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall submit to the Committee on Government Reform of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Governmental
Affairs of the Senate--
(A) notification of such determination; and
(B) the justification for such determination.
(b) Increased Micro-Purchase Threshold For Certain
Procurements.--(1) The Secretary may designate certain
employees of the Department to make procurements described in
subsection (a) for which in the administration of section 32
of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C.
428) the amount specified in subsections (c), (d), and (f) of
such section 32 shall be deemed to be $5,000.
(2) The number of employees designated under paragraph (1)
shall be--
(A) fewer than the number of employees of the Department
who are authorized to make purchases without obtaining
competitive quotations, pursuant to section 32(c) of the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 428(c));
(B) sufficient to ensure the geographic dispersal of the
availability of the use of the procurement authority under
such paragraph at locations reasonably considered to be
potential terrorist targets; and
(C) sufficiently limited to allow for the careful
monitoring of employees designated under such paragraph.
(3) Procurements made under the authority of this
subsection shall be subject to review by a designated
supervisor on not less than a monthly basis. The supervisor
responsible for the review shall be responsible for no more
than 7 employees making procurements under this subsection.
(c) Simplified Acquisition Procedures.--(1) With respect to
a procurement described in subsection (a), the Secretary may
deem the simplified acquisition threshold referred to in
section 4(11) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act
(41 U.S.C. 403(11)) to be $175,000.
(2) Section 18(c)(1) of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act is amended--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of suparagraph (F);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (G)
and inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(H) the procurement is by the Secretary of Homeland
Security pursuant to the special procedures provided in
section 733(c) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.''.
(d) Application of Certain Commercial Items Authorities.--
(1) With respect to a procurement described in subsection
(a), the Secretary may deem any item or service to be a
commercial item for the purpose of Federal procurement laws.
(2) The $5,000,000 limitation provided in section 31(a)(2)
of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C.
427(a)(2)) and section 303(g)(1)(B) of the Federal Property
and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C.
253(g)(1)(B)) shall be deemed to be $7,500,000 for purposes
of property or services under the authority of this
subsection.
(3) Authority under a provision of law referred to in
paragraph (2) that expires under section 4202(e) of the
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (divisions D and E of Public Law
104-106; 10 U.S.C. 2304 note) shall, notwithstanding such
section, continue to apply for a procurement described in
subsection (a).
(e) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the end of
fiscal year 2005, the Comptroller General shall submit to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives a report on the use of the authorities
provided in this section. The report shall contain the
following:
(1) An assessment of the extent to which property and
services acquired using authorities provided under this
section contributed to the capacity of the Federal workforce
to facilitate the mission of the Department as described in
section 101.
(2) An assessment of the extent to which prices for
property and services acquired using authorities provided
under this section reflected the best value.
(3) The number of employees designated by each executive
agency under subsection (b)(1).
(4) An assessment of the extent to which the Department has
implemented subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3) to monitor the use
of procurement authority by employees designated under
subsection (b)(1).
(5) Any recommendations of the Comptroller General for
improving the effectiveness of the implementation of the
provisions of this section.

SEC. 734. PROCUREMENTS FROM SMALL BUSINESSES.

There is established in the Department an office to be
known as the ``Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization''. The management of such office shall be vested
in the manner described in section 15(k) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(k)) and shall carry out the
functions described in such section.

Subtitle E--Property

SEC. 741. DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS.

(a) In General.--Subject to the requirements of the Public
Buildings Act of 1959 (40 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Administrator of General Services shall construct a public
building to serve as the headquarters for the Department.
(b) Location and Construction Standards.--The headquarters
facility shall be constructed to such standards and
specifications and at such a location as the Administrator of
General Services decides. In selecting a site for the
headquarters facility, the Administrator shall give
preference to parcels of land that are federally owned.
(c) Use of Headquarters Facility.--The Administrator of
General Services shall make the headquarter facility, as well
as other Government-owned or leased facilities, available to
the Secretary pursuant to the Administrator's authorities
under section 210 of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 490 et seq.) and there is
authorized to

[[Page H5678]]

be appropriated to the Secretary such amounts as may be
necessary to pay the annual charges for General Services
Administration furnished space and services.

Subtitle F--Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies
Act of 2002 (the SAFETY Act)

SEC. 751. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Support Anti-terrorism
by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002'' or the
``SAFETY Act''.

SEC. 752. ADMINISTRATION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary shall be responsible for the
administration of this subtitle.
(b) Designation of Qualified Anti-Terrorism Technologies.--
The Secretary may designate anti-terrorism technologies that
qualify for protection under the system of risk management
set forth in this subtitle in accordance with criteria that
shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) Prior and extensive United States government use and
demonstrated substantial utility and effectiveness.
(2) Availability of the technology for immediate deployment
in public and private settings.
(3) Existence of extraordinarily large or extraordinarily
unquantifiable potential third party liability risk exposure
to the Seller or other provider of such anti-terrorism
technology.
(4) Substantial likelihood that such anti-terrorism
technology will not be deployed unless protections under the
system of risk management provided under this subtitle are
extended.
(5) Magnitude of risk exposure to the public if such anti-
terrorism technology is not deployed.
(6) Evaluation of all scientific studies that can be
feasibly conducted in order to assess the capability of the
technology to substantially reduce risks of harm.
(c) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue such regulations,
after notice and comment in accordance with section 553 of
title 5, United States, Code, as may be necessary to carry
out this subtitle.

SEC. 753. LITIGATION MANAGEMENT.

(a) Federal Cause of Action.--(1) There shall exist a
Federal cause of action for claims arising out of, relating
to, or resulting from an act of terrorism when qualified
anti-terrorism technologies have been deployed in defense
against such act and such claims result or may result in loss
to the Seller. The substantive law for decision in any such
action shall be derived from the law, including choice of law
principles, of the State in which such acts of terrorism
occurred, unless such law is inconsistent with or preempted
by Federal law.
(2) Such appropriate district court of the United States
shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all
actions for any claim for loss of property, personal injury,
or death arising out of, relating to, or resulting from an
act of terrorism when qualified anti-terrorism technologies
have been deployed in defense against such act and such
claims result or may result in loss to the Seller.
(b) Special Rules.--In an action brought under this section
for damages the following provisions apply:
(1) No punitive damages intended to punish or deter,
exemplary damages, or other damages not intended to
compensate a plaintiff for actual losses may be awarded, nor
shall any party be liable for interest prior to the judgment.
(2)(A) Noneconomic damages may be awarded against a
defendant only in an amount directly proportional to the
percentage of responsibility of such defendant for the harm
to the plaintiff, and no plaintiff may recover noneconomic
damages unless the plaintiff suffered physical harm.
(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term
``noneconomic damages'' means damages for losses for physical
and emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical
impairment, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment
of life, loss of society and companionship, loss of
consortium, hedonic damages, injury to reputation, and any
other nonpecuniary losses.
(c) Collateral Sources.--Any recovery by a plaintiff in an
action under this section shall be reduced by the amount of
collateral source compensation, if any, that the plaintiff
has received or is entitled to receive as a result of such
acts of terrorism that result or may result in loss to the
Seller.
(d) Government Contractor Defense.--(1) Should a product
liability lawsuit be filed for claims arising out of,
relating to, or resulting from an act of terrorism when
qualified anti-terrorism technologies approved by the
Secretary, as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this
subsection, have been deployed in defense against such act
and such claims result or may result in loss to the Seller,
there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the government
contractor defense applies in such lawsuit. This presumption
shall only be overcome by evidence showing that the Seller
acted fraudulently or with willful misconduct in submitting
information to the Secretary during the course of the
Secretary's consideration of such technology under this
subsection. This presumption of the government contractor
defense shall apply regardless of whether the claim against
the Seller arises from a sale of the product to Federal
Government or non-Federal Government customers.
(2) The Secretary will be exclusively responsible for the
review and approval of anti-terrorism technology for purposes
of establishing a government contractor defense in any
product liability lawsuit for claims arising out of, relating
to, or resulting from an act of terrorism when qualified
anti-terrorism technologies approved by the Secretary, as
provided in this paragraph and paragraph (3), have been
deployed in defense against such act and such claims result
or may result in loss to the Seller. Upon the Seller's
submission to the Secretary for approval of anti-terrorism
technology, the Secretary will conduct a comprehensive review
of the design of such technology and determine whether it
will perform as intended, conforms to the Seller's
specifications, and is safe for use as intended. The Seller
will conduct safety and hazard analyses on such technology
and will supply the Secretary with all such information.
(3) For those products reviewed and approved by the
Secretary, the Secretary will issue a certificate of
conformance to the Seller and place the product on an
Approved Product List for Homeland Security.
(e) Exclusion.--Nothing in this section shall in any way
limit the ability of any person to seek any form of recovery
from any person, government, or other entity that--
(1) attempts to commit, knowingly participates in, aids and
abets, or commits any act of terrorism, or any criminal act
related to or resulting from such act of terrorism; or
(2) participates in a conspiracy to commit any such act of
terrorism or any such criminal act.

SEC. 754. RISK MANAGEMENT.

(a) In General.--(1) Any person or entity that sells or
otherwise provides a qualified anti-terrorism technology to
non-federal government customers (``Seller'') shall obtain
liability insurance of such types and in such amounts as
shall be required in accordance with this section to satisfy
otherwise compensable third-party claims arising out of,
relating to, or resulting from an act of terrorism when
qualified anti-terrorism technologies have been deployed in
defense against such act.
(2) For the total claims related to one such act of
terrorism, the Seller is not required to obtain liability
insurance of more than the maximum amount of liability
insurance reasonably available from private sources on the
world market at prices and terms that will not unreasonably
distort the sales price of Seller's anti-terrorism
technologies.
(3) Liability insurance obtained pursuant to this
subsection shall, in addition to the Seller, protect the
following, to the extent of their potential liability for
involvement in the manufacture, qualification, sale, use, or
operation of qualified anti-terrorism technologies deployed
in defense against an act of terrorism:
(A) contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, vendors and
customers of the Seller.
(B) contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and vendors of
the customer.
(4) Such liability insurance under this section shall
provide coverage against third party claims arising out of,
relating to, or resulting from the sale or use of anti-
terrorism technologies.
(b) Reciprocal Waiver of Claims.--The Seller shall enter
into a reciprocal waiver of claims with its contractors,
subcontractors, suppliers, vendors and customers, and
contractors and subcontractors of the customers, involved in
the manufacture, sale, use or operation of qualified anti-
terrorism technologies, under which each party to the waiver
agrees to be responsible for losses, including business
interruption losses, that it sustains, or for losses
sustained by its own employees resulting from an activity
resulting from an act of terrorism when qualified anti-
terrorism technologies have been deployed in defense against
such act.
(c) Extent of Liability.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, liability for all claims against a Seller
arising out of, relating to, or resulting from an act of
terrorism when qualified anti-terrorism technologies have
been deployed in defense against such act and such claims
result or may result in loss to the Seller, whether for
compensatory or punitive damages or for contribution or
indemnity, shall not be in an amount greater than the limits
of liability insurance coverage required to be maintained by
the Seller under this section.

SEC. 755. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this subtitle, the following definitions
apply:
(1) Qualified anti-terrorism technology.--For purposes of
this subtitle, the term ``qualified anti-terrorism
technology'' means any product, device, or technology
designed, developed, or modified for the specific purpose of
preventing, detecting, identifying, or deterring acts of
terrorism and limiting the harm such acts might otherwise
cause, that is designated as such by the Secretary.
(2) Act of terrorism.--(A) The term ``act of terrorism''
means any act that the Secretary determines meets the
requirements under subparagraph (B), as such requirements are
further defined and specified by the Secretary.
(B) Requirements.--An act meets the requirements of this
subparagraph if the act--
(i) is unlawful;
(ii) causes harm to a person, property, or entity, in the
United States, or in the case of a domestic United States air
carrier or a United States-flag vessel (or a vessel based
principally in the United States on which United States
income tax is paid and whose insurance coverage is subject to
regulation in the United States), in or outside the United
States; and
(iii) uses or attempts to use instrumentalities, weapons or
other methods designed or intended to cause mass destruction,
injury or other loss to citizens or institutions of the
United States.
(3) Insurance carrier.--The term ``insurance carrier''
means any corporation, association, society, order, firm,
company, mutual, partnership, individual aggregation of
individuals, or any other legal entity that provides
commercial property and casualty insurance. Such term
includes any affiliates of a commercial insurance carrier.
(4) Liability insurance.--
(A) In general.--The term ``liability insurance'' means
insurance for legal liabilities incurred by the insured
resulting from--
(i) loss of or damage to property of others;
(ii) ensuing loss of income or extra expense incurred
because of loss of or damage to property of others;

[[Page H5679]]

(iii) bodily injury (including) to persons other than the
insured or its employees; or
(iv) loss resulting from debt or default of another.
(5) Loss.--The term ``loss'' means death, bodily injury, or
loss of or damage to property, including business
interruption loss.
(6) Non-federal government customers.--The term ``non-
Federal Government customers'' means any customer of a Seller
that is not an agency or instrumentality of the United States
Government with authority under Public Law 85-804 to provide
for indemnification under certain circumstances for third-
party claims against its contractors, including but not
limited to State and local authorities and commercial
entities.

Subtitle G--Other Provisions

SEC. 761. ESTABLISHMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

(a) Authority.--
(1) In general.--Subpart I of part III of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``CHAPTER 97--DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

``Sec.
``9701. Establishment of human resources management system.

``Sec. 9701. Establishment of human resources management
system

``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title, the Secretary of Homeland Security may, in
regulations prescribed jointly with the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management, establish, and from time to
time adjust, a human resources management system for some or
all of the organizational units of the Department of Homeland
Security.
``(b) System Requirements.--Any system established under
subsection (a) shall--
``(1) be flexible;
``(2) be contemporary;
``(3) not waive, modify, or otherwise affect--
``(A) the public employment principles of merit and fitness
set forth in section 2301, including the principles of hiring
based on merit, fair treatment without regard to political
affiliation or other non-merit considerations, equal pay for
equal work, and protection of employees against reprisal for
whistleblowing;
``(B) any provision of section 2302, relating to prohibited
personnel practices;
``(C)(i) any provision of law referred to in section
2302(b)(1); or
``(ii) any provision of law implementing any provision of
law referred to in section 2302(b)(1) by--
``(I) providing for equal employment opportunity through
affirmative action; or
``(II) providing any right or remedy available to any
employee or applicant for employment in the civil service;
``(D) any other provision of this title (as described in
subsection (c)); or
``(E) any rule or regulation prescribed under any provision
of law referred to in any of the preceding subparagraphs of
this paragraph;
``(4) ensure that employees may organize, bargain
collectively, and participate through labor organizations of
their own choosing in decisions which affect them, subject to
any exclusion from coverage or limitation on negotiability
established by law or under subsection (a) for employees
engaged in intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative,
or security work which directly affects national security;
and
``(5) permit the use of a category rating system for
evaluating applicants for positions in the competitive
service.
``(c) Other Nonwaivable Provisions.--The other provisions
of this title, as referred to in subsection (b)(3)(D), are
(to the extent not otherwise specified in subparagraph (A),
(B), (C), or (D) of subsection (b)(3))--
``(1) subparts A, B, E, G, and H of this part; and
``(2) chapters 41, 45, 47, 55, 57, 59, 72, 73, and 79, and
this chapter.
``(d) Limitations Relating to Pay.--Nothing in this section
shall constitute authority--
``(1) to modify the pay of any employee who serves in--
``(A) an Executive Schedule position under subchapter II of
chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code; or
``(B) a position for which the rate of basic pay is fixed
in statute by reference to a section or level under
subchapter II of chapter 53 of such title 5;
``(2) to fix pay for any employee or position at an annual
rate greater than the maximum amount of cash compensation
allowable under section 5307 of such title 5 in a year; or
``(3) to exempt any employee from the application of such
section 5307.
``(e) Sunset Provision.--Effective 5 years after the date
of the enactment of this section, all authority to issue
regulations under this section (including regulations which
would modify, supersede, or terminate any regulations
previously issued under this section) shall cease to be
available.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of chapters for part III
of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:

``97. Department of Homeland Security.......................9701''.....

(b) Effect on Personnel.--
(1) Non-separation or non-reduction in grade or
compensation of full-time personnel and part-time personnel
holding permanent positions.--Except as otherwise provided in
this Act, the transfer pursuant to this Act of full-time
personnel (except special Government employees) and part-time
personnel holding permanent positions shall not cause any
such employee to be separated or reduced in grade or
compensation for one year after the date of transfer to the
Department.
(2) Positions compensated in accordance with executive
schedule.--Any person who, on the day preceding such person's
date of transfer pursuant to this Act, held a position
compensated in accordance with the Executive Schedule
prescribed in chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, and
who, without a break in service, is appointed in the
Department to a position having duties comparable to the
duties performed immediately preceding such appointment shall
continue to be compensated in such new position at not less
than the rate provided for such previous position, for the
duration of the service of such person in such new position.
(3) Coordination rule.--Any exercise of authority under
chapter 97 of title 5, United States Code (as amended by
subsection (a)), including under any system established under
such chapter, shall be in conformance with the requirements
of this subsection.

SEC. 762. ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

The Secretary may establish, appoint members of, and use
the services of, advisory committees, as the Secretary may
deem necessary. An advisory committee established under this
section may be exempted by the Secretary from Public Law 92-
463, but the Secretary shall publish notice in the Federal
Register announcing the establishment of such a committee and
identifying its purpose and membership. Notwithstanding the
preceding sentence, members of an advisory committee that is
exempted by the Secretary under the preceding sentence who
are special Government employees (as that term is defined in
section 202 of title 18, United States Code) shall be
eligible for certifications under subsection (b)(3) of
section 208 of title 18, United States Code, for official
actions taken as a member of such advisory committee.

SEC. 763. REORGANIZATION; TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Reorganization.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may allocate or reallocate
functions among the officers of the Department, and may
establish, consolidate, alter, or discontinue organizational
units within the Department, but only--
(A) pursuant to section 802; or
(B) after the expiration of 60 days after providing notice
of such action to the appropriate congressional committees,
which shall include an explanation of the rationale for the
action.
(2) Limitations.--(A) Authority under paragraph (1)(A) does
not extend to the abolition of any agency, entity,
organizational unit, program, or function established or
required to be maintained by this Act.
(B) Authority under paragraph (1)(B) does not extend to the
abolition of any agency, entity, organizational unit,
program, or function established or required to be maintained
by statute.
(b) Transfer of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise specifically provided
by law, not to exceed two percent of any appropriation
available to the Secretary in any fiscal year may be
transferred between such appropriations, except that not less
than 15 days' notice shall be given to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives
before any such transfer is made.
(2) Expiration of authority.--The authority under paragraph
(1) shall expire two years after the date of enactment of
this Act.

SEC. 764. MISCELLANEOUS AUTHORITIES.

(a) Seal.--The Department shall have a seal, whose design
is subject to the approval of the President.
(b) Gifts, Devises, and Bequests.--With respect to the
Department, the Secretary shall have the same authorities
that the Attorney General has with respect to the Department
of Justice under section 524(d) of title 28, United States
Code.
(c) Participation of Members of the Armed Forces.--With
respect to the Department, the Secretary shall have the same
authorities that the Secretary of Transportation has with
respect to the Department of Transportation under section 324
of title 49, United States Code.
(d) Redelegation of Functions.--Unless otherwise provided
in the delegation or by law, any function delegated under
this Act may be redelegated to any subordinate.

SEC. 765. MILITARY ACTIVITIES.

Nothing in this Act shall confer upon the Secretary any
authority to engage in warfighting, the military defense of
the United States, or other military activities, nor shall
anything in this Act limit the existing authority of the
Department of Defense or the Armed Forces to engage in
warfighting, the military defense of the United States, or
other military activities.

SEC. 766. REGULATORY AUTHORITY.

Except as otherwise provided in this Act, this Act vests no
new regulatory authority in the Secretary or any other
Federal official, and transfers to the Secretary or another
Federal official only such regulatory authority as exists on
the date of enactment of this Act within any agency, program,
or function transferred to the Department pursuant to this
Act, or that on such date of enactment is exercised by
another official of the executive branch with respect to such
agency, program, or function. Any such transferred authority
may not be exercised by an official from whom it is
transferred upon transfer of such agency, program, or
function to the Secretary or another Federal official
pursuant to this Act. This Act may not be construed as
altering or diminishing the regulatory authority of any other
executive agency, except to the extent that this Act
transfers such authority from the agency.

SEC. 767. PROVISIONS REGARDING TRANSFERS FROM DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY.

