[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 66 (Wednesday, May 18, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H3455-H3543]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to House
Resolution 283 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. 1817.
{time} 1231
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. 1817) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for the
Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Simpson 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 California (Mr. Cox) and the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we begin today a historic debate on the floor of this
House that commences the annual authorization process for the
Department of Homeland Security. This annual process is designed to
recognize that the function of the Department of Homeland Security is
the essence of our government's national security mission, protecting
the American people and our territory.
This is the same national security mission ultimately that is
performed in different ways by the Pentagon and by the intelligence
community. Both the Pentagon and the intelligence community for this
same reason undergo an annual authorization process in the Congress.
That is a collaboration between the executive and the legislative
branches that is necessary to ensure that we fulfill this most vital
function.
We must remember that the Department of Homeland Security in the
executive branch and the Committees on Homeland Security in this House
and in the other body were formed because the congressional leadership
and the President recognized that neither branch of government as then
constituted was properly organized to deal with the 21st century threat
of terrorism directed against Americans on our own territory. On an
ongoing basis, the Congress and the executive need to focus together on
this vital process and the annual authorization is the means for doing
so.
The Department of Homeland Security authorization bill that is before
the House today reflects an impressive bipartisan effort. That is due,
in large part, to the strong and able leadership of the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson). The Members on both sides of the aisle have
never forgotten for a single day since September 11, 2001, that the
security of the American people must be placed above politics.
So as we meet today to consider the Department of Homeland Security
authorization bill for fiscal year 2006, we find that we have forged
agreement on many important challenges facing our country and the
Department, and on ways to begin to address them. In establishing the
procedures for bringing this annual authorization bill to the floor, we
have been guided by the long-standing practices of the Committee on
Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Those committees have always brought to the floor bills that live
within the spending boundaries established in the House-passed budget.
H.R. 1817, the Department of Homeland Security authorization bill also
does exactly that.
To have credibility, a national security authorization bill must set
the executive's priorities within the framework of its actual budgetary
resources. It does little good for us to pretend that the Department of
Homeland Security has infinite budget resources, and then give it
mandates that it cannot carry out. So this bill funds priorities within
the overall DHS budget, not on top of it.
Within that constraint, we have been able to accomplish a great deal
more for the security of the American people and for this country. We
fully fund the 2,000 new Border Patrol agents called for in the
Intelligence Reform Act passed last year, and we increase the
Department of Homeland Security's funding by nearly one-quarter of a
billion dollars for this purpose.
The bill authorizes $40 million so that immigration and customs
enforcement can expedite illegal alien removal. It provides $5 million
in new funding to implement the Safety Act so we can more quickly
deploy anti-terrorism technologies to protect the American people from
terrorism. It adds $20 million for interoperable communications and
technical assistance for our first responders. It increases funding for
cybersecurity research and development and for cybersecurity education
and training.
Within the Department of Homeland Security budget that this House has
already approved, we have authorized $40 million in additional funds to
support the training of State and local law enforcement personnel so
they can help enforce Federal immigration laws. This provision is
contained in a separate amendment that I will offer today with the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
On these and all other funding decisions in the bill, we have had to
make hard choices and set priorities. That is our responsibility. As a
result, we have not funded every initiative to protect against every
conceivable means by which terrorists might mount an attack. But what
we have done is based our funding decisions on the best intelligence
available, on terrorist capabilities and intentions, and on the actual
risk of terrorist attack. The bill also advances our prime objective of
preventing terrorism by improving our intelligence capability within
the Department of Homeland Security.
Prevention of terrorism requires that information sharing about
terrorist threats be seamless, that it be timely, and that that
communication be secure. That is exactly what this bill accomplishes,
both within the Department of Homeland Security and across the Federal
Government and with our State, local and private sector partners. It
provides the Department of Homeland Security with new tools to build a
robust intelligence capability. It strengthens the partnership with
these other stakeholders.
Those partnerships are essential in sustaining the counterterrorism
mission into the foreseeable future, and the bill will help the
Department of Homeland Security to streamline and integrate the
multitude of different background checks and security screenings that
are conducted for travelers, workers and other critical personnel who
are required to undergo security checks by the Department.
The bill revises the color-coded homeland security advisory system to
make sure that threat warnings are specific and informative, and
wherever possible, that these warnings be targeted. By targeting these
warnings to the areas of the country or sectors of the economy that are
threatened, we can be sure that we are warning the right people and not
needlessly scaring the wrong people. We also need to make sure that the
Federal Government gives clear guidance and speaks with one voice when
it issues such warnings. This bill will ensure this happens.
This authorization bill is shorter this year than it will ever be in
future years. That is because, first, the Department itself is only 2
years old, and Congress has just recently written the entire
legislative charter for the Department.
[[Page H3456]]
Second, we have a new homeland security Secretary who is just
concluding his top to bottom 90-day review of the entire department. We
want to give Secretary Chertoff the opportunity to draw his own road
map, both organizationally and programatically, of where this
Department should go.
We will proceed on additional authorizing legislation later this year
once we have had the opportunity through hearings and oversight to
evaluate the Secretary's proposals.
Mr. Chairman, I conclude by thanking the Members on both sides of the
aisle and the House leadership on both sides of the aisle for their
foresight in creating the Committee on Homeland Security within the
House of Representatives and for allowing us to initiate this annual
authorization process on the floor. This is a significant milestone on
our long journey toward keeping America safe from terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for
his tireless efforts to see that this day came to be. He worked
continuously to create a permanent Committee on Homeland Security and
put in the right track to producing the bill.
It took 13 hours to mark up this bill in committee, and I have to say
that he never lost his patience or his good character, nor his sense of
humor; but clearly, it was a bipartisan effort, and for that I want to
thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
This bill has many good provisions in it. It rejects the section of
the President's shortsighted budget that sought to hire only 210 new
Border Patrol agents this year. Instead, it provided for the 2,000
border agents that everybody else agreed that we needed.
It also, by creating an Assistant Secretary of Cybersecurity at DHS,
finally recognizes the threat posed by cyber attacks. The gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) and other Democrats on this committee
have sought the creation of this position for a very long time.
The evaluation of the color-coded terrorist system is also welcomed.
The system has provided more material for late-night comedians than
effective information on threats on the public.
Also, I am glad that this bill requires the Department to explain how
it is working to protect agriculture and the Nation's food supply from
terrorist attacks.
That said, I wish this bill would have been more comprehensive. I am
glad that, as the chairman mentioned, it is small only because we are a
new committee, but there are some things that we overlooked. We did not
mention airports or chemical plants in this legislation. I just hold up
for the chairman's view and the view of the public the defense
authorization bill which is sizable, and I look forward to, in the next
authorization effort next year, to having a bill that is comprehensive.
The present authorization bill is very, very short on content, but
nonetheless it is a start. There is no comparison between the two, so I
am convinced that at the end of the day Members will recognize we have
a long way to go and there can be no effort or wasting time. We must do
what it takes to make America secure. I hope that we work closely to
close the security gaps left by this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to
first of all add my thanks to both the chairman and the ranking member
of this committee for the bipartisan way in which they have approached
this issue.
I was not a member of this House of Representatives on 9/11. I saw,
as did many Americans, an attack that many of us had never anticipated.
It only brought memories of what my parents' generation must have felt
on the day that we had the attack at Pearl Harbor.
The question before us really now is what is the proper response and
what will that response be by our legislative branch. There has been
established a Department of Homeland Security. It is an amalgamation of
many departments and agencies that previously existed. It has been an
effort to try and bring a single focus to a major issue, our response
to terrorism. It was a well-done job under the circumstances.
Yet now we are here some 3-plus years after 9/11, and we recognize
that everything we did was not exactly perfect. We recognize there are
changes that must be made. This authorization bill is the first chance
that our committee has to present to the House our effort to try and
get our arms around not only this problem but the response to this
problem, and that is the Department of Homeland Security.
While there are other elements of the executive branch which deal
with this, the primary responsibility is with the Department of
Homeland Security, and we have attempted on a bipartisan basis to look
at the issues, to do the proper oversight, to try and make some
recommendations, but none should be deluded to the fact that we somehow
believe this is the total response to the problem.
{time} 1245
This is our first effort. This is the beginning of a job that is
going to be ongoing. Much like the Defense Department was organized in
the late 1940s, early 1950s, and while it took time for Congress to
properly get its arms around that, we similarly must do that now.
Time is not on our side. The terrorists are not waiting until we get
organized, so we must make sure that we do this in the best fashion
possible, in a timely fashion.
I would say that I am very proud of the fact that the bill that has
been brought to floor is a bill that got the unanimous support of the
members of this committee, both Democrat and Republican. It is a worthy
bill. It is a worthy effort at our direction to the Department of
Homeland Security.
There will be things that we will do in the future. One of the things
mentioned by the ranking member that I believe is a real step forward
is establishing the position of Assistant Secretary for cybersecurity.
There is a need to have a concentration on that issue. There is a need
to have that at a heightened level. There is a need for us to
understand the embedded nature of cyberoperations in our society, both
public and private. I believe that we have on a bipartisan basis
reached that conclusion.
I thank both the ranking member and the chairman for the work they
have done. I would ask that the Members support this bill as presented
by this committee.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking Democrat
on the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection,
and Cybersecurity.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentleman from Mississippi for yielding me this time.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1817, the Department of
Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. This is our
first authorizing bill for the now 2-year-old Department of Homeland
Security, and it represents hard work by all the members of the
Committee on Homeland Security. I would like to congratulate the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Thompson), and all the members of the committee for their hard
work in crafting this bill and bringing it to the floor today.
While I would have liked to have seen a more comprehensive bill such
as the substitute that will be offered by the gentleman from
Mississippi which would have addressed aviation security, port
security, interoperability for our first responders and a host of other
important areas not addressed in H.R. 1817, I recognize that this bill
marks significant progress for the Congress, and I urge its adoption.
H.R. 1817 will authorize specific amounts for certain programs within
the Committee on Homeland Security's jurisdiction, such as fully
funding the 2,000 additional border patrol agents recommended by the 9/
11 Commission and authorized under the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
I was gratified that during the markup of the bill in the Committee
on
[[Page H3457]]
Homeland Security that important amendments I offered concerning the
national infrastructure protection plan and cargo container security
were adopted, but I am also disappointed that an amendment that I
intended to offer on the floor today was not accepted by the Committee
on Rules. It is the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism
amendment. C-TPAT, as it is known, is a program that offers companies
reduced inspections of their cargo, and in return the companies must
submit and adhere to a security plan.
There are currently 5,000 companies participating in this program
that receive the benefit of reduced inspections, yet only 600 of these
have had an on-site validation to ensure compliance with the security
requirements. C-TPAT in its current form represents a dangerous
security gap that must be closed, and I hope that Congress and DHS will
address this problem before it is too late.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the committee.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this
time. I congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for working so well together
in the interest of national security to bring this measure to the
floor.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1817. History has
provided us with many examples of leaders who have taken the steps to
ensure the safety and security of the American people. Today this House
takes its place in that historical record through consideration of an
unprecedented measure that authorizes the activities of the new
Department of Homeland Security.
In addition to authorizing over $34 billion in funding for DHS
operations in fiscal year 2006, this legislation calls for DHS to
accelerate its efforts to identify and deploy homeland security
technologies and creates mechanisms by which State and local leaders
can effectively communicate with Federal homeland security officials.
As the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Nuclear and
Biological Attack, I have been tasked with overseeing the Department's
efforts to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States using nuclear
and biological weapons. I cannot think of a more devastating event both
in terms of loss of life and economic fallout than an attack on this
country involving a weapon of mass destruction.
H.R. 1817 refocuses the mission of DHS to follow a similar path.
First, this legislation authorizes full funding of 2,000 new border
agents. It is no secret that much of our Nation's 7,000 miles of border
with both Canada and Mexico are vulnerable to illegal crossings. The
addition of these agents will strengthen our Nation's ability to
protect those borders and to prevent terrorists from smuggling nuclear
or biological material into our country.
Prevention, however, should not be limited to our borders, and H.R.
1817 authorizes approximately $200 million in funding for a new nuclear
detection office which will play a substantial role in coordinating the
overseas nonproliferation efforts of the Federal Government. Moreover,
H.R. 1817 provides nearly $140 million in funding for the Container
Security Initiative and requires DHS to conduct a risk assessment of
each foreign seaport that is designated as a CSI port. While we should
do everything possible to ensure that the free flow of commerce between
countries is not inhibited, we cannot ignore the possibility that
terrorists may use foreign seaports to transport weapons of mass
destruction into our country.
We cannot simply wait at home for terrorists to come to us. These
efforts must be conducted in areas of the world that have, or can
obtain, weapons of mass destruction but lack the responsibility of
ensuring that such weapons do not fall into malevolent hands.
Mr. Chairman, government has no greater responsibility than that of
protecting the rights and freedoms of its citizens. I urge my
colleagues to join me in taking an additional step forward in this
effort by supporting H.R. 1817.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. I want to
commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for their very hard work. This bill includes
provisions to improve our homeland security a great deal, but I regret
that it is not complete.
Communication barriers faced by emergency personnel in Oklahoma City
10 years ago still plagued our first responders on September 11; 3\1/2\
years later, the very same first responders are waiting for further
guidance and funding for communications interoperability. Section 308
reinforces Congress's intent for DHS, the Department of Commerce, and
the FCC to work together to issue voluntary standards and a schedule to
reach those standards.
I applaud this provision, but we could have done better. I am
frustrated that two amendments I submitted to the Committee on Rules
were not allowed under the rule. One of the amendments would have
authorized grant funding for interoperability. Standards are a first
step, but we must follow with resources. The U.S. Conference of Mayors
June 2004 interoperability report noted that 75 percent of the cities
surveyed have not received Federal funds for interoperable
communications. This is unacceptable. First responders need, and quite
frankly deserve, a commitment from this Congress that roadblocks to an
interoperable communications system, particularly a lack of consistent
and sustained Federal funding, will be eliminated.
My second amendment would have required that all airport employees go
through some form of physical screening when entering sterile and
secure areas. This happens at the busiest airport in the world,
Heathrow, and in Canada; but it does not happen in the U.S. 9/11
Commission Chairman Kean told the Committee on Homeland Security that
everybody should go through metal detectors without exception. We have
spent tens of billions of dollars on passenger screening, but have
nevertheless left gaping holes in the security of our airports.
These two fundamentals of homeland security, grant funding for first
responder communications system and screening of airport workers, are
long overdue. I support the bill, but it could have been improved with
these commonsense measures.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes
to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in
support of H.R. 1817, the Homeland Security Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006. I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for
his leadership and commitment to securing our Nation's borders.
Congress has not been idle when it comes to our Nation's security,
recently passing the REAL ID Act in the emergency wartime supplemental.
I applaud all of these changes. They provide identification checks that
will keep our vital infrastructure facilities like chemical and nuclear
power plants safe from terrorists.
I know firsthand the value of security, as my hometown recently
experienced the unfortunate confluence of illegal immigration, Social
Security fraud, and potential terrorist threats. I live in Crystal
River where there is a nuclear power plant, and it was found to have
contracted with a businessman who, unbeknownst to them, had actually
been using illegal immigrant day laborers who provided false or stolen
Social Security numbers to obtain government-issued driver's licenses.
This issue brought home the vital importance of not only upgrading
our identity verification processes but also of securing our borders.
These people actually had been deported but sneaked back into the
country and got a little too close to a critical infrastructure site
for this Member of Congress to be able to tolerate.
We worked to strengthen our ID laws, but we also must work to
strengthen our borders. Today our borders are overwhelmed. To anyone
watching today, it is clear that America needs
[[Page H3458]]
border patrol agents. Just last week in the Committee on Government
Reform, my colleagues and I heard testimony that the Department of
Homeland Security does not have enough agents and that it desperately
needs more. Last year's intelligence reform bill authorized 2,000 new
agents. These new border patrol agents will deter illegals from
entering the United States and will enhance response capabilities by
almost 20 percent. However, funding was only proposed for 210 of these
agents. This is unacceptable. 210 agents cannot adequately protect our
borders.
Accordingly, I join my colleagues on the Immigration Reform Caucus to
call for the full 2,000 new border patrol agents. I thank the gentleman
from California again for placing this as a priority of securing our
borders and authorizing the additional agents that America needs. Mr.
Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to protect our borders and to
vote in favor of the Homeland Security Authorization Act which does
better protect nuclear power plants and chemical facilities.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, today represents a very important step to
ensure that Congress truly begins to exercise a robust, judicious, and
intense oversight of the Department of Homeland Security. Our committee
has been called on to defend our ports, our infrastructure, our
neighborhoods, indeed our families. We have risen to the challenge.
Indeed, this first-ever authorization bill, H.R. 1817, will begin an
annual ritual to critically examine the Department of Homeland Security
and its effectiveness in securing our Nation.
Oversight is germane to our mission. It is an austere and sober
undertaking, to be sure; and it should be. This Department was formed
because of the disastrous terrorist attacks of September 11, and its
mission is to help prevent and respond to any potential future assault.
I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for their leadership in undertaking
this process. I understand the pressures that were faced in trying to
complete this inaugural authorization, and our chairman has had to
navigate a difficult course.
Make no mistake, there are provisions within this bill that will make
very good public policy. The creation of an Assistant Secretary for
cybersecurity within the Department is a wise measure to help combat a
very real vulnerability. Likewise, allowing the Department of Homeland
Security Secretary to provide additional incentives to recruit highly
sought after intelligence analysts is a great step to combat one of our
biggest national security problems.
However, while I applaud the work and the spirit that went into this
legislation, I would have preferred to see a more comprehensive bill
that addressed a greater assortment of security gaps that we have
uncovered.
{time} 1300
I will proudly support the substitute that the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), ranking member, will offer later today. The
gentleman from Mississippi will improve this authorization by better
funding our border security in aviation research. His substitute will
provide the tools necessary to secure our chemical plants and ports,
just to name but a few.
This is indeed a big day for homeland security and the Committee on
Homeland Security and for Congress as a whole. I thank the chairman and
the ranking member for all of their hard work.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman
of the Committee on Science, someone who worked closely with our
committee.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill,
which will help us better guide the Department of Homeland Security in
its most important responsibilities. I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Chairman Cox) and the staff for working so closely with us
on areas of the bill that were under the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Science, which I am privileged to chair.
The Committee on Science created the Science and Technology
Directorate, and we want to do everything we can to ensure that it
succeeds in this mission. As I have said before many times, the war
against terrorism, like the Cold War, will be won in the laboratory as
much as on the battlefield.
The Committee on Science also played a key role in the establishment
of the Information Assurance and Infrastructure Protection Directorate,
where our interests have focused on cybersecurity, a grave and
underappreciated threat, and one on which DHS unfortunately has focused
too little attention and too few resources. We hope that is going to
change.
This bill will strengthen research and development activities at the
Department and will place new and added emphasis on cybersecurity.
Specifically, the bill includes language to enhance technology
transfer, to improve cybersecurity training, and to create an Assistant
Secretary for cybersecurity and to authorize explicitly a cybersecurity
research and development program. All of this language either
originated in our committee or was worked out in collaboration between
the Committee on Science and the Committee on Homeland Security.
I am especially pleased that the bill recognizes the need to focus
more on cybersecurity. We all recognize it. We want to make sure that
the agency follows through and responds accordingly. We need to act
both immediately and in the long term. Immediately, we need to shore up
existing networks and develop a system to detect, report, and respond
to attacks. Over the long term, we need to figure out how to make
computers harder to attack.
DHS needs to be working with the National Science Foundation, the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency, and the National Security Agency on
cybersecurity. But its own contributions are critical.
Let me close by thanking the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox)
and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), ranking member,
working together, their staffs, and especially Tom DiLenge, and the
entire Committee on Homeland Security by working cooperatively to come
up with an excellent bill which has earned our support.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate certainly the
Committee on Homeland Security. I mean it was very difficult, I am
sure, for them to try to work everything out that needed to be in
starting and looking at a new territory. I happen to think that it is a
bill that certainly has been put together and hopefully it is going to
be everything that we need to keep this land safe.
With that being said, last night in the Committee on Rules, I tried
to offer five different amendments. A lot of them had to do with gun
safety. Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned, part of this
legislation is incomplete when we talk about homeland security. It
totally ignores threats posed by terrorists aiming themselves at our
country. And according to a GAO report published earlier this year,
they are finding exactly that. Why? Because of our pre-9/11 gun laws.
Common sense would dictate if we do not trust one to board a plane,
we should not trust them to buy a gun. And that is exactly what we are
seeing. We are seeing that certain people are on the no fly list, they
are not allowed to get on a plane; yet those same people, a lot of them
who certainly have backgrounds as terrorists, can go into any store,
they can go to a gun show anywhere to be able to buy a gun.
That does not make sense to me. We are supposed to be protecting the
American people. We are supposed to be protecting our law enforcement
people and certainly our Federal employees. Anybody on a Federal
terrorist watch list can buy assault weapons with the large capacity
clips. We tried to have that addressed, especially the large capacity
clips. We saw what all these people can do with only box cutters and
boarding passes. What makes
[[Page H3459]]
it so easy for them to buy guns? Why is Congress ignoring this serious
homeland security threat that we are facing? Why do we allow our
enemies on the war on terror to arm themselves within our borders and
make it so easy for them?
Almost all of the legislation that I have been proposing certainly
would not stop one citizen from buying a gun. Until we address our pre-
9/11 gun laws, our Nation's homeland security will be at risk.
As I said, we will certainly, hopefully before this Congress is over,
be able to address these issues. Safety for the American people is
paramount for all of us. Both sides agree on that, and I hope that we
can have a new dialogue on how we talk about gun safety in this
country, and part of it has to be homeland security.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 1817, the Department
of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
Mr. Chairman, I come to Congress in an era when rancor between the
parties seems to dominate the headlines. This bill, however, is a
testament to the idea, uniquely American, that congressional politics
will always be placed on the back burner when it comes to the job of
protecting the homeland.
This legislation has come to the floor of the House in no small part
because of the bipartisan efforts of both the chairman and the ranking
member of the Committee on Homeland Security, of which I am a member.
This is not to say that both sides did not state their positions
forcefully. In this regard, there were spirited exchanges while this
bill was being marked up in committee. There were over 30 amendments
offered, and all were extensively and vigorously debated. Yet
throughout all of this, the dialogue was cordial, and I believe this is
because everyone involved possessed the same goal: pass a bill that
would give this country the protection it deserves at a cost that we
can all afford to pay.
The bill indeed puts resources where those resources are needed. It
authorizes some $34 billion to fund programs designed to combat a host
of homeland security issues. It allocates $1.84 billion so that the
government can afford to hire and train some 2,000 new border patrol
agents. These newly minted law enforcement officers will not only serve
as a deterrent to would-be terrorists but also as an important element
in the fight to curb illegal immigration in general.
Improving intelligence capabilities is also an important part of this
legislation. The bill provides moneys so that the Department of
Homeland Security can hire the best intelligence analysts available. It
promotes the development of an open-source intelligence strategy, and
it increases the capabilities of the Department of Homeland Security to
detect and preempt the most serious kind of terrorism imaginable: a
nuclear or biological attack.
Some have wondered whether or not this bill is comprehensive enough
to deal with all the security threats the Nation must confront. There
is no doubt in my mind that it is. There is money authorized here to
make sure that containers coming from foreign ports receive risk-based
cargo screening. Funding for this important project will also increase
from $126 million in 2005 to $133 million in 2006. Further, the bill
provides funding for such varied security issues as the protection of
civilian passenger and cargo aircraft, $10 million; chemical
countermeasure development, $76 million; the detection of weapons of
mass destruction, $100 million; and critical infrastructure protection,
$465 million.
The idea that homeland security funding should be based on security
rather than on political concerns is one that resonates on both sides
of the aisle of this great Chamber. The Members of this body recognize
that the security challenges we face are unique in our history. The
Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 gives us the
tools to meet these challenges. For that reason, I vigorously and
strongly support this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), an excellent member on
the committee.
(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
California (Chairman Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Thompson), ranking member, for conducting what I think is a thoroughly
balanced markup of this bill, the first House authorization of the
Department of Homeland Security. This bill is a bipartisan product of
our committee, and I am pleased that the committee included my
amendment addressing the importance of agriculture security in the
bill.
Too often folks take the safety of our food for granted. It is
critical that the Department of Homeland Security work in close
cooperation with other agencies of the Federal Government, especially
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to ensure the safety of the food in
this country.
Although the authorization bill addresses many important issues, it
is far from perfect. It fails to address a number of the important and
wide-ranging security gaps, including the need for communication and
interoperability between first responders. We also need more investment
not only in the research and development of security technologies but
also in the training of scientists, researchers, and analysts to
support and protect our Nation.
This bill is a good first step, and I look forward to working on a
bipartisan basis to address the remaining security gaps, and hopefully
we will get a chance to vote on them today.
I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for his hard work and for
yielding me this time, and I am proud to support this legislation.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).
Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1817. This
bill funds Homeland Security and helps to further protect our country
from those who would intend to do us harm.
This bill creates a department-wide terrorism prevention plan,
uniting the actions of 22 different Federal organizations that were
combined into the Department. This bill expedites the deployment of the
antiterrorism technology. It requires the Department to create and
establish a technology clearinghouse within 90 days to expedite the
deployment of antiterrorism technology for use by Federal, State,
local, and private sector officials.
This bill increases border enforcement. It requires the Secretary to
study the division of border security between Customs and Border Patrol
and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and to look at the merits
of consolidation. This bill also gives the Secretary the ability to
provide incentives to recruit highly-sought-after intelligence
analysts.
As many speakers have already said, I certainly commend the chairman,
I commend the ranking member for working together in a bipartisan
fashion on such an important bill.
I would also like this Chamber to recognize that so much of this bill
is focused on streamlining homeland security efforts, from better
coordinating the various agencies to facilitating communication with
local officials. I strongly rise in support of the creation of regional
offices, which are called for in the committee report, because I
believe that would aid these efforts. These regional offices would
create a stronger platform to lead national efforts to set priorities,
identify critical vulnerabilities, and to coordinate State, local, and
private sector entities in order to protect our homeland from terrorist
attacks.
Louisiana has got a lot to protect. We are home to more than 190
sites identified as national critical infrastructure. New Orleans is
one of the largest port systems in the world. Baton Rouge, my hometown,
is the Nation's furthest inland port, the only port in the country
capable of handling superships. My State is the third largest producer
of petroleum, the third leading State in petroleum refining, all of
which requires critical infrastructure. Twenty-five percent of the
Nation's exports are already shipped through Louisiana.
For those reasons, I strongly rise in support of these provisions
that shift
[[Page H3460]]
our funding to one based on the risk and threat of actual attack as
opposed to just politics. Louisiana is already home to a Coast Guard
and border patrol regional office. We certainly hope that when the
Department does come and decide where to locate these regional offices,
we will be considered.
I rise in strong support of the bill.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), also a member of the
committee.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first I want to offer my
great appreciation of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson),
the ranking member of this committee, and of course for his
collaborative efforts with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox),
chairman of this committee.
{time} 1315
I think that we can go on record as one of the more collaborative
committees on something that requires an American response.
I rise today to say that we have made a good first step. As all of
America's eyes were looking at a little Cessna, the Committee on
Homeland Security now recognizes or has recognized that we are and have
to be a proactive committee. We must give an answer to the American
people that they will appreciate and find comfort that we are securing
the homeland, the rural hamlets, the urban areas, the suburban areas,
the counties, the cities, and Homeland Security Should be in our
neighborhoods.
So I am somewhat disappointed that my community preparedness
amendment was not included, but I look forward to working with the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Thompson) so that we can emphasize an enhanced citizen corps. I am
glad that we will study the question of whether or not border violence
requires volunteer efforts and whether or not we are doing all that we
can as a governmental entity to protect our borders. That is the role
and the responsibility of America.
Then I am delighted that we have done a few things in this bill, but,
Mr. Chairman, I raise a question that there is no emphasis, no work
done on the aviation security issues that are still growing and still
there; no further work done on port security that really is important
in America with the need for new technology and the inspection of
cargo, which is not done in all of America's ports; and certainly,
coming from Texas, I think it is important that we understand industry
such as the energy industry, but we must demand safety and, as well,
there is a great need for protecting, or at least providing those kinds
of requirements and oversight.
We could do more. I look forward to supporting the substitute offered
by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), and I ask my
colleagues to support my amendments regarding border violence as well
as studies dealing with temporary protective status. I ask my
colleagues that we work together to secure the homeland.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the overall measure we consider
today, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for FY
2006, H.R. 1817. While there remain areas that have not been adequately
addressed in its provisions, I recognize the importance of a bi-
partisan effort to secure our homeland. We have waited three years for
the crafting and consideration of an authorization measure, and now we
have the chance to show America that we are responsible, prudent, and
expedient.
H.R. 1817 is the first authorization measure since the passage of the
Homeland Security Act of 2003. The appropriators withheld over $700
million from DHS due to incomplete fulfillment of specific reporting
requirements; therefore, our passage of the most comprehensive and
representative measure possible would equate to having conducted ``due
diligence'' on our part.
Just yesterday, we in the House passed the Appropriations Act for FY
2006, H.R. 2360, by a margin of 424-1. I joined my committee colleagues
in considering this bill from its incipiency as it passed in both the
Committees on Homeland Security on April 28, 2005 and Judiciary on May
12, 2005 unanimously by voice vote. Today, the Committee of the Whole
will make history by passing its first Homeland Security Authorization
measure, and I support an expedient but prudent completion of this
endeavor.
In the markup hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary held on May
12, 2005, I offered an amendment on behalf of and in conjunction with
my colleague from California, who serves on the Democratic Caucus Task
Force on Homeland Security, Vice Chair of the Democratic Caucus Task
Force on Immigration, and First Vice Chair of the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus. As I serve as the Ranking Member of this Committee's
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, this
important amendment that would require the collection of data on
immigration consultants and ``notarios'' who conduct fraudulent
immigration services for compensation, I was happy to offer this
amendment. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the Chairman of the
Committee on Judiciary and the Ranking Member from Michigan for their
collaborative support of this amendment as it was accepted and
incorporated as Section 506 of the Amendment in Nature of a Substitute
that we consider today.
During the 13-hour Homeland Security Committee markup session that
ended at 11:15 p.m. I was able to secure sincere commitments from the
Majority Leadership to work with me for inclusion of some of my major
initiatives: funding and more clearly defining the Citizen Corps and
the Citizen Corps Councils--which will include consideration of a
stand-alone bill that I will introduce shortly; and increasing capacity
for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving
Institutions, and Tribal Institutions in Homeland Security procurement
and in employment with the Department of Homeland Security. In
addition, I was fortunate to have had my amendment, co-sponsored by the
Gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren, that seeks to authorize the
funding of programs for the education of minorities in the areas of
cyberscience, research, and development to close the gap in achievement
in those areas and to make America better equipped to fight terrorism
overall. Furthermore, I achieved an agreement from the Majority
Committee Leadership to collaborate on addressing the issue of border
violence, an initiative that the distinguished Chairman of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security showed his commitment
to addressing, as evidenced by his support for an amendment that I
offered yesterday during the House's consideration of the
appropriations measure, H.R. 2360. Not only do I hope to see this
language survive the deliberations of the Conferees, but I hope to see
follow-through by the Homeland Security Committee with the bi-partisan
letter and with consideration of the amendment that I plan to offer
during our consideration of H.R. 1817.
Mr. Speaker, what the House has done this week and will do today will
establish the breadth and efficacy of the entire Department of Homeland
Security. I hope that my colleagues will keep that in mind as we work
to debate the amendments that have been made in order.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to how much time
remains.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cole of Oklahoma). The gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
As I stated in my previous remarks, this legislation is important for
a number of reasons, not the least of which is it will help us in our
fight against nuclear and biological terrorism. I think we all can
agree that that is the one issue that, as Americans, we can agree to as
our greatest threat. This committee has spent a great deal of time
discussing that issue recently, and I believe, for one, that this bill
adequately addresses that issue and many, many others.
So with that, again, I rise in strong support of this authorization
legislation. I am proud of the bipartisan spirit that we have embraced
in this committee led the chairman and the ranking member.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers on our side, and I
reserve the balance of the time for closing.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a member of the committee.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
The Republican leadership has denied a debate on the House floor on
the very important issue that passengers who
[[Page H3461]]
fly on commercial flights across America, tens of millions of Americans
a year who put their families on commercial flights, are put in the
situation where they take off their shoes, they have their computers
checked, they have their bags which are inspected on those passenger
flights, because we know that al Qaeda is trying to infiltrate
commercial flights in America.
But the cargo, the cargo which goes on that very same plane, of
somebody who did not buy a ticket on that flight but placed the cargo
on that plane, is going to fly without being screened at all. Almost
none of the cargo on American planes that carry passengers across our
country is screened, although that cargo is almost the same size as
your bags, which are on the same plane. So you have your bags screened,
you have your family screened, but the cargo on that plane is not
screened.
How much sense does that make, that your shoes are screened but that
the cargo on the very same plane is not screened?
And do my colleagues want to hear something else even more absurd? If
it is a package 16 ounces or less, they do not even look at the
paperwork for it. It goes on that passenger plane automatically.
Mr. Chairman, this is wrong. In the past week, we have had two planes
diverted that were coming from overseas because the no-fly terrorist
list had not been completely checked before the plane was in midair,
and it caused diversions both times. How can we allow the back door of
planes to have cargo placed upon it that is not screened? It is
absolutely wrong.
