[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

       (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,

[[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.

                          ____________________