(a) Separate Contracting.--To the extent that programs or
activities transferred by this Act from the Department of
Energy to the Department of Homeland Security are being
carried out through contracts with the operator of

[[Page H5680]]

a national laboratory of the Department of Energy, the
Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Energy
shall ensure that contracts for such programs and activities
between the Department of Homeland Security and such operator
are separate from the contracts of the Department of Energy
with such operator.
(b) Homeland Security Center.--(1) Notwithstanding section
307, the Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for
Science and Technology, shall establish at a national
security laboratory of the National Nuclear Security
Administration, a center to serve as the primary location for
carrying out research, development, test, and evaluation
activities of the Department related to the goals described
in section 301(6)(A) and (B). The Secretary shall establish,
in concurrence with the Secretary of Energy, such additional
centers at one or more national laboratories of the
Department of Energy as the Secretary considers appropriate
to serve as secondary locations for carrying out such
activities.
(2) Each center established under paragraph (1) shall be
composed of such facilities and assets as are required for
the performance of such activities. The particular facilities
and assets shall be designated and transferred by the
Secretary of Energy with the concurrence of the Secretary.
(c) Reimbursement of Costs.--In the case of an activity
carried out by the operator of a national laboratory of the
Department of Energy but under contract with the Department
of Homeland Security, the Department of Homeland Security
shall reimburse the Department of Energy for costs of such
activity through a method under which the Secretary of Energy
waives any requirement for the Department of Homeland
Security to pay administrative charges or personnel costs of
the Department of Energy or its contractors in excess of the
amount that the Secretary of Energy pays for an activity
carried out by such contractor and paid for by the Department
of Energy.
(d) Laboratory Directed Research and Development by the
Department of Energy.--No funds authorized to be appropriated
or otherwise made available to the Department in any fiscal
year may be obligated or expended for laboratory directed
research and development activities carried out by the
Department of Energy unless such activities support the
mission of the Department described in section 101.
(e) Department of Energy Coordination on Homeland Security
Related Research.--The Secretary of Energy shall ensure that
any research, development, test, and evaluation activities
conducted within the Department of Energy that are directly
or indirectly related to homeland security are fully
coordinated with the Secretary to minimize duplication of
effort and maximize the effective application of Federal
budget resources.

SEC. 768. COUNTERNARCOTICS OFFICER.

The Secretary shall appoint a senior official in the
Department to assume primary responsibility for coordinating
policy and operations within the Department and between the
Department and other Federal departments and agencies with
respect to interdicting the entry of illegal drugs into the
United States, and tracking and severing connections between
illegal drug trafficking and terrorism.

SEC. 769. OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS.

(a) Establishment.--There is established within the Office
of the Secretary an Office of International Affairs. The
Office shall be headed by a Director, who shall be a senior
official appointed by the Secretary.
(b) Duties of the Director.--The Director shall have the
following duties:
(1) To promote information and education exchange with
nations friendly to the United States in order to promote
sharing of best practices and technologies relating to
homeland security. Such information exchange shall include
the following:
(A) Joint research and development on countermeasures.
(B) Joint training exercises of first responders.
(C) Exchange of expertise on terrorism prevention,
response, and crisis management.
(2) To identify areas for homeland security information and
training exchange where the United States has a demonstrated
weakness and another friendly nation or nations have a
demonstrated expertise.
(3) To plan and undertake international conferences,
exchange programs, and training activities.
(4) To manage international activities within the
Department in coordination with other Federal officials with
responsibility for counter-terrorism matters.

SEC. 770. PROHIBITION OF THE TERRORISM INFORMATION AND
PREVENTION SYSTEM.

Any and all activities of the Federal Government to
implement the proposed component program of the Citizen Corps
known as Operation TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention
System) are hereby prohibited.

SEC. 771. REVIEW OF PAY AND BENEFIT PLANS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
Secretary shall, in consultation with the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management, review the pay and benefit
plans of each agency whose functions are transferred under
this Act to the Department and, within 90 days after the date
of enactment, submit a plan to the President of the Senate
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
appropriate committees and subcommittees of the Congress, for
ensuring, to the maximum extent practicable, the elimination
of disparities in pay and benefits throughout the Department,
especially among law enforcement personnel, that are
inconsistent with merit system principles set forth in
section 2301 of title 5, United States Code.

SEC. 772. ROLE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

The Secretary (or the Secretary's designee) shall work in
cooperation with the Mayor of the District of Columbia (or
the Mayor's designee) for the purpose of integrating the
District of Columbia into the planning, coordination, and
execution of the activities of the Federal Government for the
enhancement of domestic preparedness against the consequences
of terrorist attacks.

SEC. 773. TRANSFER OF THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING
CENTER.

There shall be transferred to the Attorney General the
functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center, including any functions of
the Secretary of the Treasury relating thereto.

TITLE VIII--TRANSITION

Subtitle A--Reorganization Plan

SEC. 801. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this title:
(1) The term ``agency'' includes any entity, organizational
unit, program, or function.
(2) The term ``transition period'' means the 12-month
period beginning on the effective date of this Act.

SEC. 802. REORGANIZATION PLAN.

(a) Submission of Plan.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall
transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a
reorganization plan regarding the following:
(1) The transfer of agencies, personnel, assets, and
obligations to the Department pursuant to this Act.
(2) Any consolidation, reorganization, or streamlining of
agencies transferred to the Department pursuant to this Act.
(b) Plan Elements.--The plan transmitted under subsection
(a) shall contain, consistent with this Act, such elements as
the President deems appropriate, including the following:
(1) Identification of any functions of agencies transferred
to the Department pursuant to this Act that will not be
transferred to the Department under the plan.
(2) Specification of the steps to be taken by the Secretary
to organize the Department, including the delegation or
assignment of functions transferred to the Department among
officers of the Department in order to permit the Department
to carry out the functions transferred under the plan.
(3) Specification of the funds available to each agency
that will be transferred to the Department as a result of
transfers under the plan.
(4) Specification of the proposed allocations within the
Department of unexpended funds transferred in connection with
transfers under the plan.
(5) Specification of any proposed disposition of property,
facilities, contracts, records, and other assets and
obligations of agencies transferred under the plan.
(6) Specification of the proposed allocations within the
Department of the functions of the agencies and subdivisions
that are not related directly to securing the homeland.
(c) Modification of Plan.--The President may, on the basis
of consultations with the appropriate congressional
committees, modify or revise any part of the plan until that
part of the plan becomes effective in accordance with
subsection (d).
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The reorganization plan described in this
section, including any modifications or revisions of the plan
under subsection (d), shall become effective for an agency on
the earlier of--
(A) the date specified in the plan (or the plan as modified
pursuant to subsection (d)), except that such date may not be
earlier than 90 days after the date the President has
transmitted the reorganization plan to the appropriate
congressional committees pursuant to subsection (a); or
(B) the end of the transition period.
(2) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this subsection may
be construed to require the transfer of functions, personnel,
records, balances of appropriations, or other assets of an
agency on a single date.
(3) Supersedes existing law.--Paragraph (1) shall apply
notwithstanding section 905(b) of title 5, United States
Code.

Subtitle B--Transitional Provisions

SEC. 811. TRANSITIONAL AUTHORITIES.

(a) Provision of Assistance by Officials.--Until the
transfer of an agency to the Department, any official having
authority over or functions relating to the agency
immediately before the effective date of this Act shall
provide to the Secretary such assistance, including the use
of personnel and assets, as the Secretary may request in
preparing for the transfer and integration of the agency into
the Department.
(b) Services and Personnel.--During the transition period,
upon the request of the Secretary, the head of any executive
agency may, on a reimbursable basis, provide services or
detail personnel to assist with the transition.
(c) Transfer of Funds.--Until the transfer of an agency to
the Department, the President is authorized to transfer to
the Secretary to fund the purposes authorized in this Act--
(1) for administrative expenses related to the
establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, not to
exceed two percent of the unobligated balance of any
appropriation enacted prior to October 1, 2002, available to
such agency; and
(2) for purposes for which the funds were appropriated, not
to exceed three percent of the unobligated balance of any
appropriation available to such agency;

except that not less than 15 days' notice shall be given to
the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate before any such funds transfer
is made.
(d) Acting Officials.--(1) During the transition period,
pending the advice and consent of

[[Page H5681]]

the Senate to the appointment of an officer required by this
Act to be appointed by and with such advice and consent, the
President may designate any officer whose appointment was
required to be made by and with such advice and consent and
who was such an officer immediately before the effective date
of this Act (and who continues in office) or immediately
before such designation, to act in such office until the same
is filled as provided in this Act. While so acting, such
officers shall receive compensation at the higher of--
(A) the rates provided by this Act for the respective
offices in which they act; or
(B) the rates provided for the offices held at the time of
designation.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall be understood to require the
advice and consent of the Senate to the appointment by the
President to a position in the Department of any officer
whose agency is transferred to the Department pursuant to
this Act and whose duties following such transfer are germane
to those performed before such transfer.
(e) Transfer of Personnel, Assets, Obligations, and
Functions.--Upon the transfer of an agency to the
Department--
(1) the personnel, assets, and obligations held by or
available in connection with the agency shall be transferred
to the Secretary for appropriate allocation, subject to the
approval of the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget and in accordance with the provisions of section
1531(a)(2) of title 31, United States Code; and
(2) the Secretary shall have all functions relating to the
agency that any other official could by law exercise in
relation to the agency immediately before such transfer, and
shall have in addition all functions vested in the Secretary
by this Act or other law.

Paragraph (1) shall not apply to appropriations transferred
pursuant to section 763(b).
(f) Prohibition on Use of Transportation Trust Funds.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, no funds derived from the Highway Trust Fund,
Airport and Airway Trust Fund, Inland Waterway Trust Fund,
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, or Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund may be transferred to, made available to, or obligated
by the Secretary or any other official in the Department.
(2) Limitation.--This subsection shall not apply to
security-related funds provided to the Federal Aviation
Administration for fiscal years preceding fiscal year 2003
for (A) operations, (B) facilities and equipment, or (C)
research, engineering, and development.

SEC. 812. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

(a) Completed Administrative Actions.--(1) Completed
administrative actions of an agency shall not be affected by
the enactment of this Act or the transfer of such agency to
the Department, but shall continue in effect according to
their terms until amended, modified, superseded, terminated,
set aside, or revoked in accordance with law by an officer of
the United States or a court of competent jurisdiction, or by
operation of law.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ``completed
administrative action'' includes orders, determinations,
rules, regulations, personnel actions, permits, agreements,
grants, contracts, certificates, licenses, registrations, and
privileges.
(b) Pending Proceedings.--Subject to the authority of the
Secretary under this Act--
(1) pending proceedings in an agency, including notices of
proposed rulemaking, and applications for licenses, permits,
certificates, grants, and financial assistance, shall
continue notwithstanding the enactment of this Act or the
transfer of the agency to the Department, unless discontinued
or modified under the same terms and conditions and to the
same extent that such discontinuance could have occurred if
such enactment or transfer had not occurred; and
(2) orders issued in such proceedings, and appeals
therefrom, and payments made pursuant to such orders, shall
issue in the same manner and on the same terms as if this Act
had not been enacted or the agency had not been transferred,
and any such orders shall continue in effect until amended,
modified, superseded, terminated, set aside, or revoked by an
officer of the United States or a court of competent
jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
(c) Pending Civil Actions.--Subject to the authority of the
Secretary under this Act, pending civil actions shall
continue notwithstanding the enactment of this Act or the
transfer of an agency to the Department, and in such civil
actions, proceedings shall be had, appeals taken, and
judgments rendered and enforced in the same manner and with
the same effect as if such enactment or transfer had not
occurred.
(d) References.--References relating to an agency that is
transferred to the Department in statutes, Executive orders,
rules, regulations, directives, or delegations of authority
that precede such transfer or the effective date of this Act
shall be deemed to refer, as appropriate, to the Department,
to its officers, employees, or agents, or to its
corresponding organizational units or functions. Statutory
reporting requirements that applied in relation to such an
agency immediately before the effective date of this Act
shall continue to apply following such transfer if they refer
to the agency by name.
(e) Employment Provisions.--(1) Notwithstanding the
generality of the foregoing (including subsections (a) and
(d)), in and for the Department the Secretary may, in
regulations prescribed jointly with the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management, adopt the rules, procedures,
terms, and conditions, established by statute, rule, or
regulation before the effective date of this Act, relating to
employment in any agency transferred to the Department
pursuant to this Act; and
(2) except as otherwise provided in this Act, or under
authority granted by this Act, the transfer pursuant to this
Act of personnel shall not alter the terms and conditions of
employment, including compensation, of any employee so
transferred.

SEC. 813. TERMINATIONS.

Except as otherwise provided in this Act, whenever all the
functions vested by law in any agency have been transferred
pursuant to this Act, each position and office the incumbent
of which was authorized to receive compensation at the rates
prescribed for an office or position at level II, III, IV, or
V, of the Executive Schedule, shall terminate.

SEC. 814. INCIDENTAL TRANSFERS.

The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in
consultation with the Secretary, is authorized and directed
to make such additional incidental dispositions of personnel,
assets, and obligations held, used, arising from, available,
or to be made available, in connection with the functions
transferred by this Act, as the Director may deem necessary
to accomplish the purposes of this Act.

SEC. 815. NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM NOT AUTHORIZED.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the
development of a national identification system or card.

SEC. 816. CONTINUITY OF INSPECTOR GENERAL OVERSIGHT.

Notwithstanding the transfer of an agency to the Department
pursuant to this Act, the Inspector General that exercised
oversight of such agency prior to such transfer shall
continue to exercise oversight of such agency during the
period of time, if any, between the transfer of such agency
to the Department pursuant to this Act and the appointment of
the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security
in accordance with section 103(b) of this Act.

SEC. 817. REFERENCE.

With respect to any function transferred by or under this
Act (including under a reorganization plan that becomes
effective under section 802) and exercised on or after the
effective date of this Act, reference in any other Federal
law to any department, commission, or agency or any officer
or office the functions of which are so transferred shall be
deemed to refer to the Secretary, other official, or
component of the Department to which such function is so
transferred.

TITLE IX--CONFORMING AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS

SEC. 901. INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT OF 1978.

Section 11 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (Public Law
95-452) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``Homeland Security,'' after
``Transportation,'' each place it appears; and
(2) by striking ``; and'' each place it appears in
paragraph (1) and inserting ``;'';

SEC. 902. EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE.

(a) In General.--Title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 5312, by inserting ``Secretary of Homeland
Security.'' as a new item after ``Affairs.'';
(2) in section 5313, by inserting ``Deputy Secretary of
Homeland Security.'' as a new item after ``Affairs.'';
(3) in section 5314, by inserting ``Under Secretaries,
Department of Homeland Security.'' as a new item after
``Affairs.'' the third place it appears;
(4) in section 5315, by inserting ``Assistant Secretaries,
Department of Homeland Security.'', ``General Counsel,
Department of Homeland Security.'', ``Chief Financial
Officer, Department of Homeland Security.'', ``Chief
Information Officer, Department of Homeland Security.'', and
``Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security.'' as
new items after ``Affairs.'' the first place it appears; and
(5) in section 5315, by striking ``Commissioner of
Immigration and Naturalization, Department of Justice.''.
(b) Special Effective Date.--Notwithstanding section 4, the
amendment made by subsection (a)(5) shall take effect on the
date on which the transfer of functions specified under
section 411 takes effect.

SEC. 903. UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE.

(a) In General.--(1) The United States Code is amended in
section 202 of title 3, and in section 3056 of title 18, by
striking ``of the Treasury'', each place it appears and
inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(2) Section 208 of title 3, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``of Treasury'' each place it appears and
inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of transfer of the United
States Secret Service to the Department.

SEC. 904. COAST GUARD.

(a) Title 14, U.S.C.--Title 14, United States Code, is
amended in sections 1, 3, 53, 95, 145, 516, 666, 669, 673,
673a (as redesignated by subsection (e)(1)), 674, 687, and
688 by striking ``of Transportation'' each place it appears
and inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(b) Title 10, U.S.C.--(1) Title 10, United States Code, is
amended in sections 101(9), 130b(a), 130b(c)(4), 130c(h)(1),
379, 513(d), 575(b)(2), 580(e)(6), 580a(e), 651(a),
671(c)(2), 708(a), 716(a), 717, 806(d)(2), 815(e), 888,
946(c)(1), 973(d), 978(d), 983(b)(1), 985(a), 1033(b)(1),
1033(d), 1034, 1037(c), 1044d(f), 1058(c), 1059(a),
1059(k)(1), 1073(a), 1074(c)(1), 1089(g)(2), 1090, 1091(a),
1124, 1143, 1143a(h), 1144, 1145(e), 1148, 1149, 1150(c),
1152(a), 1152(d)(1), 1153, 1175, 1212(a), 1408(h)(2),
1408(h)(8), 1463(a)(2), 1482a(b), 1510, 1552(a)(1), 1565(f),
1588(f)(4), 1589, 2002(a), 2302(1), 2306b(b), 2323(j)(2),
2376(2), 2396(b)(1), 2410a(a), 2572(a), 2575(a), 2578,
2601(b)(4), 2634(e), 2635(a), 2734(g), 2734a, 2775,
2830(b)(2), 2835, 2836, 4745(a), 5013a(a), 7361(b),
10143(b)(2), 10146(a), 10147(a),

[[Page H5682]]

10149(b), 10150, 10202(b), 10203(d), 10205(b), 10301(b),
12103(b), 12103(d), 12304, 12311(c), 12522(c), 12527(a)(2),
12731(b), 12731a(e), 16131(a), 16136(a), 16301(g), and 18501
by striking ``of Transportation'' each place it appears and
inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(2) Section 801(1) of such title is amended by striking
``the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation''
and inserting ``an official designated to serve as Judge
Advocate General of the Coast Guard by the Secretary of
Homeland Security''.
(3) Section 983(d)(2)(B) of such title is amended by
striking ``Department of Transportation'' and inserting
``Department of Homeland Security''.
(4) Section 2665(b) of such title is amended by striking
``Department of Transportation'' and inserting ``Department
in which the Coast Guard is operating''.
(5) Section 7045 of such title is amended--
(A) in subsections (a)(1) and (b), by striking
``Secretaries of the Army, Air Force, and Transportation''
both places it appears and inserting ``Secretary of the Army,
the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Secretary of Homeland
Security''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``Department of
Transportation'' and inserting ``Department of Homeland
Security''.
(6) Section 7361(b) of such title is amended in the
subsection heading by striking ``Transportation'' and
inserting ``Homeland Security''.
(7) Section 12522(c) of such title is amended in the
subsection heading by striking ``Transportation'' and
inserting ``Homeland Security''.
(c) Title 37, U.S.C.--Title 37, United States Code, is
amended in sections 101(5), 204(i)(4), 301a(a)(3), 306(d),
307(c), 308(a)(1), 308(d)(2), 308(f), 308b(e), 308c(c),
308d(a), 308e(f), 308g(g), 308h(f), 308i(e), 309(d), 316(d),
323(b), 323(g)(1), 325(i), 402(d), 402a(g)(1), 403(f)(3),
403(l)(1), 403b(i)(5), 406(b)(1), 417(a), 417(b), 418(a),
703, 1001(c), 1006(f), 1007(a), and 1011(d) by striking ``of
Transportation'' each place it appears and inserting ``of
Homeland Security''.
(d) Other Defense-Related Laws.--(1) Section 363 of Public
Law 104-193 (110 Stat. 2247) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1) (10 U.S.C. 113 note), by striking
``of Transportation'' and inserting ``of Homeland Security'';
and
(B) in subsection (b)(1) (10 U.S.C. 704 note), by striking
``of Transportation'' and inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(2) Section 721(1) of Public Law 104-201 (10 U.S.C. 1073
note) is amended by striking ``of Transportation'' and
inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(3) Section 4463(a) of Public Law 102-484 (10 U.S.C. 1143a
note) is amended by striking ``after consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation''.
(4) Section 4466(h) of Public Law 102-484 (10 U.S.C. 1143
note) is amended by striking ``of Transportation'' and
inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(5) Section 542(d) of Public Law 103-337 (10 U.S.C. 1293
note) is amended by striking ``of Transportation'' and
inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(6) Section 740 of Public Law 106-181 (10 U.S.C. 2576 note)
is amended in subsections (b)(2), (c), and (d)(1) by striking
``of Transportation'' each place it appears and inserting
``of Homeland Security''.
(7) Section 1407(b)(2) of the Defense Dependents' Education
Act of 1978 (20 U.S.C. 926(b)) is amended by striking ``of
Transportation'' both places it appears and inserting ``of
Homeland Security''.
(8) Section 2301(5)(D) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6671(5)(D)) is amended by
striking ``of Transportation'' and inserting ``of Homeland
Security''.
(9) Section 2307(a) of of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6677(a)) is amended by
striking ``of Transportation'' and inserting ``of Homeland
Security''.
(10) Section 1034(a) of Public Law 105-85 (21 U.S.C.
1505a(a)) is amended by striking ``of Transportation'' and
inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(11) The Military Selective Service Act is amended--
(A) in section 4(a) (50 U.S.C. App. 454(a)), by striking
``of Transportation'' in the fourth paragraph and inserting
``of Homeland Security'';
(B) in section 4(b) (50 U.S.C. App. 454(b)), by striking
``of Transportation'' both places it appears and inserting
``of Homeland Security'';
(C) in section 6(d)(1) (50 U.S.C. App. 456(d)(1)), by
striking ``of Transportation'' both places it appears and
inserting ``of Homeland Security'';
(D) in section 9(c) (50 U.S.C. App. 459(c)), by striking
``Secretaries of Army, Navy, Air Force, or Transportation''
and inserting ``Secretary of a military department, and the
Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast
Guard,''; and
(E) in section 15(e) (50 U.S.C. App. 465(e)), by striking
``of Transportation'' both places it appears and inserting
``of Homeland Security''.
(e) Technical Correction.--(1) Title 14, United States
Code, is amended by redesignating section 673 (as added by
section 309 of Public Law 104-324) as section 673a.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 17 of
such title is amended by redesignating the item relating to
such section as section 673a.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
(other than subsection (e)) shall take effect on the date of
transfer of the Coast Guard to the Department.