And the fact that the technology exists, that the Israelis screen the
cargo, that other countries screen the cargo, how can we place tens of
millions of Americans who place their families on planes, going to
vacation, going back to school, on planes where the cargo is not
inspected, and then have the Republicans say, we are not going to have
a debate on that on the House floor.
My amendment with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) would
have guaranteed that over the next 3 years technology would have been
put in place that would have guaranteed that every single bit of cargo
that goes on passenger planes is screened. And all we asked from the
Republicans was that if you are not going to allow us to even make that
amendment on the House floor, at least let us have a warning, a warning
to all American families at the airports that you are placing your
children on planes to go back to school or go to vacation when the
cargo on that plane has not been screened.
Every American parent has the right to know that their children are
being placed on planes to go to vacation or go to school without it
being screened. Every American family has the right to know that when
they put their children on passenger planes in America that almost none
of the cargo has been screened, and then they can make the decision for
themselves. I think that parents would not put their children on planes
if the cargo has not been screened. They themselves, they might get on
the plane.
But for the Republicans to not allow us to have a debate on the House
floor on this issue, as we know that al Qaeda continues to target
commercial aircraft as their number one terrorist target, is absolutely
wrong.
So I ask opposition to this bill. It just is not dealing with the
real issues that threaten the American public.
Rapiscan Systems,
Hawthorne, CA, May 9, 2005.
Hon. Edward J. Markey,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Markey: We applaud your efforts to
focus more attention on the glaring hole in the United
States' aviation security--lack of air cargo inspection.
Rapiscan Systems develops, manufactures, installs and
services the world's widest array of non-intrusive inspection
systems for airports, seaports, border crossings, military
installation. Currently Rapiscan Systems provides nearly half
of the checkpoint security systems at U.S. airports.
Included in our portfolio of systems is an air cargo
inspection system that can inspect fully-loaded cargo
containers. This system is being installed at George H.W.
Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas and Ted
Stevens Anchorage International Airport in Alaska.
containerized air cargo inspection technology exists and is being
installed at U.S. airports
In the late 1980's in response to the Pan Am 103 bombing,
the United States Department of Defense began development of
a material-specific bomb detection technology for aviation.
As a result of this effort, the Ancore Corporation (now
Rapiscan Systems Neutronics and Advanced Technologies
Division) developed Pulsed-Fast Neutron Analysis (PFNA)
technology. PFNA can automatically detect all explosives,
chemical weapons, radioactive materials, narcotics and even
hazardous aviation cargo. This technology was most recently
deployed to the Ysleta border crossing in El Paso, TX.
Rapiscan Systems is currently deploying two PFNA air cargo
inspection systems at U.S. airports: George H.W. Bush
Intercontinental Airport in Houston and Ted Stevens Anchorage
International Airport. Both of these installations are part
of Transportation Security Administration programs. Similar
neutron-based systems have been installed internationally,
including an air cargo inspection facility at Taipei airport
in Taiwan.
containerized cargo inspection maintains current air cargo flow of
commerce
While TSA and other government agencies have evaluated
break-bulk cargo x-ray inspection systems (Rapiscan also
manufacturers these systems), only PFNA can inspect
containerized cargo. The difficulty with break-bulk systems
is that they require containerized or palletized cargo to be
unpacked to inspect. This adds hours to inspection time and
makes some technologies unfeasible for fast delivery air
cargo.
PFNA systems inspect fully loaded cargo containers and
pallets for aviation-quantity threats (established by TSA).
This allows for fast inspection without unpacking. PFNA
systems meet the time constraints of the air cargo
environment.
air cargo inspection can be provided with current screener corps
Another common argument against air cargo inspection is
that they technologies will require hundreds of new TSA
screeners to operate and inspect. Because PFNA provides
automatic, material specific inspection each system only
requires a single operator. And since, PFNA systems can
inspect 6-10 containers per hour, most airports will only
require one to two systems.
As congress debates the policy surrounding air cargo
inspection, Rapiscan Systems offers to help Members and staff
investigate the current availability and state of cargo
inspection technologies. While cost and level of risk shou1d
factor into this debate, the question of the availability of
technology to inspect air cargo has already been answered.
Thank you again for your efforts to call attention to and
rectify this important homeland security issue. Please let me
know if Rapiscan Systems can be helpful in your continued
efforts.
Sincerely,
Peter Kant,
Vice President, Government Affairs.
____
American Science
and Engineering, Inc.,
Billerica, MA, May 17, 2005.
Dear Congressman Markey: American Science and Engineering
Inc. (AS&E) would like to extend its support for the Bill
being introduced by you and Congressman Shay which addresses
the need to improve Air Cargo Security. As you know,
potential threats in current Air Cargo could go undetected
due the lack of a comprehensive inspection requirement or
strategy.
Finding a broad range of potential explosive threats in Air
Cargo is a challenge to today's technology. Although existing
systems may not be able to find all threats under all
conditions, it is still imperative to address the issue of
Air Cargo security. Finding the theoretical small amount of
explosive that could bring down an aircraft is not the only
way to provide a higher sense of security. Many organizations
around the World provide Air Cargo security by approaching
the problem differently. In some cases they use X-ray
technology to inspect cargo prior to loading a container or
pallet. Others use current technology to inspect the entire
container to find anomalies in the cargo such as bulk
explosives, radioactive materials and stowaways. They can
also determine if the cargo looks different from what the
manifest stipulates, if there are false bulkheads or floors
or there are extra or unusual containers present. Any of
these anomalies can indicate the presence of a potential
threat.
Most available systems today, including AS&E's product line
of X-ray Transmission, Backscatter Imaging and Radioactive
Threat Detection systems, can provide a significant step
toward insuring that Air Cargo has not been tampered with or
poses a threat.
If properly implemented into an airport flow of cargo,
security can be improved with minimal impact to the flow of
commerce. Many users of current Air Cargo inspection systems
throughout the World have done this successfully. What is
required in the USA is a mandate to move forward with Air
Cargo security as a priority and a willingness to think about
the problem differently.
We support your efforts and trust that our Government will
do the responsible things to make our citizens safer in these
troubled times. If we can be of further help, please feel
free to contact us.
Best Regards,
Rich Mastronardi,
VP Strategic Marketing & Sales.
[[Page H3462]]
____
Cargo Security Solutions, Inc.,
Lewisville, TX, May 4, 2005.
Hon. Edward Markey,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Christopher Shays,
Longworth Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman: We are aware that Congressman Markey and
Congressman Shays are proposing a new Air Cargo Security Act
(H.R. 2044). We feel that this is a comprehensive step
forward for the entire security of the nation and that it
should be enacted without hindrance. This nation needs a
mandate similar to what was enacted in the days after 9/11 to
screen passengers and we implore Congress to pass a similar
measure for air cargo.
Air Cargo Security in this country poses a great risk and
danger to the well being of every American.
The air cargo security solution is one that requires more
than just technology. It will require coordination,
resources, and a valid security infrastructure to apply a
comprehensive effort. Cargo security must yield at least the
results of the passenger screening initiatives without
jeopardizing next day competitiveness of our businesses.
Those, like Cargo Security Solutions, Inc. who are in the
business of securing air cargo, recognize this fact and have
integrated these concerns in their security models. At CSSI
the speed of the supply chain is kept intact by the specific
interaction of trained personal, stringent oversight, and
``out of the box'' solutions. These include the use next
generation ``tickets'' for every piece of freight.
As industry and air cargo specialists we are very aware of
the dangers threatening a vital part of the nation's economy.
Cargo Security Solutions Inc., was established in the days
after September 11th to ensure that a tragedy of equal
magnitude never originates within the air cargo system.
Since 9/11 CSSI has developed and refined a security
program that is centered around and focuses on 100%
inspection. The program that has been developed implements
inspections at various strategic points during the events of
a shipment through the supply chain thus creating little
negative impact on the chain itself. 100% inspection is
feasible and CSSI is ready to implement a full solution and
infrastructure, with the leadership of TSA and contributions
from the air cargo industry.
There are other similar enterprises that are ready to
contribute to this effort. These businesses run the gamut of
industries, from technological to human resources. These are
all specialized firms who are ready willing and able to
tackle this issue.
Congressional leaders have received an abundant amount of
information regarding the critical nature and threat posed by
the air cargo security situation in this country. Countless,
OIG, GAO, and other reports show how dire the situation
really is. CSSI has joined in this effort and sent
information regarding air cargo security to several
congressional leaders. Included in some of these documents,
have been clear plans as to how and why 100% inspection is
feasible and the very ``clear and present danger'' that is
posed by air cargo.
Most recently ``diamonds for arms'' shipments were
discovered on Soviet made Antonov aircraft operated by
designated arms dealer Viktor Bout. HIS company has been in
business and operating within The United States since the
early 1990s and has brought unknown shipments from all over
the world including former soviet states with nuclear arms.
Proliferation does exist, has existed and its results have
made it on American soil. This should be a wakeup call for
all American policy leaders. 100 percent inspection of all
cargo is not only needed but necessary.
Regards,
Capt. Robert C. Davis,
Cargo Security Solutions, Inc. CEO.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi for
purposes of closing debate.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
We have heard a number of statements about this bill. It is an
initial step in the right direction. It is not comprehensive. There are
some glaring overlooks in the bill. We do not address any aviation
security, we do not address chemical security. There are a number of
things that we could do better in this bill.
However, I have to join my chairman in recognizing the fact that this
is our first attempt to do an authorization bill. It is by no means
complete, but given his leadership and willingness to work in a
bipartisan spirit, I am looking forward to moving this legislation and
making sure that we do the right thing for this country. We have to
secure this Nation.
I will be offering a substitute later in the debate which obviously
will cover far more areas than what this authorization bill covers that
we are debating here today.
Clearly, if we support the substitute, we can move closer to making
America secure.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), both for his generous remarks but, more
importantly, for his hard work on this piece of legislation over a
period of several months and, as he pointed out, through ultimately a
very long, arduous markup in the committee where members on both sides
had an unlimited opportunity to offer amendments and consider a variety
of topics.
As we conclude general debate and prepare to move into debate on the
specific amendments on this bill, I think we can recognize one
important fact, and that is that we are all agreed on the essence of
the underlying bill. We have some things, each of us, that we might
like to add to this bill, and I predict that in due course, over the
rest of this year, we will have an opportunity again on this House
floor to take up issues, including aviation security, chemical
security, port security, and so on.
But the entirety of what we do accomplish in this bill is bipartisan
in nature and agreed upon by the members on both sides of the aisle, at
least in the Committee on Homeland Security, and we will soon see about
the House as a whole. That is because we have allocated the $32
billion, for what is now the third largest Cabinet department, in a way
that demonstrably advances our number one goal of preventing terrorism
in the future on American soil, directed against American citizens,
protecting America's most critical infrastructure against terrorist
attack, and being prepared to respond and recover should, against all
our best preparations, that ever occur in the future.
In order to bring us to this point, we have had to have a great deal
of bipartisan assistance, all motivated by the best interests of the
country from Members on both sides.
I specifically want to mention the vice chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon); the chairmen
and ranking members of our five subcommittees, and the Staff Directors
on both sides, Ben Cohen on the Majority side and Calvin Humphreys on
the minority side. The staffs have done extraordinary professional
work, and their staffs are drawn from, in many cases, the executive
branch, with experience about precisely the work and the programs that
we are overseeing in this legislation. Many of them have come from the
intelligence community, others come from the Coast Guard and other
branches of the armed services.
We can be very proud in this House about the institutionalization of
the role of homeland security oversight and authorization that has been
set in motion as a result of a decision of leadership on both sides,
and I want to conclude by taking this opportunity, once again, to thank
the House leadership for its very wise decision to create permanent
authorizing and oversight responsibility in this Congress on an
institutionalized basis, and then, today, taking the next important
step of institutionalizing an annual authorization process so that
together the legislative branch and the executive branch will closely
collaborate on what is the essence of our national security
responsibility to all Americans: making sure that we are safe and
secure on American territory for the American citizens.
So, Mr. Chairman, with that, I will draw this general debate to a
conclusion, and I look forward to working with the body on the several
amendments that have been made in order under the rule.
Mr. Chairman, I will at this time introduce into the Record a series
of letters exchanged between the Committee on Homeland Security and
other standing committees, including the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence of the House of Representatives, concerning jurisdictional
issues raised by this legislation.
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC, May 18, 2005.
Hon. Christopher Cox,
Chairman, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your willingness to
consult and work with me as you guided H.R. 1817, ``the
Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2006'' from introduction, through
[[Page H3463]]
the Homeland Security Committee, and to the floor. As you
know, the Committee on Government Reform has been interested
in a number of provisions within H.R. 1817. The Committee has
been concerned that the expansion of the Department's
responsibilities for information sharing in Title II,
Subtitle B, Homeland Security Information Sharing and
Analysis Enhancement, not lessen the Department's
responsibility to follow government-wide policies and
procedures for the sharing of information. In addition to the
information sharing provisions of Subtitle B, the Committee
has specific jurisdictional interests in the following
provisions of your substitute: Sec. 201--Consolidated
Background Check Process; Sec. 216--Coordination of homeland
security threat analysis provided to non-Federal officials;
Sec. 217--9/11 Homeland Security Fellows Program; Sec. 221--
IAIP Personnel Recruitment; Sec. 302--Technology Development
and Transfer; Sec. 303--Review of Antiterrorism Activities;
Title III, Subtitle B--Department of Homeland Security
Cybersecurity Enhancement; Sec. 334--Protection of
Information; and Sec. 502--GAO Report to Congress.
I would like to confirm our mutual understanding with
respect to the consideration of H.R. 1817. As you know, H.R.
1817 was sequentially referred to the Committee on Government
Reform. Because of your willingness to work with us to
resolve issues of concern to the Committee and to include
those improvements to the bill in your amendment in the
nature of a substitute on the floor, the Committee on
Government Reform did not consider H.R. 1817. However, the
Committee has done so only with the understanding that this
procedural route would not prejudice the Committee on
Government Reform's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives
on this bill or similar legislation.
I respectfully request your support for the appointment of
outside conferees from the Committee on Government Reform
should this bill or a similar Senate bill be considered in
conference with the Senate. Finally, I would ask that you
include a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter in
the Congressional Record during the House debate of this
bill. If you have questions regarding this matter, please do
not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your attention to this
matter.
Sincerely,
Tom Davis,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, May 18, 2005.
Hon. Tom Davis,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter
regarding the Committee on Government Reform's jurisdictional
interest in H.R. 1817, ``the Department of Homeland Security
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006'', and your
willingness to forego consideration of H.R. 1817 by the
Committee.
I agree that the Committee on Government Reform has a valid
jurisdictional interest in particular sections of H.R. 1817,
and that the committee's jurisdiction with respect to those
provisions will not be adversely affected by the Committee's
decision to not consider H.R. 1817. In addition, I agree that
for provisions of the bill that are determined to be within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform, I
will support representation for your Committee during
conference with the Senate on this or similar legislation,
should such a conference be convened.
As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter
and this response in the Congressional Record during
consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank
you for your assistance as we work towards the enactment of
H.R. 1817.
Sincerely,
Christopher Cox,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC, May 2, 2005.
Hon. Christopher Cox,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Cox: On April 27, 2005, the Committee on
Homeland Security ordered reported a committee print titled
the, ``Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006.'' Section 309 of the bill, which provides
for a report to Congress on protecting agriculture from
terrorist attack, falls within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Agriculture. Recognizing your interest in
bringing this legislation before the House quickly, the
Committee on Agriculture agrees not to seek a sequential
referral of the bill. By agreeing not to seek a sequential
referral, the Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over
this provision or any other provisions of the bill that may
fall within its jurisdiction. The Committee also reserves its
right to seek conferees on any provisions within its
jurisdiction considered in the House-Senate conference, and
asks for your support in being accorded such conferees.
Please include this letter as part of the report on the
Department of Homeland Security Act for Fiscal Year 2006, or
as part of the Congressional Record during consideration of
this bill by the House.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, May 16, 2005.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter
expressing the Agriculture Committee's jurisdictional
interest in section 309 of the ``Department of Homeland
Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.'' I
appreciate your willingness not to seek a sequential referral
in order to expedite proceedings on this legislation. I agree
that, by not exercising your right to request a referral, the
Agriculture Committee does not waive any jurisdiction it may
have over section 309. In addition, I agree to support
representation for your Committee during the House-Senate
conference on provisions determined to be within your
Committee's jurisdiction.
As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter
and this response as part of the Committee on Homeland
Security's report or the Congressional Record during
consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank
you for your cooperation as we work towards the enactment of
the ``Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006.''
Sincerely,
Christopher Cox,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 13, 2005.
Hon. Christopher Cox,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Adams Building
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Cox: I am writing concerning H.R. 1817, the
``Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006,'' which the Committee on Homeland Security
reported on May 3, 2005. Subsequently, the Committee on Ways
and Means received a joint, sequential referral on the bill
for a period not ending later than May 13, 2005.
As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has
jurisdiction over trade and customs revenue functions. A
range of provisions in H.R. 1817 affects the Committee's
jurisdiction, including: authorization language for the
Department of Homeland Security, a required review of trade
documents that accompany crossborder shipments, a required
plan to reduce disparities in customs processing at major
airports, a requirement that certain recommendations of a
commercial advisory committee representing the trade
community be embodied in new regulations, a requirement of a
study of the potential merger of the Department of Homeland
Security bureau implementing most customs revenue functions
with the bureau charged with immigration enforcement, and
authorization of a program that would merge security and
customs revenue inspection equipment and requirements.
I am pleased to acknowledge the agreement, outlined in the
attached chart, between our Committees to address various
issues, including changes you will include in the Manager's
Amendment to the bill. Thus, in order to expedite this
legislation for floor consideration, the Ways and Means
Committee agrees to forgo action on this bill based on the
agreement reached by our Committees and that no other
provisions affecting the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means
Committee are included in the Manager's Amendment. This is
being done with the understanding that it does not in any way
prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of
conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or
similar legislation. In addition, I would appreciate if you
would share with my staff copies of the amendments when they
are made available to the Homeland Security Committee staff.
I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 1817, and would ask
that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be
included in the Congressional Record during floor
consideration.
Best regards,
Bill Thomas,
Chairman.
Attachment.
WAYS AND MEANS AMENDMENTS AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY RELATED TO HOMELAND SECURITY AUTHORIZATION BILL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HSC and
W&M
Issue agreed
changes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------
Sec. 103--CBP Authorization (includes amount Insert CBP Authorization number--$6,926,424,722 in the
in Customs Reauthorization bill passed by the Manager's Amendment.
House in 2004, along with additions Number may be adjusted, but any change would be fully
identified by W&M and HSC). cleared between HSC and Ways and Means.
Sec. 201(b)--Annual cross-cutting analysis of Delete 201 (b)(1)(D) and replace with ``(1)(D) To
proposed funding for DHS programs. facilitate trade and commerce;''
Add 201 (b)(1)(E)--``To carry out other important
functions of the agencies and subdivisions within the
Department not specifically noted above.''
[[Page H3464]]
Under 201 (b)(2)--Delete the following language: ``for
functions that are both related directly and not related
directly to homeland security'' and add: ``for functions
that would address more than one of the mission areas
listed in (b)(1)(A) through (E) of this subsection.''
Rewrite 201(b)(3)(F) to state ``(F) Screening cargo to
identify and segregate shipments at high risk for
compromise by terrorists or terrorist weapons,'' rather
than ``screening cargo to identify and segregate high-
risk shipments.''
Sec. 306--Security of Maritime Cargo Amend Sec. 306(a) to read: ``(a) STANDARDS AND
Containers (Sanchez Amendment). REGULATIONS--
(1) STANDARDS.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall establish standards and procedures for
securing maritime cargo containers relating to
obligation to seal, recording of seal changes, modal
changes, seal placement, ocean carrier seal
verification, and addressing seal anomalies. These
standards shall include the standards for seals and
locks as required under paragraph (3) of subsection (b)
of section 70116 of Title 46 U.S.C.
(2) REGULATIONS.--No later than 90 days after completion
of the requirements in subsection (a), the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall issue regulations for the
security of maritime cargo containers consistent with
the standards developed in subsection (a).''
Amend Sec. 306(b) to read: ``(b) INTERNATIONAL
AGREEMENTS.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Department of State, Department of Commerce, Department
of the Treasury, Office of the United States Trade
Representative, and other appropriate Federal agencies,
shall seek to enter into agreements with foreign
countries and international organizations to establish
standards for the security of maritime cargo containers
moving within the intermodal transportation system that,
to the maximum extent practicable, meet the requirements
of subsection (a).''
Amend Sec. 306(c) to read ``(c) CONTAINER TARGETING
STRATEGY.--STRATEGY.--The Secretary shall develop a
strategy to improve the ability of the Department of
Homeland Security to use advance cargo information to
identify anomalies in such information to determine
whether such cargo poses a security risk. The strategy
shall include a method of contacting shippers to verify
or explain any anomalies discovered in such
information.''
Will include acknowledgement in legislative history that
``It is intended that the advance cargo information
referred to in Section 306(c) should be provided to the
government by the party that has the most direct
knowledge of that information consistent with Public Law
107-210 Section 343(a)(3)(B).''
Amend Section 306(d) to read: ``(d) CONTAINER SECURITY
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.--(1) PROGRAM.--The Secretary is
authorized to establish and carry out a demonstration
program that integrates radiation detection equipment
with other types of non-intrusive inspection equipment
at an appropriate United States seaport, as determined
by the Secretary.
(2) REQUIREMENT.--The demonstration program shall also
evaluate ways to strengthen the capability of Department
of Homeland Security personnel to analyze cargo
inspection data and ways to improve the transmission of
inspection data between appropriate entities within the
Department of Homeland Security.''
Amend Section 306(e) to read: ``(e) COORDINATION AND
CONSOLIDATION OF CONTAINER SECURITY PROGRAMS.--The
Secretary shall coordinate all programs that enhance the
security of maritime cargo, and, to the extent
practicable, consolidate Operation Safe Commerce, the
Smart Box Initiative, and similar programs that evaluate
security enhancements for maritime cargo containers, to
achieve enhanced coordination and efficiency. The
Secretary shall report to the appropriate Congressional
committees before consolidating any program mentioned in
this subsection.''
Add new Sec. New Section 306(f): ``DEFINITION.--In this
section, the tenn `appropriate congressional committees'
means appropriate Congressional Committees as defined in
the Homeland Security Act of 2002.''
Sec. 401--Study by Sec. of DHS on Organization Section 401(b)(I)--delete ``to the Committee on Homeland
of DHS. Security of the House of DHS on Organization of
Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security
and Government Affairs of the Senate'' and replace with
``to the appropriate Congressional Committees as defined
in the Homeland Security Act of 2002.''
Section 402--GAO Report on DHS Organization... Insert at the end of this section: ``The report shall be
submitted to the appropriate Congressional committees as
defined in the Homeland Security Act of 2002.''
See. 403--Plan for Establishing Consolidated If Sec. 403, or a similar provision is included in the
and Colocated Regional Offices. bill, amend that section by adding at the end of the
section: ``In developing the plan, the Secretary shall
ensure that the plan does not compromise the uniform and
consistent implementation and application of laws,
policies and procedures related to customs processing
operations.''
Sec. 404--Plan to Reduce Wait Times........... Amend Sec. 404(2) to include ``passenger'' following
``customs''.
Ways and Means Customs Bill................... In addition to the authorization for CBP, include all
other Customs sections of HR 4418 as passed by the House
that were not already enacted as part of other laws--
Secs. 102, 104, 124, and 125.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, May 13, 2005.
Hon. William Thomas,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter
expressing the Ways and Means Committee's jurisdictional
interest in H.R. 1817, the ``The Department of Homeland
Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.'' I
appreciate your willingness to forgo action on this bill, in
order to expedite this legislation for floor consideration. I
agree that, by forgoing further action on the bill, the
Committee on Ways and Means does not waive any jurisdiction
it has over provisions within H.R. 1817 and the Manager's
amendment. This is being done with the understanding that it
does not in any way prejudice the Ways and Means Committee
with respect to the appointment of conferees or its
jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation.
We will also share with you copies of any amendments as they
are made available to us.
As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter
and this response as part of the Congressional Record during
consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank
you for your cooperation as we work towards the enactment of
H.R. 1817.
Sincerely,
Christopher Cox,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 2, 2005.
Hon. Christopher Cox,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of
Representatives, Adams Building, Library of Congress,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On April 27, 2005, the Committee on
Homeland Security ordered reported a committee print, the
``Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006.'' This bill contains provisions that fall
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services,
including: section 222 (relating to information collection
requirements and priorities) and section 302(b) (establishing
a working group relating to military technology). Recognizing
your interest in bringing this legislation before the House
quickly, the Committee on Armed Services agrees not to seek a
sequential referral of the bill. By agreeing not to seek a
sequential referral, the Committee does not waive its
jurisdiction over these provisions or any other provisions of
the bill that may fall within its jurisdiction. The Committee
also reserves its right to seek conferees on any provisions
within its jurisdiction considered in the House-Senate
conference, and asks for your support in being accorded such
conferees.
Please include this letter as part of the report, if any,
on the Department of Homeland Security Act for Fiscal Year
2006 or as part of the Congressional Record during
consideration of this bill by the House.
Sincerely,
Duncan Hunter,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, May 2, 2005.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter
expressing the Armed Services Committee's jurisdictional
interest in Section 222 and the working group on transfer of
military technologies established under Section 302(b) of the
``Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006.'' I appreciate your willingness not to seek
a sequential referral in order to expedite proceedings on
this legislation. I agree that, by not exercising your right
to request a referral, the Armed Services Committee does not
waive any jurisdiction it may have over the relevant
provisions of Sections 222 and 302(b). In addition, I agree
to support representation for your Committee during the
House-Senate conference on any provisions determined to be
within your Committee's jurisdiction.
As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter
and this response as part of the Committee on Homeland
Security's report and the Congressional Record during
consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank
you for your cooperation as we work towards the enactment of
the ``Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006.''
Sincerely,
Christopher Cox,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence,
Washington, DC, May 16, 2005.
Hon. Christopher Cox,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: In recognition of the importance of
expediting the passage of H.R. 1817, the ``Department of
Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006,''
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence hereby waives
further consideration of the bill. The Committee has
jurisdictional interests in H.R. 1817, including but not
limited to intelligence activities within the Department of
Homeland Security authorized within the National Intelligence
Program.
The Committee takes this action only with the understanding
that this procedural route should not be construed to
prejudice the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence's jurisdictional interest over this bill or any
similar bill and will not be considered as precedent for
consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the
Committee in the future. In addition, the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence reserves the possibility of seeking
conferees on any provisions of the bill that are within its
jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be
convened on this legislation.
[[Page H3465]]
Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our
exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional
Record during the House debate on H.R. 1817. I appreciate the
constructive work between our committees on this matter and
thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Peter Hoekstra,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, May 16, 2005.
The Hon. Peter Hoekstra,
Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter
expressing the Intelligence Committee's jurisdictional
interest in H.R. 1817, the ``The Department of Homeland
Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.'' I
appreciate your willingness to waive further consideration of
the bill in order to expedite this legislation for floor
consideration: I agree that by waiving further consideration,
the Intelligence Committee does not waive any jurisdiction it
may have over provisions of the bill, including those
relating to intelligence activities of the Department of
Homeland Security authorized within the National Intelligence
Program.
As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter
and this response as part of the Congressional Record during
consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank
you for your cooperation as we work towards the enactment of
H.R. 1817.
Sincerely,
Christopher Cox,
Chairman
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I support passage of this
important bill--the first-ever authorization bill for the new
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The bill includes many provisions that will improve Americans'
security. These include authority for recruitment and training of 2,000
new border agents, better screening of incoming cargo, and improved
background checks for people taking part in programs regulated by the
DHS.
The bill also will help the government speak more clearly to
Americans regarding threats to their security and will improve the way
the federal government works with the States and local agencies to
respond to those threats.
And it includes provisions to improve research on and implementation
of anti-terror technology.
Of course, the bill could be better in a number of respects, which is
why I voted for the substitute offered by Representative Thompson of
Mississippi.
That substitute would have authorized $6.46 billion for homeland
security grants to state and local governments, $2.29 billion more than
the President's budget. It also would have authorized $400 million to
restore funding to the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention program,
which the President's budget would eliminate. And It would have
authorized an additional $150 million in funding for the FIRE Act
grants program, which provides fire departments across the nation with
the equipment they need to respond to a terrorist attack.
The substitute also included a number of provisions to ensure that
the commitments made in the 9/11 Reforms bill (PL 108-458) are
fulfilled. Unfortunately, the President's budget left many of these
commitments unmet. Among others, these included authorization for an
additional $160 million to meet the 9/11 Act's commitment to securing
air cargo, an additional $92 million to install radiation portal
monitors at all ports of entry.
The substitute also would have authorized an additional $61 million
to hire 600 additional immigration investigators, in order to reach the
800 investigators called for in the 9/11 Act. This would have gone a
long way to increase the ability of the federal government to address
immigration violations.
Of course, even without the additions that would have been made by
the substitute, the bill does include a number of provisions related to
immigration.
In that connection I want to note my vote on the Norwood amendment.
Though the intentions of Mr. Norwood's amendment are laudable, I could
not support the amendment because of the expansion of authority it
gives to states to deport illegal immigrants.
Other parts of this bill will provide states with resources to train
officers to enforce immigration law, without a mandate, by letting
state and local government decide if they want to participate in this
training. I believe Mr. Norwood's amendment also intended to provide
resources to states without creating a mandate of enforcement.
However, it stated that local governments have the authority to
``apprehend, detain, or remove'' illegal immigrants. I do not believe
it is the role of the states to make decisions on the deportation of
individuals. Currently, states who are detaining illegal immigrants
turn them over to the Department of Homeland Security, and I believe
this is the proper process.
So, though I was supportive of the intent of that amendment, I could
not support the expansion of authority to state and local governments.
As I mentioned, I believe this bill could be improved. Yet, our
homeland security is an important priority and I am pleased to support
this authorization bill.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1330
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cole of Oklahoma). All time for general
debate has expired.
In lieu of the amendments recommended by the committees on Homeland
Security, Energy and Commerce, and the Judiciary now printed in the
bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature
of a substitute printed in part A of House Report 109-84. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Homeland
Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 101. Department of Homeland Security.
Sec. 102. Customs and border protection; border patrol agents.
Sec. 103. Departmental management and operations.
Sec. 104. Critical infrastructure grants.
Sec. 105. Research and development.
Sec. 106. Border and transportation security.
Sec. 107. State and local terrorism preparedness.
Sec. 108. Immigration resources.
TITLE II--TERRORISM PREVENTION, INFORMATION SHARING, AND RISK
ASSESSMENT
Subtitle A--Terrorism Prevention
Sec. 201. Consolidated background check process.
Subtitle B--Homeland Security Information Sharing and Analysis
Enhancement
Sec. 211. Short title.
Sec. 212. Provision of terrorism-related information to private sector
officials.
Sec. 213. Analytic expertise on the threats from biological agents and
nuclear weapons.
Sec. 214. Alternative analysis of homeland security information.
Sec. 215. Assignment of information analysis and infrastructure
protection functions.
Sec. 216. Coordination of homeland security threat analysis provided to
non-Federal officials.
Sec. 217. 9/11 Memorial Homeland Security Fellows Program.
Sec. 218. Access to nuclear terrorism-related information.
Sec. 219. Access of Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis to
terrorism information.
Sec. 220. Administration of the Homeland Security Information Network.
Sec. 221. IAIP personnel recruitment.
Sec. 222. Homeland Security Information Requirements.
Sec. 223. Homeland Security Advisory System.
Sec. 224. Use of open-source information.
Sec. 225. Full and efficient use of open-source information.
Sec. 226. Coordination with the intelligence community.
Sec. 227. Consistency with applicable Federal laws.
TITLE III--DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS AND PROTECTION
Subtitle A--Preparedness and Protection
Sec. 301. National terrorism exercise program.
Sec. 302. Technology development and transfer.
Sec. 303. Review of antiterrorism acquisitions.
Sec. 304. Center of Excellence for Border Security.
Sec. 305. Requirements relating to the Container Security Initiative
(CSI).
Sec. 306. Security of maritime cargo containers.
Sec. 307. Security plan for general aviation at Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport.
Sec. 308. Interoperable communications assistance.
Sec. 309. Report to Congress on implementation of recommendations
regarding protection of agriculture.
Subtitle B--Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity Enhancement
Sec. 311. Short title.
Sec. 312. Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity.
Sec. 313. Cybersecurity training programs and equipment.
Sec. 314. Cybersecurity research and development.
Subtitle C--Security of public transportation systems
Sec. 321. Security best practices.
Sec. 322. Public awareness.
[[Page H3466]]
Subtitle D--Critical infrastructure prioritization
Sec. 331. Critical infrastructure.
Sec. 332. Security review.
Sec. 333. Implementation report.
Sec. 334. Protection of information.
TITLE IV--U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION AND U.S. IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
Sec. 401. Establishment and implementation of cost accounting system;
reports.
Sec. 402. Report relating to One Face at the Border Initiative.
Sec. 403. Customs services.
Sec. 404. Sense of Congress on interpretation of textile and apparel
provisions.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 501. Border security and enforcement coordination and operations.
Sec. 502. GAO report to Congress.
Sec. 503. Plan to reduce wait times.