SEC. 905. STRATEGIC NATIONAL STOCKPILE AND SMALLPOX VACCINE
DEVELOPMENT.

(a) In General.--Section 121 of the Public Health Security
and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-188; 42 U.S.C. 300hh-12) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by striking ``Secretary of Health and Human Services''
and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security'';
(B) by inserting ``the Secretary of Health and Human
Services and'' between ``in coordination with'' and ``the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs''; and
(C) by inserting ``of Health and Human Services'' after
``as are determined by the Secretary''; and
(2) in subsections (a)(2) and (b), by inserting ``of Health
and Human Services'' after ``Secretary'' each place it
appears.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of transfer of the Strategic
National Stockpile of the Department of Health and Human
Services to the Department.

SEC. 906. BIOLOGICAL AGENT REGISTRATION; PUBLIC HEALTH
SERVICE ACT.

(a) Public Health Service Act.--Section 351A of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by inserting ``(as defined in
subsection (l)(9))'' after ``Secretary'';
(2) in subsection (h)(2)(A), by inserting ``Department of
Homeland Security, the'' before ``Department of Health and
Human Services''; and
(3) in subsection (l), by inserting after paragraph (8) a
new paragraph as follows:
``(9) The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and
Human Services.''.
(b) Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness
and Response Act of 2002.--Section 201(b) of the Public
Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response
Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-188; 42 U.S.C. 262a note) is
amended by striking ``Secretary of Health and Human
Services'' and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of transfer of the select agent
registration enforcement programs and activities of the
Department of Health and Human Services to the Department.

SEC. 907. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN SECURITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
FUNCTIONS AND AUTHORITIES.

(a) Amendment to Property Act.--Section 210(a)(2) of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40
U.S.C. 490(a)(2)) is repealed.
(b) Law Enforcement Authority.--The Act of June 1, 1948 (40
U.S.C. 318-318d; chapter 359; 62 Stat. 281) is amended to
read as follows:

``SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

``This Act may be cited as the `Protection of Public
Property Act'.

``SEC. 2. LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF HOMELAND
SECURITY FOR PROTECTION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security (in
this Act referred to as the `Secretary') shall protect the
buildings, grounds, and property that are owned, occupied, or
secured by the Federal Government (including any agency,
instrumentality, or wholly owned or mixed-ownership
corporation thereof) and the persons on the property.
``(b) Officers and Agents.--
``(1) Designation.--The Secretary may designate employees
of the Department of Homeland Security, including employees
transferred to the Department from the Office of the Federal
Protective Service of the General Services Administration
pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as officers
and agents for duty in connection with the protection of
property owned or occupied by the Federal Government and
persons on the property, including duty in areas outside the
property to the extent necessary to protect the property and
persons on the property.
``(2) Powers.--While engaged in the performance of official
duties, an officer or agent designated under this subsection
may--
``(A) enforce Federal laws and regulations for the
protection of persons and property;
``(B) carry firearms;
``(C) make arrests without a warrant for any offense
against the United States committed in the presence of the
officer or agent or for any felony cognizable under the laws
of the United States if the officer or agent has reasonable
grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has
committed or is committing a felony;
``(D) serve warrants and subpoenas issued under the
authority of the United States; and
``(E) conduct investigations, on and off the property in
question, of offenses that may have been committed against
property owned or occupied by the Federal Government or
persons on the property.
``(F) carry out such other activities for the promotion of
homeland security as the Secretary may prescribe.
``(c) Regulations.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Administrator of General Services, may prescribe regulations
necessary for the protection and administration of property
owned or occupied by the Federal Government and persons on
the property. The regulations may include reasonable
penalties, within the limits prescribed in paragraph (2), for
violations of the regulations. The regulations shall be
posted and remain posted in a conspicuous place on the
property.
``(2) Penalties.--A person violating a regulation
prescribed under this subsection shall be fined under title
18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 30 days,
or both.
``(d) Details.--
``(1) Requests of agencies.--On the request of the head of
a Federal agency having charge or control of property owned
or occupied by the Federal Government, the Secretary may
detail officers and agents designated under this section for
the protection of the property and persons on the property.

[[Page H5683]]

``(2) Applicability of regulations.--The Secretary may--
``(A) extend to property referred to in paragraph (1) the
applicability of regulations prescribed under this section
and enforce the regulations as provided in this section; or
``(B) utilize the authority and regulations of the
requesting agency if agreed to in writing by the agencies.
``(3) Facilities and services of other agencies.--When the
Secretary determines it to be economical and in the public
interest, the Secretary may utilize the facilities and
services of Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies, with the consent of the agencies.
``(e) Authority Outside Federal Property.--For the
protection of property owned or occupied by the Federal
Government and persons on the property, the Secretary may
enter into agreements with Federal agencies and with State
and local governments to obtain authority for officers and
agents designated under this section to enforce Federal laws
and State and local laws concurrently with other Federal law
enforcement officers and with State and local law enforcement
officers.
``(f) Secretary and Attorney General Approval.--The powers
granted to officers and agents designated under this section
shall be exercised in accordance with guidelines approved by
the Secretary and the Attorney General.
``(g) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in
this section shall be construed to--
``(1) preclude or limit the authority of any Federal law
enforcement agency; or
``(2) restrict the authority of the Administrator of
General Services to promulgate regulations affecting property
under the Administrator's custody and control.''.

SEC. 908. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY REGULATIONS.

Title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 114(l)(2)(B), by inserting ``for a period
not to exceed 30 days'' after ``effective''; and
(2) in section 114(l)(2)(B), by inserting ``ratified or''
after ``unless''.

SEC. 909. RAILROAD SECURITY LAWS.

Title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 20106 by inserting in the second sentence,
``, including security,'' after ``railroad safety'' and ``or
the Secretary of Homeland Security'' after ``Secretary of
Transportation''; and
(2) in section 20105--
(A) by inserting ``or the Secretary of Homeland Security''
after ``Secretary of Transportation'' in subsection (a);
(B) by inserting ``of Transportation or the Secretary of
Homeland Security'' after ``issued by the Secretary'' in
subsection (a);
(C) by inserting ``of Transportation or the Secretary of
Homeland Security, as appropriate,'' after ``to the
Secretary'' in subsection (a), and after ``Secretary'' in
subsection (b)(1)(A)(iii) and (B)(iv), the first place it
appears in subsections (b)(1)(B) and (B)(iii) and (d), each
place it appears in subsections (c)(1), (c)(2), (e), and (f),
and the first four times it appears in subsection (b)(3);
(D) by inserting ``of Transportation or the Secretary of
Homeland Security, as appropriate'' after ``Secretary'' in
subsection (b)(1)(A)(ii), (b)(1)(B)(ii), the second place it
appears in subsection (b)(1)(B)(iii), and the last place it
appears in subsection (b)(3);
(E) in subsection (d), by replacing ``Secretary's'' with
``Secretary of Transportation's'' and adding before the
period at the end ``or the Secretary of Homeland Security's
duties under section 114''; and
(F) in subsection (f), by adding before the period at the
end ``or section 114''.

SEC. 910. OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY.

The National Science and Technology Policy, Organization,
and Priorities Act of 1976 is amended--
(1) in section 204(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 6613(b)(1)), by
inserting ``homeland security,'' after ``national
security,''; and
(2) in section 208(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 6617(a)(1)), by
inserting ``the Office of Homeland Security,'' after
``National Security Council,''.

SEC. 911. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

Section 7902(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(13) The Under Secretary for Science and Technology of
the Department of Homeland Security.
``(14) Other Federal officials the Council considers
appropriate.''.

SEC. 912. CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER.

Section 901(b)(1) of title 31, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (G) through (P) as
subparagraphs (H) through (Q), respectively; and
(2) by inserting the following new subparagraph after
subparagraph (F):
``(G) The Department of Homeland Security.''.

SEC. 913. CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER.

(a) Clinger-Cohen Act.--(1) The provisions enacted in
section 5125 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (division E of
Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 684) shall apply with respect
to the Chief Information Officer of the Department.
(2) Section 5131(c) of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40
U.S.C. 1441(c)) is amended by inserting ``or appointed''
after ``a Chief Information Officer designated''.
(b) Title 44.--Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) in section 3506(a)(2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``subparagraph (B)''
and inserting ``subparagraphs (B) and (C)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) The Chief Information Officer of the Department of
Homeland Security shall be an individual who is appointed by
the President.'';
(2) in each of subsections (a)(4) and (c)(1) of section
3506, by inserting ``or appointed'' after ``the Chief
Information Officer designated''; and
(3) in subsection (a)(3) of section 3506, by inserting ``or
appointed'' after ``The Chief Information Officer
designated''.

TITLE X--NATIONAL HOMELAND SECURITY COUNCIL

SEC. 1001. NATIONAL HOMELAND SECURITY COUNCIL.

There is established within the Executive Office of the
President a council to be known as the ``Homeland Security
Council'' (in this title referred to as the ``Council'').

SEC. 1002. FUNCTION.

The function of the Council shall be to advise the
President on homeland security matters.

SEC. 1003. MEMBERSHIP.

The members of the Council shall be the following:
(1) The President.
(2) The Vice President.
(3) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
(4) The Attorney General.
(5) The Secretary of Health and Human Services.
(6) The Director of Central Intelligence.
(7) The Secretary of Defense.
(8) The Secretary of the Treasury.
(9) The Secretary of State.
(10) The Secretary of Energy.
(11) The Secretary of Agriculture.
(12) Such other individuals as may be designated by the
President.

SEC. 1004. OTHER FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES.

For the purpose of more effectively coordinating the
policies and functions of the United States Government
relating to homeland security, the Council shall--
(1) assess the objectives, commitments, and risks of the
United States in the interest of homeland security and to
make resulting recommendations to the President;
(2) oversee and review homeland security policies of the
Federal Government and to make resulting recommendations to
the President; and
(3) perform such other functions as the President may
direct.

SEC. 1005. HOMELAND SECURITY BUDGET.

The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall
prepare for the President a Federal homeland security budget
to be delivered to the Congress as part of the President's
annual budget request.

SEC. 1006. STAFF COMPOSITION.

The Council shall have a staff, the head of which shall be
a civilian Executive Secretary, who shall be appointed by the
President. The President is authorized to fix the pay of the
Executive Secretary at a rate not to exceed the rate of pay
payable to the Executive Secretary of the National Security
Council.

SEC. 1007. RELATION TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.

The President may convene joint meetings of the Homeland
Security Council and the National Security Council with
participation by members of either Council or as the
President may otherwise direct.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute is in order except those printed in House Report 107-615 and
amendments en bloc described in section 3 of House Resolution 502.
Except as specified in section 4 of the resolution or the order of
the House of today, each amendment printed in the report shall be
offered only in the order printed, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered read, debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
It shall be in order at any time for the chairman of the Select
Committee on Homeland Security or his designee to offer amendments en
bloc consisting of amendments printed in the report not earlier
disposed of or germane modifications of any such amendment.
Amendments en bloc shall be considered read, except that modification
shall be reported, shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member or their
designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question.
The original proponent of an amendment included in the amendments en
bloc may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately
before disposition of the amendment en bloc.
The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for
consideration of any amendment out of the order printed, but not sooner
than 1 hour after the chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland
Security or his designee announces from the floor a request to that
effect.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 107-615.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Oberstar

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

[[Page H5684]]

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Oberstar:
Strike section 402(5) of the bill (and redesignate
subsequent paragraphs accordingly).
In section 501(1) of the bill, strike ``, major disasters,
and other emergencies''.
In the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of section 501(3)
of the bill, strike ``and major disasters''.
In section 501(3)(D) of the bill, strike ``or major
disaster''.
In section 501(4) of the bill--
(1) strike ``and major disasters'';
(2) strike ``or major disasters''; and
(3) strike ``or disasters''.
In section 501(5) of the bill, strike and ``disasters''.
Strike section 501(6) of the bill and insert the following:
(6) in consultation with the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, consolidating existing Federal
Government emergency response plans for terrorist attacks
into the Federal Response Plan referred to in section 506(b).
In section 502(1) of the bill, strike the text after
``(1)'' and preceding ``Integrated'' and insert ``The''.
At the end of title V of the bill, insert the following
(and conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly):

SEC. 506. ROLE OF FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY.

(a) In General.--The functions of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(1) All functions and authorities prescribed by the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).
(2) Carrying out its mission to reduce the loss of life and
property and protect the Nation from all hazards by leading
and supporting the Nation in a comprehensive, risk-based
emergency management program--
(A) of mitigation, by taking sustained actions to reduce or
eliminate long-term risk to people and property from hazards
and their effects;
(B) of preparedness, by building the emergency management
profession to prepare effectively for, mitigate against,
respond to, and recover from any hazard by planning,
training, and exercising;
(C) of response, by conducting emergency operations to save
lives and property through positioning emergency equipment
and supplies, through evacuating potential victims, through
providing food, water, shelter, and medical care to those in
need, and through restoring critical public services;
(D) of recovery, by rebuilding communities so individuals,
businesses, and governments can function on their own, return
to normal life, and protect against future hazards; and
(E) of increased efficiencies, by coordinating efforts
relating to preparedness and response activities to maximize
efficiencies.
(b) Federal Response Plan.--
(1) Role of fema.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall
remain the lead agency for the Federal Response Plan
establish under Executive Order 12148 (44 Fed. Reg. 43239)
and Executive Order 12656 (53 Fed. Reg. 47491).
(2) Revision of response plan.--Not later than 60 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency shall revise the Federal
Response Plan to reflect the establishment of and incorporate
the Department.
(3) Memorandum of understanding.--Not later than 60 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary and
the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall
adopt a memorandum of understanding to address the roles and
responsibilities of their respective agencies under this
title.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 502, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, over the past decade, the Federal Emergency Management
Administration has come to be recognized as one of our most effective
and widely respected Federal Government agencies. It has helped tens of
thousands of our fellow citizens devastated by natural disasters, such
as floods, fires, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes and blizzards. But
if we transfer FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security, we run the
risk of undermining the mission and the effectiveness of the one
agency, I should not say the one, but one of the few agencies of this
government that touches the lives of Americans daily, that works
effectively and smoothly and responds to the needs of American citizens
where they are when disaster strikes.
Over the past several years, FEMA has responded to four federally
declared disasters emerging from terrorism: the World Trade Center, the
Pentagon, the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, and the attack on
the World Trade Center in 1993, effectively, efficiently. Its response
was never diminished by its independent status and was, in fact,
enhanced by that status.
Since 1976, FEMA has responded to 927 federally declared disasters
and 77 emergency declarations resulting from natural hazards, floods,
fire, hurricane, earthquake and tornado, responding effectively,
helping Americans devastated, and, in the process, earning the respect
and admiration of the Congress, of State and local officials, and other
nations who have come to study our system to see how it works and try
to emulate it.
The former director of FEMA, James Lee Witt, who elevated the
effectiveness of FEMA to this highly respected, efficient status that
we all admire today, said that its effectiveness was directly dependent
upon its ability to stay out of the large bureaucratic morass of
Washington agencies and allowed it ``to effectively coordinate the
resources of 26 Federal agencies following disaster events.'' James Lee
Witt said the plan to move FEMA to the new Department ``would be a
mistake.''
I concur.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) opposed to the
amendment?
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks).
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment, in spite of my high respect for the author of the amendment.
I agree with the gentleman on the support for FEMA and on his support
for James Lee Witt, who is a good friend of mine. In fact, I talk to
James Lee on a regular basis. I was with James on a number of those
disasters, at the Murrah Building bombing, Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane
Hugo, the Wildlands fires in California and Colorado, Loma Prieta,
Northridge, and I was with Joe Allbaugh up at the World Trade Center in
1993.
Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, and I want all of my colleagues to
listen, because 360 have joined with me and with my colleague, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), in joining the Fire Caucus; and
when you signed up to join the Fire Caucus, you made a commitment to
your firefighters that you would work with them, that you would listen
to them, because each of you in your districts have hundreds of
firefighters, both paid and volunteer, who are the backbone of FEMA.
Eighty-five percent of them are volunteer.
Mr. Chairman, what did those firefighters say about this amendment?
What are the fire fighting organizations saying? Let me read it into
the Record, Mr. Chairman. Your constituents, when you belong to the
Fire Caucus, and all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who
belong better listen, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the
International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Society
of Fire Service Instructors, the International Fire Service Training
Association, the National Fire Protection Association, the National
Volunteer Fire Council, the North American Fire Training Directors, are
all unanimous. 1.2 million men and women in this country from 32,000
departments have said on the record, their first recommendation on
their position paper for the Office of Homeland Security is the Federal
Emergency Management Agency must be at the core of the Department of
Homeland Security.

So if you are a Member of the Fire Caucus and you support this
amendment, you are slapping your firefighters across the face like they
do not matter. I am going to remind them. So I encourage my colleagues
to vote against this amendment and support the firefighters, including
the memory of my good friend Ray Downing.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the gentleman's enthusiasm, I do not
think

[[Page H5685]]

that that is a fair characterization of our amendment. It is not a slap
in the face to firefighters. Our amendment is not a slap in the face to
firefighters, with all due respect to the gentleman.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Every fire organization opposes this
amendment. Every one.

{time} 2230

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, it is an overcharacterization, to use the
gentleman's language.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Costello).
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by myself, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). This amendment will retain the
independence of the Federal Emergency Management Agency rather than
incorporate it within the Department of Homeland Security.
In the past 20-plus years, FEMA has become one of the best government
agencies with responsibility for responding to, planning for,
recovering from, and mitigating against disasters. FEMA currently
coordinates the response activities of more than 25 Federal agencies
and numerous nongovernmental groups with more than 2,500 full-time
employees and over 5,000 standby disaster reservists.
The traditional role of FEMA includes advising on building codes and
floodplain management; teaching people how to get through a disaster,
helping equip local and State emergency preparedness; coordinating the
Federal response to a disaster; and the list goes on and on, Mr.
Chairman. These core responsibilities are unrelated to homeland
security, but are of the utmost importance to our Nation.
Our amendment today will guarantee that FEMA will continue to focus
on these tasks to prepare our Nation for disasters. Under our
amendment, FEMA will remain independent and will not be absorbed into a
large bureaucracy, a bureaucracy with no experience addressing these
issues. Without the continuation of FEMA's independent coordinating
role, we cannot ensure that the government will be able to effectively
respond to and recover from disasters.
Mr. Chairman, FEMA has responded, as the ranking member, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), has indicated, to over 1,000
federally declared disasters and emergency declarations. They have done
the job very well. I believe that they need to maintain their
independence in order for us to continue with this agency that has been
very effective. The agency will be more effective, both in its homeland
security role and its national preparedness role, as an independent
agency.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this
amendment.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment for two reasons. Number one,
FEMA is central to the success of a Department of Homeland Security
because it is the critical link to emergency responders.
Secondly, I oppose this amendment because FEMA will be stronger and
in a better position to help natural disasters as a part of the
Department of Homeland Security rather than out on its own as some
independent agency.
Now, emergency responders are the central element of homeland
security, not just in responding after something happens, but in
preventing things from happening. Through this FEMA structure and its
10 regional offices already established across the country, with its
relationships it already has with State and local folks, information
that comes into the Federal Government can be disseminated quickly to
the folks on the ground who need to know it and, therefore, they can
help, better help prevent terrorism. And, at the same time, if they
have information that they think we need to know in Washington, they
have that channel of communication that they can use to come back up
the other way.
FEMA is going to be the way we provide grants and training and
information and planning to emergency responders. That is why it must
be in this Department and it is central to our efforts to be
successful.
But as we prepare to be better equipped to deal with terrorism, we
are also better equipped to deal with tornadoes and hurricanes and
floods and the things that FEMA has grown to do very well. If we go to
the site of a disaster after it happens, it is pretty hard to tell the
difference between whether it is a terrorist event or a flood. FEMA can
do both well, as it is strengthened with the resources and with the
relationships and as that critical channel of communication in the
Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This
amendment will weaken the Department and weaken our security.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time. I had an amendment which I submitted which is just about
identical to this amendment, so I rise tonight in very strong support
for the Oberstar-Costello-Roemer amendment to maintain the independence
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
FEMA's primary mission is to provide assistance after natural
disasters. It is recognized throughout the country as the premium
agency that people can depend upon. It has helped all sorts of disaster
victims. It has helped certainly an entire island in my State when a
hurricane hit there about 10 years ago. It not only responds to the
disaster, but it helps people replace their home, repair damaged
conditions, and it brings comfort and solace to the individuals who are
devastated. FEMA is an entirely unique agency and to put it into this
very large homeland security agency which has an entirely different
mission would completely subsume the efficiency, purpose, and mission
of FEMA.
So I hope that this House will support this amendment to keep FEMA
and the integrity of this operation outside the Department. It can
coordinate activities with the new Department, but leave FEMA as an
independent agency.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
This is a critical issue that we are debating tonight, this very
amendment. I chair the Subcommittee on National Security that has
oversight of FEMA, and we have oversight of terrorism at home and
abroad. This is the central proposal of the Hart-Rudman, to keep FEMA
as part of the homeland security. Preparedness, risk management,
consequence management, emergency responders, it is the critical link
to State and local responders.
I never figured out why a natural disaster, be it fire, chemical,
biological, is any different than a man-made disaster, be it chemical,
biological, or nuclear. The bottom line to me is we need to keep this
as the central core of homeland security.
We have an amendment that I think will take some of the concerns of
the author of this amendment, the Young amendment that should follow,
and I think that is a happy compromise and will deal with the concerns
of the ongoing FEMA responsibilities to continue. But the bottom line
is this is the critical link to the responders, the State, and local
responders. We need to keep FEMA part of the homeland security office.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
In response to the gentleman from Pennsylvania who spoke a moment ago
and talked about the support of local fire departments, they all ought
to be reminded of the headline in the Washington Post saying, ``FEMA's
Influence May Be Cut Under New Department. The influence of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency may become severely diminished as Congress
crafts legislation to create the new department.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H5686]]

Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, just a comment. I chair the
Subcommittee on Science which has oversight of the U.S. Fire
Administration and the first responders.
The fact is that we need the experience of FEMA in this new
Department of Homeland Security. I understand the arguments that it
would be nice to keep them separate, but the fact is they are the most
experienced body. They have the tools, they have the equipment, they
have the experience. I think we are not going to diminish what they are
doing now, but we are probably going to expand the capabilities of what
they do in responding to natural disasters.
The next amendment, I think, makes it clear that we have to keep FEMA
together in this new Department of national security, and I trust that
the gentleman making this first amendment is going to support that
amendment, but I would say to my colleagues, vote against this
amendment.
The fact is, the Fire Administration, the fire responders, the first
responders believe that it is important that they stay in FEMA and that
FEMA be part of this new homeland security.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the Brookings Institution studied this proposal for a
Department of Homeland Security and reached the same conclusion as
former FEMA Director James Lee Witt with this observation:
``There is very little day-to-day synergy between the preventive and
protective functions of the border and transportation security entities
in the Department and the emergency preparedness and response functions
a consolidated FEMA contributes. There is, therefore, little to be
gained in bringing these very different entities under the same
organizational roof. And the costs are not insignificant.
``FEMA,'' the report says, ``would likely become less effective in
performing its current mission in case of natural disasters, as time,
effort, and attention are inevitably diverted to other tasks within the
larger organization.''
Prior to the time when we enacted the Stafford Act which statutorily
established FEMA in 1979, after we had shed its disaster, civil defense
role, the Federal Government had had no coordinated or effective
response to natural disasters, but FEMA became that response agency.
Now, if we move this really effective agency into a big bureaucracy,
we know what happens. We all know in this Chamber what happens when a
small agency gets into a big department and the big appetite for more
money to be shuffled around with fungible dollars that can go from one
agency to the next and suddenly, FEMA's will just dissipate and fritter
away.
Mr. Chairman, I am in the enviable position of rising in support of
the unanimous position of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure in reporting out our responsibilities toward homeland
security, and that is the committee reported out recommendation to keep
FEMA as an independent agency.
All right. This is July 2002. Let us fast forward to July 2003. The
majority has prevailed. FEMA is a box in the mammoth bureaucracy of the
Department of Homeland Security. Flood waters are swirling around your
city. You call for help. You get the Department of Homeland Security.
The switchboard sends your call to the Under Secretary's office which
looks up ``disaster'' on their organizational chart and sends you to
the Congressional Liaison Office, which then promises to get a message
back to you in 24 hours. Eventually, they find FEMA, by which time you
are stranded on the roof of your house waving a white handkerchief and
screaming for help. FEMA, the word comes back, sorry, is looking for
suspected terrorists some place in the hinterland of America and will
get back to you as soon as we can.
This Department of Homeland Security is a bureaucracy in search of a
mission. Do not give them FEMA's mission. It is too important to waste
on this misguided department. There is that old barnyard saying, ``if
it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' FEMA ain't broke. Don't fix it by
ruining it and sending it into the Department of Homeland Security. It
is nimble, quick, lean, effective as an independent agency today. Keep
it that way. Help your city, help your State, help yourself, help your
firefighter by keeping FEMA as an independent agency where it belongs
and has been effective.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

{time} 2245

Mr. Chairman, there must be a reason why every firefighter
organization in America has asked that FEMA be included in the
Department of Homeland Defense, not only all the firefighters in this
great land and all their organizations, but a dozen other professional
emergency service organizations. Why is that? I think the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi) gives us some insight into why that would
be the case. Throughout all of the hearings we held, throughout that
long day of the markup, the gentlewoman from California said repeatedly
locality, locality, locality.
When America is safe in our communities, America is safe. We know, we
understand, we all intuitively grasp at some level and it is grasped at
the most pain any acute level of understanding by the firefighters of
America that this new threat we face, this insidious infliction that
could be visited, yes, on my community or your community.
Mr. Chairman, our firefighters know that this requires us to have a
relationship with the Federal Government unlike we have had before, and
when someone is in the local community and they think of the
catastrophe that might come, be it a flood, a vicious storm or a
vicious attack from somebody who hates our way of life, the local
community is most comfortable with the agency they know, FEMA; FEMA
with whom they share training, FEMA whom they know by name, FEMA whom
they have seen in action before. When the crisis strikes, they want
that familiar face.
Members might say if their singular concern is the well-being of FEMA
as an institution and organization in Federal Government, it is better
to keep it out here alone on its pedestal. One might say that if one
was willing to betray FEMA because FEMA sees itself as the Federal
force for comfort repair in every community in America and FEMA wants
to be there. And this Congress should honor FEMA by putting them where
they are needed most.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar)
will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House
Report 107-615.

amendment no. 2 offered by mr. young of alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Young of Alaska:
Strike section 402(5) of the bill (and redesignate
subsequent paragraphs accordingly).
In section 502(1) of the bill, strike ``Except as provided
in section 402, the'' and insert ``The''.
At the end of title 5 of the bill, add the following (and
conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly):

SEC. 506. ROLE OF FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[[Page H5687]]

and recover from any hazard by planning, training, and
exercising;
(C) of response, by conducting emergency operations to save
lives and property through positioning emergency equipment
and supplies, through evacuating potential victims, through
providing food, water, shelter, and medical case to those in
need, and through restoring critical public services;
(D) of recovery, by rebuilding communities so individuals,
businesses, and governments can function on their own, return
to normal life, and protect against future hazards; and
(E) of increased efficiencies, by coordinating efforts
relating to preparedness and response activities to maximize
efficiencies.
(b) Federal Response Plan.--
(1) Role of fema.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall
remain the lead agency for the Federal Response Plan
established under Executive Order 12148 (44 Fed. Reg. 43239)
and Executive Order 12656 (53 Fed. Reg. 47491).
(2) Revision of response plan.--Not later than 60 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency shall revise the Federal
Response Plan to reflect the establishment of and incorporate
the Department.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 502, the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, who is going to have the time in
opposition?
The CHAIRMAN. Who takes the time in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) will be
recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I can only agree with what has been said about FEMA. And if I thought
for a moment that homeland security would not become a reality, I would
be supporting the gentleman from Minnesota's (Mr. Oberstar) amendment.
But I am also a very practical individual who believes that if we are
going to have homeland security and FEMA is in it, it ought to be an
entity as one unit. I frankly do not know how this got into the
committee's markup because what it does is weaken FEMA.
It actually, I believe, is a turf war, and I think that is very
unfortunate because at the very beginning when President Bush asked for
Homeland Security, I told him personally that my opposition to the
proposal was not a turf war, it was how it was going to be constructed.
I will give the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) credit and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) credit for, in fact, answering
most of my questions on the Coast Guard, and I thank them for that
because it is the right thing to do.
I do think it was wrong thing to do to divide FEMA. I believe FEMA
should stay intact as an entity so it can do the job people expect it
to do, so it can do the job it has done and will continue to do the job
under the Homeland Security bill. A lot has been said here about the
importance of FEMA responding, and as all of my colleagues know it, in
the New York tragedy that happened with the terrorists, FEMA was on the
frontlines and did an outstanding job. So I compliment FEMA for that.
Much has been said about who supports and who does not support. I can
say that I have found no one that opposes my amendment other than the
Committee on the Judiciary. The firefighters support my amendment, as
they should. The FEMA people themselves support my amendment as an
entity. This was not the President's suggestion. This, in fact, was the
ad hoc committee's suggestion.
I think in retrospect, as they look at it, maybe there was a slight
mistake made, not intentionally, but because someone else asked for it
and did not understand the ratification of it. So I am asking my
colleagues tonight and hopefully in the vote tomorrow that if the
gentleman from Minnesota's (Mr. Oberstar) amendment fails to at least
accept the idea of keeping FEMA as an entity, because if that was not
to happen, I think we would lose the total effectiveness of FEMA as a
respondent, as we mentioned, to earthquakes and terrorists attacks, et
cetera.
So I again ask my colleagues to support this amendment and make sure
that we have an agency that can do the job correctly under the
Secretary of Homeland Security.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. And I do so
again in support of the unanimous position of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, a wisely reported measure that would
keep FEMA as an independent agency.
The plan of the Select Committee would chop off one entity of FEMA
and send it to another sector, another box within the Department of
Homeland Security, and keep the body of FEMA intact in another box.
That does not make any sense at all.
That does not make any sense at all. That is why we wanted to keep
the agency together.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Smith).
(Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me time.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. I support the separation of
the Office of National Preparedness from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, FEMA. This was recommended by the Committee on the
Judiciary in its views on H.R. 5005.
Mr. Chairman, FEMA has an important role to play when a natural
disaster occurs. Its core mission is to provide assistance to States
and local officials. In sharp contrast to FEMA's natural disaster
mission, the stated function of the Offices of National Preparedness,
ONP, currently within FEMA, is to respond to terrorist attacks. This
office is similar to the Department of Justice's Offices of Domestic
Preparedness, and yet both programs train State and local first
responders for such events.
Merging the Office of National Preparedness with the Office of
Domestic Preparedness will ensure the Federal coordination of State and
local first responders. It ensures that they both receive law
enforcement crisis management training and consequence management
training.
As James Witt, the former director of FEMA stated, ``FEMA has become
a model agency by focusing on its prime mission: Responding to
disasters and trying to reduce their impact in the future.''
Mr. Chairman, this mission is inconsistent with the purpose of ONP,
which is described by Bruce Baughman, director of ONP at FEMA, in a
January 30, 2002 letter, is to oversee ``consequence management and the
impacts as a result of a Weapons of Mass Destruction--terrorist
incident.''
Thus, ONP should be kept with the other training programs under the
Under Secretary of the Border and Transportation Security and outside
of FEMA.
Mr. Chairman, I have a dear colleague letter which I will include in
the Record.
Washington, DC, July 25, 2002.

Oppose the Young (AK) Amendment To Move the Office of National
Preparedness Back to FEMA

Dear Colleague: In the event of a terrorist attack, it is
essential that there be a single office within the federal
government to coordinate state and local first responders.
This office must assure coordination in training, equipment
selection, acquisition, and use by first responders in both
crisis management and consequence management. Crisis
management is a primarily law-enforcement function, it
involves intelligence, surveillance, tactical operations,
negotiations, forensics, and criminal investigations, arrest,
evidence collection and prosecutions. First responders
include law enforcement, fire fighters and other emergency
responders, who must be trained together to assure a
coordinated response.
FEMA, however, has stated that it will NOT provide training
and equipment needs to first responders for law enforcement's
crisis management functions. But a terrorist attack is a
Federal crime and a crisis event. Such an event requires a
law enforcement response different from a response to a
natural disaster.
In sharp contrast to FEMA's natural disaster mission, the
reason for the creation of FEMA's Office of National
Preparedness (ONP) was to coordinate consequence management
and limit the impact as a result of a weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) incident. ONP's mission fits more
appropriately with the other first responder programs.
The Select Committee's bill merging the Office of National
Preparedness with the Office of Domestic Preparedness
reporting to

[[Page H5688]]

the Under Secretary of Border and Transportation Security in
essential to assuring the required federal coordination of
state and local first responders, and assuring that they
receive both law enforcement/crisis management training and
consequence management training.
Mr. Young will offer an amendment to return the Office of
National Preparedness to FEMA. Such a move would effectively
gut any hope for a coordinated federal effort in this vital
mission. Lack of coordination will cost lives. The attached
article from last week's New York Times vividly highlights
this point and points out that the lack of a coordinated
response by state and local law enforcement and firefighters
likely caused additional avoidable casualties on September
11. We must make sure that any future terrorist threats are
addressed with a coordinated response, managed by a single
office in the new Department of Homeland Security.
Moreover, such an office must be housed within the Under
Secretary line of authority which has the needed law
enforcement components, expertise and resources to assure
that the crisis management component is given its proper
emphasis. That is accomplished by the Select Committee's
bill.
As former FEMA Director James Lee Witt stated ``A
Department of Homeland Security that has a focused mission
and does not include a patchwork of unrelated programs will
have a much greater chance at success. A successful
Department of Homeland Security will ensure that horrible
events, such as the WTC attacks, continue to be extremely
rare occurrences and much less common than the hundreds of
floods, tornados, and hurricanes that affect our nation each
year.''
Many believe that the Office of National Preparedness has
already distracted FEMA from its primary mission and created
a imbalanced focus for an agency which generally responds to
natural disasters. For a future terrorist attack we need a
single office for a coordinated response. ONP should not go
back to FEMA. Oppose the Young amendment.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary.
John Conyers, Jr.,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary.
Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime Terrorism and Homeland
Security.
Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on International Relations.
Saxby Chambliss,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security
of the House Intelligence Committee.
Robert C. Scott,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime Terrorism and
Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, this dear colleague letter was sent out a few days ago
in opposition to the Young amendment to move the Office of National
Preparedness back to FEMA. I would like to read the signatures on this
letter, Mr. James Sensenbrenner, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary;
John Conyers, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary; it is signed
by me, Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland
Security; Henry Hyde, Chairman, Committee on International Relations;
Saxby Chambliss, Chairman, Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland
Security of the House Intelligence Committee; and Robert C. Scott,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.
H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act as reported by the Select
Committee, has put FEMA in the Emergency Response division under the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and placed FEMA's Office of
National Prepareness (ONP) in the Border Security division with the
other offices that train first responders. This structure is essential
to ensure that the Department maintains its focus on prevention of
terrorist acts.
Critically, the Border Security Division will assume responsibility
over several different offices that administer training to all state
and local responders, including offices, fire fighters, and other
emergency responders. These offices were previously housed at the
Department of Justice and FEMA.
Their new location in DHS will provide an integrated program, with
the requisite expertise, to lead a comprehensive and coordinated effort
to train our first responders, including law enforcement and
consequence management training for a terrorist threat or attack.
Federal law enforcement authorities notify first responders of
threats and the first responders must have crisis management training
and equipment to respond appropriately. For instance, they must be
trained in detection and disruption skills, which are law enforcement
skills. They will need fundamental law enforcement training to detect
or collect evidence that will help prevent a future or halt an ongoing
attack.
All first responders need these skills--including fire fighters and
other emergency providers. Such skills will save lives. Such skills
will help first responders prevent secondary attacks.
This is why the Office of National Preparedness (ONP) must be placed
in the Border Security Division with the Office of Domestic
Prepareness, and the National Domestic Prepareness Office training
programs. Together, these programs will ensure a coodinated effort to
provide first responders with the necessary law enforcement training as
well as consequence management training.
This structure will create ``one-stop shopping'' that provides all
the necessary training and assistance to state and local responders.
``One-stop shopping'' will not exist if ONP is placed back into FEMA
because as Director Allbaugh stated in a March 13, 2002 letter to the
Judiciary Committee, FEMA will not provide law enforcement training.
Separating ONP from FEMA will not create duplication and
fragmentation of federal assistance programs. In fact, it will
eliminate such redundancy. Placing ONP back into FEMA will guarantee an
inconsistent uncoordinated program where some first responders receive
only consequence or clean up training and other responders will receive
both crisis and consequence training.
Furthermore, placing ONP with the other training programs outside of
FEMA will in no way harm its relationship with the U.S. Fire
Administration (USFA). USFA assists ONP to organize training, planning
and exercises for emergency responders. It will continue to do so
regardless of ONP's location. Currently, the USFA assists the
Department of Justice in their training, planning and exercises for
emergency responders and no one has suggested that the USFA should be
moved over to Justice.
ONP does not belong in FEMA. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Young
Amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if I can remind my good friend
from Texas, they all came from the Committee on the Judiciary that
signed that letter.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
LaTourette), chairman of a very, very important subcommittee under the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that handles FEMA.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to preface my statement by making clear that I
support our first responders and the vital worth they do in protecting
our citizens.
I also want to indicate my tremendous respect for the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith) and the fine work he does for Congress and in the
Committee on the Judiciary. But I am sad. I am sad because when we were
dealing with the supplementary appropriations bill in this Congress,
there is a turf battle that has developed. A turf battle that the
President of the United States said we should not be having as we
establish a Department of Homeland Security.
And the Committee on Judiciary sadly continues to come before the
Members of our body and say they want to keep a program that the
President of the United States says he wants to abolish, has defunded
in the budget he sent here in February, and we have a fight over $175
million. And who is better to distribute that money to the first
responders across America?
Is it a department within the Department of Justice or is it FEMA?
The Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs is continuing to
fund duplicative and overlapping programs. Our subcommittee has held
numerous hearings on preparedness and response. The GAO has issued
several reports on the issue. The subcommittee's findings and
independent studies are consistent in their message to the Congress, we
must stop spending money on duplicative and overlapping programs.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully respect every member of the Committee on
the Judiciary, but they are wrong. The gentleman from Alaska (Chairman
Young) is right and we need to support his amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The amendment offered by the chairman of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure is well-intentioned. In true sea
captain fashion, he

[[Page H5689]]

is trying to repair the ship that has got a leak in the hull, and the
leak in the hull is this scheme of taking an effective, functioning,
useful agency that delivers goods, puncturing a hole in it and sending
it over to the Department of Homeland Security where it serves no
useful purpose to that department.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), an outstanding supporter of the
firefighters of America to speak on my amendment.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, we are here tonight, I
hope, to help the people who are our first responders. We were not here
to help Brookings Institution. We are not here to help The Washington
Post. We are not here to help the members of the Committee on the
Judiciary. They are not out fighting fires. They are not out there
dealing with disasters. They were not at the World Trade Center.
The first responders of this country have spoken. All of their
national associations met, and the date of this document, which I will
insert in the record, this document is their combined position paper on
the creation of the Office of Homeland Security. It is not me. It is
every firearm service organization. Do we not respect them? Do you
belong to the fire caucus? Are you listening to your firefighters? Your
paid firefighters, your volunteers, your chiefs, because they thought
this through. And what is their first recommendation?
The Federal Emergency Management Agency which is tasked with
emergency preparedness and response missions must be at the core of the
Department of Homeland Security.
Now, I do not care what the Committee on the Judiciary says. My
friend from Texas (Mr. Smith) the Committee on the Judiciary, says this
should be separate. Well, he ought to go back and talk to the
firefighters in Texas because they do not want that. The fire service
of this country, including all of those firefighters from Texas want
the Office of Homeland Security to control FEMA and as a part of FEMA
they want the U.S. fire administration.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe we are having this debate because this
is not about a bunch of bureaucrats or politicians in Washington who
are going to leave here and go respond to disasters. This is about the
people who we are going to call upon and they have told us what they
want in black and white.