Sec. 504. Denial of transportation security card.
Sec. 505. Transfer of existing Customs Patrol Officers unit and
establishment of new CPO units in the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Sec. 506. Data collection on use of immigration consultants.
Sec. 507. Office for State and local government coordination.
Sec. 508. Authority of other Federal agencies unaffected.
TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 101. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.
There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Homeland Security for the necessary expenses of the
Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2006,
$34,152,143,000.
SEC. 102. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; BORDER PATROL
AGENTS.
Of the amount authorized under section 101, there is
authorized to be appropriated for U.S. Customs and Border
Protection for fiscal year 2006, $6,926,424,722, of which
$1,839,075,277 is authorized for border security and control
between ports of entry, including for the hiring of 2,000
full-time active-duty border patrol agents above the number
of such positions for which funds were allotted for fiscal
year 2005 (excluding any supplemental appropriations).
SEC. 103. DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS.
Of the amount authorized under section 101, there is
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2006 for
departmental management and operations, $649,672,000, of
which--
(1) $44,895,000 is authorized for the Department of
Homeland Security Regions Initiative;
(2) $4,459,000 is authorized for Operation Integration
Staff; and
(3) $56,278,000 is authorized for Office of Security
initiatives.
SEC. 104. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE GRANTS.
Of the amount authorized under section 101, there is
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2006 for grants
and other assistance to improve critical infrastructure
protection, $465,000,000.
SEC. 105. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
Of the amount authorized under section 101, there are
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2006--
(1) $76,573,000 to support chemical countermeasure
development activities of the Directorate of Science and
Technology;
(2) $195,014,000 to support a nuclear detection office and
related activities;
(3) $19,000,000 for cybersecurity-related research and
development activities;
(4) $10,000,000 for research and development of
technologies capable of countering threats posed by man-
portable air defense systems, including location-based
technologies and noncommercial aircraft-based technologies;
and
(5) $10,600,000 for the activities of such directorate
conducted pursuant to subtitle G of title VIII of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 441 et seq.).
SEC. 106. BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY.
Of the amount authorized under section 101, there are
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2006--
(1) $826,913,000 for expenses related to Screening
Coordination and Operations of the Directorate of Border and
Transportation Security;
(2) $100,000,000 for weapons of mass destruction detection
technology of such directorate; and
(3) $133,800,000 for the Container Security Initiative of
such directorate.
SEC. 107. STATE AND LOCAL TERRORISM PREPAREDNESS.
Of the amount authorized under section 101, there are
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2006--
(1) $40,500,000 for the activities of the Office for
Interoperability and Compatibility within the Directorate of
Science and Technology pursuant to section 7303 of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (6
U.S.C 194); and
(2) $2,000,000,000 for grants to State and local
governments for terrorism preparedness awarded by the Office
of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness.
SEC. 108. IMMIGRATION RESOURCES.
Of the amount authorized under section 101, there is
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2006 the
following:
(1) For the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Legal
Program, $159,514,000, including for the hiring of an
additional 300 attorneys above the number of such positions
for which funds were allotted for fiscal year 2005, and
related training and support costs.
(2) Sufficient sums for the hiring of an additional 300
adjudicators above the number of such positions for which
funds were allotted for fiscal year 2005 to carry out the
functions stated in section 451(b) of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 271(b)), and related training and
support costs. The fees provided for in section 286(m) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(m)) shall be
adjusted in order to provide sufficient sums for the hiring
of the additional adjudicators and for the related training
and support costs provided for in this paragraph.
TITLE II--TERRORISM PREVENTION, INFORMATION SHARING, AND RISK
ASSESSMENT
Subtitle A--Terrorism Prevention
SEC. 201. CONSOLIDATED BACKGROUND CHECK PROCESS.
(a) Requirement.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the Attorney General, shall establish a
single process for conducting the security screening and
background checks on individuals participating in any of the
programs identified under subsection (b).
(b) Included Programs.--The process established under
subsection (a) shall apply to the following programs:
(1) The Transportation Worker Identification Credential.
(2) The security risk determination and related background
checks under section 5103a of title 49, United States Code,
performed by the Transportation Security Administration as
part of the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials
Endorsement credentialing program.
(3) The Free and Secure Trade program.
(4) The NEXUS and SENTRI border crossing programs.
(5) The Registered Traveler program of the Transportation
Security Administration.
(c) Features of Process.--The process established under
subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) A single submission of security screening information,
including personal data and biometric information as
appropriate, necessary to meet the security requirements of
all applicable departmental programs.
(2) An ability to submit such security screening
information at any location or through any process approved
by the Secretary with respect to any of the applicable
departmental programs.
(3) Acceptance by the Department of a security clearance or
other credential issued by a Federal agency, to the extent
that the security clearance process of the agency satisfies
requirements that are at least as stringent as those of the
applicable departmental programs under subsection (b).
(4) Appropriate standards and procedures for protecting
individual privacy, confidentiality, record retention, and
addressing other concerns relating to information security.
(d) Deadlines.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall--
(1) submit a description of the process developed under
subsection (a) to the appropriate congressional committees
(as defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(6 U.S.C. 101)) by not later than 6 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act; and
(2) begin implementing such process by not later than 12
months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(e) Inclusion of Other Programs.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security shall review other existing or developing Department
of Homeland Security programs that include security screening
or background checks for participating individuals, and
report to the appropriate congressional committees (as
defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 101)) any recommendations for inclusion of such
additional programs in the consolidated screening process
established under this section.
(f) Relationship to Other Laws.--(1) Nothing in this
section affects any statutory or regulatory requirement
relating to the operation or standards of the programs
described in subsection (b).
(2) Nothing in this section affects any statutory
requirement relating to title III of the Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (50 U.S.C. 435b et
seq.).
Subtitle B--Homeland Security Information Sharing and Analysis
Enhancement
SEC. 211. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Homeland Security
Information Sharing and Analysis Enhancement Act of 2005''.
SEC. 212. PROVISION OF TERRORISM-RELATED INFORMATION TO
PRIVATE SECTOR OFFICIALS.
Section 201(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 121(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(20) To require, in consultation with the Assistant
Secretary for Infrastructure Protection, the creation and
routine dissemination of analytic reports and products
designed to provide timely and accurate information that has
specific relevance to each of the Nation's private critical
infrastructure
[[Page H3467]]
sectors (as identified in the national infrastructure
protection plan issued under paragraph (5)), to private
sector officials in each such sector who are responsible for
protecting institutions within that sector from potential
acts of terrorism and for mitigating the potential
consequences of any such act.''.
SEC. 213. ANALYTIC EXPERTISE ON THE THREATS FROM BIOLOGICAL
AGENTS AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
Section 201(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 121(d)) is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(21) To ensure sufficient analytic expertise within the
Office of Information Analysis to create, on an ongoing
basis, products based on the analysis of homeland security
information, as defined in section 892(f)(1), with specific
reference to the threat of terrorism involving the use of
nuclear weapons and biological agents to inflict mass
casualties or other catastrophic consequences on the
population or territory of the United States.''.
SEC. 214. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS OF HOMELAND SECURITY
INFORMATION.
(a) Requirement.--Subtitle A of title II of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 203. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS OF HOMELAND SECURITY
INFORMATION.
``The Secretary shall establish within the Department a
process and assign an individual or entity the responsibility
to ensure that, as appropriate, elements of the Department
conduct alternative analysis (commonly referred to as `red-
team analysis') of homeland security information, as that
term is defined in section 892(f)(1), that relates to
potential acts of terrorism involving the use of nuclear
weapons or biological agents to inflict mass casualties or
other catastrophic consequences on the population or
territory of the United States.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of such Act is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 202 the following:
``Sec. 203. Alternative analysis of homeland security information.''.
SEC. 215. ASSIGNMENT OF INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND
INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION FUNCTIONS.
Section 201(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 121(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Assignment of specific functions.--The Under
Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection--
``(A) shall assign to the Assistant Secretary for
Information Analysis the responsibility for performing the
functions described in paragraphs (1), (4), (7) through (14),
(16), and (18) of subsection (d);
``(B) shall assign to the Assistant Secretary for
Infrastructure Protection the responsibility for performing
the functions described in paragraphs (2), (5), and (6) of
subsection (d);
``(C) shall assign to the Assistant Secretary for
Cybersecurity the primary authority within the Department
over the National Cyber Security Division and the National
Communications System, and, in coordination with other
relevant Federal agencies, the cybersecurity-related aspects
of paragraphs (2), (3), (5), (6), (15), and (17) of
subsection (d);
``(D) shall ensure that the Assistant Secretary for
Information Analysis and the Assistant Secretary for
Infrastructure Protection both perform the functions
described in paragraphs (3), (15), and (17) of subsection
(d); and
``(E) may assign to each such Assistant Secretary such
other duties relating to such responsibilities as the Under
Secretary may provide.''.
SEC. 216. COORDINATION OF HOMELAND SECURITY THREAT ANALYSIS
PROVIDED TO NON-FEDERAL OFFICIALS.
(a) In General.--Title I of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 111 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SEC. 104. COORDINATION OF HOMELAND SECURITY THREAT ANALYSIS
PROVIDED TO NON-FEDERAL OFFICIALS.
``(a) Primary Authority.--Except as provided in subsection
(b), the Secretary shall be responsible for coordinating all
homeland security threat analysis to be provided to State and
local government and tribal officials and the private sector.
``(b) Coordination Required.--No Federal official may
disseminate any homeland security threat analysis to State,
local, tribal, or private sector officials without the
coordination of the Secretary or the Secretary's designee
except--
``(1) in exigent circumstances under which it is essential
that the homeland security threat analysis be communicated
immediately; or
``(2) when such homeland security threat analysis is issued
to State, local, or tribal law enforcement officials for the
purpose of assisting them in any aspect of the administration
of criminal justice.
``(c) Definition.--(1) As used in this section, the term
`homeland security threat analysis' means any informational
product that is the result of evaluating information,
regardless of its source, in order to--
``(A) identify and assess the nature and scope of terrorist
threats to the homeland;
``(B) detect and identify threats of terrorism against the
United States; and
``(C) understand such threats in light of actual and
potential vulnerabilities of the territory of the United
States.
``(2) As defined in paragraph (1), the term `homeland
security threat analysis' does not include--
``(A) any information that has not been processed,
evaluated, or analyzed;
``(B) any information that is evaluated to create any
finished analytic product;
``(C) facts or summaries of facts;
``(D) reports of interviews; or
``(E) reports or other documents that merely aggregate or
summarize information derived from multiple sources on the
same or related topics.''.
(b) Clerical Ammendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of such Act is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 103 the following:
``Sec. 104. Coordination of homeland security threat analysis provided
to non-Federal officials.''.
SEC. 217. 9/11 MEMORIAL HOMELAND SECURITY FELLOWS PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment of Program.--Subtitle A of title II of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.) is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 204. 9/11 MEMORIAL HOMELAND SECURITY FELLOWS PROGRAM.
``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a
fellowship program in accordance with this section for the
purpose of bringing State, local, tribal, and private sector
officials to participate in the work of the Homeland Security
Operations Center in order to become familiar with--
``(A) the mission and capabilities of that Center; and
``(B) the role, programs, products, and personnel of the
Office of Information Analysis, the Office of Infrastructure
Protection, and other elements of the Department responsible
for the integration, analysis, and dissemination of homeland
security information, as defined in section 892(f)(1).
``(2) Program name.--The program under this section shall
be known as the 9/11 Memorial Homeland Security Fellows
Program.
``(b) Eligibility.--In order to be eligible for selection
as a fellow under the program, an individual must--
``(1) have homeland security-related responsibilities; and
``(2) possess an appropriate national security clearance.
``(c) Limitations.--The Secretary--
``(1) may conduct up to 4 iterations of the program each
year, each of which shall be 90 days in duration; and
``(2) shall ensure that the number of fellows selected for
each iteration does not impede the activities of the Center.
``(d) Condition.--As a condition of selecting an individual
as a fellow under the program, the Secretary shall require
that the individual's employer agree to continue to pay the
individual's salary and benefits during the period of the
fellowship.
``(e) Stipend.--During the period of the fellowship of an
individual under the program, the Secretary shall, subject to
the availability of appropriations, provide to the individual
a stipend to cover the individual's reasonable living
expenses during the period of the fellowship.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of such Act is further amended by adding at the end of
the items relating to such subtitle the following:
``Sec. 204. 9/11 Memorial Homeland Security Fellows Program.''.
SEC. 218. ACCESS TO NUCLEAR TERRORISM-RELATED INFORMATION.
Section 201(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 121(d)) is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(22) To ensure that--
``(A) the Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis
receives promptly and without request all information
obtained by any component of the Department if that
information relates, directly or indirectly, to a threat of
terrorism involving the potential use of nuclear weapons;
``(B) such information is--
``(i) integrated and analyzed comprehensively; and
``(ii) disseminated in a timely manner, including to
appropriately cleared Federal, State, local, tribal, and
private sector officials; and
``(C) such information is used to determine what requests
the Department should submit for collection of additional
information relating to that threat.''.
SEC. 219. ACCESS OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION
ANALYSIS TO TERRORISM INFORMATION.
Section 201(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 121(d)) is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(23) To ensure that the Assistant Secretary for
Information Analysis--
``(A) is routinely and without request given prompt access
to all terrorism-related information collected by or
otherwise in the possession of any component of the
Department, including all homeland security information (as
that term is defined in section 892(f)(1)); and
``(B) to the extent technologically feasible has direct
access to all databases of any component of the Department
that may contain such information.''.
SEC. 220. ADMINISTRATION OF THE HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION
NETWORK.
Section 201(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 121(d)) is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(24) To administer the homeland security information
network, including--
[[Page H3468]]
``(A) exercising primary responsibility for establishing a
secure nationwide real-time homeland security information
sharing network for Federal, State, and local government
agencies and authorities, tribal officials, the private
sector, and other governmental and private entities involved
in receiving, analyzing, and distributing information related
to threats to homeland security;
``(B) ensuring that the information sharing systems,
developed in connection with the network established under
subparagraph (A), are utilized and are compatible with, to
the greatest extent practicable, Federal, State, and local
government, tribal, and private sector antiterrorism systems
and protocols that have been or are being developed; and
``(C) ensuring, to the greatest extent possible, that the
homeland security information network and information systems
are integrated and interoperable with existing private sector
technologies.''.
SEC. 221. IAIP PERSONNEL RECRUITMENT.
(a) In General.--Chapter 97 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by adding after section 9701 the following:
``Sec. 9702. Recruitment bonuses
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of chapter
57, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the
Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection, may pay a bonus to an individual in order to
recruit such individual for a position that is primarily
responsible for discharging the analytic responsibilities
specified in section 201(d) of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 121(d)) and that--
``(1) is within the Directorate for Information Analysis
and Infrastructure Protection; and
``(2) would be difficult to fill in the absence of such a
bonus.
In determining which individuals are to receive bonuses under
this section, appropriate consideration shall be given to the
Directorate's critical need for linguists.
``(b) Bonus Amount, Form, Etc.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of a bonus under this section
shall be determined under regulations issued by the Secretary
of Homeland Security, with the concurrence of the Director of
National Intelligence, but may not exceed 50 percent of the
annual rate of basic pay of the position involved. The
Director of National Intelligence shall concur in such
regulations only if the amount of the bonus is not
disproportionate to recruitment bonuses offered to
intelligence analysts in other intelligence community
agencies.
``(2) Form of payment.--A bonus under this section shall be
paid in the form of a lump-sum payment and shall not be
considered to be part of basic pay.
``(3) Computation rule.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
annual rate of basic pay of a position does not include any
comparability payment under section 5304 or any similar
authority.
``(c) Service Agreements.--Payment of a bonus under this
section shall be contingent upon the employee entering into a
written service agreement with the Department of Homeland
Security. The agreement shall include--
``(1) the period of service the individual shall be
required to complete in return for the bonus; and
``(2) the conditions under which the agreement may be
terminated before the agreed-upon service period has been
completed, and the effect of any such termination.
``(d) Eligibility.--A bonus under this section may not be
paid to recruit an individual for--
``(1) a position to which an individual is appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate;
``(2) a position in the Senior Executive Service as a
noncareer appointee (as defined under section 3132(a)); or
``(3) a position which has been excepted from the
competitive service by reason of its confidential, policy-
determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.
``(e) Termination.--The authority to pay bonuses under this
section shall terminate on September 30, 2008.
``Sec. 9703. Reemployed annuitants
``(a) In General.--If an annuitant receiving an annuity
from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund becomes
employed in a position within the Directorate for Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection of the Department of
Homeland Security, the annuitant's annuity shall continue. An
annuitant so reemployed shall not be considered an employee
for the purposes of chapter 83 or 84.
``(b) Termination.--The exclusion pursuant to this section
of the Directorate for Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection from the reemployed annuitant
provisions of chapters 83 and 84 shall terminate 3 years
after the date of the enactment of this section, unless
extended by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Any such
extension shall be for a period of 1 year and shall be
renewable.
``(c) Annuitant Defined.--For purposes of this section, the
term `annuitant' has the meaning given such term under
section 8331 or 8401, whichever is appropriate.
``Sec. 9704. Regulations
``The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with
the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, may
prescribe any regulations necessary to carry out section 9702
or 9703.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 97 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding after the
item relating to section 9701 the following:
``9702. Recruitment bonuses.
``9703. Reemployed annuitants.
``9704. Regulations.''.
SEC. 222. HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Homeland Security Information Requirements.--The Joint
Intelligence Community Council shall advise the Director of
National Intelligence with respect to homeland security
intelligence requirements.
(b) Designation of Members.--The President may designate
officers of the United States Government in addition to the
members named in or designated under section 101A(b) of the
National Security Act to serve on the Joint Intelligence
Community Council in a capacity limited to consideration of
homeland security intelligence requirements.
(c) Participation in National Intelligence Collection
Requirements and Management Processes.--The Secretary shall
be a member of any Director of National Intelligence-
established interagency collection and requirements
management board that develops and reviews national
intelligence collection requirements in response to
Presidential intelligence guidelines.
SEC. 223. HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISORY SYSTEM.
(a) In General.--Subtitle A of title II of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 is further amended--
(1) in section 201(d)(7) (6 U.S.C. 121(d)(7)) by inserting
``under section 205'' after ``System''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 205. HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISORY SYSTEM.
``(a) Requirement.--The Under Secretary for Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection shall implement a
Homeland Security Advisory System in accordance with this
section to provide public advisories and alerts regarding
threats to homeland security, including national, regional,
local, and economic sector advisories and alerts, as
appropriate.
``(b) Required Elements.--The Under Secretary, under the
System--
``(1) shall include, in each advisory and alert regarding a
threat, information on appropriate protective measures and
countermeasures that may be taken in response to the threat;
``(2) shall, whenever possible, limit the scope of each
advisory and alert to a specific region, locality, or
economic sector believed to be at risk; and
``(3) shall not, in issuing any advisory or alert, use
color designations as the exclusive means of specifying the
homeland security threat conditions that are the subject of
the advisory or alert.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of such Act is further amended by adding at the end of
the items relating to subtitle A of title II the following:
``Sec. 205. Homeland Security Advisory System.''.
SEC. 224. USE OF OPEN-SOURCE INFORMATION.
Section 201(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 121(d)) is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(25) To ensure that, whenever possible--
``(A) the Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis
utilizes open-source information and produces reports and
analytic products based on such information that do not
require a national security classification under applicable
law; and
``(B) such unclassified open-source reports are produced,
to the extent consistent with the protection of intelligence
sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure,
contemporaneously with reports or analytic products
concerning the same or similar information that the Assistant
Secretary for Information Analysis produces in a classified
format.''.
SEC. 225. FULL AND EFFICIENT USE OF OPEN-SOURCE INFORMATION.
(a) Requirement.--Subtitle A of title II of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.) is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 206. FULL AND EFFICIENT USE OF OPEN-SOURCE
INFORMATION.
``The Under Secretary shall ensure that, in meeting their
analytic responsibilities under section 201(d) and in
formulating requirements for collection of additional
information, the Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis
and the Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection
make full and efficient use of open-source information
wherever possible.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of such Act is further amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 205 the following:
``Sec. 206. Full and efficient use of open-source information.''.
SEC. 226. COORDINATION WITH THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
Section 201 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
121) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Coordination With the Intelligence Community.--The
Under Secretary shall ensure that, as to the responsibilities
specified in subsection (d), the Assistant Secretary for
Information Analysis serves as the official responsible for
coordinating, as appropriate, with elements of the
intelligence community.''.
[[Page H3469]]
SEC. 227. CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAWS.
Unless otherwise expressly stated in this subtitle, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that all
activities carried out under this subtitle are consistent
with any applicable Federal laws relating to information
policy of Federal agencies.
TITLE III--DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS AND PROTECTION
Subtitle A--Preparedness and Protection
SEC. 301. NATIONAL TERRORISM EXERCISE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 430(c) of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 238) is amended by striking ``and''
after the semicolon at the end of paragraph (8), by striking
the period at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting ``;
and'', and by adding at the end the following:
``(10) designing, developing, performing, and evaluating
exercises at the national, State, territorial, regional,
local, and tribal levels of government that incorporate
government officials, emergency response providers, public
safety agencies, the private sector, international
governments and organizations, and other appropriate entities
to test the Nation's capability to prevent, prepare for,
respond to, and recover from threatened or actual acts of
terrorism.''.
(b) National Terrorism Exercise Program.--
(1) Establishment of program.--Title VIII of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subtitle:
``Subtitle J--Terrorism Preparedness Exercises
``SEC. 899A. NATIONAL TERRORISM EXERCISE PROGRAM.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, through the Office for
Domestic Preparedness, shall establish a National Terrorism
Exercise Program for the purpose of testing and evaluating
the Nation's capabilities to prevent, prepare for, respond
to, and recover from threatened or actual acts of terrorism
that--
``(1) enhances coordination for terrorism preparedness
between all levels of government, emergency response
providers, international governments and organizations, and
the private sector;
``(2) is--
``(A) multidisciplinary in nature, including, as
appropriate, information analysis and cybersecurity
components;
``(B) as realistic as practicable and based on current risk
assessments, including credible threats, vulnerabilities, and
consequences;
``(C) carried out with the minimum degree of notice to
involved parties regarding the timing and details of such
exercises, consistent with safety considerations;
``(D) evaluated against performance measures and followed
by corrective action to solve identified deficiencies; and
``(E) assessed to learn best practices, which shall be
shared with appropriate Federal, State, territorial,
regional, local, and tribal personnel, authorities, and
training institutions for emergency response providers; and
``(3) assists State, territorial, local, and tribal
governments with the design, implementation, and evaluation
of exercises that--
``(A) conform to the requirements of paragraph (2); and
``(B) are consistent with any applicable State homeland
security strategy or plan.
``(b) National Level Exercises.--The Secretary, through the
National Terrorism Exercise Program, shall perform on a
periodic basis national terrorism preparedness exercises for
the purposes of--
``(1) involving top officials from Federal, State,
territorial, local, tribal, and international governments, as
the Secretary considers appropriate;
``(2) testing and evaluating, in coordination with the
Attorney General, the Nation's capability to detect, disrupt,
and prevent threatened or actual catastrophic acts of
terrorism, especially those involving weapons of mass
destruction; and
``(3) testing and evaluating the Nation's readiness to
respond to and recover from catastrophic acts of terrorism,
especially those involving weapons of mass destruction.
``(c) Consultation With First Responders.--In implementing
the responsibilities described in subsections (a) and (b),
the Secretary shall consult with a geographic (including
urban and rural) and substantive cross section of
governmental and nongovernmental first responder disciplines,
including as appropriate--
``(1) Federal, State, and local first responder training
institutions;
``(2) representatives of emergency response providers; and
``(3) State and local officials with an expertise in
terrorism preparedness.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the items
relating to title VIII the following:
``Subtitle J--Terrorism Preparedness Exercises
``Sec. 899a. National terrorism exercise program.''.
(c) TOPOFF Prevention Exercise.--No later than one year
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall design and carry out a national
terrorism prevention exercise for the purposes of--
(1) involving top officials from Federal, State,
territorial, local, tribal, and international governments as
the Secretary considers appropriate; and
(2) testing and evaluating, in coordination with the
Attorney General, the Nation's capability to detect, disrupt,
and prevent threatened or actual catastrophic acts of
terrorism, especially those involving weapons of mass
destruction.
SEC. 302. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER.
(a) Establishment of Technology Clearinghouse.--Not later
than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall complete the establishment of the Technology
Clearinghouse under section 313 of the Homeland Security Act
of 2002.
(b) Transfer Program.--Section 313 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 193) is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following
new paragraph:
``(6) The establishment of a homeland security technology
transfer program to facilitate the identification,
modification, and commercialization of technology and
equipment for use by Federal, State, and local governmental
agencies, emergency response providers, and the private
sector to prevent, prepare for, or respond to acts of
terrorism.'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsections:
``(c) Elements of the Technology Transfer Program.--The
activities of the program described in subsection (b)(6)
shall include--
``(1) identifying available technologies that have been, or
are in the process of being, developed, tested, evaluated, or
demonstrated by the Department, other Federal agencies, the
private sector, or foreign governments and international
organizations, and reviewing whether such technologies may be
useful in assisting Federal, State, and local governmental
agencies, emergency response providers, or the private sector
to prevent, prepare for, or respond to acts of terrorism; and
``(2) communicating to Federal, State, and local
governmental agencies, emergency response providers, or the
private sector the availability of such technologies for
antiterrorism use, as well as the technology's
specifications, satisfaction of appropriate standards, and
the appropriate grants available from the Department to
purchase such technologies;
``(d) Responsibilties of Under Secretary for Science and
Technology.--In support of the activities described in
subsection (c), the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology shall--
``(1) conduct or support, based on the Department's current
risk assessments of terrorist threats, research, development,
demonstrations, tests, and evaluations, as appropriate, of
technologies identified under subparagraph (c)(1), including
of any necessary modifications to such technologies for
antiterrorism use;
``(2) ensure that the technology transfer activities
throughout the Directorate of Science and Technology are
coordinated, including the technology transfer aspects of
projects and grants awarded to the private sector and
academia;
``(3) consult with the other Under Secretaries of the
Department and the Director of the Office for Domestic
Preparedness, on an ongoing basis;
``(4) consult with Federal, State, and local emergency
response providers;
``(5) consult with government agencies and standards
development organizations as appropriate;
``(6) enter into agreements and coordinate with other
Federal agencies, foreign governments, and national and
international organizations as the Secretary determines
appropriate, in order to maximize the effectiveness of such
technologies or to facilitate commercialization of such
technologies;
``(7) consult with existing technology transfer programs
and Federal and State training centers that research,
develop, test, evaluate, and transfer military and other
technologies for use by emergency response providers; and
``(8) establish a working group in coordination with the
Secretary of Defense to advise and assist the technology
clearinghouse in the identification of military technologies
that are in the process of being developed, or are developed,
by the Department of Defense or the private sector, which may
include--
``(A) representatives from the Department of Defense or
retired military officers;
``(B) nongovernmental organizations or private companies
that are engaged in the research, development, testing, or
evaluation of related technologies or that have demonstrated
prior experience and success in searching for and identifying
technologies for Federal agencies;
``(C) Federal, State, and local emergency response
providers; and
``(D) to the extent the Secretary considers appropriate,
other organizations, other interested Federal, State, and
local agencies, and other interested persons.''.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology shall transmit to the Congress a description of
the progress the Department has made in implementing the
provisions of section 313 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002, as amended by this Act, including a description of the
process used to review unsolicited proposals received as
described in subsection (b)(3) of such section.
[[Page H3470]]
(d) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section (including the
amendments made by this section) shall be construed to alter
or diminish the effect of the limitation on the authority of
the Secretary of Homeland Security under section 302(4) of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 182(4)) with
respect to human health-related research and development
activities.
SEC. 303. REVIEW OF ANTITERRORISM ACQUISITIONS.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
conduct a study of all Department of Homeland Security
procurements, including ongoing procurements and anticipated
procurements, to--
(1) identify those that involve any product, equipment,
service (including support services), device, or technology
(including information technology) that is being designed,
developed, modified, or procured for the specific purpose of
preventing, detecting, identifying, or deterring acts of
terrorism or limiting the harm such acts might otherwise
cause; and
(2) assess whether such product, equipment, service
(including support services), device, or technology is an
appropriate candidate for the litigation and risk management
protections of subtitle G of title VIII of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002.
(b) Summary and Classification Report.--Not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall transmit to the Congress a report--
(1) describing each product, equipment, service (including
support services), device, and technology identified under
subsection (a) that the Secretary believes would be an
appropriate candidate for the litigation and risk management
protections of subtitle G of title VIII of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002;
(2) listing each such product, equipment, service
(including support services), device, and technology in order
of priority for deployment in accordance with current
terrorism risk assessment information; and
(3) setting forth specific actions taken, or to be taken,
to encourage or require persons or entities that sell or
otherwise provide such products, equipment, services
(including support services), devices, and technologies to
apply for the litigation and risk management protections of
subtitle G of title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of
2002, and to ensure prioritization of the Department's review
of such products, equipment, services, devices, and
technologies under such Act in accordance with the
prioritization set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection.
SEC. 304. CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR BORDER SECURITY.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish a
university-based Center of Excellence for Border Security
following the merit-review processes and procedures and other
limitations that have been established for selecting and
supporting University Programs Centers of Excellence. The
Center shall prioritize its activities on the basis of risk
to address the most significant threats, vulnerabilities, and
consequences posed by the Nation's borders and border control
systems. The activities should include the conduct of
research, the examination of existing and emerging border
security technology and systems, and the provision of
education, technical, and analytical assistance for the
Department of Homeland Security to effectively secure the
Nation's borders.
SEC. 305. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE CONTAINER SECURITY
INITIATIVE (CSI).
(a) Designation of New Foreign Seaports.--The Secretary of
Homeland Security may designate a foreign seaport as a
participating seaport in the Container Security Initiative
program on or after the date of the enactment of this Act if
the Secretary--
(1) determines, based on a foreign port assessment carried
out under section 70108(a) of title 46, United States Code,
or such other risk assessment that the Secretary may perform,
and a cost-benefit analysis, that the benefits of designating
such seaport as a participating seaport outweigh the cost of
expanding the program to such seaport; and
(2) enters into an agreement with the foreign government of
such seaport, in consultation with the Department of State
and other appropriate Federal agencies to--
(A) establish security criteria to identify the potential
compromise by terrorists or terrorist weapons of maritime
cargo containers bound for the United States based on advance
information; and
(B) screen or inspect such maritime cargo containers for
potential compromise by terrorists or terrorist weapons prior
to shipment to the United States.
(b) Deployment of Inspection Equipment to New CSI
Participating Seaports.--
(1) Deployment.--The Secretary may--
(A) loan or otherwise provide nonintrusive inspection
equipment for maritime cargo containers, on a nonreimbursable
basis, at a seaport designated under subsection(a); and
(B) provide training for personnel at a seaport designated
under subsection (a) to operate the nonintrusive inspection
equipment.
(2) Additional requirements.--
(A) Capability requirements and operating procedures.--The
Secretary shall establish technical capability requirements
and standard operating procedures for nonintrusive inspection
equipment described in paragraph (1), consistent with any
standards established by the Secretary under section 70116 of
title 46 United States Code.
(B) Agreement required.--The Secretary shall require each
CSI port to agree to operate such equipment in accordance
with requirements and procedures established under
subparagraph (A) as a condition for receiving the equipment
and training under paragraph (1).
(c) Deployment of Personnel to New CSI Ports; Reevaluation
of Personnel at All CSI Ports.--
(1) Deployment.--The Secretary shall deploy United States
Customs and Border Protection personnel to each seaport
designated under subsection (a) with respect to which the
Secretary determines that the deployment is necessary to
successfully implement the requirements of CSI at the port.
(2) Reevaluation.--The Secretary shall periodically review
relevant risk assessment information with respect to each
seaport at which personnel are deployed under paragraph (1)
to assess whether or not continued deployment of such
personnel, in whole or in part, is necessary to success fully
implement the requirements of CSI at the port.
(d) Inspection and Screening at United States Ports of
Entry.--Cargo containers arriving at a United States port of
entry from a CSI port shall undergo the same level of
inspection and screening for potential compromise by
terrorists or terrorist weapons as cargo containers arriving
at a United States port of entry from a foreign seaport that
is not participating in CSI unless the containers were
initially inspected at the CSI port at the request of
personnel deployed under subsection (c) and such personnel
verify and electronically record that the inspection
indicates that the containers have not been compromised by
terrorists or terrorist weapons.
SEC. 306. SECURITY OF MARITIME CARGO CONTAINERS.
(a) Standards and Regulations.--
(1) Standards.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall establish standards and procedures for securing
maritime cargo containers relating to obligation to seal,
recording of seal changes, modal changes, seal placement,
ocean carrier seal verification, and addressing seal
anomalies. These standards shall include the standards for
seals and locks as required under paragraph (3) of subsection
(b) of section 70116 of title 46, United States Code.
(2) Regulations.--No later than 90 days after completion of
the requirements in subsection (a), the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall issue regulations for the security of maritime
cargo containers consistent with the standards developed in
subsection (a).
(b) International Agreements.--The Secretary, in
consultation with the Department of State, Department of
Commerce, Department of Treasury, Office of the United States
Trade Representative, and other appropriate Federal agencies,
shall seek to enter into agreements with foreign countries
and international organizations to establish standards for
the security of maritime cargo containers moving within the
intermodal transportation system that, to the maximum extent
practicable, meet the requirements of subsection (a).