{time} 2300

I will say it again, if we ignore what they want, I do not know what
else we call it if it is not a slap across the face. It is a punch in
the mouth because it is clearly stated what they want, and what we are
saying is we do not care what you want. We do not care what you say. We
do not care what you ask for. We do not care that you are the fire
chief. We do not care that you are the firefighters. We are going to
tell you from Washington inside the Beltway that we know better than
you do because Brookings Institution told us how to organize this
Department.
Vote for the firefighters. Vote for this amendment, and vote down the
Oberstar amendment.

Fire Service Position Paper on the Proposed Department of Homeland
Security

Overview
The American fire and emergency service was very encouraged
when the President proposed the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security, especially since it has long advocated the
need for a central point-of-contact for terrorism
preparedness. Much has changed in the post-September 11th
world, but one thing has remained constant: America's fire
service must have the adequate personnel, training, and
equipment to respond to future emergency incidents, including
terrorist attacks, hazardous materials and emergency medical
services incidents, technical rescues and fires. These, plus
many other challenges, are what makes the fire service
America's all-hazards first responders.
In developing a new department, Congress and the
administration must consider a number of crucial issues or
the department will fall short of meeting its desired intent:
1. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is tasked
with emergency preparedness and response missions, must be at
the core of the Department of Homeland Security. This guiding
principle must manifest itself during the planning and
development of a new department. To achieve this end, it is
imperative that the fire and emergency service has
significant representation at the table throughout the entire
planning process.
2. The definition of a ``first responder'' must be clearly
articulated from the onset, placing heavy emphasis on
response times and exposure to risks. First responders are
fire and rescue, emergency medical services and law
enforcement personnel. This definition will determine to a
large extent the distribution of federal funds to local,
state and federal response agencies. To this end, it is
imperative that funding for training and equipment reach the
local level where it is needed most. Moreover, existing
federal programs benefiting local first responders must be
preserved. Of particular importance to the fire service is
the Assistance to Firefighters grant program, authorized at
$900 million for fiscal year 2003. Congress needs to fully
fund this program to bring all fire departments up to a
baseline level of readiness and keep them there. Furthermore,
fire departments should be able to apply these funds to all
uses contained in the enabling legislation, including
initiatives to hire career firefighters and to recruit and
retain volunteer firefighters. Any new grant programs
addressing terrorism must be inclusive of all first
responders and authorized to deliver at least 90 percent of
all funds to local public safety agencies.
3. Local first responders are this nation's primary defense
against terrorism. Without sufficient staffing and training,
the risk of injury or death increases dramatically. This is
why fire departments--both volunteer and career--must have
adequate staffing levels and continuous training. Training
must consist of existing national programs that utilize first
responders to train first responders, and take full advantage
of state and regional training centers. Moreover, training
and equipment must conform to nationally-recognized voluntary
consensus standards where such standards exist.
4. The tragic events of September 11th have again
demonstrated the importance of communications to public
safety. This issue, itself, is not limited to on-scene
communications, but encompasses a wide variety of needs
including: access to intelligence data on possible terrorist
threats/attacks, additional spectrum for interoperability of
radio systems, and new technologies that can track the
positions of firefighters inside buildings.
These are some important components of the blueprint for a
Department of Homeland Security. We ask for both Congress and
the administration to give these concerns their every
consideration as they lay the groundwork for a new federal
agency. Firefighters have long recognized their role in
protecting our nation against threats of all magnitude and
will continue to serve on the front lines against future
attacks. No matter what the final configuration of the
complete national response plan to terrorism, the fire
service and other first responders will always be first to
arrive at the scene. They must be properly staffed, trained,
and equipped in order to make a positive difference at the
``moment of truth.'' It is imperative that they be given the
recognition and support needed to enhance their level of
readiness and decrease their exposure to risks.
Priorities

assistance to firefighters grant program

The Assistance to Firefighters grant program, commonly
referred to as the FIRE Act program, is a model of
efficiency. This can be attributed to the fact that it is a
competitive grant program that provides direct support to
local fire departments for basic fire fighting needs. Another
important element of this grant program is that applications
are peer-reviewed by fire service experts and grants are made
on the basis of needs. Full community participation is
assured by the matching grant requirement.
It is crucial that the Assistance to Firefighters grant
program remains separate and distinct from any new funding
programs for first responders and that it be fully funded to
the amounts authorized by law. This is because local fire and
emergency services departments are the only organizations
deployed for the purpose of saving lives and mitigating
property and environmental damage caused by natural or
manmade disasters. They are strategically located throughout
America and staffed, trained and equipped to arrive on the
scene within 4 to 6 minutes of notification of an incident.
It is only the local government level that Federal funds
intended for first responders can be assured of being
utilized for the purposes intended. Furthermore, fire
departments should be able to apply these funds to all uses
contained in the enabling legislation, including initiatives
to hire career firefighters and to recruit and retain
volunteer firefighters.
Providing support for the basics of fire fighting enhances
all fire department responsibilities, including terrorism
response. The history of the program to date: Authorized at
$900 million through fiscal year 2004, Funded at $100 million
for fiscal year 2001 and $360 million for fiscal year 2002,
Almost 20,000 departments (of a total of 26,350) sought
funding in each of the first 2 years in amounts approaching
$3 billion each year.

first responder grant program

America's fire and emergency service stands strongly in
support of the proposed

[[Page H5690]]

$3.5 billion first responder grant program. The program is
uniquely positioned to promote desperately needed
coordination between neighboring jurisdictions and various
first response agencies. To ensure that the money is wisely
spent, several principles should be included in the program.
First, at least 90 percent of the money must reach the
local level. The funding should go through the States, but it
should not stop there. While terrorism is an attack upon our
Nation, every terrorist attack is first an attack upon a
local community. The ability of our Nation to effectively
combat terrorism is therefore inextricably intertwined with
the ability of our local communities to respond to such
attacks. Thus, a paramount job of the Federal Government is
to provide adequate resources to local emergency response
operations.
Secondly, the State agencies that distribute this funding
must include all first responder interests in the decision
making process. Too often the fire service is left out of
discussions at the State level. This overnight must be
corrected.
Thirdly, the States must expedite the funding to local
governments. States are already undertaking needs assessments
for terrorism preparedness, so within a limited amount of
time the funding should be distributed to local governments.
Finally, if a match from State and local governments is
part of the requirement for receiving Federal funds, then
State and local in-kind contributions should meet, in full,
that requirement.

weapons of mass destruction (wmd) training

The current WMD fire fighter training program operated by
the Office of Domestic Preparedness in the U.S. Department of
Justice must be retained and strengthened. The organizations
that currently provide specialized WMD training under this
program posses invaluable expertise and experience, which
should be preserved under any plan to reorganize federal
training programs. It is important to utilize existing and
established programs to ensure the right training reaches the
right people.

standardization of equipment

The InterAgency Board for Equipment Standardization and
InterOperability (IAB) is designed to establish and
coordinate local, state, and federal standardization,
interoperability, and responder safety to prepare for,
respond to, mitigate, and recover from any incident by
identifying requirements for chemical, biological,
radiological, nuclear or explosives incident response
equipment. In addition to radio communication systems,
interoperability applies to a firefighter's protective gear
and rescue equipment. For instance, air cylinders of one
manufacturer of self contained breathing apparatus cannot be
interchanged with those from another. The purpose of the IAB
is to ensure standardized and compatible equipment for use by
emergency response personnel. The First Responder grant
program should require that the Standardized Equipment List
(SEL) prepared by the IAB be utilized for the purchase of
equipment made possible by the federal grant.

safecom

SAFECOM was formed as an e-government initiative with its
purpose to improve wireless radio communications among and
between federal agencies. Recently, the scope of SAFECOM was
expanded to include state and local government and the lead
agency was changed to FEMA. Since this is the primary federal
initiative to improve wireless radio communications and
interoperability for local fire and emergency medical
services departments it is essential for the fire service to
have representation on advisory committees to SAFECOM. Local
public safety first responders must have appropriate input to
federal SAFECOM decision makers.
Conclusion
Future events will require continuous review and evaluation
of all federal programs designed to mitigate the potential
impact of terrorist attacks and other major disasters. In
highlighting the primary theme of this report, it is
imperative that those agencies at the local level--
specifically the fire and emergency services, emergency
medical services and law enforcement--serve a primary role in
the development of all federal initiatives dealing with
national homeland security initiatives.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
I love the enthusiasm of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Chairman. He can get fired up and enthusiastic, but let me make it
clear to this body that the gentleman from Pennsylvania does not speak
alone for firefighters across America. They have been misguided. I do
not know who wrote their position paper for them, but it is clear that
the firefighters that I have talked to in my district have said we did
not think this is a particularly good idea.
FEMA works well now. What is going to happen to the Office of Fire
Training and the small grants for small communities when this effective
agency is swallowed up into the guts of a huge bureaucracy of 170,000
people? And for all the enthusiasm of my good friend, and I admire this
gentleman and we have worked together on a number of matters, for all
his enthusiasm, Mr. Chairman, I warrant we will be back here a year
from now when the gentleman from Pennsylvania and others who might be
so misguided as to vote for keeping the position of the Select
Committee on Homeland Security, be back here saying, what has happened
to the money? We need more funds for FEMA; we need more funds for
firefighting. It is being swallowed up by the Department; these dollars
have been shifted around.
Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania have a firewall to protect the
funds for FEMA from being swallowed up into some other part of the
Department of Homeland Security? Not on my colleague's life. It is not
part of this bill. There is no way to protect FEMA from the
overarching, swarming arms of the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar) is still arguing his first amendment maybe. If we break
off part of FEMA and that part of FEMA gets the $3.5 billion that we
are talking about for additional training, then we move the whole U.S.
fire administration away and we move the rest of FEMA away from that
kind of decision.
I support the Young amendment, which would ensure that the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's Office of National Preparedness is not
broken off from the rest of FEMA and does not become part of the Under
Secretary for Border Transportation and Security, but that it remains
with FEMA, with the rest of FEMA as part of the Under Secretary for
Emergency Preparedness and Response.
I think we all agree that emergency preparedness response activities
will provide a critical role in the new Department of Homeland Security
and has properly been selected as one of the four primary functions of
the Department. I am chairman of the Committee on Science, Subcommittee
on Research, and a Member that is actively involved in the first
responder activities overseeing the U.S. fire administration.
All of the fire organization first responders think that FEMA should
not be broken up, that the Young amendment should be passed; and I can
tell my colleagues that there is no better agency to lead in this
effort than FEMA. FEMA has the right personnel, the right resources and
considerable experience demonstrating their ability to lead.
For these reasons, I believe that it is extremely important that we
should protect and even expand FEMA's leadership role in this area.
Most important, in protecting this role is keeping FEMA responsible for
the $3.5 billion first responder grant initiative that the President
proposed in his budget this year.
This is what the Young amendment does; and Mr. Chairman, let me
emphasize that in the administrative policy that the President sent
over today, they support the Young amendment. Unfortunately, with some
political maneuvering from the Judiciary, it was mixed up in this, and
I think the whole body should support the Young amendment, keeping FEMA
together and keeping it active and keeping it organized and helping our
first responders.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair advise the time
remaining.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 5
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has the right
to close.

[[Page H5691]]

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
For the purpose of propounding a question to the chairman of our
distinguished committee, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from
Alaska if he has any information about plans of the administration, any
assurances in writing about the status of the first responder program
and the status of the firefighter grant program in the new Department
of Homeland Security?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the information I have, and again,
I do not have anything in writing, they have testified in favor of my
amendment, have written in favor of the amendment; and I think it is up
to the Congress and I talked to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Weldon) about it to make sure, as this new agency is created, we fund
FEMA in toto as it should be to carry forth its duties.
If the gentleman would further yield to me, what I am trying to do
here is, I told the gentleman, if I had my way, I would be supporting
the gentleman's amendment, as the committee did, but realistically, I
do not think that is possible. So I have to do what is best for FEMA
and that is keep it as an entity and not have it split up because that
would be a disaster, as the gentleman and I know. So that is really
what I am trying to do is put everything back together again. I think
it was inadvertently split apart
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to return
to a letter of the International Association of Firefighters that was
referenced in a previous debate on the floor to point out that the
association says the Fire Act, meaning the small community grant
program and the first responder proposal, serve different purposes and
one should not subsume the other. That is what is going to happen if we
swallow this agency, FEMA, up into this huge bureaucracy.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, we have a bill in the Committee
on Science, the Subcommittee on Research. This bill that I introduced
makes it very clear that the fire grant program is separate and
distinct and the U.S. Fire Administration is still going to continue to
administer that program separate from what might be broken off from
FEMA.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's bill, but it
is not part of the Homeland Security Department. It is not part of the
manager's amendment. It is not part of the legislation pending before
us, and it is sort of kind of a pig in a poke, is a promise in waiting,
is not a good service to the firefighters of this country.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would just remind my good
friend that it was not his committee that created the fire grant
program. It was this gentleman who brokered the fire grant program as
an addition to the defense authorization bill. It was not the
gentleman, it was not James Lee White who requested money for the
firefighters which the gentleman is now so desperately saying is going
to be taken away.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman's
enthusiasm is wonderful. No speaker, Mr. Chairman, has impugned the
gentleman's standing. In fact, I have praised the gentleman's
enthusiasm for the firefighters. In fact, I have been a most
enthusiastic supporter of FEMA, and then the gentleman's colleague, now
Secretary in waiting for the Department of Homeland Security, was a
member of this body when I held hearings on the proposal of the Reagan
administration to, in effect, dismantle FEMA, and we reestablished
FEMA. I asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Ridge, to be the
sponsor of the legislation so that we would have bipartisan support for
it.
I have worked diligently to establish FEMA, and I admire the work
that the gentleman from Pennsylvania in the well has done on the fire
grant program; and I do not want it to be swallowed up in some huge
bureaucracy and crossbred with some other program.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the
outstanding work the gentleman's done, and I would remind him, when I
first came to Congress, and the gentleman was in the majority, he had
dismantled the U.S. Fire Administration. He had put the fire academy
under the National Emergency Management Training Center so the
firefighters in this country were totally at a loss because he had
taken away everything that had stood for them.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman impugns
to me an action that I did not take. The gentleman impugns to me an
action that I did not take that was initiated by an administration and
an action that I was not in support of.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
I would like to just say a couple of small things about this. I hope
the gentleman from Minnesota understands what I am trying to do; I am
confident he does. I hope the rest of the committee understands that
FEMA separated, as proposed by the ad hoc committee, would be a
disaster. The President supports my position. I believe every member of
the committee other than the Committee on the Judiciary supports my
position, and I ask for a ``yes'' vote on this very important document.
Much has been said tonight about who supports the firefighters the
most. I will say the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is
outstanding in that arena, but I also say that the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) is also outstanding in that arena; and the
gentleman from Minnesota's (Mr. Oberstar) intent to keep FEMA outside
of the separate agency should be admired.
I do not think it is a reality, but in saying that, if it is not
outside, let us make it whole. Let us make it as one. Let us make it an
entity where we know where the money is going. Let us not make it an
entity that goes into another agency that has frankly misused their
dollars, has not used them correctly. In fact, the GAO says that, and I
think it has been raised up before that let us keep this agency intact,
let us make sure it works, let us make sure our constituents can be
responded to if there is a national disaster, man-made disasters, so we
have somebody to turn to and they have somebody to listen to and our
constituents are served.
That is all I am asking in this amendment. I urge a quick passage of
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution
502 and the order of the House of earlier today, I announce that the
amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), No. 3 in the
House Report 107-615, may be offered after consideration of the
amendment numbered 16. Because the committee will rise this evening
immediately after consideration of amendment No. 16, the gentleman from
California's (Mr. Waxman) amendment will be the first amendment in
order tomorrow morning.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed
in House Report 107-615.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Cox

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Cox:
In section 201(5), insert the following before the period
at the end: ``including, but not limited to, power
production, generation, and distribution systems, information
technology and telecommunications systems (including
satellites), electronic financial and property record storage
and transmission systems, emergency preparedness
communications systems, and the physical and

[[Page H5692]]

technological assets that support such systems''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 502, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment will specifically include cybersecurity as a function
of the Department of Homeland Security. The amendment is supported by
the Bush administration, and it was crafted with the assistance of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce; and, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
commend the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the
chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member, for their
work in putting together this provision.

{time} 2315

Just this week, the Committee on Government Reform received testimony
warning of the significant threat of attacks on our Nation's
information infrastructure. We learned how terrorists or hostile
foreign states are building the capability to launch computer attacks
on critical systems with the aim of severely damaging or disrupting
national defense and other critical operations.
While much of this information is necessarily secret, there is ample
open source information we can discuss on the floor this evening.
The Washington Post, in a recent page one story on cyberattacks
stated, ``Terrorists are at the threshold of using the Internet as a
direct instrument of bloodshed. The new threat bears little resemblance
to familiar financial disruptions by hackers responsible for viruses
and worms. It comes, instead, at the meeting points of computers and
the physical structures that they control. By disabling or taking
command of the floodgates in a dam, for example, or of substations
handling 300 volts of electric power, an intruder could use virtual
tools to destroy real world lives and property.''
The amendment that I am offering will make it clear that
responsibility for mounting a coordinated national effort at
cybersecurity rests with the Department of Homeland Security.
Specifically, it will designate the position of Under Secretary for
Informational Analysis and Infrastructure Protection as the individual
in the United States government who is specifically charged with
cybersecurity. It provides that the Under Secretary is responsible for
preventing and defeating computer attacks aimed at America's electric
power production, our electric power distribution, including power
grids, our information technology systems, both commercial and public
telecommunication systems, satellites, the banking system, electronic
commerce, and emergency preparedness systems, including our civil
defense network.
This amendment is needed for two reasons: First, while the base bill
gives the new Department of Homeland Security the responsibility of
protecting our Nation's critical infrastructure, this term is left
largely undefined. When it comes to our Nation's information technology
and communications infrastructure, we want there to be no mistake, no
ambiguity. This amendment clarifies that when we use the term
``infrastructure'' in this Act, we are talking about more than roads
and sewers.
By naming the specific threats we know that we face today, and by
carefully enumerating the major critical information systems we intend
to protect, we will be certain of consolidating both responsibility and
authority for this function in one person in the Department of Homeland
Security.
The second reason this amendment is needed is to ensure that the
Department of Homeland Security will work to protect not just the
government's, but the entire Nation's critical communications, power,
and information technology assets. As much as 90 percent of our
Nation's critical information technology infrastructure, such as
financial records, energy distribution, and communication systems are
privately owned and managed. Cybersecurity is, thus, an issue that goes
far beyond the Federal Government's own assets.
Last November, in testimony before the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce, former Representative Dave McCurdy, now the head of the
Internet Security Alliance, reported that the private sector is under
constant widespread and destructive cyberattack. He noted that over 80
percent of the Internet is owned and operated by the private sector.
Two years ago, the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute
documented more than 20,000 incidents of cyberattacks against private
U.S. firms. Last year, the following year, in 2001, that number of
cyberattacks nearly doubled.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim time in opposition to the
amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cox).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed
in House Report 107-615.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Israel

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Israel:
At the end of title III, insert the following new section:

SEC. 309. HOMELAND SECURITY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE.

(a) Establishment.--There is established within the
Department of a Homeland Security Science and Technology
Advisory Committee (in this section referred to as the
``Advisory Committee''). The Advisory Committee shall make
recommendations with respect to the activities of the Under
Secretary for Science and Technology, including identifying
research areas of potential importance to the security of the
Nation.
(b) Membership.--
(1) Appointment.--The Advisory Committee shall consist of
20 members appointed by the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology, which shall include emergency first-responders or
representatives of organizations or associations of emergency
first-responders. The Advisory Committee shall also include
representatives of citizen groups, including economically
disadvantaged communities. The individuals appointed as
members of the Advisory Committee--
(A) shall be eminent in fields such as emergency response,
research, engineering, new product development, business, and
management consulting;
(B) shall be selected solely on the basis of established
records of distinguished service;
(C) shall not be employees of the Federal Government; and
(D) shall be so selected as to provide representation of a
cross-section of the research, development, demonstration,
and deployment activities supported by the Under Secretary
for Science and Technology.
(2) National research council.--The Under Secretary for
Science and Technology may enter into an arrangement for the
National Research Council to select members of the Advisory
Committee, but only if the panel used by the National
Research Council reflects the representation described in
paragraph (1).
(c) Terms of Office.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the term of office of each member of the Advisory
Committee shall be 3 years.
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the term of office of each member of the Advisory
Committee shall be 3 years.
(2) Original appointment.--The original members of the
Advisory Committee shall be appointed to three classes of
three members each. One class shall have a term of one year,
one a term of two years, and the other a term of three years.
(3) Vacancies.--A member appointed to fill a vacancy
occurring before the expiration of the term for which the
member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the
remainder of such term.
(d) Eligibility.--A person who has completed two
consecutive full terms of service on the Advisory Committee
shall thereafter be ineligible for appointment during the
one-year period following the expiration of the second such
term.
(e) Meetings.--The Advisory Committee shall meet at least
quarterly at the call of the Chair or whenever one-third of
the members so request in writing. Each member shall be given
appropriate notice of the call of each meeting, whenever
possible not less than 15 days before the meeting.
(f) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Advisory
Committee not having a conflict of interest in the matter
being considered by the Advisory Committee shall constitute a
quorum.
(g) Conflict of Interest Rules.--The Advisory Committee
shall establish rules for determining when one of its members
has a conflict of interest in a matter being considered by
the Advisory Committee
(h) Reports.--
(1) Annual report.--The Advisory Committee shall render an
annual report to the Under Secretary of Science and
Technology

[[Page H5693]]

for transmittal to the Congress on or before January 31 of
each year. Such report shall describe the activities and
recommendations of the Advisory Committee during the previous
year.
(2) Additional reports.--The Advisory Committee may render
to the Under Secretary for transmittal to the Congress such
additional reports on specific policy matters as it considers
appropriate.
(i) FACA Exemption.--Section 14 of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act shall not apply to the Advisory Committee.
Amend the table of contents accordingly.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 502, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Israel) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we also share the desire to see that something like
September 11 never happens again. As a Member would whose district lies
about 40 miles from what we now call ``Ground Zero,'' the consideration
of the Homeland Security Act holds a very special importance for me. My
district lost over 100 people on that tragic day.
One of the great pleasures of serving on the Committee on Science
with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of that
committee, is the bipartisan manner in which he has guided the
committee. I take pride, as I am sure he does, that legislation
produced in the Committee on Science bears the input and the
collaboration of all of its members. This was true when we debated
those areas of the Homeland Security Act that fell in the purview of
the committee and passed an amendment to create an advisory committee
of the first responders, specifically in the Office of Science and
Technology.
Let me explain why this is so necessary. As I said before, my
Congressional District is about 40 miles from Ground Zero. Lots of
first responders live there. Lots of first responders lived there,
until September 11.
Our first responders have something unique and something special to
offer the new Homeland Security Department, particularly in the areas
of researching and developing new sciences and new technologies to save
and protect lives, including their own, in engineering issues, in
identifying research and budget priorities for new emergency equipment,
even the apparel that protects them.
The compromise that was developed in the committee creates an
advisory committee of 20 first responders. They would be selected by
the Under Secretary of Science and Technology. They would be eminent in
emergency response, research, engineering, and new product development.
Mr. Chairman, the fact is that first responders will be the end users.
They are the customers of the new technologies and sciences that are
developed in the Office of Science and Technology, and they deserve a
place at the drawing board.
I offer this amendment in the belief that we should value our first
responders, but also accept their invaluable advice.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his
leadership. This combines two very important issues having to do with
the Department of Homeland Security, one of which is the use of science
and technology. To the extent that this new Department can maximize the
technological capabilities, I believe it will be more successful.
And as the distinguished majority leader quoted me as saying earlier
in the debate, localities, localities, localities, that is the most
important consideration that we should have when we talk about where
the threat exists, where the ideas are, and where the need for
resources are. Communication with those localities is where we should
begin and end the development of protecting the American people.
So I commend the gentleman for his leadership, for the
entrepreneurial spirit of his suggestion, and I hope the body will
accept it. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed
in House Report 107-615.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Rivers

Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 6 offered by Ms. Rivers:
At the end of title III, insert the following new section:

SEC. 309. INQUIRIES.

(a) Office.--The Secretary, acting through the Under
Secretary of Science and Technology, shall establish an
office to serve as a point of entry for individuals or
companies seeking guidance on how to pursue proposals to
develop or deploy products that would contribute to homeland
security. Such office shall refer those seeking guidance on
Federal funding, regulation, acquisition, or other matters to
the appropriate unit of the Department or to other
appropriate Federal agencies.
(b) Functions.--The Under Secretary for Science and
Technology shall work in conjunction with the Technical
Support Working Group (organized under the April, 1982,
National Security Decision Directive Numbered 30) to--
(1) screen proposals described in subsection (a), as
appropriate;
(2) assess the feasibility, scientific and technical
merits, and estimated cost of proposals screened under
paragraph (1), as appropriate;
(3) identify areas where existing technologies may be
easily adapted and deployed to meet the homeland security
agenda of the Federal Government; and
(4) develop and oversee the implementation of homeland
security technology demonstration events, held at least
annually, for the purpose of improving contact among
technology developers, vendors, and acquisition personnel.

Amend the table of contents accordingly.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 502, the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Rivers) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers) is recognized.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This past fall, when the anthrax outbreak hit Capitol Hill, a company
in my district approached me with a product they had developed they
felt could be of significant use in the decontamination efforts here in
Washington. For weeks, my staff and I tried to get this company in
touch with the correct agency or find someone willing to learn about
their product and determine if it could be of use.
Whether or not this company did indeed have the miracle cure is not
the point, rather there should be an easier way to facilitate contact
between scientists and developers at the local level and decision-
makers within the Federal Government. This amendment speaks to that
very need.
Now, it is my understanding that the elements of my amendment, which
was added in the Committee on Science, have actually been folded into
this bill, and I am very pleased to hear that. I want to thank the
chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert), who supported the amendment in committee, for his leadership
in this matter. I would also like to thank the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Chambliss) for the bipartisan cooperation that occurred in getting
effective practical language into the manager's amendment. And, Mr.
Chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) was helpful as well.
This amendment specifically tasks the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology to work with the Technical Support Working Group, TSWG, a
Defense Department group that has the infrastructure in place to help
mobilize existing technologies for our national security needs.
Homeland Security and TSWG will work together to review proposals,
assess their feasibility, and identify areas where current technology
could be adapted and deployed immediately. This would be tremendous
progress from the status quo.
Although there are a couple of issues, like a point of entry for
individuals or companies seeking guidance in interaction with the
government, in other words, we must have an open door for people with
unsolicited ideas who do not know how to work their way around the
Federal Government, these are not a part of the language currently in
the bill. I believe that we can

[[Page H5694]]

work together to develop in conference information to clarify and
improve this, and I believe the language can be achieved relatively
easily.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. RIVERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman for her
leadership on this important issue.
As the chairman knows, on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, where we both serve, we have a great need for ``needs and
leads.'' Certainly, the Federal Government and the intelligence
community and the Department of Homeland Security benefits from leads
that it receives from businesses coming forward with new
entrepreneurial ideas that we have not even thought of.
We also have many needs that we are reaching out to businesses to
fill. The Office of Inquiries within the Department of Science and
Technology would act as a point of entry, as the gentlewoman suggested.
It is an excellent idea to accommodate the system of ``needs and
leads,'' and also contributes to maximizing the technological
capabilities that exist in our country to make the Department of
Homeland Security even more successful in protecting the American
people.
The gentlewoman from Michigan has done a great service in
successfully presenting this amendment. I commend her for it, and I
urge my colleagues to support it.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment
be withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in House
Report 107-615.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Ms. Woolsey:
At the end of title III, insert the following new section:

SEC. 309. HOMELAND SECURITY INSTITUTE.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a
federally funded research and development center to be known
as the ``Homeland Security Institute'' (in this section
referred to as the ``Institute'').
(b) Administration.--The Institute shall be administered as
a separate entity by the Secretary.
(c) Duties.--The duties of the Institute shall be
determined by the Secretary, and may include the following:
(1) Systems analysis, risk analysis, and simulation and
modeling to determine the vulnerabilities of the Nation's
critical infrastructures and the effectiveness of the systems
deployed to reduce those vulnerabiblities.
(2) Economic and policy analysis to assess the distributed
costs and benefits of alternative approaches to enhancing
security.
(3) Evaluation of the effectiveness of measures deployed to
enhance the security of institutions, facilities, and
infrastructure that may be terrorist targets.
(4) Identification of instances when common standards and
protocols could improve the interoperability and effective
utilization of tools developed for field operators and first
responders.
(5) Assistance for Federal agencies and departments in
establishing testbeds to evaluate the effectiveness of
technologies under development and to assess the
appropriateness of such technologies for deployment.
(6) Design of metrics and use of those metrics to evaluate
the effectiveness of homeland security programs throughout
the Federal Government, including all national laboratories.
(7) Design of and support for the conduct of homeland
security-related exercises and simulations.
(8) Creation of strategic technology development plans to
reduce vulnerabilities in the Nation's critical
infrastructure and key resources.
(d) Consultation of Institute Activities.--In carrying out
the duties described in subsection (c), the Institute shall
consult widely with representatives from private industry,
institutions of higher education, and nonprofit institutions.
(e) Annual Reports.--The Institute shall transmit to the
Security and the Congress an annual report on the activities
of the Institute under this section.
Amend the table of contents accordingly.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment requires the Secretary to create a
Homeland Security Institute. It will be an independent, federally-
funded research and development center: A think tank. That same style
organization that will contract with the Department to provide
objective analysis and to advise on science and technology issues.

{time} 2330

In the Committee on Science, we voice-voted with no opposition the
creation of this institute. I was pleased that the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Boehlert) supported it in committee, and hope that he will
also support it this evening. Since it was dropped in the version by
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), I commend the Committee on Rules
for bringing it before the House for consideration.
The concept for a homeland security institute is based on the key
recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences' June 2002 report
entitled Making the Nation Safer: The Role of Science and Technology in
Countering Terrorism. Government agencies, including the Departments of
Defense, DOE, HHS and the National Science Foundation, currently
sponsor more than 35 institutes like this amendment proposes.
Let me give an example of how the institute could work. First
responders and emergency personnel from different jurisdictions and
departments often have difficult times communicating during a crisis.
An appropriate role for the institute would be to work with Federal,
State and local agencies to develop the technology and implement the
standards necessary to communicate effectively in a crisis.
The fact is that existing Federal agencies may not be able to supply
the depth and breadth of technical expertise needed. Many of those with
the necessary analytical and technical skills necessary do not work for
the government. Instead, it is more likely that they could be working
at one of the current institutes, like the Rand Corporation or the
Institute for Defense Analysis, or in academia.
Considering the technical nature of the threats before us, the
brightest minds of our time must be at the table. Just because these
individuals do not draw their paycheck from the Treasury Department
does not mean that we should not tap their expertise.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will ensure that the Department of
Homeland Security has outside objective expertise available at all
times. I hope that the committee will support my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim the time in opposition to the
amendment?
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed
in House Report 107-615.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Cardin

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Cardin:
In section 401(1), add the following at the end: ``The
functions, personnel, assets, and obligations of the Customs
Service so transferred shall be maintained as a distinct
entity within the Department.''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 502, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is consistent with the underlying
legislation. It would treat the U.S. Customs Service in a similar way
that the Secret Service and the Coast Guard are treated under the bill.
All three of these agencies have critical homeland security functions
as well as non-homeland security functions.
It does not affect the provisions in the bill that deal with the
trade and revenue functions of the Customs Service that was included in
the bill. That actually has a greater protection than would be for the
nontrade and revenue

[[Page H5695]]

services within the Customs Agency. This affects about 75 percent of
the agency, and 25 percent is already covered under the trade and
revenue functions.
Basically this provides for congressional oversight on
reorganizations that may occur in the Customs Service. This is
particularly important because it deals with such a large part of the
agency involved.
The Secretary, the administration, would have the ability to
reorganize the Customs Service upon giving notice to Congress, and we
would be preserving congressional oversight in regards to the functions
of the Customs Service.
I think this is an amendment that is totally consistent with the way
that we have treated other agencies that are going into this new
Department. I would encourage Members to accept this amendment.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) is a very well
respected member of the committee of jurisdiction, and it is quite
appropriate for the gentleman to raise this subject.
Mr. Chairman, this is a subject that was considered, as many subjects
were, with respect to, I think, a very fundamental question, to what
extent do we want to maintain a synthesis of activities that complement
one another and be able to coordinate these activities in such a way as
to create some sort of symbiosis that would give us better efficiencies
in the use of resources, complements in the process information-sharing
between them, and coordinated efforts with respect to either discovery
or interdiction.
It has been the position of the committee as negotiated with the
White House, and one of the things that we on our Select Committee were
quite pleased about was the manner in which the Committee on Ways and
Means worked out details with the White House.
My position on this matter would be that it risks upsetting this very
carefully agreed-upon provision from this committee, and I believe it
runs counter to the overall larger plan which we see in so many
agencies to keep resources together, keep people working with one
another, and complement them with respect to their resources
capabilities.
In all due respect, I must resist the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me assure the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) that
this amendment does not affect at all the underlying provisions
concerning trade and revenue functions within the Customs Service. They
actually have much greater protection than is provided in this
amendment for the rest of the agency.
I would just encourage the majority leader to please look at page 50
of the underlying bill where the language is identical to where it says
the Coast Guard in the Department of Transportation, which shall be
maintained as a distinct entity within the department. I believe this
is using the identical language for the remainder of the Customs
Service. It is the remainder, not that which is included with the
arrangements worked out between the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas) and the White House on the revenue functions and on the trade
functions.
We are dealing here with the other functions of the agency. It
provides for appropriate congressional oversight without interfering
with the trade and revenue functions of the Customs Service. The
Customs Service is one of the oldest agencies in the Federal
Government. It has a tremendously important function to perform, and it
preserves the appropriate congressional oversight. I would urge the
majority leader to take a look at it. Without this, the drafting is
somewhat suspect.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) asked
me to convey that the Committee on Ways and Means carefully considered
the Customs Service transfer, and came up with what he felt was an
elegant recommendation which the Select Committee adopted. The
Committee on Ways and Means decided that the Customs Service is vital
to homeland security and central to an effective department; splitting
the agency made no sense; and trade and tariff collection policy must
remain at Treasury.
The solution is to place the whole Customs Service in homeland
security, but the trade and tariff collection policy will continue to
be managed by the Treasury Department.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) feels this is a good solution.
The President urged the committees of Congress to overcome their
jurisdictional concerns to come together for the good of the entire
country. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) feels that the Committee
on Ways and Means are champions, and has had jurisdiction over the
Customs Service since 1789. It knows the Customs Service. The gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Portman) urges Members to follow the wisdom of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this amendment that alters that at
all. I really did listen very carefully to the majority leader and the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) because I want to make sure what
we do for the Customs Service is consistent with what is in the Customs
Service's best interest, and in the best interest of homeland security.
Let me explain the dilemma we have because I think there is a
drafting problem without this amendment. We have cut out 25 percent of
the Customs Service, calling it the U.S. Customs Service, but it only
performs the revenue and trade functions. There is now the other 75
percent which is sort of in no man's land because the U.S. Customs
Service is now only revenue and trade.
This amendment says that there will be an entity that deals with the
other aspects of the U.S. Customs Service that is not trade and
revenue-related. It is totally consistent with how other agencies that
are being transferred into homeland security are handled as far as
flexibility within the executive branch and oversight within the
congressional branch. It does not provide the same protections as we
provide for the revenue and trade functions, so it is not at all
inconsistent with what was worked out as far as the trade and revenue
functions of the Customs Service.
Without this amendment, we have, I think, a void in the legislation.
I do not think that it is, quite frankly, properly drafted without
this. I really look at this almost as a technical amendment in order to
say to the 75 percent of the agency that is being transferred over that
they do exist. Otherwise, we have the United States Customs Service,
which is really only 25 percent of the whole. This makes it clear that
100 percent is being transferred over to the new agency, and 25 percent
is protected as far as the revenue and the trade function. The other 75
percent is treated as we have treated other agencies which are being
transferred over, which is not as great. I urge Members to accept my
amendment.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Thornberry) to close on our side.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment for two
reasons. The first reason is the comments that we have already heard:
That there were extensive negotiations with the White House and others
about how to best deal with the Customs Service. I understand the
gentleman's point that this does not reverse those negotiations, but
yet part of those negotiations were that the nontrade part of the
Customs Service would be merged into one border security entity. This
amendment would change that, so it does upset the negotiations which
have gone on.
Secondly, part of the key purpose of the border and transportation
security of this entity would be to have one seamless team at the
border. Now since the Coast Guard is on the water, they are easier to
differentiate, and we can have them as a distinct entity, as one of the
compromises in this bill does, but it is much more difficult to have a
separate entity, different uniforms, for the people who are watching
the people come over the border versus the employees who are watching
the goods or

[[Page H5696]]

the objects to make sure that bombs are not coming over the border.
In other words, that is a much harder thing to separate. So that 75
percent that used to be the Customs Service is going to be weaved into
this one team with the border patrol and with the APHIS inspectors and
one border security entity, not separate entities that are on their
station at the border, but one entity with the same bosses, the same
regulations, the same uniforms, the same databases and the same radios.
To the extent that this amendment keeps the Customs Service out
separate, it makes it harder to have one team at the border so we can
be secure.
Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment should be rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin)
will be postponed.

{time} 2345

It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed in House
Report 107-615.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Hunter

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Hunter:
At the end of chapter 1 of subtitle B of title IV, add the
following:

SEC. 416. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF FENCING
NEAR SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA.