(c) Container Targeting Strategy.--The Secretary shall
develop a strategy to improve the ability of the Department
of Homeland Security to use advance cargo information to
identify anomalies in such information to determine whether
such cargo poses a security risk. The strategy shall include
a method of contacting shippers to verify or explain any
anomalies discovered in such information.
(d) Container Security Demonstration Program.--
(1) Program.--The Secretary is authorized to establish and
carry out a demonstration program that integrates radiation
detection equipment with other types of nonintrusive
inspection equipment at an appropriate United States seaport,
as determined by the Secretary.
(2) Requirement.--The demonstration program shall also
evaluate ways to strengthen the capability of Department of
Homeland Security personnel to analyze cargo inspection data
and ways to improve the transmission of inspection data
between appropriate entities within the Department of
Homeland Security.
(e) Coordination and Consolidation of Container Security
Programs.--The Secretary shall coordinate all programs that
enhance the security of maritime cargo, and, to the extent
practicable, consolidate Operation Safe Commerce, the Smart
Box Initiative, and similar programs that evaluate security
enhancements for maritime cargo containers, to achieve
enhanced coordination and efficiency. The Secretary shall
report to the appropriate congressional committees (as that
term is defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 101) before consolidating any program
mentioned in this subsection.
SEC. 307. SECURITY PLAN FOR GENERAL AVIATION AT RONALD REAGAN
WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT.
Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall implement
section 823(a) of the Vision 100--Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (49 U.S.C. 41718 note; 117 Stat. 2595).
SEC. 308. INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS ASSISTANCE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The 9/11 Commission determined that the inability of
first responders to communicate effectively on September 11,
2001 was
[[Page H3471]]
a critical obstacle to an effective multi-jurisdictional
response.
(2) Many jurisdictions across the country still experience
difficulties communicating that may contribute to confusion,
delays, or added risks when responding to an emergency.
(3) During fiscal year 2004, the Office for Domestic
Preparedness awarded over $834,000,000 for 2,912 projects
through Department of Homeland Security grant programs for
the purposes of improving communications interoperability.
(4) Interoperable communications systems are most effective
when designed to comprehensively address, on a regional
basis, the communications of all types of public safety
agencies, first responder disciplines, and State and local
government facilities.
(5) Achieving communications interoperability is complex
due to the extensive training, system modifications, and
agreements among the different jurisdictions that are
necessary to implement effective communications systems.
(6) The Congress authorized the Department of Homeland
Security to create an Office for Interoperability and
Compatibility in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 to, among other things, establish a
comprehensive national approach, coordinate federal
activities, accelerate the adoption of standards, and
encourage research and development to achieve interoperable
communications for first responders.
(7) The Office for Interoperability and Compatibility
includes the SAFECOM Program that serves as the umbrella
program within the Federal government to improve public
safety communications interoperability, and has developed the
RAPIDCOM program, the Statewide Communications
Interoperability Planning Methodology, and a Statement of
Requirements to provide technical, planning, and purchasing
assistance for Federal departments and agencies, State and
local governments, and first responders.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that the Department of Homeland Security should implement as
expeditiously as possible the initiatives assigned to the
Office for Interoperability and Compatibility under section
7303 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004 (6 U.S.C. 194), including specifically the following:
(1) Establishing a comprehensive national approach to
achieving public safety interoperable communications.
(2) Issuing letters of intent to commit future funds for
jurisdictions through existing homeland security grant
programs to applicants as appropriate to encourage long-term
investments that may significantly improve communications
interoperability.
(3) Providing technical assistance to additional urban and
other high-risk areas to support the establishment of
consistent, secure, and effective interoperable
communications capabilities.
(4) Completing the report to the Congress on the
Department's plans for accelerating the development of
national voluntary consensus standards for public safety
interoperable communications, a schedule of milestones for
such development, and achievements of such development, by no
later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 309. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PROTECTION OF
AGRICULTURE.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall report to the
appropriate congressional committees (as defined in section 2
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101)) by no
later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act regarding how the Department of Homeland Security will
implement the applicable recommendations from the Government
Accountability Office report entitled ``Homeland Security:
Much is Being Done to Protect Agriculture from a Terrorist
Attack, but Important Challenges Remain'' (GAO-05-214).
Subtitle B--Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity Enhancement
SEC. 311. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Department of Homeland
Security Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2005''.
SEC. 312. ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CYBERSECURITY.
Section 201(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 121(b)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph:
``(3) Assistant secretary for cybersecurity.--There shall
be in the Department an Assistant Secretary for
Cybersecurity, who shall be appointed by the President.'';
and
(3) in paragraph (4), as redesignated by subparagraph (A)
of this paragraph--
(A) by striking ``Analysis and the'' and inserting
``Analysis, the''; and
(B) by striking ``Protection shall'' and inserting
``Protection, and the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity
shall''.
SEC. 313. CYBERSECURITY TRAINING PROGRAMS AND EQUIPMENT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, acting
through the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity, may
establish, in conjunction with the National Science
Foundation, a program to award grants to institutions of
higher education (and consortia thereof) for--
(1) the establishment or expansion of cybersecurity
professional development programs;
(2) the establishment or expansion of associate degree
programs in cybersecurity; and
(3) the purchase of equipment to provide training in
cybersecurity for either professional development programs or
degree programs.
(b) Roles.--
(1) Department of homeland security.--The Secretary, acting
through the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and in
consultation with the Director of the National Science
Foundation, shall establish the goals for the program
established under this section and the criteria for awarding
grants under the program.
(2) National science foundation.--The Director of the
National Science Foundation shall operate the program
established under this section consistent with the goals and
criteria established under paragraph (1), including
soliciting applicants, reviewing applications, and making and
administering grant awards. The Director may consult with the
Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity in selecting awardees.
(3) Funding.--The Secretary shall transfer to the National
Science Foundation the funds necessary to carry out this
section.
(c) Grant Awards.--
(1) Peer review.--All grant awards under this section shall
be made on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis.
(2) Focus.--In making grant awards under this section, the
Director shall, to the extent practicable, ensure geographic
diversity and the participation of women and underrepresented
minorities.
(3) Preference.--In making grant awards under this section,
the Director shall give preference to applications submitted
by consortia of institutions to encourage as many students
and professionals as possible to benefit from this program.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amount
authorized under section 101, there is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out this section
$3,700,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(e) Definitions.--In this section, the term ``institution
of higher education'' has the meaning given that term in
section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001(a)).
SEC. 314. CYBERSECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
Title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
181 et. seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``SEC. 314. CYBERSECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
``(a) In General.--The Under Secretary for Science and
Technology shall support research and development, including
fundamental, long-term research, in cybersecurity to improve
the ability of the United States to prevent, protect against,
detect, respond to, and recover from cyber attacks, with
emphasis on research and development relevant to large-scale,
high-impact attacks.
``(b) Activities.--The research and development supported
under subsection (a), shall include work to--
``(1) advance the development and accelerate the deployment
of more secure versions of fundamental Internet protocols and
architectures, including for the domain name system and
routing protocols;
``(2) improve and create technologies for detecting attacks
or intrusions, including monitoring technologies;
``(3) improve and create mitigation and recovery
methodologies, including techniques for containment of
attacks and development of resilient networks and systems
that degrade gracefully; and
``(4) develop and support infrastructure and tools to
support cybersecurity research and development efforts,
including modeling, testbeds, and data sets for assessment of
new cybersecurity technologies.
``(c) Coordination.--In carrying out this section, the
Under Secretary for Science and Technology shall coordinate
activities with--
``(1) the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity; and
``(2) other Federal agencies, including the National
Science Foundation, the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency, and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, to identify unmet needs and cooperatively support
activities, as appropriate.
``(d) Nature of Research.--Activities under this section
shall be carried out in accordance with section 306(a) of
this Act.''.
Subtitle C--Security of Public Transportation Systems
SEC. 321. SECURITY BEST PRACTICES.
Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination
with the Secretary of Transportation, shall issue a report
containing best practices for the security of public
transportation systems related to the threats from terrorism.
Such report shall be developed in consultation with providers
of public transportation, industry associations, public
transportation employee representatives, first responders,
and appropriate Federal, State, and local officials. The
Secretary of Transportation shall disseminate the report to
providers of public transportation, industry associations,
public transportation employee representatives, and
appropriate Federal, State, and local officials, the
Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on
Transportation
[[Page H3472]]
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, and any
other appropriate entities.
SEC. 322. PUBLIC AWARENESS.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, after consultation
with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall develop a
national plan to increase awareness of measures that the
general public, public transportation passengers, and public
transportation employees can take to increase public
transportation security related to the threat of terrorism.
Such plan shall also provide outreach to providers and
employees of public transportation systems on available
transportation security technologies, ongoing research and
development efforts, employee training, and available Federal
funding sources to improve public transportation security.
Not later than 9 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall disseminate
the plan to providers of public transportation, industry
associations, public transportation employee representatives,
appropriate Federal, State, and local officials, and other
appropriate entities.
Subtitle D--Critical Infrastructure Prioritization
SEC. 331. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
(a) Completion of Prioritization.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall complete the prioritization of the
Nation's critical infrastructure according to all of the
following criteria:
(1) The threat of terrorist attack, based on threat
information received and analyzed by the Office of
Information Analysis of the Department regarding the
intentions and capabilities of terrorist groups and other
potential threats to the Nation's critical infrastructure.
(2) The likelihood that an attack would cause the
destruction or significant disruption of such infrastructure.
(3) The likelihood that an attack would result in
substantial numbers of deaths and serious bodily injuries, a
substantial adverse impact on the national economy, or a
substantial adverse impact on national security.
(b) Cooperation.--Such prioritization shall be developed in
cooperation with other relevant Federal agencies, State,
local, and tribal governments, and the private sector, as
appropriate.
SEC. 332. SECURITY REVIEW.
(a) Requirement.--Not later than 9 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in coordination with other relevant Federal
agencies, State, local, and tribal governments, and the
private sector, as appropriate, shall--
(1) review existing Federal, State, local, tribal, and
private sector plans for securing the critical infrastructure
included in the prioritization developed under section 331;
(2) recommend changes to existing plans for securing such
infrastructure, as the Secretary determines necessary; and
(3) coordinate and contribute to protective efforts of
other Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies and the
private sector, as appropriate.
(b) Contents of Plans.--The recommendations made under
subsection (a)(2) shall include--
(1) protective measures to secure such infrastructure,
including milestones and timeframes for implementation; and
(2) to the extent practicable, performance metrics to
evaluate the benefits to both national security and the
Nation's economy from the implementation of such protective
measures.
SEC. 333. IMPLEMENTATION REPORT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 15 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional
committees (as defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101)) on the implementation of section
332. Such report shall detail--
(1) the Secretary's review and coordination of security
plans under section 332; and
(2) the Secretary's oversight of the execution and
effectiveness of such plans.
(b) Update.--Not later than 1 year after the submission of
the report under subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide
an update of such report to the congressional committees
described in subsection (a).
SEC. 334. PROTECTION OF INFORMATION.
(a) Protection of Information.--The information set forth
in subsection (b) that is generated, compiled, or
disseminated by the Department of Homeland Security in
carrying out this subtitle--
(1) is exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5,
United States Code; and
(2) shall not, if provided by the Department to a State or
local government or government agency--
(A) be made available pursuant to any State or local law
requiring disclosure of information or records;
(B) otherwise be disclosed or distributed to any person by
such State or local government or government agency without
the written consent of the Secretary; or
(C) 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.
(b) Information Covered.--Information referred to in
subsection (a) is the following:
(1) The Secretary's prioritization of critical
infrastructure pursuant to section 331, including any
information upon which such prioritization was based;
(2) the Secretary's review of existing security plans for
such infrastructure pursuant to section 332(a)(1).
(3) The Secretary's recommendations for changes to existing
plans for securing such infrastructure pursuant to section
332(a)(2).
(4) The nature and scope of protective efforts with respect
to such infrastructure under section 332(a)(3).
(5) The report and update prepared by the Secretary
pursuant to section 333, including any information upon which
such report and update are based.
TITLE IV--U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION AND U.S. IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 401. ESTABLISHMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF COST ACCOUNTING
SYSTEM; REPORTS.
Section 334 of the Customs and Border Security Act of 2002
(19 U.S.C. 2082 note) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 334. ESTABLISHMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF COST
ACCOUNTING SYSTEM; REPORTS.
``(a) Establishment and Implementation; Customs and Border
Protection.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than September 30, 2006, the
Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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 Inspector General of the Department
of the Treasury issued on February 23, 2001), establish and
implement a cost accounting system--
``(A) for expenses incurred in both commercial and
noncommercial operations of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection of the Department of Homeland Security, which
system should specifically identify and distinguish expenses
incurred in commercial operations and expenses incurred in
noncommercial operations; and
``(B) for expenses incurred both in administering and
enforcing the customs laws of the United States and the
Federal immigration laws, which system should specifically
identify and distinguish expenses incurred in administering
and enforcing the customs laws of the United States and the
expenses incurred in administering and enforcing the Federal
immigration laws.
``(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 U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, and an identification of expenses based on
any other appropriate classification necessary to provide for
an accurate and complete accounting of expenses.
``(b) Establishment and Implementation; Immigration and
Customs Enforcement.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than September 30, 2006, the
Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement 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
Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury issued on
February 23, 2001), establish and implement a cost accounting
system--
``(A) for expenses incurred in both commercial and
noncommercial operations of U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security, which
system should specifically identify and distinguish expenses
incurred in commercial operations and expenses incurred in
noncommercial operations;
``(B) for expenses incurred both in administering and
enforcing the customs laws of the United States and the
Federal immigration laws, which system should specifically
identify and distinguish expenses incurred in administering
and enforcing the customs laws of the United States and the
expenses incurred in administering and enforcing the Federal
immigration laws.
``(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 amount of time spent on the operation by personnel of
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and an
identification of expenses based on any other appropriate
classification necessary to provide for an accurate and
complete accounting of expenses.
``(c) Reports.--
``(1) Development of the cost accounting systems.--
Beginning on the date of the enactment of the Department of
Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and
ending on the date on which the cost accounting systems
described in subsections (a) and (b) are fully implemented,
the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and
the Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, respectively, shall prepare and submit to
Congress on a quarterly basis a report on the progress of
implementing the cost accounting systems pursuant to
subsections (a) and (b).
``(2) Annual reports.--Beginning one year after the date on
which the cost accounting systems described in subsections
(a) and (b) are fully implemented, the Commissioner of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and the Assistant Secretary for
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, respectively, shall
prepare and submit to Congress on an
[[Page H3473]]
annual basis a report itemizing the expenses identified in
subsections (a) and (b).
``(3) Office of the inspector general.--Not later than
March 31, 2007, the Inspector General of the Department of
Homeland Security shall prepare and submit to Congress a
report analyzing the level of compliance with this section
and detailing any additional steps that should be taken to
improve compliance with this section.''.
SEC. 402. REPORT RELATING TO ONE FACE AT THE BORDER
INITIATIVE.
Not later than September 30 of each of the calendar years
2006 and 2007, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection of the Department of Homeland Security shall
prepare and submit to Congress a report--
(1) analyzing the effectiveness of the One Face at the
Border Initiative at enhancing security and facilitating
trade;
(2) providing a breakdown of the number of personnel of
U.S. Customs and Border Protection that were personnel of the
United States Customs Service prior to the establishment of
the Department of Homeland Security, that were personnel of
the Immigration and Naturalization Service prior to the
establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, and
that were hired after the establishment of the Department of
Homeland Security;
(3) describing the training time provided to each employee
on an annual basis for the various training components of the
One Face at the Border Initiative; and
(4) outlining the steps taken by U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to ensure that expertise is retained with respect
to customs, immigration, and agriculture inspection functions
under the One Face at the Border Initiative.
SEC. 403. CUSTOMS SERVICES.
Section 13031(e)(1) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(e)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(1) Notwithstanding section 451 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1451) or any other provision of
law (other than paragraph (2)),'' and inserting:
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Scheduled flights.--Notwithstanding section 451 of
the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1451) or any other
provision of law (other than subparagraph (B) and paragraph
(2)),''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Charter flights.--If a charter air carrier (as
defined in section 40102(13) of title 49, United States Code)
specifically requests that customs border patrol services for
passengers and their baggage be provided for a charter flight
arriving after normal operating hours at a customs border
patrol serviced airport and overtime funds for those services
are not available, the appropriate customs border patrol
officer may assign sufficient customs employees (if
available) to perform any such services, which could lawfully
be performed during regular hours of operation, and any
overtime fees incurred in connection with such service shall
be paid by the charter air carrier.''.
SEC. 404. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON INTERPRETATION OF TEXTILE AND
APPAREL PROVISIONS.
It is the sense of Congress that U.S. Customs and Border
Protection of the Department of Homeland Security should
interpret, implement, and enforce the provisions of section
112 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C.
3721), section 204 of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19
U.S.C. 3203), and section 213 of the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703), relating to preferential
treatment of textile and apparel articles, broadly in order
to expand trade by maximizing opportunities for imports of
such articles from eligible beneficiary countries.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 501. BORDER SECURITY AND ENFORCEMENT COORDINATION AND
OPERATIONS.
(a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) As part of the creation of the Department of Homeland
Security, section 442 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-273) established a Bureau of Border Security
and transferred into it all of the functions, programs,
personnel, assets, and liabilities pertaining to the
following programs: the Border Patrol; alien detention and
removal; immigration-related intelligence, investigations,
and enforcement activities; and immigration inspections at
ports of entry.
(2) Title IV of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public
Law 107-273) also transferred to the new Department the
United States Customs Service, as a distinct entity within
the new Department, to further the Department's border
integrity mission.
(3) Utilizing its reorganization authority provided in the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, the President submitted a
reorganization plan for the Department on January 30, 2003.
(4) This plan merged the customs and immigration border
inspection and patrol functions, along with agricultural
inspections functions, into a new entity called United States
Customs and Border Protection.
(5) The plan also combined the customs and immigration
enforcement agents, as well as the Office of Detention and
Removal Operations, the Office of Federal Protective Service,
the Office of Federal Air Marshal Service, and the Office of
Intelligence, into another new entity called United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
(6) The President's January 30, 2003, reorganization plan
did not explain the reasons for separating immigration
inspection and border patrol functions from other
immigration-related enforcement functions, or to combine
immigration-related enforcement functions with customs and
other functions, contrary to the design of the Bureau of
Border Security as prescribed by the Congress in section 442
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
(7) United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement has
faced major budgetary challenges that are, in part,
attributable to the inexact division of resources upon the
separation of immigration functions. These budget shortfalls
have forced United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
to impose hiring freezes and to release aliens that otherwise
should be detained.
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall review and evaluate the current organizational
structure of the Department of Homeland Security established
by the President's January 30, 2003, reorganization plan and
submit a report of findings and recommendations to the
appropriate congressional committees (as defined in section 2
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101)).
(2) Contents of report.--The report shall include--
(A) a description of the rationale for, and any benefits
of, the current organizational division of United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and United States Customs
and Border Protection, with respect to the Department's
immigration and customs missions;
(B) a description of the organization, missions,
operations, and policies of United States Customs and Border
Protection and United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, and areas of unnecessary overlap or operational
gaps among and between these missions;
(C) a description of the rationale for, and any benefits
of, the current organizational combination of immigration-
related enforcement functions with customs and other
functions;
(D) an analysis of alternative organizational structures
that could provide a more effective way to deliver maximum
efficiencies and mission success;
(E) a description of the current role of the Directorate of
Border and Transportation Security with respect to providing
adequate direction and oversight of the two agencies, and
whether this management structure is still necessary;
(F) an analysis of whether the Federal Air Marshals and the
Federal Protective Service are properly located within the
Department within United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement;
(G) the proper placement and functions of a specialized
investigative and patrol unit operating at the southwest
border on the Tohono O'odham Nation, known as the Shadow
Wolves;
(H) the potential costs of reorganization, including
financial, programmatic, and other costs, to the Department;
and
(I) recommendations for correcting the operational and
administrative problems that have been caused by the division
of United States Custom and Border Protection and United
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement and by the
combination of immigration-related enforcement functions with
customs and other functions in both entities, including any
appropriate reorganization plans.
SEC. 502. GAO REPORT TO CONGRESS.
(a) In General.-- Not later than 6 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees (as defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101)) a report that sets forth--
(1) an assessment of the effectiveness of the
organizational and management structure of the Department of
Homeland Security in meeting the Department's missions as set
forth in section 101(b)(1) of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)); and
(2) recommendations to facilitate and improve the
organization and management of the Department to best meet
those missions.
(b) Cybersecurity Assessment.--Not later than one year
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller
General shall submit a report to the appropriate
congressional committees (as defined in section 2 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101)) that sets forth
an assessment of the effectiveness of the efforts of the
Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity to fulfill the
statutory responsibilities of that office.
SEC. 503. PLAN TO REDUCE WAIT TIMES.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop a
plan--
(1) to improve the operational efficiency of security
screening checkpoints at commercial service airports so that
average peak waiting periods at such checkpoints do not
exceed 20 minutes; and
(2) to ensure that there are no significant disparities in
immigration and customs passenger processing times among
airports that serve as international gateways.
SEC. 504. DENIAL OF TRANSPORTATION SECURITY CARD.
Section 70105(c) of title 46, United States Code, is
amended--
[[Page H3474]]
(1) in paragraph (3) by inserting before the period
``before an administrative law judge''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) In making a determination under paragraph (1)(D) that
an individual poses a terrorism security risk, the Secretary
shall not solely consider a felony conviction if--
``(A) that felony occurred more than 7 years prior to the
date of the Secretary's determination; and
``(B) the felony was not related to terrorism (as that term
is defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(6 U.S.C. 101)).''.
SEC. 505. TRANSFER OF EXISTING CUSTOMS PATROL OFFICERS UNIT
AND ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW CPO UNITS IN THE
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Transfer of Existing Unit.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall transfer to the Bureau of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement all functions (including the
personnel, assets, and obligations held by or available in
connection with such functions) of the Customs Patrol
Officers unit of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
operating on the Tohono O'odham Indian reservation (commonly
known as the ``Shadow Wolves'' unit).
(b) Establishment of New Units.--The Secretary is
authorized to establish within the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement additional units of Customs Patrol
Officers in accordance with this section.
(c) Duties.--The Customs Patrol Officer unit transferred
pursuant to subsection (a) and the additional units
established pursuant to subsection (b) shall be responsible
for the prevention of the smuggling of narcotics, weapons of
mass destruction, and other contraband, and the illegal
trafficking of persons, on Indian lands.
(d) Basic Pay for Journeyman Officers.--A Customs Patrol
Officer in a unit described in this section shall receive
equivalent pay as a special agent with similar competencies
within the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
pursuant to the Department of Homeland Security's human
resources management system established under section 841 of
the Homeland Security Act (6 U.S.C. 411).
(e) Supervisors.--Each unit described under this section
shall be supervised by a Chief Customs Patrol Officer, who
shall have the same rank as a resident agent-in-charge of the
Office of Investigations.
SEC. 506. DATA COLLECTION ON USE OF IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish
procedures to record information on applications for an
immigration benefit submitted by an alien with respect to
which--
(1) the alien states that the alien used the services of an
immigration consultant; or
(2) a Department employee or official investigating facts
alleged in the application, or adjudicating the application,
suspects that the alien used the services of an immigration
consultant.
SEC. 507. OFFICE FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 is amended----
(1) in section 801--
(A) in the section heading, by striking ``STATE AND LOCAL''
and inserting ``STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL'';
(B) in subsection (a), by striking ``State and Local'' and
inserting ``State, Local, and Tribal''; and
(C) in subsection (b), by striking ``State and local'' each
place it appears and inserting ``State, local, and tribal'';
and
(2) in section 1(b) in the table of contents by striking
the item relating to section 801 and inserting the following:
``Sec. 801. Office for State, Local, and Tribal Government
Coordination.''.
SEC. 508. AUTHORITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES UNAFFECTED.
Except to the extent explicitly provided in section 216,
nothing in this Act shall affect the authority under statute,
regulation, or Executive order of other Federal agencies than
the Department of Homeland Security.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to that amendment is in order
except those printed in part B of the report. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be 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 division of the question.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part B of
House Report 109-84.
amendment no. 1 offered by mr. meek of florida
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Meek of Florida:
Page 7, after line 6, insert the following new section:
SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION FOR OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.
Of the amount authorized under section 101, there is
authorized to be appropriated for the Office of the Inspector
General of the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal
year 2006, $200,000,000.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Meek) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).
(Mr. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an amendment that will increase the
amount of funding to the Department of Homeland Security Inspector
General's office by $200 million.
Mr. Chairman, this is so very, very important due to the fact that
the Department of Homeland Security is the largest agency in the world
right now, not only the Federal Government. It has 22 legacy agencies
that had problems before the Department of Homeland Security was
created. If it were not for the fact that they are in charge, this
Department is in charge of protecting the homeland and making sure that
all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations are implemented properly and
also making sure that they protect our borders and our airways.
The inspector general really needs the additional funding and
staffing to be able to keep up with the growing Department of Homeland
Security. The spending on contracts alone was $6.1 billion in 2004, and
in 2005 it moved up to $10.9 billion. That is a 40 percent increase in
1 year. It is literally impossible for the Inspector General's office
to keep up not only with the policing of the Department but to ensure
that the mission's integrity is followed through on.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I now rise in strong
support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Meek), my Homeland Security Committee colleague, the ranking member on
the Management, Integration and Oversight Subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard testimony time and time again on our
committee about the underfunding of the office of Inspector General. We
had committee testimony from three Inspector Generals indicating that
the office was underfunded.
Just to show you what they found in recent reviews, we found that the
Department spent $31,000 on rubber plants. We also found that they
spent $500,000 on an awards ceremony. Clearly these expenditures are
out of line and should not have been.
Testimony also revealed that had we had a more robust Office of
Inspector General, we could do more oversight. So the gentleman from
Florida's (Mr. Meek) amendment is in order. It is something that we
should do. If we look at other agencies, this Department is woefully
underfunded. And for that reason I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Meek), who is a very able and well-informed Member of the
committee and serves as the ranking member on the committee on
oversight, which has particular responsibilities in this area. I
support his view of the importance of the Inspector General's function
inside the Department of Homeland Security and of the mission of
fighting waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government, and
specifically in the Department of Homeland Security, because it is a
critical mission.
The reason, however, that I cannot support the amendment is different
than what I have just said. I agree with the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Meek) about the Inspector General's function and fighting waste,
fraud, and abuse. First, I cannot support it because the authorization
of $200 million, which is a tripling of the current budget, has no
offset. It is therefore a budget buster.
[[Page H3475]]
As I stated in general debate, what has characterized our efforts on
the underlying bill is that we are operating within the parameters of
the House-passed budget, and specifically the allocation for the
overall Department of Homeland Security of $32 billion.
When we make changes in the priorities in the bill by doing something
else that is good, we have got to find somewhere to take the money
from, and this amendment simply does not do it. It pulls the money from
thin air.
Second, the new level of funding that this would establish, the
enormous increase from $83 million at present to $200 million, would
create an IG office and staff and administration virtually identical in
size to that which exists in the largest Cabinet Department, the
Department of Defense, even though DOD's budget and empire and
responsibilities are 10 times larger than the Department of Homeland
Security. So there is a problem of scale.
Third, not withstanding the testimony, correctly cited by my
colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), of former IGs
about their experience and their need for more staff, the current IG
has more staff.
The staffing level of the Office of Inspector General already has
grown significantly over the last 3 years from 475 full-time employees
in fiscal year 2004, to 502 in fiscal 2005, to 540 in fiscal year 2006.
And for that reason, neither the administration nor the Inspector
General himself has asked for this increase that is before us in this
amendment.
For all of these reasons, I regretfully oppose the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the chairman pointed out the good points
about this amendment and also maybe pointed out a few other issues as
it relates to the budget issue.
This is the Homeland Security Authorization bill, not the
appropriations bill. We are authorizing the Department, hopefully, to
be able to move towards this $200 million to be able to take care of
some of the issues that we hear about and read about in newspapers
daily, about mismanagement, about contractors not following through on
their obligation to the Federal Government.
I mean, it is not fine if it was just wasteful spending, but this is
the protection of the homeland. And when we look at accountability and
protection, I think it is important that we move in this direction.
I would also like to argue the fact that the Government
Accountability Office, in report after report of issues and unmet
mandates by the Department, reports by the Department to help this
Congress make wise decisions are backlogged in the hundreds. And I
think it is important that we as the oversight committee do as much as
we can to bring about the kind of accountability that the American
people deserve and that this Congress hopes to get.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to commend the gentleman from Florida for
his leadership on oversight and investigation. I will commit to
continuing to work with him on the full committee and to make sure that
the IG gets the resources that he needs.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to just close by saying that this
amendment is just a simple accountability amendment. Yes, I know it
mirrors the Department of Defense. But the Department of Defense has
the duty to protect not only Americans but also make sure that our men
and women that are in harm's way are protected.
The Department of Homeland Security has a similar responsibility of
making sure that we protect the homeland and make America safe and
sound for future generations.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Members to vote in the affirmative
for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Meek) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in part B of
House Report 109-84.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cox
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Cox:
Page 7, after line 6, insert the following (and amend the
table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 109. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR TRAINING OF
STATE AND LOCAL PERSONNEL PERFORMING
IMMIGRATION FUNCTIONS.
(a) In General.--To carry out subsection (b), from amounts
authorized under section 101, there are authorized to be
appropriated $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, to remain
available until September 30, 2007.
(b) Use of Funds.--From amounts made available under
subsection (a), the Secretary of Homeland Security may
reimburse a State or political subdivision for the expenses
described in subsection (d).
(c) Eligible Recipients.--A State, or a political
subdivision of a State, is eligible for reimbursement under
subsection (b) if the State or political subdivision--
(1) has entered into a written agreement described in
section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1357(g)) under which certain officers or employees of
the State or subdivision may be authorized to perform certain
functions of an immigration officer; and
(2) desires such officers or employees to receive training
from the Department of Homeland Security in relation to such
functions.
(d) Expenses.--The expenses described in this subsection
are actual and necessary expenses incurred by the State or
political subdivision in order to permit the training
described in subsection (c)(2) to take place, including
expenses such as the following:
(1) Costs of travel and transportation to locations where
training is provided, including mileage and related
allowances for the use of a privately owned automobile.
(2) Subsistence consisting of lodging, meals, and other
necessary expenses for the personal sustenance and comfort of
a person required to travel away from the person's regular
post of duty in order to participate in the training.
(3) A per diem allowance paid instead of actual expenses
for subsistence and fees or tips to porters and stewards.
(4) Costs of securing temporary replacements for personnel
traveling to, and participating in, the training.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Thompson) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I want to take this
opportunity to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) with whom I am offering
this amendment.
Our amendment will authorize funds to reimburse States for training
costs that they incur if they voluntarily participate in the training
of their law enforcement agents for the purposes of enforcing our
Nation's immigration laws.
In 1996, I authored section 133 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act. That section is now codified as section
287(G) of the INA. It provided and continues to provide as a piece of
our permanent legislation local and State law enforcement officers with
the option of being trained and deputized by the Federal Government so
that they can assist with the enforcement of our immigration laws in
the pursuit of their normal duties of protecting citizens from crime.
Over the last 8 years, slowly but surely, we have learned how to use
this facility so that the Department has entered into several memoranda
of understanding, for example, with the State
[[Page H3476]]
of Florida in September 2002, the State of Alabama in September of
2003, and very recently the County of Los Angeles in pursuit of
specific authorization by the elected officials of the County of Los
Angeles in February of 2005.
So the reason that we are offering this amendment today is that
inasmuch as this is a purely voluntary program, offering aid to State
and local law enforcement that wants it that is asking for it and is
volunteering for it, they should be reimbursed for their costs as first
responders of helping us enforce Federal law and achieving the national
mission of protecting our borders.
We need to capitalize on existing law enforcement resources by
ensuring that State and local law enforcement have the opportunity to
receive this training that will help them to protect their local
communities.
In turn, those enforcement efforts will help protect the Nation from
threats of terrorism. I want to emphasize just a few things. First,
this amendment does not alter the fundamental voluntary nature of the
participation of States and Federal Government. So no State and no
subdivision of the State that does not wish in any way to be involved
in the enforcement of our immigration laws will be required to do so,
either under existing law or under this fund provision.
Second, the purpose of the law, of the training, and of the
reimbursement is to focus on crime and on people who are not only
unlawfully in this country but who are committing other crimes, in
particular felonies.
Third, the training that is provided by the Federal Government
specifically includes training in the areas of civil rights and the
prevention of profiling.
{time} 1345
I want to reiterate that this amendment does not change or alter any
authority that already exists in law. It merely provides funding for
States for their first responders who should be reimbursed for this
training.
I fully support this program, and I urge my colleagues to support
this important amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage Members to vote ``no'' on the Cox-
Sensenbrenner amendment authorizing $40 million to be appropriated from
the fiscal year 2006 budget to reimburse States and locals for the
costs associated with having State and local law enforcement trained
and certified by DHS' Immigration and Customs Enforcement to enforce
immigration laws.