It is the sense of the Congress that completing the 14-mile
border fence project required to be carried our under section
102(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) should be a
priority for the Secretary.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 502, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Pelosi) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that would offer a sense of
Congress stating that the border fence which lies in the 14-mile border
sector between San Diego and Tijuana be completed. We have now
completed some 12 miles of that 14-mile border fence.
When we started that fence, that corridor was considered to be the
most prolific smugglers' corridor in North America. Through that
corridor came most of the cocaine that was smuggled into the country as
well as most of the illegal aliens and was an area which was very
dangerous, in which massive violence took place and an average of 10
people a year were murdered on the border. It is also an area that is
just a couple of miles south of the west coast's biggest naval base at
San Diego. It is an area of extremely difficult terrain, rugged
terrain. It includes Smugglers Canyon and a number of other canyon
areas feeding out into the Pacific Ocean.
Since we have built the 12 miles of fence that we have built so far
and it is a double fence that is very, very difficult to pass through,
but since we have built the 12 miles that is completed, we have cut
down the average of 10 murders a year, murders which took place by
armed gangs, some of which had automatic weapons, we have cut that down
to almost zero, to where we have almost no murders on the border. It is
also an area of vulnerability, once again because it is an area where
terrorists could move fairly quickly and upon crossing the
international border be within only a couple of miles of the San Diego
naval base.
This resolution just very simply states that it is a sense of
Congress that we should complete the fence. It has been several years
since we have attempted to get that last 2 miles of fence completed,
and because of environmental work which has taken a long time, that
vulnerability still exists.
I would ask that we pass this. It is consistent with present law that
says that the entire 14 miles should be completed. In fact, there is a
mandate in the law passed in, I believe, 1996, signed by the President,
stating that the entire 14 miles in that smugglers' corridor should be
completed. Right now only 12 miles are completed, we have 2 to go, and
if we do not do that, we are going to continue to have a stretch of
vulnerability there which at some point could accrue to our detriment.
I would ask that we pass this.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California knows the
very high regard in which I hold him and it is with great reluctance
that I oppose his amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Davis) who has earned a great reputation for
working closely with her community on this very issue.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for my
San Diego colleague. I know how hard he has worked for years on
national security supporting our military and is in line to take the
reins as the chair of the Committee on Armed Services. We traveled
recently together to Afghanistan and visited with our troops fighting
the war on terrorism. It is with this great respect for my colleague
who has the best of intentions that I rise in opposition to his
amendment because the San Diego border fence project creates a false
sense of security, endangers border patrol agents and diverts needed
resources. The project's goal is to create a 14-mile long layer of
three separate fences intended to prevent anyone from crossing the
border from Mexico into the United States.
Securing our borders, as you all know, has long been a challenge,
particularly because doing so must be balanced among our chief goal of
protecting security and yet enabling legitimate cross-border travel,
promoting commerce and protecting civil liberties. Clearly, we need a
sustainable border infrastructure plan that can accommodate the
projected growth in legal border crossings. However, instead of viewing
the border landscape as one filled with obstacles that cripple us, we
should use this as an opportunity to bring about long-needed change.
Border security is critically important to protect the country from
terrorists and to stem the flow of undocumented immigrants. However,
the border fence represents a false sense of security. Those who wish
to bypass the fence can transit either through a long gap in the fence
or in the water beyond the fence's end. Further, completion of the
triple fence requires expending huge sums of money while destroying the
landfill areas and negating the millions of dollars already expended in
the area to preserve the estuary that exists there.
Finally, I have heard from several border patrol agents, agents who
spend very lonely hours patrolling the border, who are concerned that
the construction of the fence could trap them and leave them without an
escape route should they come under attack. If we are serious about
border security, we should enhance the quality of the existing fence
and not create a lane between fences that endangers the lives of both
U.S. agents and would-be border crossers.
Technology to improve border security exists in San Diego and around
the Nation and is available off-the-shelf. Rather than relying on a
Maginot Line along the border, we should rely upon our expertise and
employ sophisticated technology to buttress protection through improved
monitoring, surveillance and dispatch.
As well as its obvious security benefits, this use of technology will
ease personnel requirements. In addition, a technology-based
infrastructure system clearly meets the stated goals of the INS in
creating a permanent deterrence through certainty of detection and
apprehension and to reduce the current enforcement footprint. The term
infrastructure does not immediately equate to fence and the mere
construction of a fence does not meet the ``certainty of detection''
criterion.
Transforming our technology along the border has further benefits. At
present, the dedicated men and women who work at the ports of entry are
becoming increasingly taxed by the new

[[Page H5697]]

requirements for tighter security. It is time to provide them with the
tools and the technology they need and to send them a clear message
that we value the work that they do.
In addition, I believe that we can integrate existing technologies to
increase interagency cooperation and data flow, thereby eliminating
overlap and waste and streamlining processes, all while being mindful
of civil rights. Moreover, leveraging technology will also serve to
increase binational cooperation.
Rather than constructing an old fashioned triple layered wall along
the border, a wall that creates a false sense of security, endangers
border patrol agents and diverts our needed resources, we should shelve
old methods and embrace the new methods that this Department of
Homeland Security will undoubtedly employ.
I urge my colleagues to allow this new department the flexibility to
develop its own priorities without burdening them with antiquated
projects and defeat this amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have respect for my colleague, but let me just say
that the opposition which has been stated to the border fence is, at
best, bizarre. When we started this fence, Mr. Chairman, there were 300
drug trucks a month full of cocaine and marijuana which were hurtling
across the border in these uncontrolled areas, in this mountainous
region, the region extending from Otay Mesa to the Pacific coast. We
had scores of border patrolmen who were hurt and injured because they
were pelted with rocks from the other side of the border and we had an
average again of about 10 people a year murdered by the armed gangs,
many with automatic weapons, which moved back and forth across what was
known as a no-man's land. In fact, it was so bad that Joseph Wampaugh
wrote the book ``Lines and Shadows'' about this no-man's land that
existed on the U.S.-Mexican border. Since we have built that fence, the
first 12 miles of fence, we have totally eliminated the 300 drug trucks
a month that were coming across, we have knocked down the 12 murders to
almost zero, and people that live on both sides of the border have
expressed, and the border patrol reports are very clear, that this
fence has been a center of stability, it is a modern fence, it is a
double fence, it has a large overhang, it has not hurt anybody. In
fact, it has prevented 10 murders a year.
The idea that you do not complete the last 2 miles of that fence once
again, Mr. Chairman, is, at best, a bizarre notion. I would hope that
we would be rational and simply build the last 2 miles of what the
border patrol has said is one of the greatest deterrents to illegal
crossing and could be a deterrent to the crossing of a terrorist
organization into that area just a few miles south of the biggest naval
base on the west coast.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I think the area we are
talking about is one that we believe now with our new technologies and
with some greater priorities that are set as well with the community,
that we can provide the protection that we need, that we can provide
the protection for the agents, but we can also do what is best for this
last 2 miles, especially in an area that has a lot of binational
crossings.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed
in House Report 107-615.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Ose

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Ose:
At the end of title VI add the following:

SEC. . CONSOLIDATION AND CO-LOCATION OF OFFICES.

Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall develop and submit to the
Congress a plan for consolidating and co-locating--
(1) any regional offices or field offices of agencies that
are transferred to the Department under this Act, if such
offices are located in the same municipality; and
(2) portions of regional and field offices of other Federal
agencies, to the extent such offices perform functions that
are transferred to the Secretary under this Act.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 502, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ose) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As a subcommittee chairman over on Government Reform, I would like to
offer this good-government amendment which relates to the regional and
field offices in the proposed department. Before I do that, I want to
make sure that I compliment my good friend the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) who is the subcommittee ranking member with
whom I have worked very closely in analyzing the President's bill and
drafting bipartisan amendments to perfect it. The President's proposal
includes moving agencies which currently have 10 different regional and
field office structures into the new department. Neither the
President's bill nor the special committee's substitute mentions any
changes in these regional and field offices, although changes could be
made under the select committee's section 763(a) reorganization
authority, to consolidate, alter or discontinue organizational units.
My amendment would require the new department's under secretary for
management to develop a consolidation/collocation plan within 1 year.
The plan would examine consolidating and collocating regional and field
offices in each of the cities with any existing regional or field
office in the transferred agencies. My amendment would retain at least
one Department of Homeland Security office in each of these cities.
Staff in these consolidated/collocated offices could be cross-trained
to respond to the full range of functions which may need to be
performed locally. Besides improving Federal preparedness and response,
consolidation and collocation should result in overhead and other
efficiency savings.
Five examples of existing and different regional or field office
networks are in the Agriculture Department's Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, known as APHIS; the Justice Department's
Immigration and Naturalization Service; the Department of
Transportation's Coast Guard; the Department of Treasury's Customs
Bureau; and the Department of Treasury's Secret Service.
I urge my colleagues to support this government efficiency amendment.
I want to reiterate my appreciation for the time and effort and
participation of my good friend from Massachusetts whom I would now
like to recognize to elaborate on how helpful collocation could be for
local first responders.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Tierney).

{time} 2400

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of this amendment that was, as was said, to make a
plan regarding the consolidation of officers and the crosstraining of
Federal employees that ought to be consolidated into the new Department
of Homeland Security. I want to thank and commend the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ose) with whom I serve in the Committee of Government
Reform Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory
Affairs. As he stated, we have had the opportunity to work together in
a bipartisan way to suggest improvements to the bill, and I thank him
for his leadership.
In the course of this debate we must keep the focus where it truly
belongs: on marshaling our country's best ideas and resources and
skills to coordinate our fight against terrorism, streamline
government, and make Americans safer. We need to do this for the
families who lost loved ones on September 11 and in the October anthrax
attacks, for the American people who expect us to protect them, and for
our children so that future generations may grow up in a free and open
society.
Nowhere is it felt more keenly than our local communities. All acts
of terrorism are, as we know, local; and each community has to be
prepared for crisis response and catastrophe management. Since
September 11, we have

[[Page H5698]]

heard from our local first responders from across the country who have
risen to the occasion, protecting communities as the first line of
defense against terrorism. In my own district, as across America, they
have marshaled their resources to track down leads of potential
terrorist threats and buy more equipment, from upgraded weapons to
technology to biohazard masks and suits. They have increased hazmat
training for handling suspicious packages and stepped up patrols around
potential terrorist targets like water and gas supplies, nuclear power
plants, harbors and airports. They want the government to work with
them, to train with them, to communicate with them, and to respond with
them to any potential attack. And now it is time for us to step up and
help them. We must respond with cooperation, with communication, and
with coordination at all levels of government.
But before we can work with the local first responders, we have to be
confident that the Federal agencies can work with one another. Coleen
Rowley's bureaucratic nightmare was a cautionary tale. We simply must
train personnel within different agencies that have different cultures
and different skills to talk to one another, to share information
before disaster strikes.
That is why I join Mr. Ose in introducing this ``good government''
amendment, to ensure that local first responders have a primary point
of contact and coordination within the Federal Government and to ensure
that these field officers work together.
No matter how Congress resolves the issue of who is in and who is out
of this agency, and I frankly hope that we will end up with a leaner
21st century response rather than a bloated 19th century structure, we
are not going to effectively fight terrorism from Washington, D.C. Any
respected Department should consist of agencies that can work together,
Mr. Chairman. And, again, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Ose) for helping to work with this problem.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 printed
in House Report 107-615.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Velazquez

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 11 offered by Ms. Velazquez:
In section 734 of the bill, insert before the first
sentence the following:
(a) Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization.--
At the end of section 734 of the bill add the following new
subsection:
(b) Small Business Procurement Goals.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall annually establish
goals for the participation by small business concerns, by
small business concerns owned and controlled by service-
disabled veterans, by qualified HUBZone small business
concerns, by small business concerns owned and controlled by
socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, and by
small business concerns owned and controlled by women (as
such terms are defined pursuant to the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 631 et seq.) and relevant regulations promulgated
thereunder) in procurement contracts of the Department.
(2) Department goals not less than government-wide goals.--
Notwithstanding section 15(g) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 644(g)), each goal established under paragraph (1)
shall be equal to or greater than the corresponding
Government-wide goal established by the President under
section 15(g)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
644(g)(1)).
(3) Incentive for goal achievement.--Achivement of the
goals established under paragraph (1) shall be an element in
the performance standards for employees of the Department who
have the authority and responsibility for achieving such
goals.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 502, the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
I rise today to ensure that the new Department has access to the
innovative resources this Nation's small businesses can offer in the
defense for our country.
The amendment offered with my colleagues from California and New
Mexico makes sure that the American taxpayer gets the best value for
the dollar and that the new Department of Homeland Security has access
to the best work and highest technology by requiring the new agency to
open up its estimated $37 billion market to our Nation's small
businesses.
America's small businesses are the top innovators in the global
economy. In an age when high technology will help keep us one step
ahead of those who will do us harm, we cannot afford to ignore the
contributions our small companies can make. When the private sector
corporations need a job done quickly, they look to nimble, fast-working
small businesses.
Unfortunately, small businesses face many obstacles when trying to
win contracts from Federal agencies. The Velazquez-Issa-Wilson
amendment will tear down barriers to part of that market by requiring
the new Department of Homeland Security to have a small-business goal
that is at least the statutory minimum of 23 percent.
The amendment also adds accountability to the process by including
goal achievement in Federal contracting officers' performance
evaluations.
I close by asking my colleagues to get this new agency off to a good
start. In a new era where we must be smarter and faster than our foe,
we cannot afford to ignore the smartest and fastest of them all,
America's innovative small businesses.
I urge support of the bipartisan Velazquez-Issa-Wilson amendment.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed
in House Report 107-615.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
At the end of title VII, insert the following new section:

SEC. 7 . REQUIREMENT TO COMPLY WITH LAWS PROTECTING EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND PROVIDING
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as exempting the
Department from requirements applicable with respect to
executive agencies--
(1) to provide equal employment protection for employees of
the Department (including pursuant to the provisions in
section 2302(b)(1) of title 5, United States Code, and the
Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and
Retaliation Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-174)); or
(2) to provide whistleblower protections for employees of
the Department (including pursuant to the provisions in
section 2302(b)(8) of such title and the Notification and
Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of
2002).

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 502, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I would like to preface my remarks by thanking the majority leader
and the minority whip and all of our colleagues who serve on the Select
Committee on Homeland Security. In my judgment, they have done an
outstanding job, notwithstanding the time constraints and other
obstacles that they have been confronted with. I guess there is some
comfort as a Member of this body in knowing that future legislation
obviously will assist in refining the product that we will conclude
with on tomorrow, and I also know that it is comforting to send a
message around the world that this body is capable of responding to all
challenges.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to introduce an amendment which adds a new
section to title VII to H.R. 5005. The additional

[[Page H5699]]

language in title VII directs the Secretary to comply with the laws
protecting equal employment opportunity and providing whistleblower
protections. It further states that nothing in the act shall be
construed as exempting the Department from the requirements that are
applicable to all other executive agencies.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard Governor Ridge and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Armey), our majority leader, along with various members of
the administration assure us that all equal employment opportunity laws
and whistleblower protections will be applicable to the new Secretary.
This amendment simply puts those assurances, curiously absent from the
bill at this point, in writing. I will point out that every agency in
the Federal Government must comply with equal employment opportunity
and whistleblower protection laws. This includes the Departments of
Army, Navy and Air Force and CIA and NSA, just to name a few.
Not one Secretary or director from these Departments and agencies,
all actively engaged in national security, has ever come to Congress
seeking exemption from these laws.
I am puzzled by the exemptions the administration is seeking for the
new Department. On May 15, 2002, the President signed PL 107-174, the
No Fear Act, into law. It prohibits Federal agencies from retaliating
against a claimant who has won a judgment relating to discrimination or
whistleblower laws.
That law, which the House passed, and I might add the vote was 412 to
0, further strengthened the EEO and whistleblower protections. On the
other hand, this latest legislation sets even higher standards of
ethics and accountability for the Federal Government, while, on the
other hand, the administration is seeking exemption from these
standards for the new Secretary and the new Department of Homeland
Security.
There is much to be lost and little to be gained by creating laws and
then granting exceptions so that those laws do not apply equally to
all.
Mr. Chairman, there is nothing partisan or even controversial about
this amendment. It ensures that the protections guaranteed to all
Federal employees apply to employees of the new Department as well.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
amendment.
Once again, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for the fine work that they
have done on behalf of all of us, as well as the colleagues who have
joined with them.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition?
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in mild opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized for 5
minutes in opposition.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would say my opposition is mild. I am using this
opportunity to point out what we believe is a fact, and I would say
that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) particularly wanted this to
be pointed out. We would note that the Select Committee bill provides
on page 185, section 761, that any human resources management system
established under the committee bill must not waive, modify or
otherwise affect among the public employment principles of merit and
fitness, including protection of employees against reprisal for
whistleblowing, that is line 15, and any provisions of law provided for
equal employment opportunity through affirmative action, and that is
line 23.
Our opposition is just merely to point out that we think it is
covered. We think it is there already. But we certainly know the intent
of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Connecticut. I would urge
to him that what he says is no doubt correct; but I know that if we
pass this amendment, we will know.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed
in House Report 107-615.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Kingston

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Kingston:
Add at the end of subtitle G of title VII the following:

SEC. . FEDERAL LAW ENFORCMENT TRAINING CENTER.

(a) In General.--The transfer of an authority or an agency
under this Act to the Department of Homeland Security does
not affect training agreements already entered into with the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center with respect to the
training of personnel to carry out that authority or the
duties of that transferred agency.
(b) Continuity of Operations.--All activities of the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center transferred to the
Department of Justice under this Act shall continue to be
carried out at the locations such activities were carried out
before such transfer.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 502, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is rather straightforward. It has to do
with a move to move the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center from
the Department of Treasury into the Department of Justice. This move,
which was not requested by the White House and not requested by the
Select Committee on Homeland Security, but apparently suggested by the
Committee on the Judiciary, caught me off guard as the representative
who represents the headquarters of FLETC at Glynco, Brunswick, Georgia.
This is the law enforcement training center which trains the Capitol
Hill Police, the Secret Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms and many others, in fact, 74 total government agencies. One of
the things I have found during my 10 years I have had the honor of
representing it is, because there are 74 agencies, lots of people have
ideas about just peeling off one of those agencies and putting their
training in their own district or one particular area.
What I have been concerned about is the Treasury has been a great
balancing ground for the smaller agencies to train in, and if we move
it to the Department of Justice and they are competing with the FBI,
they become somewhat of a second-tier emphasis for the Department of
Justice. So I am concerned about that move.
What my amendment does, Mr. Chairman, is it simply says if you do
that move that the ongoing training will continue, and it will continue
in the facilities which are in Maryland and in New Mexico and in
Georgia. So it is very straightforward.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone rise in opposition to the amendment?
The gentleman from Georgia may conclude his remarks.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record some comments on the question
of moving FLETC out of Treasury into the Department of Justice.

background

FLETC was established as a Treasury bureau in 1970 through
a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the heads of eight
Federal agencies, including the Secretary of the Treasury and
the Attorney General. This decision was made based upon years
of thorough research that established the need to consolidate
our federal law enforcement training, counteracting the trend
towards proliferating and redundant law enforcement training
throughout the government. Congress supported this decision
by funding the construction of facilities for FLETC in
Glynco, Georgia.
Since its inception in 1970, FLETC has almost tripled its
original 30,000 trainees and now houses around 80 agencies.
The efficiency of a consolidated training site has benefited
both the American taxpayer as well as every agency involved,
a fact which goes unquestioned. The centralized site at
Glynco has ensured that our federal law enforcement agents
continued to get the best

[[Page H5700]]

training available from the best teachers while eliminating
the red undancy in infrastructure that multiple sites would
provide.

why fletc should stay in treasury

The President's Homeland Security Department proposal
consists of nine agencies with law enforcement/security
functions. All nine (Immigration and Naturalization Service,
United States Border Patrol, Federal Aviation Administration,
Transportation Security Administration, United States Coast
Guard, United States Customs Service, United States Secret
Service, and GSA Federal Protection Services) are
participants in FLETC and will account for sixty-nine of the
students and 55 percent of the student weeks projections
identified for FY 2003. Although many associate our federal
law enforcement with the DOJ, DOJ will merely make up 7
percent of FLETC students.
Transferring FLETC to the Department of Justice (DOJ) will
not serve to streamline any operations within our government.
FLETC should remain within the Department of Treasury with a
guarantee that the agencies that are transferring continue
their training agreements with the Treasury Department.

historical details about why fletc has remained in treasury

In the past, there have been many attempts by the Justice
Department to absorb FLETC, usually in conjunction with a new
administration coming to power. Each time, a proper study was
conducted and the findings concluded that such a move was not
in the best interests of our Federal law enforcement. When
FLETC was established, there was a discussion over who should
be in charge of the new Center. Treasury seemed logical,
because they were the only agency with experience with
consolidated law enforcement training, they would be the
largest customer of the CFLETC (providing about 40 percent of
the students). No other agency seemed interested, or ready to
assume the task. The CFLETC would be overseen by a multi-
agency Board of Directors, they believed that each agency
would have appropriate input as to its operation.
In fact, Ramsey Clark, the Attorney General at the time
concluded that, ``The Attorney General basically objects to
the center being located in a line agency because the agency
will begin to dominate the training staff and curriculum and
secondarily a better law enforcement image can emerge if
training is centered in a non-enforcement agency.''
Phillip Hughes, then Director on the Bureau of the Budget
(which would eventually become OPM) worried that
``Concentration of additional control over Federal law
enforcement programs in the Department of Justice may raise
opposition from Congress and the public through fear of the
eventual emergence of a national police force.''
Others concurred and expressed their belief that widening
the law enforcement footprint of a Justice Department that
was already under criticism from some circles for having both
enforcement and prosecution authority vested in the same
agency.
The issue of Justice Department control did not resurface
until 1976, when the FLETC had a new name and a new
headquarters in Glynco, Georgia. Many of the existing
participant agencies expressed concerns about the
increasingly active and aggressive Justice Department role on
the Board of Directors and the growing numbers of Justice
students.
Again, concerns relating to the establishment of a national
police force were expressed. Large numbers of additional
agencies were applying for entry as consolidated training
participants. No single watershed event defused the tension.
Instead, the FLETC simply redoubled its efforts to meet the
needs of each customer, distributed scarce resources in an
equitable and rational manner, and above all, dedicated
itself to training excellence. The concerns gradually
subsided.
Halfway through President Carter's administration, the
President's reorganization project for federal law
enforcement reached a tentative conclusion that the FLETC
should be transferred to the Justice Department. Unwilling to
lose one of Treasury's most successful bureaus, Treasury
officials lobbied hard against any such transfer. And once
again, other participating agencies expressed concern over
the notion of Justice's stewardship of the FLETC. This time,
the issue was resolved by strengthening the role of the Board
of Directors, establishing three standing management
committees (for budget and personnel, policy and program
development, and longrange planning), and including the
Justice's Criminal Division on the board in an observer and
advisory role. The new board structure confirmed what the
board members had campaigned for all along. Treasury might
have organizational stewardship over the Center, but FLETC
belonged to all the agencies, large and small. The board
members would not be ignored nor would they allow either
Treasury or Justice to overlook their interests--and their
interest in the Center. Consolidated training meant not just
common training, but joint management, too.
Early in President Reagan's tenure, Justice officials
seriously considered an effort to gain management control of
the Center. Attorney General William French Smith agreed to
support the concept if Secretary of the Treasury Donald Regan
would not oppose it. When Regan resisted the idea, it was
dropped. Throughout the 1980's, Justice periodically sent out
feelers to gauge the reaction to bringing the FLETC into the
Justice fold. Frank Keating, a former FBI agent, assistant
secretary of Treasury and then as associate attorney
general, saw the relationship between the two departments
from both perspectives. Convinced that the Center properly
belonged under Treasury, partly because it thrived there
and partly because he philosophically supported the
diffusion of federal law enforcement, Keating resisted the
idea of Justice making a steal. ``. . . I know that on a
number of occasions [as associate attorney general] the
senior levels of the Justice Department and the FBI talked
to me . . . of the need to merge FLETC into Justice.'' . .
.
In his view, FLETC belonged in Treasury. ``It makes far
more sense to have a viable law enforcement training center
than has no connection with the FBI.'' Keating strongly
believed, ``because the missions of the smaller agencies,
even though they are distinct, would be clouded, and their
self-respect and their confidence and their ability to run
themselves would be jeopardized by this nine-thousand pound
gorilla coming down there to take over.''
The sporadic, almost half-hearted suggestions that Justice
take over the training were tributes to the Center's success,
the result of envy more than anything else. They sprang, too,
from a superficial analysis that Justice's primary in federal
law enforcement led logically to management of law
enforcement training. Such a conclusion, however persuasive
on its face, essentially ignored the historical forces that
planted the Center squarely--and firmly--under Treasury.
Again, earlier this year, the administration looked into
moving FLETC to Justice. After extensive studies, the bush
administration decided that it would not be in their best
interests.

where did this request come from?