Mr. Chairman, plain and simple, we are shirking our responsibility as
a government by passing this mission on to local authority. If we have
the responsibility for immigration and immigration enforcement, we
should do our job. We should appropriate the money to the respective
department, whatever the requirements are, rather than passing the buck
to local law enforcement. Local law enforcement clearly will tell my
colleagues we have enough on our plate now, do not give us further
responsibility by giving us immigration.
So, Mr. Chairman, while I understand my colleague's reasoning behind
the amendment, it is clearly something that allows us to put this
responsibility on someone else.
I guarantee my colleagues, when we do this, it will come with another
program in the not-too-distant future. We will give other
responsibilities to the local level.
I am a former mayor and a former county supervisor. Knowing law
enforcement at the personal level, I am convinced that we have more
than enough to do at the local level. The Federal Government should do
what it is required to do on immigration. Let us not pass the buck. Let
us make sure that we take the immigration responsibility and retain it
at the Federal level.
That is why I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, this amendment is
offered jointly by myself as chairman of the Committee on Homeland
Security and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) as
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and
particularly the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) for yielding
me time and for working and participating on this amendment.
I rise today in support of the Cox-Sensenbrenner amendment which
authorizes funding to train State and local law enforcement officers to
perform immigration officer functions.
I submitted a nearly identical amendment to the Committee on Rules
because I believe this amendment provides the help our local law
enforcement needs to enforce our Nation's immigration laws and keep our
citizens safe. I am proud to stand today with the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), my chairman, and the author of the
underlying bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the Committee
on Homeland Security chairman, to urge my colleagues to support this
funding.
Under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, State
and local governments can enter into cooperative agreements with the
Department of Homeland Security to train on Federal immigration law and
be reimbursed for that training. This amendment would authorize the
funds needed for that reimbursement for States all across this Nation.
There are two reasons to encourage local police to assist in
enforcing immigration laws. First, while there are an estimated 8 to 10
million illegal aliens in the United States, ICE currently has only
about 2,000 special agents to identify and remove them. Second, local
officers come into contact with many of those illegal aliens,
especially criminal aliens, daily in performing their duties. So it is
a practical marriage.
The House Committee on the Judiciary has promoted and supported local
immigration enforcement since section 287(g) was added to the INA in
1996. In January of 2002, the Committee on the Judiciary pressed the
Attorney General to accept local assistance in enforcing the
immigration laws. As the then-Immigration Subcommittee chairman stated,
``In light of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and the growing
problem of illegal immigration into the United States, this is perhaps
the most pressing time for the Department of Justice to consider
utilizing the power'' conveyed under section 287(g).
The Federal Government subsequently authorized officers to perform
immigration enforcement functions with Florida and Alabama.
The Committee on the Judiciary has revisited this issue in evaluating
interior immigration enforcement, in examining sanctuary policies in a
number of major cities, and in assessing the inherent authority of
local police to enforce the immigration laws.
This amendment is an improvement over a narrow provision struck from
H.R. 1817 during the markup of the legislation on May 12. That narrowly
tailored provision applied only to States with a location 30 miles from
a border or coastline. In order to truly protect our citizens from
those who have entered our country illegally to do them harm, this
policy must be applied nationwide.
As an April 2005 Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and
Claims hearing revealed, alien gang violence has followed immigration
patterns from the ports and borders into the communities of the
interior United States. Similarly, new reports indicate that local
police far from the nearest national border confront alien criminals
and smugglers on a daily basis.
So in summary, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in
support of this amendment that addresses the necessary cooperation
between local law enforcement, both local and State, and the Federal
educational support so that we can build that level of cooperation.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of
my time for closing.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on this
side?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cole of Oklahoma). The gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Rogers).
[[Page H3477]]
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Cox-Sensenbrenner amendment.
I would like to associate myself with the comments of the gentleman
from California (Chairman Cox) and agree this proposal would help local
law enforcement better enforce our Nation's immigration laws.
Two years ago, 21 Alabama State troopers completed ICE's Federal 5-
week training course. Since that time, these State troopers have
detained 128 illegal aliens as a result of routine traffic stops. For
example, this January of 2004, two individuals were stopped by an
Alabama State trooper for a traffic violation. Because the trooper was
trained on how to spot false immigration documents, the two were
detained. In the course of the investigation, the men were found guilty
of attempting to smuggle over $435,000 in U.S. currency out of the
country.
Likewise, in March of this year, two other individuals were stopped
by an Alabama State trooper for a traffic violation. The driver
identified was in possession of a U.S. passport, and the passenger was
identified as a citizen of Mexico illegally present in the United
States. A consensual search of the vehicle found nine firearms and
ammunition hidden under the bed liner of the truck. Both were taken
into ICE's custody for prosecution.
It is important to note that all officers enrolled in this program
received extensive training in cultural sensitivity and civil rights
procedure.
Contrary to the fears of the program's opponents, ICE has received no
complaints of intimidation, harassment or profiling. In fact, Alabama
law enforcement officials have reached out to its immigrant community
to help educate them on the law.
Overall, the program is an essential force multiplier and helps ICE
officials better enforce our Nation's immigration laws.
I would also like to recognize the work of the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. McCaul), a member of our committee, and all that he has done on
this committee.
I thank the chairman for his leadership, and I ask for the House's
support of this amendment.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee
on Homeland Security.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from Mississippi for yielding me time.
I rise to acknowledge the good intentions of the effort offered by
the proponent of this amendment, but I also raise a number of red flags
that are not answered by this amendment. In fact, it creates a whole
new obligation for the Federal Government that does not address the
Federal Government's responsibility for immigration enforcement and
reform.
Frankly, I wish we were debating $40 million plus and more to fully
fund the first responders bill or the first responders efforts to
ensure that fire persons and police persons are fully funded for the
work that they have to do to secure the homeland.
I would prefer an amendment that would fully fund the 2,000 plus
every year border security protection agents that the 9/11 Commission
recommended.
I would prefer this amendment to support the 800 a year ICE agents,
the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers who are at a measly
123 per year and do not have full complement to do their work.
All this amendment does is to set up an incentive that will not last
and to get local communities dependent upon resources and place them in
the line of fire to be doing the enforcement of immigration laws that
the Federal Government should actually be doing. This gives them the
false hope of memorandums of understanding that year after year will
not be fully funded.
I am delighted that we are having this debate. At least we separate
from the other body that wants to shut down the democratic process of
debate by eliminating the filibuster. I will not do that today, but I
think that we have an opportunity here to put forward a homeland
security legislative initiative that really responds to the needs of
enforcing immigration.
Authorizing funding, as I indicated, would be a deceptive
encouragement to States to enter into MOUs. The history of the State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program, however, makes it clear that such
funding is unlikely. That program was established by Congress to
reimburse State and local governments for costs incurred when
incarcerating undocumented aliens convicted of crimes.
According to the National Association of Counties, State and local
governments receive just 40 cents for every dollar they spend housing
and processing such inmates. Meaning, Mr. Chairman, it has not worked.
I see the very same pathway for this limited funding. Really, what we
should be doing is giving the States $100 million plus that we have now
burdened them with in the unfunded mandate of the REAL ID bill. That
bill, that is not funded, is going to create the greatest amount of
havoc for untrained individuals dealing with this. It is not the law
enforcement officers' ground. It is the Department of Public Safety
that is going to have to characterize and create something we call a
national ID card.
It also creates a false sense of public safety and it harms public
safety. The false promise of funding would encourage some agencies to
enter into MOUs, but expanded State and local enforcement of Federal
immigration laws would harm public safety.
When police become immigration agents, the trust and confidence of
immigrants and their communities are shaken. Word spreads like
wildfire, and those very same immigrants, legal and nonlegal, if you
will, will stifle, cut out the work of helping local law enforcement
solve crime. We know that immigrants, documented and undocumented, are
preyed upon, are victims, and they are victims and they are fearful,
and they are in the midst of crimes being perpetrated against them and
their neighbors. They have the answers and they will not give the
answers and we will not solve crime in many of our communities because
they believe that the local law enforcement is there to harm them and
not there to help them.
I believe one frustration they run into is the fact that the
Department of Homeland Security does not always respond to the request
for assistance when people are believed to be undocumented. That is
really where our problem is.
The other problem I might say is that when they arrest these
individuals, we do not have the adjudicators to process them. So there
is an enormous backlog. I tried on the floor of the House to offer an
appropriations increase to get us 300 adjudicators, an amendment of
myself and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). That did not
prevail. So, in actuality, this is a false effort, giving $40 million
with good intentions, but it really does nothing to help local law
enforcement.
Let us fully fund them for the work they have to do, fully fund the
immigration law enforcement for the work they have to do, and let us do
our work as a Federal Government in securing the homeland and providing
immigration enforcement.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment to the Department of Homeland Security
Authorization bill would authorize Federal funding for State and local
police agencies who enter into MOUs with ICe to enforce immigration
laws.
Based on earlier versions of the amendment as it was proposed during
committee consideration of the bill, it appears that only training
costs would be reimbursed. Ongoing personnel and administrative costs
incurred by law enforcement agencies that enter into MOUs would not.
This amendment is inadequate for a variety of reasons:
false incentive
Authorizing funding would be a deceptive encouragement to States to
enter into MOUs. The history of the State Criminal Alien Assistance
Program (SCAAP), however, makes it clear that such funding is unlikely.
SCAAP was established by Congress to reimburse State and local
governments for costs incurred when incarcerating undocumented aliens
convicted of crimes.
According to the National Association of Counties, State and local
governments received just 40 cents for every dollar they spend housing
and processing such inmates. Also, President Bush has consistently
attempted to eliminate the program entirely in his annual budget
requests.
If Congress and the White House do not support full funding to
reimburse State and
[[Page H3478]]
local governments for costs incurred during criminal enforcement
activities, it is highly unlikely that they will appropriate the monies
needed to fund State and local agencies that engage in civil
immigration law enforcement.
Not only is appropriation of this money less than certain, but the
money covers a very small portion of the costs incurred by State and
local agencies entering into MOUs. It does not fund ongoing salary and
administrative costs for police as they take on new demands related to
immigration enforcement. Indeed, if the drafters did want to
appropriate this money, it would make more sense for them to fund
hiring and training of additional Federal agents.
Harms public safety
The false promise of funding would encourage some agencies to enter
into MOUs. But expanded State and local enforcement of Federal
immigration laws would harm public safety.
When police become immigration agents, the trust and confidence of
immigrants and their communities are shaken. Word spreads like wildfire
that any contact with police could mean deportation for themselves or
their family members. Immigrants decline to report crimes or suspicious
activity, and criminals see them as easy prey, making our streets less
safe as a result.
Experience shows that this fear extends not only to contact with
police, but also to the fire department, hospitals, and the public
school system.
Not their role
State and local law enforcement's priorities are and should be
stopping, investigating, and punishing criminal activity. State and
local police already have all the tools they need to work with Federal
agencies, including ICE, on joint operations and investigations. They
can also detain criminals who are also immigration law violators and
contact ICE to come pick them up. They do this every day.
One frustration they run into is the fact that DHS doesn't always
respond to their requests for assistance with people believed to be
undocumented. DHS also has its priorities, and has focused first on
terrorists and criminals. Undocumented workers fall further down the
list. This amendment does nothing to ensure that agencies entering into
MOUs will actually see responses from ICE as they come across people
they think could be undocumented and attempt to sort it out.
Obviously the broken immigration system and lack of consistent
enforcement cannot stand. But asking State and local police agencies to
fill in where the Federal Government has failed is a cheap and false
``solution.''
Not the solution
The answer is not asking State and local governments to make up for
the failures of the feds. The answer is modernizing the immigration
system so that well-intentioned migrants can enter to work and reunite
with their families legally. When the current undocumented population
is brought out of the shadows for a proper vetting and gets on a path
to legal status, our enforcement resources will be better trained on
the smugglers and fake document rings, the drug runners and violent
criminals, and the terrorists who might manipulate our system.
As President Bush said, once immigrants have legal papers, ``Law
enforcement will face fewer problems with undocumented workers, and
will be better able to focus on the true threats to our Nation from
criminals and terrorists. . . . Temporary workers will be able to
establish their identities by obtaining the legal documents we all take
for granted. And they will be able to talk openly to authorities, to
report crimes when they are harmed, without the fear of being
deported'' (White House policy announcement, 01/07/2003).
These reforms are the real solution.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding
me time and for his hard work on this amendment which is vital to
assisting State and local law enforcement to participate in this very
important program. I was proud to offer the base amendment at the
committee level, along with my friend from Alabama.
An estimated 8- to 12 million undocumented aliens are here in the
United States, and Border Patrol estimates that for every one that is
apprehended at the border up to three others enter our Nation. In the
post-9/11 world, these figures are no longer just an immigration
problem but, rather, one of national security.
{time} 1400
My experience on border security is that our Federal law enforcement
officers are being stretched too thin and asked to do too much and need
all the help available. With this amendment, State and local officers
can be trained to be qualified to perform the essential functions of an
immigration officer, including investigation, apprehension, and
detention of not only undocumented aliens but potential criminals and
terrorists.
The $40 million to States who qualify will serve as a needed force
multiplier to our border patrol, border inspectors, and ICE
investigators; and it is purely a voluntary program.
If we have learned anything from the tragedy of September 11, it is
that we must work together. No longer can we afford the turf battles
between State, Federal, and local law enforcement. As the head of the
Joint Terrorism Task Force back in my State, the State of Texas, I can
tell you that State and locals participate in the Joint Terrorism task
forces. This will give them the tools and the training necessary to
enforce not only our terrorist laws but the immigration laws that so
often overlap into the Federal terrorist criminal penalties.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It will bring law
enforcement together in a unified front to protect our national
security.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how
much time remains.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cole of Oklahoma). The gentleman from
Mississippi has 3\1/2\ minutes left on his side.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), a member of the committee.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we argued this amendment in
committee, and I have some concerns about it because I used to be a
State trooper in Florida. I know exactly what happens when we feel that
we are doing something, but we are really not doing anything.
With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side and their
hard work, which I join them in the theory of making sure that we
reimburse local law enforcement agencies that have invested time in
doing what is a Federal agency responsibility, but the 9/11 report
called for more ICE officers, it called for more Custom border
protection officers, and it called for a Federal agency, like the
Department of Homeland Security, to have what it needs to carry out its
duties.
I must point out to the Members at line 10 on this particular
amendment, on the front page, page 7 here of the overall bill, it says
that the Secretary of Homeland Security ``may'' reimburse State and
political subdivisions for the expenses that are carried out in this
subsection.
Now, I am going to tell you right now this is the kind of language,
and I want to make sure the law enforcement communities understand
this, that this is not a guaranteed reimbursement. We are not
guaranteeing them that they are going to be reimbursed. So I want to
make sure the Members understand that wholeheartedly.
I understand the intent of this amendment, but I believe that if we
are going to run, let us run. If we are going to walk, let us walk. But
let us not jog on an issue such as this. I believe that that language
should say ``shall'' if we are going to come to the floor and say we
are going to reimburse local subdivisions and State law enforcement
agencies.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume in closing.
(Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, as I have already
indicated from my opposition to this amendment, we are moving toward
making States and localities assume a Federal responsibility. This is
not in the best interest of homeland security. We have certain things
as a Federal Government that we should do. Immigration protection is
one of those items.
I understand from my chairman that he is interested in trying to
help, but at some point we have to do our job. What we need to do is
provide the resources to the Department to make sure that the
Department can do its job, not pass the buck to another State.
You have heard from my colleague who used to be a State trooper who
talks about the difficulties in crossing the lines. I ask my colleague
to consider that, but I also ask opposition to the amendment.
[[Page H3479]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bonner). All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Rhode
Island:
At the end of the matter proposed to be added as section
205 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 by section 223(a)(2)
of the bill strike the closing quotation marks and the final
period and insert the following:
``(c) Consultation.--In carrying out this section, the
Under Secretary shall consult with the Homeland Security
Center of Excellence for Behavioral and Social Research on
Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism and with such other academic
research centers with expertise in risk communications as the
Under Secretary considers appropriate.''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Terrorism is a psychological warfare. Terrorists try to manipulate us
and change our behavior by creating fear, uncertainty, and division in
society. To succeed, the terrorists do not necessarily need to land an
attack. Threats of an attack and failed attacks can still create fear,
uncertainty, and division; and that is the terrorists' goal.
The key battleground in the war on terrorism, therefore, is in the
minds of the American public. And how the government communicates about
homeland security is central to how the public responds. I would argue
that the communications record of the Department of Homeland Security
has been an abysmal failure. The duct tape and plastic sheeting fiasco
speaks for itself. The color-coded system does not work well and has
undermined the Department's credibility.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), chairman of the Committee on
Homeland Security, and I have talked about this issue over the last
year, and I know he is very concerned about it. I am grateful that the
committee has instructed the Department of Homeland Security in this
bill to fix the problems with the color-coded terror alert system.
As the bill requires, any terror alert system must give people and
organizations some indication about what steps they must take to
improve their own security and assist in the Nation's security. It also
requires that the alert be targeted at specific populations or regions,
when possible.
What we have now is a system that tells us to be scared. That is it.
We do not find out any information about the nature of the threat. We
have no idea what we can do to make ourselves more secure. And this
kind of vague warning inadvertently plays to the hands of the
terrorists who want us to be afraid.
On the other hand, the American public possesses a great resilience
and strength, and good risk communication strategies can tap into and
even amplify those assets. In other words, risk communications is
crucial to homeland security because it can be the difference between
hardening the target and making it more vulnerable.
I have been working on these issues for several years now, and I can
tell you that there is a wealth of knowledge out there about how the
government should communicate in emergencies about threats. This
amendment would simply require that in replacing the inadequate system
we have now, that the Department draw on this expertise and research in
order to help the government in its risk communications.
In particular, I think it is critical that the Department consult
with the Center of Excellence in Behavioral and Social Research in
Terrorism and Counterterrorism, which is already funded by the
Department. We are already paying for this research, and we should make
sure it is realized.
I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson),
for agreeing to this amendment and for their leadership. I also want to
extend special thanks to Dr. Mike Barnett from my office, who has been
indispensable to me in crafting this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I will just close by saying that this amendment is not
controversial, it has no cost, and it is very simple: When it comes to
homeland security, communications have a lasting impact. So let us make
sure we get it right by tapping the best experts.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding; and if I
might, I would like to speak first to the amendment that the gentleman
has offered, and then we could engage in a colloquy on a second
amendment.
So, Mr. Chairman, I rise therefore in support of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island. As the gentleman observes,
we have established in the Federal Government, through the Department
of Homeland Security, the Homeland Security Center of Excellence for
Behavioral and Social Research on Terrorism and Counterterrorism. This
center, which is located in Maryland, was established by a $12 million
grant from the Department of Homeland Security in January of this year.
This is the fourth Homeland Security Center of Excellence to be
established. Its expertise lies precisely in this area, and it makes a
good deal of sense to rely on this newly available expertise as we
redesign the homeland security advisory system.
As the gentleman from Rhode Island points out, section 205 of the
underlying bill, which we are amending, will already require redesign
of that system to move from vague and general warnings to specific
warnings that wherever possible are sector specific, industry specific
and threat specific; regional in nature wherever possible.
We have to stop issuing vague warnings that only serve to alarm the
general public, and we have to provide useful information to the
category of people who receive the warning. Using the expertise of this
center will accomplish both of these important objectives. And I am
very glad that the gentleman from Rhode Island has worked with the
staff on the committee to address some concerns with the original draft
of the amendment so that we are now completely in accord on both the
language and the wisdom of the proposal.
For all of those reasons, I am pleased to accept the amendment and
urge my colleagues to vote in its support.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as my
colleague and I have just spoken on the importance of communications
and risk communications, as you know, research shows that the more the
public is brought into the terrorism planning and response,
particularly through social networks like churches, unions,
professional organizations, and business groups, as well as
neighborhood associations, the more effective we can be at limiting the
impacts of terrorist acts and terrorist threats.
Not only is the inherent resilience and the strength of the American
public enhanced by participating, but the American public has a
critical commonsense knowledge that the government agencies and
community organizations need in order to develop plans that will
protect as many people as possible.
For this reason, it is a high priority of mine, as it is of my
colleagues, to better integrate the public into the planning at State,
local, and Federal levels. Preparedness and response efforts are likely
to be far less successful than they should be if we do not have a plan
and a substantial public involvement in the process.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, although I am in support of the amendment, I
ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
[[Page H3480]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, in closing, when the sarin
gas attack happened in Japan, 90 percent of the people who went to the
hospital had no infection or exposure to the sarin gas whatsoever.
People died at the hospital because the medical teams were not able to
attend to them because they were overwrought with people coming in and
clogging up the hospital.
If we had a terrorist attack, the way the people respond is going to
determine whether that attack is just a tragedy or whether that attack
becomes an all-out disaster. And that is why risk communications are so
important. That is why the chairman and I are trying to work to make
sure that the Department of Homeland Security does better than it has
thus far and does better than the plastic sheeting and duct tape, which
they once recommended in the wake of a terrorist threat, in addition to
the color-coded system, which has not proven to be very successful.
So I thank the chairman for his assistance in this matter.
Mr. COX. I yield myself the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman, and I
would like to commend the gentleman from Rhode Island for his comments
on and his commitment to this vitally important issue. I too am
committed to citizen terrorism preparedness.
I agree that the Department of Homeland Security should make it a
priority to engage the American public as partners in homeland
security. It simply makes sense to encourage continued dialogue between
the Department and its constituency, the American people.
{time} 1415
The Department of Homeland Security has taken many important steps to
foster just this kind of dialogue. For example, the Department
administers the Citizen Corps Program which is specifically designed to
improve civilian terrorism preparedness. In addition, the Department
Science and Technology Directorate plans to establish a Center of
Excellence on Domestic Preparedness and Response Capabilities. When
established later this year, this center will engage in mission-
oriented research to enhance citizen preparedness and improve citizen
input into local, State and Federal preparedness and response efforts.
As chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I believe it would
be prudent for the committee to hold hearings on the purpose and
effectiveness of the Department's citizen terrorism preparedness
programs. I also agree with the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Kennedy) that our government's preparedness is contingent upon actively
and substantively engaging the citizens, and that that question must be
part of our inquiry.
I look forward to working with the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Kennedy) as well as Members on both sides of the aisle on the Committee
on Homeland Security as we examine this topic more closely. I think we
all agree that citizen preparedness is simply too important to ignore.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bonner). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Cox
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Cox:
In section 302(c), strike ``the Congress'' and insert ``the
appropriate congressional committees''
In section 331, strike subsection (b) and insert the
following:
(b) Coordination and Cooperation.--
(1) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate the
prioritization under this section with other relevant Federal
agencies.
(2) Cooperation.--Such prioritization shall be developed in
cooperation with other relevant State, local, and tribal
governments, and the private sector, as appropriate.
In section 332, strike subsection (a) and insert the
following:
(a) Requirement.--Not later than 9 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall--
(1) review existing Federal, State, local, tribal, and
private sector plans for securing the critical infrastructure
included in the prioritization developed under section 331;
(2) recommend changes to existing plans for securing such
infrastructure, as the Secretary determines necessary; and
(3) coordinate and contribute to protective efforts of
other Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies and the
private sector, as appropriate.
At the end of section 332, add the following new
subsection:
(c) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate the
security review and recommendations required by subsection
(a) with other relevant Federal agencies.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, 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 such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) to speak in support of the amendment
which the gentleman offered to the Committee on Rules and was made in
order under the rule.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security for offering my
amendment when it would have been very easy for the gentleman to just
let it go when I was not here, but being the gentleman he is, he did
the honorable decent thing, and I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that the Dingell-Barton amendment that is
before us right now makes a simple but important change to H.R. 1817,
the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006. This bipartisan amendment enshrines a commitment made by the
Committee on Homeland Security but which was inadvertently left out of
the Cox manager's amendment.
There are two primary reasons that the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, which I chair, decided to mark up H.R. 1817. First was the
creation of Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity at the Department of
Homeland Security. The issue of cybersecurity is one that is core to
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Indeed, the
committee has existing oversight on telecommunications, nuclear, energy
and information networks, systems, facilities and equipment over which
any cybersecurity attack would occur as well as the potential effects
of cybersecurity incidents on our Nation's interstates and foreign
commerce.
The other primary reason, and the one for which I am offering this
amendment today, is to require, and I want to emphasize require, the
Department of Homeland Security to coordinate with other relevant
Federal agencies, especially as it pertains to the protection of
critical infrastructure. Many of these Federal agencies are taking
strong and innovative steps to protect the critical infrastructure they
regulate, which is why it is so important for the Department of
Homeland Security to closely coordinate with these agencies.
Unfortunately, the Committee on Homeland Security which had assured
us that this particular language would be a part of the manager's
amendment, did not get included, and I understand it was inadvertent.
But because of that reason we have had to offer this as an amendment on
the floor. It is my understanding that the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cox), the chairman of the committee, fully support this language,
and I am not aware that anybody opposes it. I hope at the appropriate
time we can pass this by voice vote and all Members voting aye.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce in a colloquy.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of places in
the manager's amendment to H.R. 11817
[[Page H3481]]
that refer to coordination efforts between the Department of Homeland
Security with ``other relevant Federal agencies,'' specifically as it
relates to protection of critical infrastructure and cybersecurity. I
want to ask the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Homeland
Security if those ``other relevant Federal agencies'' would include the
departments and agencies under the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, including the Department of Commerce, Department
of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Federal
Communications Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Trade Commission, National
Information Agency, and the Environmental Protection Agency?
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, yes, I agree. Certainly in matters relating to
cybersecurity and protection of critical infrastructure, the agencies
the gentleman listed will be considered ``relevant Federal agencies.''
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for his explanation and
look forward to working with him to ensure that all relevant Federal
agencies have a role to play in homeland security. And although it is
not a part of the colloquy, there may come a day when the gentleman
from California is the chairman of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and he will be very glad he answered yes to those questions.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
claim the time in opposition to the amendment for purposes of debate,
although I do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Mississippi?
There was no objection.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, for the record, I am in support of this
amendment, as are the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
This amendment highlights the important need for the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security to coordinate the prioritization of the
Nation's critical infrastructure with other relevant Federal agencies.
By requiring the Secretary to enter such partnerships, the Department
of Homeland Security can draw upon the institutional expertise of a
variety of agencies.
This is critical for completing an accurate, comprehensive and
thorough assessment of terrorist threats to our country's critical
infrastructure. Having seen the national asset database lists for
Mississippi, I believe the Department needs as much help as it can get.
Our Nation can no longer wait for an accurate prioritization of our
most valuable asset. This is why I join my other colleagues and
encourage Members to vote yes on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B Amendment No. 5 offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson
of Texas:
Page 50, after line 17, insert the following:
SEC. 310. NATIONAL MEDICAL PREPAREDNESS CONSORTIUM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
make grants for the National Medical Preparedness Consortium
to train emergency medical professionals to prepare for the
mass casualties that would be caused by a terrorist event
involving weapons of mass destruction.
(b) Description of Consortium.--The Consortium referred to
in subsection (a) is a consortium of institutions that--
(1) have existing facilities and experience in emergency
medical training;
(2) have worked together for over 10 years on disaster
medical training and mass casualty management;
(3) in 2004, established a national standard, known as the
National Disaster Life Support curricula, for the medical
treatment of mass casualties from terrorist events involving
weapons of mass destruction; and
(4) have worked to implement throughout the United States
training programs for medical professionals that use such
standard.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
making grants under subsection (a), there is authorized to be
appropriated $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Deal) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5
minutes.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking
member as well as the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security
for coming forth with this legislation.
The objective of my amendment is very simple. This amendment attempts
to promulgate a national standardization of emergency medical response
training to events involving weapons of mass destruction.
The centerpiece of the National Medical Preparedness Consortium is
its affiliation with the Center for Mass Destruction Defense, a CDC
Center for Public Health Preparedness.
The Center For Mass Destruction Defense is the original developer of
the National Disaster Life Support courses, Basic Disaster Life Support
and Advanced Disaster Life Support, which provides an all-hazards
approach to emergency medical services preparedness and are the only
courses certified by the American Medical Association as national
standards.
The Center for Mass Destruction Defense was also one of the founding
members of the National Disaster Life Support Education Committee of
the AMA, which oversees the development and current implementation of
the basic and advanced disaster life support courses, as well as a
cofounder of the National Medical Preparedness Consortium. The funding
for the National Medical Disaster Consortium would come from the Office
of Domestic Preparedness which would not exceed $5 million.
Since before the 9/11 attacks, great progress has been made in the
level of training and preparedness for the first responders for
terrorist attacks, including firefighters, police and other law
enforcement personnel.
These first responders have been telling their trainers we really
appreciate the training and preparedness, especially for large-scale
attacks, but when are you going to start training the health care
people? They are going to be real efficient about bringing these
patients up to the emergency room, but what happens after they enter?
It is one of those strange disconnects. When we had 9/11, most of the
people were killed and all we thought about was firemen and policemen.
But we do not expect that everyone will be killed if we have another
disaster. They will need emergency care, and that is where this comes
in.
The physicians, nurses, hospitals, providers and other health care
personnel have not been getting the widespread training in terrorist
attacks that the firefighters, police and other first responders have
gotten. There has been a variety of courses done here and there, but
the vast majority of the health care personnel have not been trained
and the ones that have received some training have received a real
hodgepodge of courses of different course content, different quality,
and even with strange disagreements between the courses.
As a trained, educated, degreed nurse myself, I can tell Members
firsthand that in certain critical fields of medicine the professional
community has come up with a national standard of training in order to
get everybody on the same page because it is often important that
nurses and physicians go from one end of the country to another when
needed, just as firemen and policemen do, but they need to have a
specific body of knowledge when they get there.
[[Page H3482]]
The two main examples were trauma care and cardiac care before we
came up with a national standard for trauma care. Like car wrecks,
people were getting different approaches in some places, and patients
were dying from poor care.
{time} 1430
The same was happening with cardiac care. Then we came up with
advanced trauma life support, or ATLS, and advanced cardiac life
support. These national standards revolutionized trauma and cardiac
care around the Nation. I have taken both the ATLS and the ACLS myself
and this is the way to go.
What we need now is a national standard for disaster care so that the
medical community will be able to respond responsibly across the
Nation. What we need is a national standard for advanced disaster life
support. Well, there is an advanced disaster life support curriculum
that has been developed by the CDC center known as the Center for Mass
Destruction Defense, and this curriculum has been endorsed by the
American Medical Association for a national standard for disaster
medical care.
In addition to the AMA, a number of specialty medical organizations
have also adopted the advanced disaster life support curriculum, such
as the American College of Emergency Physicians. The advanced disaster
life support and its sister courses, basic disaster life support and
CDLS, have been presented in 35 States now which is a wider
distribution for an all-hazards disaster medical curriculum than any
other available.
I know that the opposition to this is that it did not come through
the Committee on Energy and Commerce and there are some who think it
has already been done. What I am attempting to do here is to put
something in a standard for around the Nation so that all of the people
involved will have a standard body of knowledge.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to know if I
can depend on my colleague to help to get this in the right order so
that we can still standardize this training around the Nation.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Yes, I can give the gentlewoman that assurance.
I am sympathetic to the issue that she is concerned with. Our committee
is more than willing to work with my colleague and her staff to try to
coordinate that. We simply do not think that we ought to have grants
that are duplicative of other programs that are there. For example, the
Noble Training Center in Alabama, which I am sure the gentleman from
Mississippi may be familiar with, has a specialized hospital that is
engaged in training health professionals for this specific purpose. We
simply think that we should coordinate the grants and that the
Department of Health and Human Services is the appropriate agency to
coordinate these grant programs.
If the gentlewoman would be so kind as to withdraw her amendment, I
can assure her that I and the members of our Subcommittee on Health
will be glad to work with her to try to achieve the goals that she has
in mind with this amendment.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much,
and I will withdraw this amendment.
I would like to say, too, that the Bechtel, Nevada/National Nuclear
Security Administration; the Dartmouth College Interactive Media
Laboratory; Eastern Kentucky University; Hazard Community College of
Kentucky; New Mexico Technical University; New York City Office of
Chief Medical Examiner; Summerlin Medical Center, University Medical
Center, Las Vegas; Tulane University Medical Center; University of
Findlay, Ohio; University of Georgia/Medical College of Georgia;
University of Louisville (Kentucky); University of Texas Southwest
Medical School, which is in my district; Upper Iowa University;
Vanderbilt University; and Western Michigan University along with about
30 emergency physicians that we have been collaborating with for the
last 3 years.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bonner). Without objection, the amendment is
withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Ehlers
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Ehlers:
At the end of subtitle A of title III, add the following
(and conform the table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 310. COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS TO AND FROM RONALD REAGAN
WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT.
(a) Passenger Seating Requirements.--Passengers on
commercial flights arriving at and departing from Ronald
Reagan Washington National Airport shall remain seated for 15
minutes after takeoff from and before touchdown at that
airport.
(b) Violations.--If a passenger violates the requirements
of subsection (a), the captain of the aircraft shall
determine if the passenger's actions present a security
threat to other passengers or the aircraft. Only if the
captain determines that the passenger's actions present such
a threat shall a flight be diverted to a destination other
than Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
(c) Regulations.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the
Secretary of Homeland Security may issue regulations to
decrease the time limit set forth in subsection (a).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a very simple amendment. It would change the 30-minute rule
that requires passengers on commercial flights into and out of
Washington Reagan National Airport to remain seated for the first or
last 30 minutes of the flight and for passengers to remain tightly in
their seats and not even use the restroom facilities. I believe every
Member of this House has experienced the nuisance of this rule. It
simply does not make sense. It is an inconvenience to the traveler and
does nothing to enhance flight security, particularly because there are
two marshals aboard every plane into and out of Washington Reagan
National Airport. My amendment would reduce the time in seat to 15
minutes, which should certainly be adequate. It would also permit the
Secretary of Homeland Security to decrease the time even more. The
amendment would also prohibit the pilot from diverting a flight from
DCA for a violation of the seating rule unless he or she determines the
passenger's actions to be a threat to the security of the other
passengers or the aircraft.
There are several reasons for offering this amendment. We have
already dramatically enhanced airport and airplane security since the
time the rule was imposed. We have done this through several measures.
First, improved passenger screening. Secondly, we have increased the
number of in-flight Federal air marshals. Third, we have reinforced the
cockpit doors. And, fourth, have authorized armed pilots in the
cockpit.
Mr. Chairman, requiring DCA passengers to remain seated for 30
minutes when similar restrictions are not placed on passengers
traveling to and from Dulles and BWI or any other airport does not make
sense. Planes leaving DCA go past Dulles Airport in approximately 10
minutes, so under a 30-minute rule for DCA, should Dulles passengers
not be forced to remain seated for 20 minutes on westbound flights and
40 minutes on eastbound flights? This rule just does not make sense,
particularly since the incidents that already have taken place with
hijacked airplanes were not from DCA but one of them, in fact, was from
Dulles Airport.
I understand that our Nation's capital faces significant terrorist
threats and boasts many important terrorist targets, but it is
important to note that none of these flights that were hijacked on
September 11 originated at DCA. LaGuardia does not have this
[[Page H3483]]
rule. JFK does not have the same rule, even though the attack occurred
on New York.
Mr. Chairman, I fly into and out of Reagan airport every week.
Several times on these flights I have heard snickering and jokes about
the 30-minute rule. People know that this rule makes no sense, and the
government is the butt of jokes about it. It is nonsense to have rules
that are nonsensical, causes the government to lose the respect of the
people. I have also seen people, particularly children and elderly,
desperate to use the bathroom but unable to do so. This inconvenience
is pointless.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek recognition in opposition?
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Silence in the Chamber represents approval in this particular case. I
appreciate the incredible support I have received from my colleagues
for this amendment since I offered it. I have instantly become popular
for the first time in my congressional career. I appreciate the meaning
of the silence that we have.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. DeFazio
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
At the end of subtitle A of title III, add the following
(and conform the table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 310. FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICERS.
(a) Training and Requalification Training.--Section
44921(c) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(3) Location of training.--
``(A) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of the
feasibility of conducting Federal flight deck officer initial
training at facilities located throughout the United States,
including an analysis of any associated programmatic impacts
to the Federal flight deck officer program.
``(B) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall transmit to
Congress a report on the results of the study.
``(4) Dates of training.--The Secretary shall ensure that a
pilot who is eligible to receive Federal flight deck officer
training is offered, to the maximum extent practicable, a
choice of training dates and is provided at least 30 days
advance notice of the dates.
``(5) Travel to training facilities.--The Secretary shall
establish a program to improve travel access to Federal
flight deck officer training facilities through the use of
charter flights or improved scheduled air carrier service.
``(6) Requalification and recurrent training.--
``(A) Standards.--The Secretary shall establish
qualification standards for facilities where Federal flight
deck officers can receive requalification and recurrent
training.
``(B) Locations.--The Secretary shall provide for
requalification and recurrent training at geographically
diverse facilities, including Federal, State, and local law
enforcement and government facilities, and private training
facilities that meet the qualification standards established
under subparagraph (A).
``(7) Costs of training.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall provide Federal
flight deck officer training, requalification training, and
recurrent training to eligible pilots at no cost to the
pilots or the air carriers that employ the pilots.
``(B) Transportation and expenses.--The Secretary may
provide travel expenses to a pilot receiving Federal flight
deck officer training, requalification training, or recurrent
training.
``(8) Communications.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall
establish a secure means for personnel of the Transportation
Security Administration to communicate with Federal flight
deck officers, and for Federal flight deck officers to
communicate with each other, in support of the mission of
such officers. Such means of communication may include a
secure Internet website.
``(9) Issuance of badges.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall
issue badges to Federal flight deck officers.''.
(b) Revocation of Deputization of Pilot as Federal Flight
Deck Officer.--Section 44921(d)(4) of title 49, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(4) Revocation.--
``(A) Orders.--The Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security
(Transportation Security Administration) may issue, for good
cause, an order revoking the deputization of a Federal flight
deck officer under this section. The order shall include the
specific reasons for the revocation.
``(B) Hearings.--An individual who is adversely affected by
an order of the Assistant Secretary under subparagraph (A) is
entitled to a hearing on the record. When conducting a
hearing under this section, the administrative law judge
shall not be bound by findings of fact or interpretations of
laws and regulations of the Assistant Secretary.
``(C) Appeals.--An appeal from a decision of an
administrative law judge as a result of a hearing under
subparagraph (B) shall be made to the Secretary or the
Secretary's designee.
``(D) Judicial review of a final order.--The determination
and order of the Secretary revoking the deputization of a
Federal flight deck officer under this section shall be final
and conclusive unless the individual against whom such an
order is issued files an application for judicial review
under subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5 (popularly known
as the Administrative Procedure Act) within 60 days of entry
of such order in the appropriate United States court of
appeals.''.
(c) Federal Flight Deck Officer Firearm Carriage Pilot
Program.--Section 44921(f) of title 49, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Pilot program.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall implement a
pilot program to allow pilots participating in the Federal
flight deck officer program to transport their firearms on
their persons. The Secretary may prescribe any training,
equipment, or procedures that the Secretary determines
necessary to ensure safety and maximize weapon retention.
``(B) Review.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
initiation of the pilot program, the Secretary shall conduct
a review of the safety record of the pilot program and
transmit a report on the results of the review to Congress.
``(C) Option.--If the Secretary as part of the review under
subparagraph (B) determines that the safety level obtained
under the pilot program is comparable to the safety level
determined under existing methods of pilots carrying firearms
on aircraft, the Secretary shall allow all pilots
participating in the Federal flight deck officer program the
option of carrying their firearm on their person subject to
such requirements as the Secretary determines appropriate.''.
(d) Federal Flight Deck Officers on International
Flights.--
(1) Agreements with foreign governments.--The President is
encouraged to pursue aggressively agreements with foreign
governments to allow maximum deployment of Federal flight
deck officers on international flights.
(2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the President (or the President's
designee) shall submit to Congress a report on the status of
the President's efforts to allow maximum deployment of
Federal flight deck officers on international flights.
(e) References to Under Secretary.--Section 44921 of title
49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``Under Secretary of
Transportation for Security'' and inserting ``Secretary of
Homeland Security'';
(2) by striking ``Under Secretary'' each place it appears
and inserting ``Secretary''; and
(3) by striking ``Under Secretary's'' each place it appears
and inserting ``Secretary's''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment which I am offering with the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Mica) of the Subcommittee on Aviation would make a good program
even better, the Federal flight deck officer program, the last line of
defense on the plane. Arming the pilots on the flight deck makes a
tremendous amount of sense. There cannot be an air marshal on every
plane, planes lack secondary barriers, and on longer flights pilots
have to frequently open the door to receive food or use the facilities.
If a terrorist attack or attempt should occur, knowing that the pilots
are armed could provide the critical thing to save the passengers on
that flight.
This amendment has the strong support of the Airline Pilots
Association--I have a letter here--the National Rifle Association and
others. This would
[[Page H3484]]
make a number of changes. They would be issued badges which they do not
currently have and they sometimes have a hard time convincing people
they are authorized to have a gun and they are a Federal law
enforcement officer for purposes of aviation. It would give them an
appeals process for revocation of their certification. It would look
toward making the training more accessible for people, particularly the
recertification, although the facility we are using now is an excellent
facility but we want to be certain that because of distance or time
that more pilots are not precluded from becoming volunteers and
providing this critical defense.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Mica).
Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Hopefully that 2
minutes will be sufficient to deal with this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment does make a successful program even more
successful. Sometimes that is hard to find in government agencies and
activities and it is also sometimes hard to find in the incredible
amount of dollars that we spend for homeland security. This takes a
program that was opposed by the airlines, somewhat by the
administration, by the other body, by some Members on both sides of the
aisle and actually takes a program that gives us a last line of
defense, an additional layer. This is in addition to the air marshals.
This is in addition to secured cockpit doors and other improvements
that we have put in place.
These individuals involved in this, the pilots, I have nothing but
the greatest praise for their going forward in a long training program,
it takes a full week, going practically to the end of the earth. I went
out there with the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), he
represents Albuquerque, and then we went to Roswell, which is 2 or 3
hours to the south. I said, are we there yet? He said, no, tomorrow I'm
taking you to the end of the earth which is where they have put this
program.
I cannot tell you how many pilots have participated in this, both
commercial passenger and cargo. It will exceed the number of air
marshals that we have in this fine program. This does some things in
helping them access recurrent training that is required, improves
communications and gives them safe weapons carriage. It is a great
program. They are great, dedicated Americans and pilots involved in
this program and this enhances a very successful back line of defense
for aviation security.
I commend the gentleman from Oregon, the former ranking member of our
subcommittee, for his efforts.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member on the
Committee on Homeland Security.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment. It is a commonsense amendment. We have to do all we can to
protect the flying public. As has already been said, our pilots are the
last line of defense to protect the flying public. By training them
with this program and providing all of the necessary background checks,
there is no excuse for not making this program successful. I compliment
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and join the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) in support of this amendment, and I look forward
to its passage.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1445
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bonner). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 8 printed in part B of House Report 109-84.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Cardin
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Cardin:
Page 55, line 15, after ``Research Projects Agency,''
insert the following: ``the Information Assurance Directorate
of the National Security Agency,''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and a Member opposed 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, by way of brief background, this legislation creates an
Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity, a much-needed high-level
position in the Department of Homeland Security. We need one person in
our government to serve as the point person on cyber security issues.
The legislation also tasks the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology with support, research, and development, including long-term
research, into cybersecurity issues with a particular focus on
preventing and responding to large-scale, high-impact attacks.
This bill would require the Under Secretary to coordinate their
activities with the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and three
other named agencies: NSF, DARPA, and NIST. My amendment would bring to
the table one agency in addition, which would be the National Security
Agency, or NSA. NSA is most well known for its signals intelligence and
interception of messages. However, NSA has a long and distinguished
history of working in the field of information assistance. Indeed, NSA
is responsible for safeguarding the privacy and security of military
communications as well as many other civilian communications of our
government.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the
committee for working with me on this amendment, and I would urge my
colleagues to accept the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Slaughter
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 9 offered by Ms. Slaughter:
Page 69, after line 13, insert the following (and amend the
table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 405. IMPROVING SENTRI, FAST, AND NEXUS PRE-ENROLLMENT
PROGRAMS.
(a) Creation of Remote Enrollment Centers.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall create a minimum of 4
remote enrollment centers for the programs described in
paragraph (2). Such remote enrollment centers shall be
established away from the borders of the United States and in
population centers where there is a demand for such a
service.
(2) Programs.--The programs described in paragraph (1) are
the following:
(A) The Free and Secure Trade, or ``FAST'', program
authorized under subpart B of title IV of the Tariff Act of
1930 (19 U.S.C 1411 et seq).
(B) The Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid
Inspection, or ``SENTRI'', program authorized under section
286(q) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1356(q)).
(C) The ``NEXUS'' program authorized under section 286(q)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(q)).
(b) Customer Service Phone Number.--The Secretary shall
create a customer service telephone number for the programs
described in subsection (a)(2).
(c) Merging Requirements of NEXUS Land and Air Cards.--The
Secretary of Homeland Security shall merge the requirements
of the land and air cards issued under the ``NEXUS'' program
authorized under section 286(q) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(q)) into one uniform card that
will work for land and air crossings.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Tightening security along our vast northern border is one of the most
important steps we have taken to defend
[[Page H3485]]
our homeland since September 11. New security measures have had
unintended consequences of stifling trade and tourism with our Canadian
neighbors. Traffic congestion at the border continues to be a
longstanding problem for local Canadian and New York residents who rely
upon it for their business and personal lives. It is not uncommon for
travelers at the Peace Bridge in Buffalo to experience 3- to 4-hour
delays trying to cross the border.
Beyond the local impact on our constituents, border-crossing delays
cost the entire Nation dearly. According to a new report by the Ontario
Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. economy absorbs 40 percent of the current
cost of the border delays, and that means that the U.S. losses are
$4.13 billion a year, or $471,000 an hour, due to the border
congestion. If action is not taken, we stand to lose 17,000 jobs by
2020 and 91,000 by 2030.
And we want to alleviate that by expanding the pre-clearance programs
like NEXUS, FAST, and SENTRI. These programs, which are joint ventures
between the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican governments, are designed to
simplify the border crossings for pre-approved, low-risk travelers and
businesses.
Right now constituents along the border complain that registration is
overly burdensome and complex, and it is. It is unacceptable that
American citizens must travel to Canada to enroll in the NEXUS program.
So to expand and make pre-clearance easier to navigate, my amendment
would authorize the creation of at least four enrollment centers in the
United States and would establish a customer phone service number. As
it stands now, there is no phone to reach NEXUS.
Finally, the amendment would create one consistent NEXUS card for
land and air travelers. NEXUS cards currently require a retinal scan,
while NEXUS land cards use fingerprints; and we would merge these two
and use one security feature for both air and land crossings.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment has the support of the United States
Chamber of Commerce and the border mayors in western New York. Losing
nearly half a million dollars an hour from border delays, the cost of
pre-clearance upgrades would easily pay for themselves.
I am most grateful to the chairman of the committee and the vice
chairman of the committee and urge adoption of this amendment. And I
thank them for working with me on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Souder
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Souder:
At the end of title IV of the amendment, add the following
(and conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly):
SEC. 405. LEAD AGENCY FOR CERTAIN AIRSPACE SECURITY.
(a) Lead Agency for National Capital Region.--The Office of
Air and Marine Operations of the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection of the Department of Homeland Security shall be
the lead agency in the Department responsible for the
planning and execution of the airspace security in the
special use airspace that surrounds the National Capital
region.
(b) Lead Agency for Special Events of National
Significance.--The Office of Air and Marine Operations shall
be the lead agency in the Department responsible for the
planning and execution of airspace security for those special
events of national significance, as determined by the
President, that require specialized security of the airspace
surrounding the event.
(c) Duties of Lead Agency.--As the lead agency in the
Department of Homeland Security for airspace security for any
airspace under this section, the Office of Air and Marine
Operations shall take such actions as may be necessary to
facilitate the coordination, within the Department and
between the Department and the Departments of Transportation,
Justice, and Defense and appropriate State and local
government agencies that have jurisdiction over an area that
is within the boundaries of such airspace, of airspace
security activities for such airspace and of law enforcement
responses to violations of such airspace security.
(d) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall prepare and submit to Congress a report that identifies
the facility, asset, and personnel requirements necessary to
carry out the airspace security responsibilities of the
Office of Air and Marine Operations under this section.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
After the first attacks on 9/11, the Secret Service was given
responsibility for the airspace in the National Capital region. During
the final 6 months of the Department of Defense working with the Secret
Service, there were 182 intrusions into the 15-mile security ring. In
December, 2000, DoD was tasked into finding a more optimal solution
because one of the problems, which we saw just a couple weeks ago here
at the Capitol building, is when we have a plane going 85 knots, 93
miles an hour, and all of a sudden an F-16 comes on going at 300 miles
an hour, there is no escorting of the plane, there is no ability to
talk to the plane. So the Air and Marine division, AMO, of the Customs
and Border Protection agency inside DHS, has the smaller planes, the
Citation, the Black Hawks with which to do this.
Just last week my staff and other staff in the Senate and the House
learned on Friday that inside the Department of Homeland Security there
is no designee who is the lead, and we have to work it out between DHS
and the Department of Defense; but it is just appalling that inside the
Department of Homeland Security we do not have a lead as to who is in
charge in the air.
A couple of basic things that we need to understand here. That plane
got within 2 minutes. It was a small plane that might have bounced off,
but what we have seen throughout the world in a number of terrorist
incidents now, planes exactly like that one loaded with C-4 blow up the
place. We did not get our warning to get out of this building and clear
the area. I got to 1st St. at approximately the time the plane was
being landed. In other words, we could barely get out of the cloakroom
before the plane would have hit.
So unless we can control that airspace, unless we have a lead
designee like the Air and Marine division inside DHS, which is a start,
and then to work with DoD, we are dead here. There is no way to stop a
plane. Even if they had shot down the plane, it would have hit us
coming on in unless it completely disintegrated, and at 93 miles an
hour, it was a tough call.
So I believe this amendment addresses a great need.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to engage in a colloquy, if I might, with my colleague from
Indiana and begin by sharing with him my support for his objectives and
also my shared concern with this issue, which he has clearly
identified, of overlapping jurisdictions.
Before the Congress takes the next step of designating a single
agency to be the lead on airspace security, it is my view that we need
our full Committee on Homeland Security through hearings and oversight
to take an in-depth look at the capabilities of each of the agencies
involved. Additionally, Secretary Chertoff is just days away from
presenting to us the results of his 90-day top-to-bottom review of the
Department, and I expect that the results of that review will include
issues of mission overlap and also areas needing improved coordination.
So I would be glad to work with the gentleman on this precise issue
and to
[[Page H3486]]
move with alacrity if he would be willing to withdraw his amendment so
that we can consider this in the committee. If that is agreeable to
him, I would be happy to make that commitment at this time.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, my concern is that, as he knows, I had two
other amendments that I withdrew because we had jurisdictional
questions. Clearly, the Parliamentarian has ruled in this case that
this amendment is germane to this bill, is in the jurisdiction of this
committee, and is in the primary and actually sole jurisdiction of this
committee or it would not be in this committee. This is only inside the
Department of Homeland Security. It does not have anything to do with
the Department of Defense.
So my question is that, if I withdraw my amendment, are we guaranteed
that, in fact, it will come back through our committee and be in the
sole jurisdiction of our committee?
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe the gentleman
has very clearly and accurately stated the jurisdictional question on
this amendment. It has been determined that it falls within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security. For that reason I
would propose that the Committee on Homeland Security take up this
issue and use its jurisdiction to help solve this problem.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COX. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I agree that we have not had hearings. I
believe that the urgency is great and that we fight so much over
jurisdiction in this body that literally this Congress and this city
could have been theoretically blown off the face of the Earth while we
argue over jurisdiction.
So I hope this would be done with alacrity. I would hope that there
will not be jurisdictional battles, that it has to go through three
committees, so that we can get something back to this floor as soon as
possible because it was demonstrated last week that our lives may
depend on this.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
We are all aware of the aircraft incursion in the National Capital
Region airspace last week. I believe that the response to that event
demonstrates that coordination and communication between the various
Federal agencies works well.
Each agency, including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Department of Defense
(DOD), and the Customs and Border Protection, Air and Marine Operations
(AMO) had the same information, communication and coordination was
excellent, and each agency fulfilled their role as expected.
It has been my understanding that each agency, including AMO, has a
specific role to play.
The FAA is the lead and has sole authority over airspace management
and control at all times.
The TSA handles airspace security policy within the Department of
Homeland Security.
AMO handles tracking and intercepting aircraft in violation of FAA
airspace rules and orders in the National Capital Region, and handles
other law enforcement operations.
Finally, the DOD is in charge of airspace defense.
These rules have been long established and are not in question.
Therefore, I am unsure why there is a perceived need for a lead
agency within the Department of Homeland Security in these situations
even more, I am unsure if AMO is the proper entity to fulfill that
role.
Nevertheless, I believe strongly that FAA must retain airspace
management and control at all times . . . before, during and after an
event, terrorist or otherwise.
Without a doubt, aviation safety is of paramount importance, even
during an incursion event, and the FAA is the proper authority and lead
in this regard.
I must remind my colleagues that the incursion last week turned out
not to be a terrorist event and it is the FAA who is pursuing punitive
action against the pilot in question.
Since this is most often the case, it seems strange to give AMO, a
law enforcement agency within Customs and Border Protection, the lead
in airspace security.
If one thing went right last week it was communication, coordination
and each Federal agency understanding and fulfilling their role.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Souder
amendment.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment (No. 10) offered
by Mr. Souder, the chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, with whom I serve as
Ranking Minority Member.
The amendment would extend through FY 2006 the authorization of the
Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement within the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). The amendment would authorize the office at a
level of $6 million annually--the same amount authorized by Congress,
but not funded by the Administration, in FY 2005.
Our government's response to the attacks of 9/11 has been to take the
fight to the terrorists militarily and to take steps to insulate our
people and infrastructure from threats to our national security at
home.
Congress created the Department of Homeland Security with the stark
realization that gaps in security at our borders and ports of entry
provide an open door not only to illegal immigration and dangerous
illegal drugs, but also to terrorist threats.
Investigations into the 9/11 attacks also led to a greater
understanding of the extent to which drug proceeds are the lifeblood of
international criminal and terrorist organizations that threaten U.S.
security.
Congress's recognition of the importance of stemming the flow of
drugs into the United States is reflected in the mission statement of
the Department of Homeland Security. Codified in the original
authorizing statute, that statement directs the Secretary of DHS to
explore links between terrorists and drug trafficking organizations and
otherwise pursue drug interdiction.
The gentleman from Indiana and I share the view that we must not
allow the threat of singular catastrophic events to detract from
domestic efforts to stop the daily onslaught of illegal drugs that
gradually turns American lives to waste and local communities into war
zones.
Let us not forget, Mr. Chairman, that domestic consumption of illegal
drugs claims roughly 20,000 thousand American lives each year--nearly
seven times the number of Americans who perished in the 9/11 attacks.
Thousands more Americans go to jail or prison for drug-related crimes
or become a victim of drug-related violence or property crime. An
estimated $150 billion in economic productivity is lost annually due to
drugs.
That is why I co-authored with Chairman Souder a provision in the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 that created within the Department of
Homeland Security the position of Counternarcotics Officer, or ``CNO.''
It was our purpose in proposing the CNO provision to create a high-
level position within DHS that would maintain a high profile and
priority for counternarcotics missions. The CNO was tasked with
ensuring that DHS drug interdiction, investigation, and enforcement
efforts would be coordinated internally and also meshed with the
efforts of other Federal agencies to maximize the efficiency and
effectiveness of anti-drug efforts throughout the government.
Three years later, the Homeland Security Department is up and
running, but the record shows that the Administration has stood in the
way of our efforts to support and improve coordination of counter-drug
enforcement efforts.
Last year, in response to the Administration's failure to prioritize
anti-drug efforts with DHS, we replaced the CNO position with the
Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement, authorizing $6 million for the
office in FY 2005. Unfortunately, President Bush ignored the will of
Congress and chose not to fund the office. The Administration's budget
request includes nothing for the office in FY 2006 and further seeks to
undermine drug enforcement by proposing deep cuts in major anti-drug
programs including HIDTA, Byrne Grants and the COPS program.
Mr. Chairman, the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement deserves to
be reauthorized and to be funded at a level adequate for it to fulfill
its mission.
By extending the authorization of this office, we can help to ensure
that the war on drugs and the war on terror both can be fought with
maximum vigor, efficiency, and effectiveness.
We need to show a real commitment to our Nation's counternarcotics
efforts--extend the reauthorization of the CNO and give the office
permanent funding and personnel.
I thank the gentleman for offering his amendment, I urge the
Committee to make the amendment in order, and I support the gentleman
in his efforts to secure funding for the office as the DHS
appropriations bill goes to conference.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
[[Page H3487]]
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Wamp
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Wamp:
In title V, add at the end the following new section:
SEC. 509. CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE.
Section 308(b)(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 188(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(F) A center under this paragraph may include
participation of a Department of Energy laboratory, including
in the preparation of a proposal.''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman I would like to thank the gentleman from California
(Chairman Dreier) and the Committee on Rules for making my amendment in
order and the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thomas), ranking member, as well as
their staffs, for their good work on this bill and for working with me
on this important issue.
My amendment would permit the Department of Energy laboratories to
team with a university or consortium of universities when competing for
Department of Homeland Security's Centers of Excellence. Currently, the
DHS Science and Technology Directorate prohibits DOE laboratories from
contributing to university proposals for Centers of Excellence
solicitations.
{time} 1500
My amendment would allow DOE labs to participate as partners with
universities in preparation of Centers of Excellence proposals. This is
only if the university or universities want the DOE lab to participate.
It is not my intention to take anything away from universities or have
Centers of Excellence located anywhere but at the universities. Under
my amendment, universities will remain the lead on the Centers of
Excellence proposals.
As a member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Securities of the
Committee on Appropriations, I want to state that I fully support the
Centers of Excellence program and have advocated for increased funding
every year.
My concern arises from a faulty policy decision by the Science and
Technology Directorate to prohibit DOE labs from partnering with
universities to bring their expertise to complement university
proposals.
I have heard that the Department of Homeland Security opposes my
amendment. That is unfortunate, but I know that we are on the right
track for six reasons.
First, DOE labs, even the ones that are intramural, are not and have
not been involved in strategic planning and program development of
Centers of Excellence and university programs.
Second, these labs are only intramural to those DOE legacy programs
under the Office of Research and Development mostly dealing with
chemical, radiological, biological, and nuclear threats within the
funding that comes to Office of Research and Development for those
missions. This funding is all done at national laboratories where the
classified nature of the research needs to happen at a secure Federal
research facility.
Third, to say that an intramural DOE lab has insider information on
the Centers of Excellence program is simply not accurate.
Fourth, why do DOE labs have the ability to be eligible to partner
with universities post award if requested by the university? What is
the difference between pre award versus post award? How do universities
write a proposal? The Department accepts it, makes the award to the
university, and then after it is awarded, the university changes the
proposal to add a DOE national lab that was barred from contributing in
the first place. That makes no sense.
Fifth, it is my understanding that these Centers of Excellence are
eligible for renewal, so there is a question that is still not clear.
If a university that wins the Center of Excellence picks the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, for instance, to partner post award, would that
preclude Science and Technology from considering that university from
competing again or getting a renewal contract?
Finally, what happens when a university has a contractor at a DOE
national laboratory such as the University of Tennessee and Battelle,
which manage the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, or the University of
California that manages Lawrence Livermore, does that not preclude
these universities from ever being considered for Centers of Excellence
proposals?
When we created the Department of Homeland Security Science and Tech
Directorate, this was not the intended result. The Federal Government
should encourage our excellence in academia to partner with our
excellence at our national labs.
The Science and Tech Directorate's use of the national labs is still
unclear. Congress needs to work together on this and challenge these
decisions by making DHS more accountable so their decisions are made
with good, common sense. We need these changes in this authorization
bill, and I urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bonner). Does any Member rise in opposition
to the gentleman's amendment? There being no one, the Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
Mr. WAMP. Well, then, I appreciate that. Maybe we have worked these
things out. That is great news, and I will just go ahead and yield back
the balance of my time and move the adoption of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 12
printed in Part B of House report 109-84 offered by the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Thompson
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Mississippi the designee
of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez)?
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Yes, Mr. Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Thompson of
Mississippi:
At the end of title V add the following:
SEC. __. REPORT ON PROTECTING INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE AREA OF
PORT ELIZABETH AND NEWARK INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT, NEW JERSEY.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a
report to the Congress describing the measures necessary to
coordinate and protect the various infrastructure in the area
comprised of Port Elizabeth and Newark International Airport,
New Jersey, and the area located generally between such
facilities. The report shall include--
(1) an identification of the resources required to fully
implement homeland security efforts for this area;
(2) an assessment of the progress made in implementing
homeland security efforts for this area; and
(3) recommendations of additional resources needed to fully
implement homeland security efforts for this area.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
I rise in support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Terrorism experts have called the area between Port Elizabeth and
Newark International Airport in New Jersey ``the most dangerous two
miles in America,'' an area that includes dozens of vulnerable chemical
plants, oil storage tanks, refineries, and other critical
infrastructure systems within close proximity of Manhattan and the
densely populated cities of northern New Jersey.
[[Page H3488]]
Experts estimate that a terrorist attack in this area could pose a
potentially lethal threat to 12 million people living within a 14-mile
radius. The Menendez amendment would require the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security to report to Congress on how to
coordinate and protect the people and infrastructure in this
particularly vulnerable region.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the
time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the author of the
amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First of all, I want to thank the distinguished ranking member for
offering this, since I was at an event with our colleagues in the
Senate and with the Democratic Caucus, so I appreciate him offering
this on my behalf. It is my intention, based on a conversation with the
gentleman from California (Chairman Cox), and I believe the ranking
member as well, to withdraw the amendment, with an understanding, and I
will get to that in a moment.
My effort here is to basically take, not that I have said this, but
that the FBI and law enforcement and a congressional study has said
that the most dangerous two miles in America when it comes to
terrorism, according to the FBI and others, which is that area between
Port Elizabeth, the megaport of the East Coast, and Newark
International Airport, and since we have a critical challenge with this
dangerous two miles that I think would replicate many other areas of
the country that have chemical facilities next to transportation
infrastructure, next to airports, next to seaports, and a whole host of
other critical infrastructure, that what can the Department of Homeland
Security do to look at this most dangerous two miles and tell us what
has been done, what needs to be done, what should be done so that we
can achieve the success that we want in protecting not just a part of
my congressional district or of the people of New Jersey, but as the
New York Times recently wrote, the Nation's most enticing environment
for terrorists, providing a convenient way to cripple the economy by
disrupting major portions of the country's rail lines, oil storage and
refineries, pipelines, air traffic, communicate networks, and highway
systems.
Now, if you are one of the 12 million people who live in this 14-mile
radius with more than 100 potential terrorist targets, you would
understandably be concerned. But as the New York Times mentioned, this
is more about more than the safety and security of my constituents; it
is an attack of this area to cripple our Nation's economy.
Very simply, an attack within these two miles would be an attack felt
around the world, since the largest seaport on the East Coast, one of
the busiest airports in the country, Interstate 95, the main corridor
along the Eastern Seaboard, are all located within this area.
For example, just by one example, in 2002, 15 percent of Nebraska's
container exports were shipped through this port, and, like that, it is
so true for so many points of the country. If you are wearing it,
driving it, or eating it, it likely came through the megaport of the
East Coast.
So while my amendment does not authorize any new funding or any
additional resources, it does look in the context of limited
environment, of limited resources, but unlimited risks. How do we
become careful stewards not only of the taxpayers' money, but also of
the security of our people?
Now, my understanding is that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox)
will be willing, by me withdrawing this amendment and by working with
the ranking member, to secure that the Department of Homeland Security
would provide such a report, and I would like to yield to him to see if
my understanding is correct.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's understanding is correct. If
the gentleman is willing to withdraw his amendment, the Committee on
Homeland Security, through its chairman and ranking member, would
formally request this information from the Department of Homeland
Security.
As the gentleman knows, the Department of Homeland Security and its
Infrastructure Protection Directorate is currently focusing heavily on
this part of the country and, as a result, the identification of
critical assets, high-risk facilities, the implementation of security
measures, and the recommendation of additional mitigation strategies
for this region is something that the committee should hear on and, as
a result, I would propose, with the ranking member, that we seek the
information in this way.
My only concern with the amendment as drafted is that it would set
the precedent of establishing a national legislation requirement for IP
mandates for specific regions within the States, rather than a national
infrastructure strategy.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
chairman's offer, and I would hope, however, seeing that many reports
that have been requested by the committee have not come forward, that
in fact we would be vigorous in making sure that the report would
actually be issued.
Mr. COX. The gentleman has my commitment on that subject.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
extend the debate by 2 minutes on each side.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Mississippi?
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would like to
claim the time in opposition to the Menendez amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the pending proposal, the gentleman from
California would have another 2 minutes and the gentleman from
Mississippi would have another 2 minutes.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mississippi?
There was no objection.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield back 2 minutes of my time, and I yield
the remaining 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Thompson), and I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, there are approximately 70,000 different
chemicals that have been defined. Fifteen to 20 of them could be
lethal, are lethal, toxic, and in this two-mile stretch that the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) has brought to our attention,
these are the most dangerous two miles in America.
The chemical plants, the oil storage tanks, the refineries, and
critical infrastructure systems are targets. In fact, if there is a
terrorist attack in this area, it could pose a terribly lethal threat
to 12 million people. That is within a 14-mile radius. This is serious
business, and we on the Committee on Homeland Security look at this
seriously on both sides of the aisle.
So through the ranking member and the chairman, we have their
commitment that we will work this out, because I know that my
colleagues understand the seriousness of this area. And since we are in
the business of risk, the problem of risk and taking that into regard
with our formula, then I think that this certainly reaches the top of
the priority.
{time} 1515
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pascrell) for yielding me the time. And just let me add this is
not just a New Jersey issue, but it is a New York City issue, as a
Representative of Staten Island, just a couple of miles away.
I applaud the gentleman's efforts. And I thank the chairman for
agreeing with that.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and others have indicated the position that the
minority supports.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bonner). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from New Jersey that the amendment offered by the
[[Page H3489]]
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) be withdrawn?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Ms. Hooley
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 13 offered by Ms. Hooley:
At the end of title V, insert the following:
SEC. 509. PROHIBITION AGAINST INCREASE IN SECURITY SERVICE
FEES.