The Justice Department has made repeated attempts to take
FLETC from Treasury, but each and every time, and after
extensive reviews those attempts were thwarted. The decision
to more FLETC from the Department of Treasury to the
Department of Justice has been made without the benefit of
hearings, studies or analysis. In fact, all past studies have
concluded that FLETC should remain with the Treasury
Department.
A recent Bush Administration study concurred that FLETC
should remain in Treasury. The Bush Administration did not
request this in their Department of Homeland Security
proposal. Treasury did not propose FLETC's transfer. FLETC
did not request this transfer. Homeland Security did not
offer this proposal. Department of Justice did not request
this either.

Mr. Chairman, I do want to make this last comment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to do what is best for homeland security; I want
to do what is best for the training center and best for the law
enforcement personnel. I just have not been convinced that the case has
been made to move it out of Treasury into Justice, when most of the
training is actually going to be done in homeland security. So I hope
that the conferees work on that.
If the gentleman from Texas can give me some assurance, some comfort
level in conference, I would love to hear it.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARMEY. I want to begin, Mr. Chairman, by thanking the gentleman
from South Carolina for his interest in this matter. It is a matter of
grave concern to all of us. This is an important agency that performs
an important function, and we would want this agency to be complete and
continuing.
I also appreciate the gentleman's enormous interest in keeping this
agency located in his great State, where in fact it has been a great
service to the Nation.

{time} 0015

I want to say to the gentleman from South Carolina that I appreciate
his efforts.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is from Georgia, Mr. Leader.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I was going to let the gentleman from
Arkansas continue.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota
for that reminder, and now that we have gotten our geography lesson
straight, let me thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Georgia is absolutely right. This agency is so
much more a service to this Nation in Georgia where it belongs than it
ever could be in South Carolina. And, please, I want to encourage the
gentleman to continue his work, and we will accept the amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment.
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center-FLETC, which was
established in 1970, is an interagency law enforcement training program
that trains Federal, State, local,

[[Page H5701]]

private entities and foreign law enforcement. In Fiscal Year 2003,
FLETC trained over 54,000 law enforcement students. Those students were
from law enforcement offices within the Department of Agriculture,
Commerce, HHS, Interior, Justice, Treasury, Defense, the Capitol
Police, and others.
The Judiciary Committee and the Select Committee, in their wisdom,
decided that the Department of the Treasury, which will lose both the
Customs Service and the Secret Service, should no longer be responsible
for FLETC.
This means the Department of Treasury will only have two remaining
law enforcement offices--BATF and IRS Investigators. Treasury will lose
the bulk of their law enforcement and will have one of the smallest law
enforcement contingents of any Department.
It was decided that FLETC go to the Department of Justice because its
mission is consistent with the mission of the Department of Justice.
The primary mission of the Department of Justice is law enforcement;
specifically it is directed ``to enforce the nation's laws, combat
terrorism, protect public safety, help prevent and control crime,
provide just punishment for criminals, and ensure the fair and
impartial administration of justice.''
FLETC's mission is ``to serve as the Federal government's leader for
and provider of world-class law enforcement training.'' It makes sense
that a bureau with such a mission be included as part of a Department
with the same mission and that is the flagship law enforcement in the
Federal Government.
The primary mission of the Treasury Department is to support the
American economy and manage the finances of the United States
Government. It does not make sense, in light of the transfer of almost
all of the law enforcement bureaus out of the Department of Treasury in
this Homeland Security legislation, that we would continue to require
that the centralized training for Federal law enforcement be located at
the Department of Treasury.
The Department of Justice is not a stranger to the operations of
FLETC. In fact, DOJ is one of five voting members of the FLETC Board of
Directors that establishes training policy, programs and standards.
Additionally, the administration has been aware of this proposal for
weeks and has not objected. They understand that this is not intended
to diminish FLETC's role, but rather enhance it and expand it in a
Department that will pay attention to it, provide for it, and nurture
it.
I can assure the gentleman from Georgia that our intention in
transferring the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to the
Department of Justice is to ensure that law enforcement is coordinated
and centralized in the part of the government responsible for law
enforcement. I can also assure the gentleman from Georgia that it is
our intention to see that FLETC continue its current operations at its
current location and continue to carryout their current training
agreements. We expect that this transfer would have a minimal impact on
the day-to-day operations and training activities of FLETC and, at the
same time, maximize the effectiveness of our training system for
federal law enforcement personnel.
I thank the gentleman for bringing this matter to our attention with
this amendment and look forward to working with him to ensure that the
high quality of training of federal law enforcement agents continues at
FLETC.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 14 printed
in House report 107-615.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky:
At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new
section:

SEC. . JOINT ENTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.

(a) Establishment--The Secretary may establish and operate
a permanent Joint Interagency Homeland Security Task Force
composed of representatives from military and civilian
agencies of the United States Government for the purposes of
anticipating terrorist threats against the United States and
taking appropriate actions to prevent harm to the United
States.
(b) Structure.--It is the sense of Congress that the
Secretary should model the Joint Interagency Homeland
Security Task Force on the approach taken by the Joint
Interagency Task Forces for drug interdiction at Key West,
Florida and Alameda, California, to the maximum extent
feasible and appropriate.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 502, the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
First I want to thank the majority leader for working with us and our
staff on this amendment. He worked well into the night with us
yesterday, last night, getting this together, and I believe it has been
thoroughly vetted by both sides of the aisle by the appropriate
authorizing committees.
This is a simple amendment. It grants permissive authority to the new
Homeland Security Secretary for the creation of a Joint Interagency
Homeland Security Task Force completely at the discretion of the new
Secretary, in no way impeding his flexibility or authority in running
the new Department. It does not grant any new authorities or powers to
the cooperating components of the task force not already authorized by
the Congress, and the task force, if created, is suggested to be
modeled in the language of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, after the
existing joint interagency task forces for drug interdiction currently
operating as we speak in two places, Key West, Florida, for the East,
and Alameda, California for the West.
Mr. Chairman, the reason I suggest this type of a boiler room
operation in the war on terrorism is the fact that these existing task
forces for drug interdiction are efficient, they are lean, they are
highly successful operations on the war on drugs, and while the task of
protecting the homeland is vastly more complicated and different than
any single drug mission, these centers are appropriate templates for
how the various elements of our government should and can work together
in a lean, mean machine war room.
These centers coordinate every aspect of the counterdrug operation,
from intelligence-gathering, detection and monitoring, to the actual
seizure and apprehension of those involved. These existing JIATF
centers promote security cooperation and interagency efficiency. That
is the exact kind of a concept we should be implementing in our defense
of the homeland, a combination of military, civilian, and intelligence
agencies, working together in the same place. Given the inextricable
link between terrorist activity and illegal drugs, these existing
centers already have firsthand knowledge and expertise in homeland
defense and could prove to be a very valuable tool to the new Secretary
as a template for the war on terrorism.
We have taken great care, Mr. Chairman, to craft the language in such
a way that it will not be perceived as expanding the powers of the
Secretary beyond what is already envisioned in the bill. Both the
Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on the Judiciary have
made helpful comments on our original draft. We have incorporated their
changes in this language, and I appreciate their help as well.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, this amendment is simple. It seeks to
establish a functioning interagency task force within the new
Department, where coordination among the various agencies of the
government, the various components who remain under their own control,
and we simply draw as we need something for the particular task at hand
from all agencies of the government.
The amendment in no way impedes the authority of the new Secretary
from carrying out his or her core mission. It is merely a suggestion
for another important, I think, and useful tool in the Department's
arsenal.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am afraid with this amendment we are headed down a dangerous
slippery slope and setting a dangerous precedent. My good friend and
colleague mentioned that he wants to build an efficient, lean, mean
machine, and therein lies the very danger.
In protecting our citizens and our civil liberties, we do not need a
lean, mean machine. That is not what is anticipated by our
Constitution; that is not what law enforcement in this country is
about. Soldiers do not need to be reading Miranda rights with automatic
rifles in hand; that is not their purpose. That is not what they are
trained for. That is not what they do.

[[Page H5702]]

In this country we have posse comitatus, we have had that since 1878,
and it makes it a crime to deploy Federal troops as enforcers of
civilian law. That has worked in this country for 124 years. The United
States has always recognized a great importance in the separation
between the duties of the military and the duties of our domestic law
enforcement. There is a good reason why it has stood that test of time.
The military has a role in protecting our country. Domestic enforcement
has a role in protecting our country, but they are separate roles.
I noticed this morning that The New York Times had this to say, and I
quote: ``The idea of military forces roaming the Nation, enforcing the
laws sounds like a bad Hollywood script or life in a totalitarian
society.'' Further, I notice that Tom Ridge, the homeland security
chief, said in a radio interview that this expansion, this abandoning
of posse comitatus would ``go against our instincts as a country.''
There are good, practical reasons for keeping the military out of our
domestic law enforcement. The mindset is completely different. In our
country we have professional, well-trained law enforcement officers,
police that are taught to observe constitutional protections for our
citizens. They know about the procedure of criminal law. Soldiers, on
the other hand, are trained in the use of force, not the niceties of
procedure. Both of those roles are necessary in our country; both are
important. Neither role should be mixed.
The Christian Science Monitor said that the military exists to
protect our country, not to run it. Clearly, the military and civilian
forces should cooperate, they should work together in anticipating
threats and responding to threats, but they must be separated. The
Armed Forces should not be involved in domestic police tasks that are
best left to the law enforcement professionals of this country.
Mr. Chairman, posse comitatus has stood the test of time. This is not
a totalitarian State; this is not a police State. We have domestic laws
that protect our citizens; we have military to protect our shores. That
has worked, it has stood the test of time. Our country is strong and
secure because of the hard work of our military in protecting our
borders. We have freedom fighters all across the world right now
protecting freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. We have police that
are keeping our homeland safe here in America. They are working well
together, but they are recognizing the fact they have separate roles.
Mr. Chairman, I feel like that the amendment we are considering today
would blur that line, would mix that line, and we would have the
military roaming the country, as The New York Times says, trying to
enforce the laws of our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, while this is a permissive amendment, as was mentioned
by my friend and colleague, permissive is too much. It is never okay to
violate the Constitution. It is never okay to send the military roaming
across the land enforcing domestic laws and arresting our citizens. It
is never okay to have a soldier without training in procedure
attempting to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens who are
innocent until proven guilty. We have rights under our Constitution.
Permissive is way too broad.
Let us respect posse comitatus. Let us make sure our military does
its job and observes its role. Let us make sure that our domestic
police know their role and are able to stand up for the Constitution.
We can protect our Constitution, stand up for our citizens, and still
fight terrorism all across the country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
This provision has been vetted by the Committee on the Judiciary of
the House, the Committee on Armed Services of the House, the Select
Committee on Homeland Security under the leadership of the majority
leader, and we have changed it accordingly at their suggestions.
Number two, the majority leader's amendment tomorrow, his manager's
amendment, will reaffirm the posse comitatus belief that we have in
this country, the law, in fact.
But most importantly, the joint task forces in Alameda and Key West
only use Defense Department assets outside of the U.S. border. There
are not going to be any soldiers roaming the streets of this country,
for gosh sakes. We do it just exactly like the task forces now do on
the drug war using the DOD assets outside of the U.S. border in keeping
with title X posse comitatus restrictions. If they have an internal
problem, they turn to the National Guard under State control if there
is a need for it, but relying upon domestic law enforcement forces that
we have in place now.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers)
will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 15 printed in House
report 107-615.

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Rush

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Rush:
At the end of subtitle G of title VII add the following:

SEC. 7__. OFFICE FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION.

(a) Establishment.--There is established within the Office
of the Secretary the Office for State and Local Government
Coordination, to oversee and coordinate departmental programs
for and relationships with State and local governments.
(b) Responsibilities.--The Office establised under
subsection (a) shall--
(1) coordinate the activities of the Department relating to
State and local government;
(2) assess, and advocate for, the resources needed by State
and local government to implement the national strategy for
combating terrorism;
(3) provide State and local government with regular
information, research, and technical support to assist local
efforts at securing the home.
(4) develop a process for receiving meaningful input from
State and local government meaningful input from State and
local government to assist the development of the national
strategy for combating terrorism and other homeland security
activities.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 502, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rush) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
A recent poll revealed that a vast majority of local governments, 95
percent, to be exact, have plans for dealing with natural disasters.
However, only 49 percent of this Nation's local governments are
equipped to protect and prepare its residents against acts of terror.
But, Mr. Chairman, the good news outweighs the bad. The good news is
that local governments which have not developed plans to deal with
terrorism now have an opportunity to build and coordinate an effective
response plan from the ground up. The good news is that local
governments, which already have response plans, are in a perfect
position to improve upon current programs, and the good news is that
the Federal Government now has the unique opportunity to coordinate
with local governments so that access to Federal information and
expertise become an integral part of the local response picture in this
country.
My amendment will work to make that good news even better by bridging
the gaps between local first responders and the Federal Government. And
it would do so specifically, Mr. Chairman, by creating an office for
State and local government coordination, which will assist us in
streamlining relations between the new Department and State and local
governments. Most importantly, perhaps, the office will be responsible
for developing a process for receiving meaningful input from local and
State governments on how this most important partnership, this vital
partnership, should be strengthened.

[[Page H5703]]

This amendment has the support of the administration, as well as the
National Conference of State Legislators, the National Governors
Association, the Council of State Governments, the U.S. Council of
Mayors, the International City and County Management Association, the
National League of Cities and, last but not least, the National
Association of Counties.

{time} 0030

Mr. Chairman, the first step in preparing for acts of terror comes
through communications and cooperation on all levels of government. The
administration understands this principle. The American people
understand this principle. And I am confident that those of us who are
in the people's House will understand this important principle as well
by adopting this amendment. I urge a yes vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition?
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I will claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) I
do not intend to oppose his amendment, but I did want to point out that
we have addressed this very same question in page 13 of the bill. The
difference between the gentleman's position offered in his amendment
and our bill is we take it as a function of the Secretary. You want to
elevate it to the position of an Office of the Secretary. Assuming that
we would be effective in achieving the desired objectives in either
case, the difference would be a modest difference, from my point of
view, of our desire to minimize the amount of employee agency adds,
bureaucrats, in this city, let us say, as opposed to the field.
I would suggest that perhaps as we move forward, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rush) and I might get together, take a look at that, and
see if we could reconcile our modest differences and prepare ourselves
to work with the other body towards the maximum effective fulfillment
of the objectives we both outlined.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and I certainly do
not have any objections to us working this out. I just want to make
sure that we understand that there is a point in my amendment which
calls for a specific location for this information to rest with a
vehicle for this information to be transmitted, whereas I think the
original language just said that it is going to happen, but nothing was
in place for it to really rest in and a location was not there and a
central place was not there. And with my amendment, I tried to create a
vehicle and a specific location for this information to be gathered and
transmitted both up and downstream.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his observations.
That is the singular difference, what we are trying to do and how we
are trying to do it. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my time with the
understanding that I will have the added pleasure of working with the
gentleman between now and our work with the other body.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 printed
in House report 107-615.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Shays

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Shays:
At the end of subtitle G of title VII insert the following:

SEC. 7____. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Biennial Reports.--Every 2 years the Secretary shall
submit to Congress--
(1) a report assessing the resources and requirements of
executive agencies relating to border security and emergency
preparedness issues;
(2) a report certifying the preparedness of the United
States to prevent, protect against, and respond to natural
disasters, cyber attacks, and incidents involving weapons of
mass destruction; and
(3) a report assessing the emergency preparedness of each
State, including an assessment of each State's to the
responsibilities specified in section 501.
(b) Additional Report.--Not later than 1 year after the
effective date of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report--
(1) assessing the progress of the Department in--
(A) implementing this Act; and
(B) ensuring the core functions of each entity transferred
to the Department are maintained and strengthened; and
(2) recommending any conforming changes in law necessary as
a result of the enactment and implementation of this Act.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 502, the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and a Member opposed will each control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add a section to the bill to
require biannual reports to Congress on three matters: The status of
efforts to improve border security and emergency preparedness; the
status of our overall preparedness to prevent, mitigate and, if
necessary, respond to large-scale emergencies; the status of each State
preparedness.
These biannual reports are needed to make sure the new Department is
achieving the results Congress intends, while not micromanaging so
large a reorganization effort.
Additionally, the amendment would require a one-time report to
Congress no later than a year after enactment of this act, ensuring the
maintenance of core functions transferred to the new Department and
recommending statutory changes to facilitate the new changes of this
substantial reorganization effort. These reports would provide a needed
measure of transparency to the new Department's operations and allow
Congress to measure results and meet our oversight responsibilities.
I applaud the work of my Committee on Government Reform and
Subcommittee on National Security colleague, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Watson) who joins me in offering this amendment. Her
approach to oversight is thoughtful, thorough and bipartisan. I do urge
support for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Watson).
Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for putting
forward this needed amendment to the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
This amendment would create a mechanism for the Secretary of Homeland
Security to report to Congress on the status of America's emergency
preparedness. This type of information is crucial for Congress to make
informed decisions about funding and oversight of our Nation's homeland
security.
The bill that we are considering sets out an institutional structure
for homeland security. Yet this structure is only one of three elements
necessary to effectively secure our homeland. Number two is a
comprehensive homeland security strategy with the administration
produced and delivered to Congress earlier this month. The third
element is having a method to assess the progress of our efforts to
secure our homeland from attack. This is where our amendment comes in.
By creating a mechanism for the Secretary of Homeland Security to
report on the progress of the Federal Government and the various State
governments in preparing for emergencies, Congress can better supply
the resources necessary to defend our country. In particular, it is
important to have a sense of what the various States are doing to
prepare themselves.
By requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to evaluate the
preparedness of State governments, we do not seek to impose a
particular mandate on the State or demand that their planning conforms
to a federally dictated one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, we seek a
candid assessment of how well prepared each State government is for
emergencies so that we might identify breakdowns in our homeland
security infrastructure.

[[Page H5704]]

In any emergency, State governments will be tested. The Federal
government can supply additional resources and expertise, but often
State officials will be the first on the scene in case of a disaster.
We will continue to rely on State governments to play a crucial role in
emergency preparedness.
I urge Members to permit the Shays-Watson amendment to be introduced
during the floor consideration of H.R. 5005.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Thornberry) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5005) to
establish the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes,
had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________