None of the funds authorized under this Act may be derived
from an increase in security service fees established under
section 44940 of title 49, United States Code.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today is very simple. It would
prevent any of the money in this bill from coming from increases in
airline ticket taxes. This is an amendment to protect consumers, to
protect our struggling aviation industry.
Earlier this year, the President's budget included a $1.5 billion
increase in the aviation security passenger fee, using this to largely
offset his $2.2 billion homeland security increase.
This increase, if enacted, would represent over a 50 percent increase
in airline fees. Federal taxes and fees already account for as much as
40 percent of the price that consumers pay for their domestic ticket.
Given the current state of our aviation industry in this country, we
should not further punish them with higher taxes. Our homeland security
is our national security, and we should not foist the bill off on just
a few people or single industry.
While the bill before us does not include language increasing the
aviation security passenger fee, it does authorize the same level of
funding as the President's budget, and there is no offset for the
additional spending.
Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that increasing the aviation security
passenger fee will negatively impact consumers and will saddle a
struggling industry that is already in trouble with an additional $1.5
billion in taxes.
I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, this is not a good amendment. I am
surprised that this amendment was even considered by the Rules
Committee. The administration proposed a $3 increase in security fees.
Why did they propose that? They proposed that because yesterday we
passed $4.6 billion just for passenger screening, of which the current
fee of $2.50, a maximum of $5 per one way, even if you have more
segments, security fee, which we imposed after September 11 to fund the
TSA, falls $2 billion short.
So we are taking out of the general fund another $2 billion to fund
this very expensive system that does not work very well. This is a
report of the Inspector General, and it is a secret report, I cannot
discuss this, but I tell you, the system fails.
Before the other body, Richard Skinner, acting Inspector General of
the Homeland Security Department January 26, 2005 said; ``The ability
of TSA screeners to stop prohibited items from being carried through
the sterile areas of airports fared no better than the performance of
screeners prior to September 11, 2001.''
Now, what is wrong? We do not have the technology. We do not have the
technology. And I have proposed that we double the fee, and that we put
it on technology that will do a better job. Not only will it do a
better job, the GAO has said that we can decrease personnel by 78
percent for those that screen the baggage by hand now behind these
counters, that use an army, almost half of the 45,000 personnel.
So we are paying more, getting less. This proposal would reduce $1
billion a year that cost to the taxpayers. This is a bad amendment. The
airlines may like this amendment, but let me tell you what they will
do.
If we do not correct and reform this system, we will have another 9/
11 because this expensive structure that we have in place does not
work. It needs to be changed out with technology. These reports say it.
As chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, I am telling you that we need
it. And the only way to fund it, and do not tell me we have not helped
the airlines. I stood up here and fought for $5 billion for them after
9/11. We gave them another $3 billion on top of that for security
improvements. Then they got away with the absconding with 4 months of
the revenue that they never passed on to the Federal Government and we
never said anything.
We are right now financing 21 percent of FAA and the air traffic
control system out of the general treasury. And some little guy from
Oregon who is making $7 an hour, you are going to ask him to pay that
security fee. He never gets on a plane, he is probably making minimum
wage and is going to now pay to underwrite a failed system because the
airlines will not step forward.
I even offered them a half a billion. They promised me that they
would pay us a billion dollars when we assumed this responsibility.
Last year they paid us $315 million, $700 hundred million short. Shame
on them. Shame on them for even pushing this amendment.
This is a disgrace. We should be putting in place the best equipment
to do away with the system that has failed. This says it failed. I
challenge every Member to go and read those classified reports. We are
not playing games here; we are dealing with the safety, security, and
the economic future of this Nation.
So I urge the defeat of this amendment. I urge the reform of TSA that
does not work, that costs us a lot of money; and those that use it
should pay for it, not some poor guy from Oregon or Florida that is
getting left holding the bag and paying the bill.
The user pays. That is what we do here. We are down now and we are
subsidizing the expenses of FAA and air traffic control by half a
billion dollars a year because the 7.5 cent excise tax on the tickets
does not raise enough money. So it is coming out of the pockets of
people who do not even fly.
This is a user-based system. Let us fix this system. Correct this
bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, with all respect to my colleague, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), I could not disagree more strongly.
The Constitution of the United States gives to our national
government the responsibility to provide for the common defense. When
al Qaeda turned airliners into missiles, hundreds of passengers aboard
those aircraft were killed, but thousands of people in the World Trade
Center Towers and in the Pentagon were also killed. And none of them
was an airline passenger.
Neither were the millions of Americans who suffered the economic
damage of billions of dollars inflicted by al Qaeda as a result of
those attacks. Homeland security, in my view, is the essence of
national security.
And this amendment puts that question to the test. Is homeland
security merely the correlation of national security, or is it the core
of what we are seeking to establish when we provide for the common
defense and protecting the territory and the population of the United
States?
If every time the Pentagon needed a new weapons system they had to
find a user fee in order to pay for it, we would have a third-world
national defense. But, in fact, Mr. Chairman, as Democrats and
Republicans on the Homeland Security Committee have determined,
homeland security is all about providing for the common defense, and
funding it is a national responsibility.
For those reasons, I strongly support the amendment offered by
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
[[Page H3490]]
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise and express strong
support for the amendment of the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
It sends a strong and simple message to Congress: do not raise aviation
passenger fees.
I strongly believe that raising fees will place an additional burden
on the flying public and could weaken the economic strength of domestic
commercial aviation.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Hooley amendment and urge my
colleagues in the House to vote in favor of this important amendment.
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, just in closing let me say, homeland security, we all
want to make sure that our country is as safe as possible. Homeland
security is a responsibility of all of our citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes have it.
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon
(Ms. Hooley) will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Cardin
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Cardin:
Page 78, insert after line 22 the following (and
redesignate the succeeding provision and conform the table of
contents accordingly):
SEC. 508. STUDY OF MODIFICATION OF AREA OF JURISDICTION OF
OFFICE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION COORDINATION.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, acting
through the Director of the Office of National Capital Region
Coordination, shall conduct a study of the feasibility and
desirability of modifying the definition of ``National
Capital Region'' applicable under section 882 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 to update the geographic area under the
jurisdiction of the Office of National Capital Region
Coordination.
(b) Factors.--In conducting the study under subsection (a),
the Secretary shall analyze whether modifying the geographic
area under the jurisdiction of the Office of National Region
Coordination will--
(1) improve coordination among State and local governments
within the Region, including regional governing bodies, and
coordination of the efforts of first responders; and
(2) enhance the ability of such State and local governments
and the Federal Government to prevent and respond to a
terrorist attack within the Region.
(c) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to
Congress on the study conducted under subsection (a), and
shall include in the report such recommendations (including
recommendations for legislation to amend section 882 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002) as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and a Member opposed 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 might
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member
for working with me on this amendment to improve it.
Today, I am offering an amendment to H.R. 1817, the Department of
Homeland Security Authorization Bill for fiscal year 2006, that would
require DHS to conduct a study of the feasibility and desirability of
modifying and updating the existing boundaries of the National Capital
Region of DHS.
My amendment would require DHS to issue a report within 6 months to
Congress on whether modifying the National Capital Region would, one,
improve coordination among State and local governments within the
region, including regional governing bodies, and coordination of the
efforts of first responders; and, two, enhance the ability of State and
local governments and the Federal Government to prevent and respond to
a terrorist attack within the National Capital Region.
We passed nearly an identical amendment in October 2004 when the
House considered the 9/11 Commission recommendations bill. This
amendment clarifies that DHS will ultimately make a recommendation on
whether to make any changes in the NCR subject to the approval by
Congress.
The National Capital Region was defined by Congress in a statute in
1952 as part of an effort to coordinate a comprehensive planning
responsibility for the national capital and surrounding areas. The 1952
act, the National Capital Planning Act, created the National Capital
Planning Commission and defined the NCR to include the District of
Columbia; Montgomery and Prince Georges' counties in Maryland;
Arlington, Fairfax, Loudon, and Prince William counties in Virginia.
The NCR also includes all cities within these counties.
Unfortunately, when Congress created the new Department of Homeland
Security in 2002, it simply referred to the 1952 definition of NCR. It
is clear to me that in order to effectively prepare our capital region
for first responders, for the terrorist threats of the 21 century, we
need to have a 21-century definition of the National Capital Region,
not a definition based on a post-World War II and early Cold War
America.
Washington, D.C. remains the highest-profile target for terrorists
who successfully attacked the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, and
failed to complete their attack against the White House or the U.S.
Capitol.
Therefore, we need to take extraordinary steps to improve the
coordination between governments and first responders in Washington
D.C., Virginia, and Maryland in order to prevent and respond to attacks
in the National Capital Region.
In the event of a terrorist attack in Washington, D.C., for example,
local and State and government officials in Maryland and Virginia would
be expected to provide immediate resources to assist in the recovery.
Maryland and Virginia would be asked to help in the evacuation of
thousands or even over a million people from the Washington, D.C. metro
region in certain circumstances.
Such an event would place an extraordinary strain on our existing
first responder community and may overwhelm the ability of local,
regional, State, Federal, military, public health, and non-profit
agencies and personnel.
So this amendment simply asks that we do the study to see what is the
appropriate definition for the purposes of homeland security. I want to
thank my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), for his
leadership on this issue.
Again, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for working
with me on this amendment in order to make it an effective study for
Congress.
{time} 1530
I would urge my colleagues to accept this amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). Does any Member seek time in
opposition to the gentleman's amendment? If not, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) is recognized.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15
printed in Part B of House Report 109-84.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Ms. Slaughter
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 15 offered by Ms. Slaughter:
Page 79, after line 6, add the following:
SEC. 509. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON UNIFORM AND IDENTIFICATION
SECURITY.
(a) Definition.--For the purpose of this section, the term
``forms of Homeland Security identification'' means any
uniform,
[[Page H3491]]
badge, identification card, or other apparel or insignia of
the design prescribed by the Department of Homeland Security
for use by any officer or employee of such Department.
(b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall prepare and submit to Congress a report--
(1) describing the efforts taken by the Department of
Homeland Security--
(A) to curtail the production of imitation forms of
Homeland Security identification, including efforts to
improve the design of the various forms of Homeland Security
identification to prevent unauthorized replication; and
(B) to increase public awareness of the existence of
imitation forms of Homeland Security identification, and
educate the public about means by which to identify bona fide
forms of Homeland Security identification;
(2) assessing the effectiveness of the efforts described in
paragraph (1); and
(3) recommending any legislation or administrative actions
necessary to achieve the objectives described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, of paragraph (1).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to
report to Congress on the agency's efforts to reduce the replication of
its badges, uniforms and other insignia. In addition, the Secretary
would be directed to report on the agency's efforts to increase public
awareness of counterfeit badges and uniforms, and to teach Americans to
identify authentic identification of a DHS official.
Two years ago, a man wearing an FBI jacket and carrying a badge
attempted to rob the Xerox employee credit union in my district. The
would-be robber killed one man and shot another, and that murderer is
still at large.
Last week, the Department of Homeland Security arrested a man in New
York City who was in the possession of over 1,300 fake badges and IDs
from over 35 law enforcement agencies, along with two NYPD police
uniforms. In addition, DHS agents found a Glock 9-millimeter handgun, a
Beretta semiautomatic rifle, a Winchester shotgun and used casings from
a shoulder-fired missile.
I think everyone would agree that this man posed a legitimate threat
to his community based on his weapons stash alone, and knowing he had a
gun and an FBI badge, or a CBP badge, or a police uniform, makes me
even more frightened of the trouble he might have caused. The
availability of counterfeit badges is an ongoing problem in this
country, and it has gone unchecked for too long.
I am disturbed that the identification and clothing of our public
officials is so easily reproduced. When I think about all the different
efforts we have made and the technology we have employed to ensure that
someone cannot counterfeit a $20 bill, I am shocked that ensuring the
integrity of the badges and identification of public officials has not
been made a similar priority.
DHS badges, uniforms and IDs are indicative of authority, and the
bearers are granted access to restricted areas and to sensitive
information. We trust that people who have those badges and wear those
uniforms of the Department of Homeland Security are, in fact, officers
of that agency, and we teach our children to trust people who show
official badges and wear the official uniforms. How terrifying is it to
think about someone's lost child walking up to someone wearing a DHS
uniform only to have that person really be a criminal.
This amendment is an important first step in improving the integrity
of the DHS badges, uniforms, and IDs. Next week, I plan on taking our
efforts to protect the integrity of our public IDs one step further by
introducing legislation that will expand the current Federal criminal
ban on fake police badges and the misuse of authentic badges to include
uniforms, identification, and all other insignia of public officials,
because we must be able to trust those who said that they are public
officials.
I appreciate very much being able to present this amendment and ask
for its adoption.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the
gentlewoman's amendment? If not, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) is recognized.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I thank very much the chairman of the
committee and the ranking member of the committee, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16
printed in Part B of House Report 109-84.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Kennedy of
Minnesota:
Page 79, after line 6, insert the following (and amend the
table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 509. BORDER SURVEILLANCE.
(a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall submit to the President and the appropriate committees
of Congress a comprehensive plan for the systematic
surveillance of the northern border of the United States by
remotely piloted aircraft.
(b) Contents.--The plan submitted under subsection (a)
shall include--
(1) recommendations for establishing command and control
centers, operations sites, infrastructure, maintenance, and
procurement;
(2) cost estimates for the implementation of the plan and
ongoing operations;
(3) recommendations for the appropriate agent within the
Department of Homeland Security to be the executive agency
for remotely piloted aircraft operations;
(4) the number of remotely piloted aircraft required for
the plan;
(5) the types of missions the plan would undertake,
including--
(A) protecting the lives of people seeking illegal entry
into the United States;
(B) interdicting illegal movement of people, weapons, and
other contraband across the border;
(C) providing investigative support to assist in the
dismantling of smuggling and criminal networks along the
border;
(D) using remotely piloted aircraft to serve as platforms
for the collection of intelligence against smugglers and
criminal networks along the border; and
(E) further validating and testing of remotely piloted
aircraft for airspace security missions;
(6) the equipment necessary to carry out the plan; and
(7) a recommendation regarding whether to expand the pilot
program along the entire northern border.
(c) Implementation.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
shall implement the plan submitted under subsection (a) as a
pilot program as soon as sufficient funds are appropriated
and available for this purpose.
SEC. 510. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY NORTHER BORDER SECURITY PILOT
PROGRAM.
Section 5101 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (8 U.S.C. 1712 note) is amended by
striking ``The Secretary of Homeland Security may carry out''
and inserting ``To the extent funds are provided in advance
in appropriations Acts, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall carry out''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an
amendment because I am deeply concerned that the Department is not
paying sufficient attention to the northern border of the United
States.
My amendment today is very simple, and I want to take this
opportunity to thank the gentleman from California and his staff for
their great work in helping me to draft this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 contained
important provisions dealing with improving border surveillance on the
northern border.
Congress intended for the Secretary of Homeland Security to carry out
a pilot program to test advanced technologies for border security along
the northern border. Yet, to date, DHS has not carried out this
program.
The intelligence reform bill also provided that the Secretary of
Homeland
[[Page H3492]]
Security must develop and submit to Congress and to the President a
comprehensive plan for systematic surveillance of the southwest border
by remotely piloted aircraft.
As I mentioned yesterday when I spoke on this subject, many Members
may not realize that the U.S.-Canadian border is over 4,000 miles long,
and it consists of more than 430 official and nonofficial points of
entry. That is double the length of the U.S.-Mexico border, and even
with recent staffing moves, DHS has only 1,000 Border Patrol agents
along the northern border, compared to over 10,000 along the smaller
southern border.
Some might think the southern border is more dangerous, but I would
remind my colleagues that terrorists and drug traffickers trying to
bring in poison like methamphetamines will try to get to us at the path
of least resistance.
The lack of substantial resource and staffing along the northern
border poses a real security threat. In fact, due to the shortage, DHS
has looked for new ways to monitor the Canadian border, such as a new
proposed requirement for passports to get back and forth over the
border. But for a border as long as ours with Canada, so many unmanned
access points, it is simply impractical to think having Border Patrol
agents check passports will stop determined terrorists.
Do we expect al Qaeda or drug dealers to wait an hour at the border
for someone to show up to check their passport? Or will they cross at
some unknown spot along this vast border?
We need to adopt a more rigorous standard of protecting our northern
border that makes wise use of our manpower and employs the same
sophisticated technology as we use on our southern border.
By requiring the Department to comprehensively study the use of
remotely piloted aircraft, AKA unmanned aerial vehicles, on the
northern border and by requiring the Secretary to actually perform the
pilot program created in the National Intelligence Reform Act, my
amendment makes a significant step forward to securing this vast
border.
Madam Chairman, the time has come to make our northern border just as
safe and secure as the southern border. I urge all our Members to
support this important amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone rise in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment? The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I would just ask the
Members to vote in favor of this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17
printed in Part B of House Report 109-84.
Amendment No. 17 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 17 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas:
Page 79, after line 6, insert the following (and amend the
table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 509. GAO STUDY OF PROPOSALS TO INCREASE TEMPORARY
PROTECTED STATUS REGISTRATION FEE.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall
complete a study of, and report to Congress on, the likely
consequences of increasing the fee described in section
244(c)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1254(a)(c)(1)(B)).
(b) Elements of Study.--The study described in subsection
(a) shall--
(1) calculate the number of applicants for relief under
section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1254(a)) who have sought a waiver, been granted a waiver, or
been denied a waiver from such fees due to their inability to
pay such fees, since the enactment of such section;
(2) project the cost at which such fee would be set if it
were calculated consistent with the manner in which the
Department of Homeland Security calculates fees under section
286(m) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1356(m));
(3) taking into account the countries of nationality of the
current population of beneficiaries of section 244 and the
lack of work authorization that such beneficiaries have while
awaiting the outcome of an adjudication, assess the ability
of the current population of beneficiaries under section 244
to pay such fee if it were increased to the level projected
pursuant to paragraph (2);
(4) estimate the number of requests for fee waivers that
would likely have to be adjudicated per 1,000 applications
should such fee be increased to the level projected pursuant
to paragraph (2);
(5) estimate the cost and number of man hours that would be
required to be expended in order to adjudicate the fee waiver
requests described in such paragraph; and
(6) estimate the cost differential between the current cost
of adjudicating applications and the statutory fee, on a per-
application and an aggregate basis.
SEC. 510. GAO STUDY OF CONSEQUENCES OF EXPANDING USE OF
PREMIUM SERVICE FOR IMMIGRATION BENEFIT
APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall
complete a study of, and report to Congress on, the
Department of Homeland Security's proposal to expand the use
of premium fees for employment-based petitions and
applications under section 286(u) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1356(u)) to other applications and
petitions.
(b) Elements of Study.--In performing the study required
under subsection (a), the Comptroller General--
(1) shall consider and assess--
(A) all factors that help quantify and assess the current
impact of premium processing on immigration benefits
adjudications of employment-based applications and petitions;
and
(B) the degree to which the use of premium processing for
employment-based applications and petitions has negatively or
positively impacted the length of time that it takes to
adjudicate employment-based applications and petitions that
are eligible for treatment under section 286(u) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act but for which no premium fee
is paid; and
(2) shall assess--
(A) whether expansion of section 286(u) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act to family-based immigration petitions and
applications would increase or decrease the length of time it
takes to adjudicate family-based petitions and applications
in cases where the applicant cannot afford to make use of the
premium service;
(B) all other likely future impacts of an expansion of
premium processing to family-based immigration benefits
applications and petitions;
(C) the number of additional adjudicators needed to process
premium processing applications;
(D) the impact of premium processing on the number and
assignment of adjudicators; and
(E) the number of individual applicants who would opt to
use premium processing under this expanded program annually.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, again I thank the chairman
of the full committee and the ranking member of the full committee for
working with all of us as we try to construct a real definitive
homeland security policy. I am always reminded that we always seemingly
receive wake-up calls, and certainly, last week a little Cessna gave
America a wake-up call.
I have argued extensively that homeland security is beyond the
Beltway, if you will, in the neighborhoods and suburbs and rural areas
of America. At the same time, our responsibilities deals with the
documentation of the individuals in this country.
I have always said that we need real immigration reform, and I have
joined my colleagues in supporting efforts for enhanced border
security, understanding the violence at the border, making sure we have
more border security patrol agents, more ICE officers, more benefit
funding to ensure that those who are in the legal line for citizenship
are not delayed by years and months.
I come with this amendment, which is a simple proposition, to make
immigration access fair, disregards the temporary protection status,
and I am joined in this amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. I would
at this point submit in the Record a letter from the Homeland Security
Department.
[[Page H3493]]
U.S. Department of
Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, April 19, 2005.
Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
Ranking Member, Committee on Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Conyers: I am pleased to provide these
proposed legislative amendments that U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) requests to modify fee
collections for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Premium
Processing Fee authority.
Section 244(c)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)(B) established the fee for
adjudicating an application for TPS and capped this fee at
$50 since 1990. This limitation is inconsistent with the fee
structure for other immigration benefit applications which is
based on the recovery of full processing costs. This
amendment would permit appropriate adjustment of the TSP fee
structure according to processing costs and inflation, per
the regulatory process. The amendment removes the sentence
``The amount of such fee shall not exceed $50.''
Subsection 286(u) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA) authorizes a $1,000 premium processing fee to be
charged for employment-based immigration petitions and
applications. Under this authority as implemented by
regulation (8 C.F.R. Sec. 103.2(f)), USCIS offers a premium
processing service under which employers filing USCIS Forms
I-129 seeking to sponsor aliens for certain immigrant or
nonimmigrant classifications can obtain 15-day processing of
their petitions by submitting the additional fee. The
proposed amendment would authorize the Secretary of Homeland
Security to establish premium processing fees for other
applications or petitions, such as non-employment based
immigration petitions and applications, employment
authorization applications, or applications to change or
extend nonimmigrant status. The determination whether to
implement premium processing service for any specific
adjudication, the terms of service, and the applicable
premium fee, would be within the Secretary's discretion, but
the fee could not exceed the $1,000 charged for employment-
based premium processing. Premium processing fees would be
deposited, as are other adjudication fees, into the
Immigration Examinations Fee Account in order to enhance
USCIS customer service as well as provide the premium service
itself. In order to provide the Secretary with flexibility to
adjust the fees as needed, the amendment clarifies that APA
rulemaking and Federal Register publication requirements do
not apply. Rather, availability and terms of premium
processing would be publicized through the USCIS web site.
The amendment also authorizes premium fees in excess of
$1,000 for employment-based adjudications relating to the
investor visa (EB-5) program for investors of at least
$500,000 in job-creating enterprises, including regional
centers, for which the current $1,000 cap does not justify
the cost-effective provision of premium service.
Enclosed is detailed justification for each of the actions
proposed in this notification.
I appreciate your interest in the Department of Homeland
Security, and I look forward to working with you on future
homeland security issues. If I may be of further assistance,
please contact the Office of Legislative Affairs at (202)
205-4412.
Sincerely,
Pamela J. Turner,
Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs.
This letter indicates that the Homeland Security is considering
raising the fees on temporary protective status. Let me tell my
colleagues what that means.
Temporary protective status is generally given to those who are
fleeing persecution in their countries; women who are fleeing domestic
violence who happen to be immigrants; immigrants such as those fleeing
from Bosnia or Kosovo during the time of war; immigrants who may be
fleeing or may have fled from Iraq at the time of persecution from
Saddam Hussein; those who are fleeing from Liberia, suffering from
persecution over the years; those who are fleeing from Sudan, where we
know there is much brutality and mutilation of men and women in that
area. But the Homeland Security Department is proposing to raise the
fees twofold.
These are the most vulnerable that come to our country. Many of them
come to our country as the Statue of Liberty has said, give us your
poor, your helpless and your persecuted.
I would ask the question that we would prefer, and I think the most
important aspect of temporary protective status, it gives those who are
fleeing persecution a legal status to stay in this country until the
crisis has passed in their particular country.
Many of those who receive temporary protective status actually leave,
and so it is not a question that they are seeking, if you will,
permanent immigration status. It is a temporary status.
For those who may ultimately seek a permanent status, we already have
sizeable fees for securing legal permanent residence; sizeable fees for
individuals who want to use certain visas, such as family
reunification; sizeable fees for workforce visas and J-1 visas and
nurses visas. Those individuals are able and working to provide or to
pay those kinds of fees.
We also have sizeable fees for citizenship, and I think that is
right. The citizenship of the United States pays for the services that
are rendered, and likewise, in a bill that I am offering, the Save
America Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, those same fees will help
protect American jobs and provide Americans with training.
But the temporary protective status is for the vulnerable, and I
believe that this amendment will ask the GAO to study the negative
impact that it will make on those seeking temporary protective status
and give guidance to the Homeland Security Department so that they can
reconsider the suggestion that is being made to double the fees on
these most vulnerable that are here in this country.
I would ask my colleagues to consider the vulnerability of these
individuals and to support an amendment that asks the question why we
must put a premium fee on those who are barely here and surviving
because they had to flee to survive and to save their lives. I know
that we are a just country and that we can do better, and I would ask
my colleagues to support this amendment.
Madam Chairman, I rise with the distinguished Ranking Member of the
Judiciary Committee from Michigan to offer Amendment No. 82, the
``Jackson Lee/Conyers GAO Study Amendment.'' To summarize this
amendment, it would instruct the General Accounting Office (GAO) to
conduct a study examining the impact of an increase in Temporary
Protected Status (TPS) application fees on the nationals of countries
for which TPS is available and the differential in cost between the
current statutory fee and the cost-based fee proposed by Customs and
Immigration Services (CIS). In addition, this amendment instructs GAG
to conduct a study on the premium processing fee system and its
possible application to individuals and families.
To further simplify the operative provisions of this amendment, it
has two prongs: Prong One relates to the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services bureau (USCIS) fee increase for processIng
applications for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) relief. USCIS would
like to remove the cap limiting the amount of fees that can be
collected for processing an application for TPS. The application fee
for TPS has been fixed by statute at $50 since 1990. USCIS would like
to raise the fee according to processing costs and inflation, following
the existing regulatory process. USCIS argues that the $50 limit is
inconsistent with the fee structure for other immigration benefit
applications that are based on recovery of full processing costs.
TPS is an immigration category that allows non-citizens of designated
countries to remain in the U.S following political strife or natural
disasters in their native countries. TPS applicants are eligible for
work authorization while their applications are pending. USCIS says
that many of them have been working here for years when a disaster
strikes their home country and they become eligible for TPS--thus they
are able to pay increased fees, or can they seek a waiver for economic
hardship. However, many TPS beneficiaries come from impoverished
countries and are often in the U.S. visiting relatives or are here for
other brief stays. It may not be the best policy to raise fees for TPS
beneficiaries when they have no practical alternative but to remain in
the United States.
If the fees were raised to the ridiculously high levels that other
fees have been raised to over the last several years, DHS would likely
wind up fielding many more fee waiver requests than they currently have
to field.
Prong two relates to the USCIS proposal to expand Premium Processing
Fees to individuals. USCIS wants to expand the authority of the
Secretary of Homeland Security to establish premium processing fees for
non-employment based immigration petitions and applications. Currently,
premium processing is only available to employers seeking to hire an
immigrant: It allows employers to pay a $1,000 fee to expedite
employer-based immigration. Under the new amendment, any immigrant
would be able to expedite their immigration paperwork if they could
provide the additional $1,000 fee. Funds collected from this fee would
be deposited in the Immigration Examinations Fee Account, with other
adjudication fees, to support USCIS customer service.
USCIS says that they expect 10 million expedited applications in the
first year and they requested funds to hire additional adjudicators to
assist with this work.
Many immigration experts report serious problems with the use of
premium fees in the employment-based context. They claim that
[[Page H3494]]
other employment-based applications and petitions are slowed down
because DHS places more of its resources into adjudicating the premium
requests.
Even if the premium fee was working well in the employment-based
arena, it may not apply well in the family-based arena. Businesses can
pass their costs on to consumers (or even compensate for those fees in
the salary and benefits that they pay the workers), and so they do not
necessarily care so much about the increased costs. Family-based
applicants often cannot pass on increased costs to another payer.
This amendment calls on the GAO to examine the use of the premium fee
in the employment-based arena before the practice is extended into the
family-based arena. The study will look at the efficacy of the practice
in the employment-based arena and whether it has slowed down
adjudications for those who do not pay the premium. It also will look
at the differences between family-based applicants and employment-based
applicants and how their differences might result in different
experiences.
The GAO should also study the proposal to exempt DHS from the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and examine the questionable
suggestion of tying application fees.
Madam Chairman, I ask that my colleagues support Mr. Conyers and me
on this amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone rise in opposition to the
gentlewoman's amendment? The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I ask my colleagues to
support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Jackson Lee/
Conyers amendment to H.R. 1817, which would direct the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study of two Administration
proposals to increase fees paid by applicants and petitioners for
immigration services.
The administration's fiscal year 2006 budget submission proposed that
Congress enact legislation to authorize the United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services (USCIS) component of the Department of
Homeland Security to increase the fee paid by applicants for Temporary
Protected Status (TPS) above the statutory limit of $50.
The administration also has proposed that Congress enact legislation
to extend a provision that permits USCIS to charge an extra fee for
providing faster services to some employment-based immigration
applicants and petitioners. The administration wants Congress to extend
this program so that the extra fee can also be charged to family-based
applicants and petitioners, as well.
The Jackson Lee/Conyers amendment would require that the Government
Accountability Office conduct studies of each of these proposals so
that Congress can have an opportunity to assess their consequences and
impact before acting.
TPS Fee--When Congress enacted the TPS statute in 1990, it had the
option of permitting the then-Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) to set the fee at whatever level was necessary in order to pay
for the cost of adjudicating an applicant's application. Instead, in
recognition of the special circumstances faced by TPS beneficiaries,
Congress opted to cap the TPS fee at $50.
By statutory definition, Mr. Chairman, TPS beneficiaries come from
countries where there has been a natural disaster or an ongoing armed
conflict and the foreign state is unable to handle their return. While
it is certainly true that TPS applicants can get work authorization
pending their requests, they would first have to pay the fee in order
to be considered for work authorization and TPS status. Many TPS
beneficiaries, Mr. Chairman, come from impoverished countries and are
often in the U.S. visiting relatives or are here for other brief stays.
It may not be the best policy to raising fees for TPS beneficiaries
when they have no practical alternative but to remain in the United
States.
If the fees for TPS are raised to the outrageous levels that other
fees have been raised to in recent years, it could result in two
unacceptable consequences. It could either drive would-be beneficiaries
underground because they cannot afford to pay the fee. Or it could
result in an exponential increase in requests for fee waivers, an
outcome that would slow down adjudications for all other applications
or immigration benefits. My amendment request that the GAO examine
these potential consequences.
Premium Service Fee--Nearly five years ago, Congress enacted
legislation giving the Administration the authority to charge a $1,000
premium fee for businesses that wish to expedite the adjudication of
their employment-based immigration applications and petitions. The
Administration has asked Congress to give it the authority to charge a
similar fee to family-based applicants and petitions.
The accounts are mixed, Mr. Chairman, on how well the premium service
fee for employment-based applications and petitions has worked. We have
heard from some, for instance, that implementation of this diversion
has resulted in a slowing down of adjudications for those businesses
who decline to pay the extra $1,000. At a minimum, an impartial body
should study how the premium service program is working in the business
arena before extending it to family-based applications and petitions.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, there are vast differences between the
resources available to employment-based and family-based petitioners
and applicants. Businesses often can pass on the costs of a premium fee
to their customers or adjust the wages and benefits of the prospective
employee to recover the extra cost. These options are not available to
families, on the other hand.
If reports are true that implementation of the program in the
employment arena has slowed down adjudications for those businesses
that decline to pay the fee, expansion of the program to the family-
based arena could have disastrous, unintended consequences for those
families that cannot afford to pay an additional $1,000 for each
application or petitions.
Conclusion--Mr. Chairman, the studies and reports that my amendment
would mandate do not seek to prejudice the question of whether the
administration should be given the new fee authorities that it has
requested. Instead, my amendment would see the advice of impartial
experts at the Government Accountability Office before Congress acts. I
urge the adoption of this amendment.
{time} 1545
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.
Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Norwood
Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Norwood:
Page 79, after line 6, insert the following (and amend the
table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 509. FEDERAL AFFIRMATION OF ASSISTANCE IN IMMIGRATION
LAW ENFORCEMENT BY STATES AND POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law and reaffirming
the existing general authority, law enforcement personnel of
a State or a political subdivision of a State are fully
authorized to apprehend, detain, or remove aliens in the
United States (including the transportation of such aliens
across State lines to detention centers), for the purposes of
assisting in the enforcement of the immigration laws of the
United States in the course of carrying out routine duties.
This State authority has never been displaced or preempted by
the Congress.
SEC. 510. TRAINING OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
PERSONNEL IN ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS.
(a) Training and Pocket Guide.--
(1) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall establish--
(A) a training manual for law enforcement personnel of a
State or political subdivision of a State to train such
personnel in the investigation, identification, apprehension,
arrest, detention, and transfer to Federal custody of aliens
in the United States (including the transportation of such
aliens across State lines to detention centers and
identification of fraudulent documents); and
(B) an immigration enforcement pocket guide for law
enforcement personnel of a State or political subdivision of
a State to provide a quick reference for such personnel in
the course of duty.
(2) Availability.--The training manual and pocket guide
established in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be made
available to all State and local law enforcement personnel.
(3) Applicability.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to require State or local law enforcement personnel
to carry the training manual or pocket guide established in
accordance with paragraph (1) with them while on duty.
(4) Costs.--The Department of Homeland Security shall be
responsible for any costs incurred in establishing the
training manual and pocket guide under this subsection.
(b) Training Flexibility.--
(1) In general.--The Department of Homeland Security shall
make training of State and local law enforcement officers
available
[[Page H3495]]
through as many means as possible, including residential
training at Federal facilities, onsite training held at State
or local police agencies or facilities, online training
courses by computer, teleconferencing, and videotape, or the
digital video display (DVD) of a training course or courses.
(2) Federal personnel training.--The training of State and
local law enforcement personnel under this section shall not
displace or otherwise adversely affect the training of
Federal personnel.
(c) Clarification.--Nothing in this Act or any other
provision of law shall be construed as making any
immigration-related training a requirement for, or
prerequisite to, any State or local law enforcement officer
exercising that officer's inherent authority to assist in the
apprehension, arrest, detention, or transfer to Federal
custody illegal aliens during the normal course of carrying
out their law enforcement duties.
(d) Training Limitation.--Section 287(g) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)) is amended--
(1) by striking `Attorney General' each place that term
appears and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following:
``Such training shall not exceed 14 days or 80 hours,
whichever is longer.''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House resolution 283, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Request For Modification to Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Norwood
Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification offered by Mr. Norwood to Amendment No. 18
printed in H. Rept. No. 109-84:
On page 1 of the amendment, strike out ``or remove'' in
line 7.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered
by the gentleman from Georgia?
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Reserving the right to object, Madam
Chairman, I would just say to my colleague that we have not been made
aware of this amendment, and if for no other reason than we have not
seen it.
Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I actually did not know who to come to
talk to because we did not know who would be leading against this
amendment.
If I may, it is a very, very simple drafting error in the bill on
line 7 where we are saying that law enforcement personnel of a State or
political subdivision of a State are fully authorized to apprehend and
detain. Then it goes on to say ``or remove.'' ``Or remove'' should not
have been in there.
And so we are just asking unanimous consent at this point to take
that out and it will help the bill, and we are going to get it out
somewhere anyway.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Reclaiming my time, Madam Chairman, I
object to the change.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, the Norwood amendment would definitely
clarify the existing authority, existing authority of State and local
law enforcement personnel in assisting in the apprehension, detention,
and transport of illegal aliens in the routine course of their daily
duties. This last phrase, ``in the routine course of duty,'' is
critical because the language ensures that law enforcement has
certainty when they come in contact with illegal aliens that are
breaking our laws.
My amendment also would require DHS to establish a training manual
and pocket guide for law enforcement and set forth simple guidelines
for making training available.
Madam Chairman, I need to make this perfectly clear. This authority
for State and local law enforcement already exists, though there is
some confusion. But law enforcement officers and agencies need some
assurance from us that they can take appropriate action with authority
when the laws are broken. Any confusion about what to do when law
enforcement meets with lawbreakers needs to end.
Some will argue law enforcement does not have adequate resources.
That is clearly just not the case. We passed yesterday over $4.5
billion for homeland security, including $690 million for custody
management, funds to dramatically increase detention bed space, $88
million for the Institutional Removal Program, there is $211 million
for transportation and removal of undocumented aliens, and a good
amendment today authorizes another $40 million to help willing States
and local law enforcement. There is also $6 billion in the pipeline for
first responders, and many of them are from law enforcement.
Imagine if a State or local law enforcement did not enforce Federal
drug laws, or if a highway patrolman was confused about the speed
limits on Federal interstates. Would Congress allow States and local
law enforcement to not enforce Federal laws on bank robbers or
kidnappings or fraud? In the wake of the 9/11 terror, porous borders
are a major security concern.
Madam Chairman, I sponsored a bill with nearly identical language
last Congress, so this is not just thought up today. It was endorsed by
the National Sheriffs Association, the Law Enforcement Alliance of
America, the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, and the 9/
11 Families For a Secure America.
In addition, endorsements came from chiefs of police in Illinois,
Iowa, Georgia, Indiana; and sheriffs from a slew of States endorsed
similar language previously, including California, Michigan, Tennessee,
North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Texas, Washington, South Carolina,
Oklahoma, Oregon, and in nearly a dozen more.
Colleagues, the only area of law that State and local law enforcement
are not enforcing because they are unsure about what can be done is the
immigration law. That should change. It must change. And this is the
right time and the right bill to correct this critical matter.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to
this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, I encourage Members to vote ``no'' on the Norwood
amendment. The Norwood amendment seeks to clarify the inherent
authority of State and local law enforcement to apprehend, detain,
remove, and transport illegal aliens in the routine course of duty.
That is not what it does.
State and local police already have authority to report criminals who
are foreign nationals to the Department of Homeland Security and to
assist the Federal Government in criminal investigations. But current
law does not allow law enforcement to pick up immigrants and deport
them unilaterally. That is essentially what this amendment allows.
Do you want to give a local law enforcement officer the authority to
remove people who they may suspect are in this country illegally; or
would you prefer to have the Department of Homeland Security do that?
Section 287(g) of INA, which provides for local law enforcement to
enter into agreements with ICE, does not allow local law enforcement to
remove an alien.
This amendment is also frightening because it allows a local police
officer who receives no training at all on immigration law to deport
someone. How does this police officer know that it is someone who
should be deported? What documents should he ask for? What law has he
violated?
This is a terrible amendment, Madam Chairman. Countless State and
local police agencies have expressed concern about undermining public
safety when ordinary immigrants start seeing them as agents of the
Federal immigration service. We have comments from the chief of police
in Nashville; chief of police in Hamtramck, Michigan; the sheriff and
assistant sheriff in Orange County; along with Chief William Finney of
the St. Paul Police Department, who all have expressed real concern
about the apprehension, detaining, and deportation of illegal
immigrants.
Instead of focusing on training State and locals to do the job of our
fellow law enforcement officers, we need to do more to train and
provide Federal law enforcement with the resources it needs to fully
carry out the responsibilities of the Department to enforce immigration
and Customs violations.
DHS already faces challenges in cross-training its own personnel and
[[Page H3496]]
integrating the various components into a cohesive unit and, thus,
would face challenges in developing a cross-training manual for State
and local law enforcement personnel.
Madam Chairman, this is why I am requesting that Members vote ``no''
on this amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds and would
point out there is no intention in this bill for local law enforcement
to be able to deport anybody. In fact, if you had not objected to our
amendment, that would have been clarified easily in this bill. And at
the end of the day, that is simply not going to be the case.
Also, this bill is asking for training to help local law enforcement.
I would simply say to my colleague that if he thinks local law
enforcement ought not to help with this law because they do not know
what they are doing, then maybe we ought to ask them not to help with
any drug enforcement law because they do not know what they are doing.
We are in that every day helping them.
Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Westmoreland).
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague from Georgia
for yielding me this time to talk about an issue that is extremely
pressing to the citizens of the 8th district, and I rise in support of
the Norwood amendment.
Illegal immigration is a difficult issue, but it is one that Congress
must address and address it now. We have seen the ineffectiveness of
border security and how the addition of more eyes can make a
difference. There are now more ropes in the net helping stop our porous
borders.
During my most recent time in my district, nearly all the questions I
received related to the issues of immigration. It is extremely
important. Right now it does not make sense to prevent law enforcement
officers from protecting the people of the United States. There are
about 700,000 State and local police officers, compared with only about
2,000 Immigration and Customs enforcement officers.
Our ICE agents are wonderful, but simply do not have the physical
ability to be in every place to work on enforcement all throughout the
interior of our country. In contrast, our police officers encounter
illegal immigrants every day, whether it be through a traffic stop or
serving a warrant. It does not make sense to stop them from helping
enforce our immigration laws.
This amendment takes a baby step toward the goal of better interior
enforcement by clarifying the legal authority of local officers and
giving them some real training on the issue. It simply does not make
sense for us to ignore the eyes and ears of hundreds of thousands of
local officers.
Madam Chairman, I urge the adoption of the Norwood amendment.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
As I indicated earlier, Madam Chairman, the gentleman sought to
clarify his amendment without providing us with the opportunity to see
it and, for that reason, we objected. But even with the clarification,
it still would have been problematic for our side. So for that reason,
Madam Chairman, I continue to object and to oppose the amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to remind
the gentleman that if there are chiefs of police or State patrols in
any particular State that do not want to be bothered by helping their
Nation rid itself of terrorists, this is all voluntary. The gentleman
can write them back and say we have passed a law, but you do not have
to be involved.
Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
Ms. HART. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I rise in support of his amendment. I am a cosponsor of his
legislation, and very proud to be. The gentleman has a commonsense
solution to help us deal with the problem of illegal immigration.
In my area, as in other areas of the United States, we were built on
immigration. We are not opposed to immigration. Our concern here is the
enforcement of our laws. Today, many people arrive illegally and the
Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that in January of
2000 there were 7 million illegal aliens living in the United States, a
number that is estimated to be growing by a half million a year.
Included in this total are more than 300,000 criminal aliens living
in the United States. More importantly in that estimate, about 78,000
of them are from countries that are of special concern to us in the war
on terror.
{time} 1600
With only 2,000 interior immigration enforcement officers working in
the United States, we need all of the help we can get to enforce our
immigration and criminal laws. This problem became very clear in my
district and a story that is common around the country. During a
routine traffic stop, it was discovered there were a number of illegal
aliens traveling across the State. When the local police called the
local immigration office inquiring what they should do, they were told
to release them. That is right, law enforcement, knowing these people
were illegal aliens, were instructed to release them. That is common,
unfortunately, because our local law enforcement has not gotten the
assistance to help enforce immigration laws.
This incident builds upon a number of highly publicized cases where
illegal immigrants were released from custody only to commit serious,
heinous crimes such as rape and murder, further complicating the job of
local law enforcement.
The Norwood amendment is a commonsense and carefully crafted solution
to this problem. All we ask is when these types of incidents occur, we
can address them and we will make a change and quit undermining our
laws. This amendment restores sanity to our law, some sense in helping
to address the shortfall of interior immigration enforcement by having
cooperation of law enforcement at all levels.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes
to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, let me attribute good
intentions to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) because I think
the gentleman's amendment is grounded in frustration, but it is the
wrong way to go.
We cannot allowed our State officials to be burdened by Federal
responsibilities and authority as it relates to immigration
responsibilities. This amendment has constitutional failings and is
weak, if you will, or is weakened by the 10th amendment which clearly
says certain items are left to the States and by interpretation certain
responsibilities are left to the Federal Government. This amendment
includes a responsibility to deport aliens. That is almost impossible
for local law enforcement to be responsible for.
Secondarily, the responsibilities of local law enforcement engaging
and apprehending undocumented immigrants or others that they might
perceive to be such puts on them the responsibilities of further
housing these individuals without funding. The $40 million that was
offered just a few amendments back is not sufficient for all of the
potential detainees that will be in the Nation's local and State jails.
This is a good-intentioned amendment but it is bad law and it cannot
be implemented. I ask my colleagues to recognize the fact that again
this will damper public safety. I would much rather local law
enforcement be looking for the kidnapped child or the child that may be
subjected to child abuse or child violence because of some tragedy that
has happened in a local community. We have seen a wave of child
kidnappings and a number of lives lost because of child predators.
There are so many issues that local law enforcement must engage in,
this puts an unfunded burden on their particular obligations.
In addition, Madam Chairman, beyond this question of
irresponsibility, this ends or it puts a block, if you will, to local
law enforcement solving problems and crimes in the community. In our
communities, all of the folk that live there are the neighbors. The
neighbors have information. They may not be documented or they may be
documented, but crime is not a respecter of
[[Page H3497]]
citizenship status. Local law enforcement's responsibility is bringing
down the crime where they live, and no one wants to hear ``I could not
get information because I could not talk to the immigrant community.''
Unfortunately, this amendment is something that I believe is blocked
by the Constitution and the 10th amendment, and should be defeated.
Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment designated as
No. 59, offered by the gentleman from Georgia. The gentleman, in 2003,
introduced the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal (CLEAR)
Act (H.R. 2671), and a companion measure was introduced in the other
body entitled ``the Homeland Security Enhancement Act (S. 1906).''
These bills require police to enforce Federal immigration laws, or lose
certain Federal funds. If this amendment, based on these bills, is
enacted, it would put a muzzle on immigrant crime victims and
witnesses, trading their safety for fear, at the expense of everyone
who lives near, works with, and is related to the individuals targeted
under this legislation.
the proposal would jeopardize public safety
The Norwood amendment would strike a direct blow at the efforts of
police to win the trust and confidence of the communities they serve.
If police become immigration agents, word will spread like wildfire
among newcomers that any contact with police could mean deportation for
themselves or their family members. Immigrants will decline to report
crimes or suspicious activity, and criminals will see them as easy
prey, making our streets less safe as a result. Experience shows that
this fear will extend not only to contact with police, but also to the
fire department, hospitals, and the public school system.
the proposal would undermine national security
Security experts and law enforcement agree that good intelligence and
strong relationships are the keys to keeping our Nation and our streets
safe. Under Amendment No. 59, foreign nationals who might otherwise be
helpful to security investigations will be reluctant to come forward,
for fear of immigration consequences. If immigrant communities are
alienated rather than embraced, local law enforcement loses important
relationships that can lead to information they might not otherwise
have access to.
the Norwood amendment would weaken an important criminal database
Law enforcement agencies now rely upon the FBI's National Crime
Information Center (NCIC) database to give them timely and accurate
information on criminals and dangerous people. This legislation would
undermine the usefulness of the NCIC by loading it with information
about millions of people with minor immigration violations. Poor data
management at the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
has resulted in numerous inaccurate records, further complicating
matters for police who rely on the integrity of the NCIC. Even if the
data was correct upon entry, case statuses often change and would have
to somehow be updated in the FBI's database. This misguided proposal
would lead to many false ``hits'' and unlawful detentions and arrests,
wasting precious law enforcement resources.
amendment No. 59 purports but in effect will not operate to apprehend
Criminals
Proponents of this amendment would say that it is necessary to help
police deal with the ``criminal alien crisis.'' They ignore the fact
that police already have the authority to arrest criminals, both in
enforcing State or local laws and assisting the Federal Government. It
is absurd to suggest that foreign nationals are somehow immune from our
criminal laws unless this legislation passes, or that police are unable
to detain criminals who are also immigration law violators.
Police also help the Federal Government deport criminals who are
removable because of their offenses. Those areas of the country that
have policies ensuring the confidentiality of crime victims' and
witnesses' immigration status are also those who call the Federal
Government most often to check the immigration status of crime
perpetrators. These are often areas with large immigrant populations,
so they understand the most effective policing strategies for these
communities. They distinguish between enforcing criminal laws and
enforcing civil immigration laws--a mandate best left to the Federal
agencies who do not also have local crime-fighting responsibilities.
the norwood amendment leaves police unequipped for the job
Federal immigration law is even more complex than the U.S. tax code
and is constantly changing. Immigration agents undergo 17 weeks of
intensive training before they are allowed ``on the beat,'' and they
have unfettered access to case history data maintained by the Federal
Government that helps them do their jobs. This amendment requires no
training of local law enforcement and does not cover the full cost of
training for those responsible departments who insist on it.
I have an amendment, Jackson-Lee No. 75, that seeks to require
studies by the General Accountability Office (GAO) as to the genesis
and degree of border violence at our Nation's borders. Similar to the
State and local law enforcement agencies subject to the Norwood
amendment, the Minuteman Project volunteers who have patrolled the
Arizona border were untrained and lacked official support.
Comprehensive training--which costs money, and Federal Government
accountability, are required in order to ensure that the job of
enforcing immigration law is done properly and in accordance with U.S.
Constitutional principles.
the amendment will impose new bureaucratic requirements on under-
staffed public agencies
This amendment will also impose significant new reporting
requirements on critically under-staffed and under-funded local law
enforcement agencies. The responsibilities of State and local police
have increased dramatically since the September 11th terrorist attacks,
and police simply do not have extra time on their hands to take on what
is rightly a Federal duty.
the amendment will become another unfunded mandate on states
The amendment would shift what has always been a Federal duty,
immigration law enforcement, onto the States. It purports to give some
additional resources to police who enforce immigration laws, while
imposing monetary penalties on those departments that decline. But if
the yearly battles for just a portion of reimbursements owed under the
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) are any indication,
very little of the new money will actually make it into the coffers of
local police departments. Not only will local governments be stuck
footing the bill once again, but they risk loss of critical Federal
dollars already earmarked for criminal law enforcement if they refuse
to take on these new duties.
The Senate bill on which the amendment is based goes further by
removing many of the monetary incentives promised in the House bill and
imposing national standards on driver's licenses issued to foreign
nationals. Once again, implementing these complicated standards comes
with no new money attached, but with the threat of losing Federal
highway safety funds for those States who do not comply.
provisions in current law exist for agencies that wish to help enforce
immigration law
For those few State or local police agencies who do want to assist
the Federal Government in enforcing immigration laws, a mechanism is
available for them to do so. Section 287(g) of the immigration code
outlines a process whereby State and local governments can enter into
agreements with the Federal Government (MOUs, or memorandums of
understanding) that permit them to receive training and enforce Federal
immigration laws. MOUs are currently in place in Florida and Alabama.
The Amendment Skews Federal Law Enforcement Priorities
When police identify immigration violators, they will have to call
the Federal Government to take over. Law enforcement resources at the
Federal level are also limited, which is why the Bureau of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) prioritizes searches for criminals and
terrorists over immigrants with civil status violations. Will ICE
agents come to collect every undocumented immigrant identified by local
police? Amendment No. 59 tries to force them by permitting States and
localities to seek funds for every undocumented immigrant the Federal
Government fails to pick up. This means ICE has to put the same amount
of resources into picking up undocumented workers as suspected
terrorists. With 8,000,000 undocumented workers in the United States
and an infinitely smaller cohort of foreign-born criminals and
terrorists, this is hardly the right prioritization of Department of
Homeland Security resources.
Making Every Immigration Violation a Crime Has Enormous Costs
Many Federal immigration law violations are currently civil in
nature. This amendment would classify all immigration status violations
as Federal crimes, dramatically increasing the number of people who
could be prosecuted, receive court-appointed attorneys, and end up
incarcerated through the Federal criminal justice system. The costs
would be enormous, and flooding the criminal system with civil
violators would further delay justice for victims of real crimes.
The Amendment Forgets That You Can't Tell By Looking Whether One is
Legal or Not
There are nearly 11,000,000 naturalized U.S. citizens, and more than
25,000,000 native-born Americans of Latin American and Asian descent.
In this free Nation we are not required to carry ``papers'' to prove
our citizenship, and few of us do. Because police are not equipped to
determine who has violated an immigration law, some will inevitably
stop and question people of certain ethnic backgrounds, who speak
foreign languages, or who have
[[Page H3498]]
accents in English. This ill-conceived amendment essentially encourages
race- and ethnicity-based profiling.
Amendment No. 59 Threatens Civil Rights
Anticipating the likelihood of civil rights lawsuits spawned by this
legislation, the bills purport to grant immunity from civil suits for
officers who enforce immigration laws. This sends the wrong message if
we are serious about eradicating racial profiling from U.S. law
enforcement. Ultimately, police departments and localities gambling on
this Congressional gesture would find themselves in court anyway, when
the anti-civil rights provisions are challenged.
Mr. Chairman, clearly, there are far too many areas of contention
with this amendment that, if passed, would prove potentially injurious
to citizens and aliens alike. For the reasons stated above, I strongly
oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to join me.
Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
In response to the last speaker, number one, had the gentlewoman been
here earlier, the gentlewoman would have heard about why this is not an
unfunded mandate.
Number two, if the gentlewoman believes local law enforcement should
not help the Federal Government find terrorists in this Nation, which
people who cross our borders illegally they are amongst, I ask the
gentlewoman to drop a bill so that local law enforcement does not help
the Federal Government in bank robberies and murders and drug
enforcement and everything else that local law enforcement helps the
Federal Government do.
It is ridiculous to say that the 750,000 local law enforcement people
should not be involved in this Nation trying to find some of the people
who, for example, committed terror in this country on 9/11.
Yesterday we passed over $4.5 billion for homeland security,
including $690 million for custody management, funds to dramatically
increase detention bed space, $88 million for an institutional removal
program, $211 million for transportation and removal of undocumented
aliens, and an earlier amendment today authorized another $40 million
to help willing State and local law enforcement. There is also $6
billion in the pipeline for first responders. Many of them are local
law enforcement. And this is voluntary. If the City of Houston does not
want to play, they do not have to. But the rest of us need our law
enforcement people to help us get these terrorists out of this country,
and there are somewhere between 10 and 15 million that have come across
our borders because we have failed to do anything about it for
nonsensical reasons. It is time for this to come to an end.
If Members are for correcting immigration in this country, vote for
this. If Members are against immigration corrections and do not think
it needs reform and want an open border, vote against it.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
I would like to say to my colleague every immigrant is not a
terrorist. I would assume that was an error in the gentleman's comment.
Clearly we have to be very careful. That is a Federal responsibility.
What we are doing is passing that responsibility to State and local law
enforcement and not funding the Department that ought to be having the
responsibility for immigration.
Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member,
and I have to associate myself with the gentleman's argument.
More importantly the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has made,
if you will, my very point. Although we disagree, the point is not
ridiculous. What we are saying is that he is suggesting that law
enforcement massively go to the border and begin to arrest and deport
individuals they perceive to be illegal aliens. There lies my angst and
opposition to this massively confusing amendment.
The gentleman has in his amendment that local law enforcement,
constables and sheriffs, will be responsible for deporting aliens. They
do not even have the Federal jurisdiction to do so. By the way,
deportation requires Federal intervention because there are proceedings
which you have to go before. Unfortunately, we have short changed that
side of the formula.
This is an unworkable amendment. It violates the 10th amendment of
the Constitution. It violates the idea of protecting our national
security. I ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment and help us do
real immigration reform through the Federal Government.
Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds, and say just
because you say something is so does not mean it is so. This is a
voluntary bill in which nobody is massing anywhere, nor does it imply
that anywhere in this bill. It is totally voluntary, and local law
enforcement are asked to work in line of duty.
Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox) to close the debate for this side.
Mr. COX. Madam Chairman, I think we need to return to the amendment
that is before us. There has been a lot of heat and light generated in
this debate, but the amendment itself is exceptionally simple.
It begins from the fact that current law provides for the training of
State and local law enforcement officials to enforce Federal
immigration laws. That is a voluntary program. There is no unfunded
mandate in current law because there is no mandate. It is completely
voluntary, and only those State and local law enforcement officials,
those first responders who are seeking to partner with the Department
of Homeland Security in obtaining this Federal training to enforce
immigration laws, actually do so.
Second, in an amendment that was adopted earlier by voice vote, we
provided $40 million in Federal funding to reimburse any costs incurred
by State and local volunteers, that is State and local governments who
volunteer for this training, in obtaining the training. So it is not
unfunded either. It is a funded, voluntary program.
Lastly, what this amendment adds to existing law is simply to provide
a training guide for this training that already exists and training
flexibility to make sure that it meets the needs of State and local law
enforcement officers.
The last thing it does is it corrects existing law, section 287(g) of
the INA to substitute ``the Secretary of Homeland Security'' for the
words ``Attorney General.'' This is something that we did in the
technical corrections bill that was unanimously passed by the Select
Committee on Homeland Security in the last Congress.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
This amendment, although well intended, crosses the line from my
standpoint because it moves us away from a Federal responsibility to a
State responsibility. This amendment tries to clarify the existing
authority of State and local law enforcement personnel to apprehend,
detain, remove and transport illegal aliens in the routine course of
duty.
Additionally, this amendment requires DHS to establish a training
manual on this matter and set forth simple guidelines for making that
training available. State and local police already authorize and train
to notify Federal law enforcement officials, are already highly
qualified, and are fully trained to identify foreign nationals in
custody.
Additionally, training in immigration law is not a simple task. A
manual is simply not sufficient to train officers in the complexity of
immigration law.
For example, DHS already faces challenges in cross-training its
personnel and integrating the various components into a cohesive unit;
and, thus, would face challenges in developing a cross-training manual
for State and local law enforcement personnel.
So for these reasons, I am in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I simply ask the gentleman to reconsider
our unanimous consent to remove two words that would, I think, make an
amendment that is going to pass better in your mind.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I do not consent.
Mr. FARR. Madam Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this
amendment offered by Mr.
[[Page H3499]]
Norwood. This amendment would essentially force local law enforcement
agencies to enforce federal immigration laws.
The enactment of this amendment would strain already scarce state and
local resources by creating an unfunded mandate, in addition to
dividing communities around the country.
Coercing state and local police into becoming federal immigration
agents does not benefit anyone involved. In addition to their other
duties, local law enforcement officials and local and state
administrators would be bogged down by determining criminal's
immigration status. Community members will be hesitant to cooperate
with local law enforcement for fear of ramifications against them and
their family.
According to the Department of Justice statistics, violent and
property crime rates have been falling steadily for at least the last
10 years. I have no doubt that this is largely due to community
policing. This amendment would take away that idea. Our communities are
better served by a police force that focuses on robbers, murderers and
terrorists, as opposed to immigration status.
I do not support illegal immigration and believe that anyone who
enters the U.S. in violation of U.S. immigration laws should be
penalized. But that doesn't mean police who should be arresting drug
dealers and breaking up gang activities should now be federally
mandated to track down illegal aliens.
To me, this amendment is another example of the desperate need for an
honest and comprehensive debate on immigration law in this country.
Piecemeal ideas, such as this one, are detrimental to our communities
at a microlevel. Our country is in need of an immigration policy that
accounts for the fears 9/11 instilled, in addition to the hope that
immigrants bring to our nation.
This amendment is ineffective and unnecessary policy and I urge my
colleagues to cast a ``no'' vote.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded
vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Norwood) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 19 printed in part B of
House Report 109-84.
There is no designee for amendment No. 19.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20 printed in part B of
House Report 109-84.
{time} 1615
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 20 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas:
Page 82, after line 4, add the following:
SEC. 407. REPORT ON BORDER VIOLENCE.
(a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall submit a report to the Congress on the number and type
of border violence activities that have occurred in the 5-
year period preceding such date.
(b) Contents.--The report shall include the following:
(1) The number of such activities that have been
documented.
(2) The types of activities involved.
(3) A description of the categories of victims.
(4) The risk of future activities.
(5) A description of the steps the Department is taking,
and any plan the Department has formulated, to prevent such
activities.
(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``border violence activity'' means any activity that--
(1) involves the unlawful use of, or the threat unlawfully
to use, physical force with the intent to harm a person or
property;
(2) occurs in the United States, not further than 25 miles
from a United States border with Mexico or Canada; and
(3) occurs as part of an attempt to deter, retaliate
against, or enable the entry of any person into the United
States.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Hayworth) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Let me describe the simplicity of my amendment. It is simply to ask
the Secretary of Homeland Security not later than 6 months after the
date of the enactment of this act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall submit a report to Congress on the number and type of border
violence activities that have occurred in the 5-year period preceding
such date.
The report would include the number of such activities that have been
documented; the types of activities involved; a description of the
categories of victims; the risk of future activities; and a description
of the steps the Department is taking, and any plan the Department has
formulated to prevent such activities.
This is a straightforward amendment that clearly again reaffirms the
ongoing theme of the homeland security authorization bill, that the
responsibility of homeland security falls in the arms of the Federal
Government, and we must not fail the American people.
We have seen citizens take up arms. They have first been in our
neighboring State, in Arizona, a broad, desert-like area. There is now
an intention for such citizen groups, unauthorized militia, to come
into the States of Texas and California, New Mexico and who knows where
else this amendment might be.
I am delighted to say that in the Committee on Homeland Security, we
do have a consensus at least around the idea that we must understand
the issues of border violence. I would like to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson)
for working with me on the general issue.
I also raise for my colleagues our concern for the northern border
and to remind them of the potential tragedy that was, if you will,
inhibited or prohibited at the turn of the present century, 2000, when
an individual was poised and walked across the northern border in order
to do havoc, if you will, in Los Angeles. We know the borders are
dangerous, and we want to have the kind of trained professional
personnel to ensure the safety of the borders.
But we must also recognize the distinctiveness of the borders. I will
use Texas as an example. It is heavily populated. It is a dense area.
There is a lot of private land. Thereby, those who are in volunteer
efforts may subject themselves to potential violence or incur violence.
And so it is important that we have an understanding by the Department
of Homeland Security to take charge of that, to understand the variety,
if you will, the variety and the types of activities that could
possibly happen.
I want to cite for my colleagues the incidences that may occur at the
border and particularly from the individual who heads the Minuteman
Project, indicated that the Texas border might be far more difficult
than they might have expected. There may be a little danger going on.
They might have to be a little careful. That is why this study and this
report by the Department of Homeland Security is extremely important,
the Secretary of Homeland Security. We must work in partnership to be
able to protect the violence that may take place at the border.
Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Berman), a senior member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
time. The point she raises now brings to mind a point I wanted to make
about what is really an unbelievably reckless amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) regarding empowering local police
to detain and remove people based on illegal immigration status without
checking or verifying that status with INS or the Federal agencies.
A group of people with no training in this particular effort will
have the ability to pick up people, assume, or come to the conclusion
that person is not here in legal status and, without checking with the
Federal Government or the INS, to deport and remove that person from
this country. That person may be an asylee, having a well-founded fear
of persecution. The person may
[[Page H3500]]
not have the right documents on him but be a naturalized citizen or be
here under some kind of temporary visa that he cannot show the police.
It will all of a sudden give thousands and thousands of law enforcement
officials an ability to do something.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Chairman, I just want to point out to the ranking
member that I started this debate off saying there was a drafting error
and we wanted to remove two words: ``or remove.'' Your side would not
allow that to be removed. That would have solved the problem. We are
going to get it solved even if it is in conference. We are going to get
it done despite you, but we gave you the opportunity to do something
about it.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/4\ minutes.
I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague
from Texas. As you heard in her opening remarks, sadly, this amendment
is an attempt to discredit worthy, nonviolent volunteers who dedicated
their time and their energy to protect our Nation's borders last month.
The Minuteman Project, Madam Chairman, is simply an outgrowth of the
public's frustration with the Federal Government's failure to secure
our borders. Indeed, what the Minutemen did was follow a time-honored
tradition of petitioning our government for legitimate redress of
grievance.
It is true that in terms of the political landscape, the ACLU and the
Government of Mexico protested the group even before the patrol began;
but the Minutemen effectively shut down a 20-mile stretch of border
without a single credible report of violence committed by those citizen
volunteers.
With reference to the notion of a study, Madam Chairman, I would
simply say this: the records are intact. I will make them a part of the
record right now. Attacks on border patrol agents by alien and drug
smugglers are on the rise. In the Tucson sector alone during the first
6 months of this fiscal year, there were reported 132 assaults on
agents, 14 more than all of last year. That is in the first 6 months of
the fiscal year. Border patrol agents in Arizona are attacked once
every 2 days, 64 times in a recent 3-month period.
Six border patrol agents assigned to the Tucson sector have been
killed in the line of duty, including a 27-year-old agent fatally shot
in June of 1998 near Nogales as he sought to arrest four men hauling
marijuana into the United States. When I had occasion to visit with
border patrol agents in March, they told me how snipers from the
Mexican side of the border will actually shoot border patrol vehicle
windshields out if the Mexican snipers deem these vehicles are parked
too close to the border.
In 2004, border patrol agents arrested over 650 suspected terrorists.
Madam Chairman, let me repeat that. In 2004, border patrol agents
arrested over 650 suspected terrorists from countries of national
security interest trying to cross our southern border. They expect the
number will rise this year. In January of this year, border patrol in
the Tucson sector impounded 557 smuggling vehicles, almost 35,000
pounds of marijuana, and 35,704 illegal aliens.
This amendment fails to address the violent attacks on our border
patrol agents. It implies that citizens of the United States seeking
redress and putting an end to the influx of terrorists and the illegal
invasion of this country are wrong. The committees on Homeland Security
and the Judiciary oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the Jackson-Lee amendment.
Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goode).
Mr. GOODE. Madam Chairman, illegal immigration costs this Nation $68
billion per year. That is not million; that is billion. This study
changes the focus of the Department of Homeland Security. The
Department of Homeland Security needs to be focusing on keeping those
illegally in the country out. Citizen groups such as the Minutemen who
performed a tremendous neighborhood watch function on our southern
borders need to be commended and not slapped by an amendment like this.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time
to make this point to my colleagues. I am sure it is not the intent of
my colleague from Texas to try and imply that citizens engaged in
lawful protest are somehow attempting to inspire violent acts. I know
that is not the intent of my colleague. However, that would be the
perverse result if this House would support that amendment. This House
would then be on record saying that the lawful rights of citizens
should be abridged to accommodate illegal acts by noncitizens. That is
something this House and this government and the citizens of this
Nation will not countenance.
Therefore, because of that, I would ask all my colleagues to join me
in opposition to the Jackson-Lee amendment. Vote ``no.''
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
The slap in the face is to the hardworking border patrol agents who
now are subjected to more jeopardy because volunteers are there,
unauthorized, untrained, and the very words of the Minutemen who said
that they fear going to Texas because most of the land is privately
owned and security becomes a serious issue, said by the leader of the
Minutemen. But I am not concerned about the Minutemen. I am concerned
about saving lives.
If you want to save lives, vote for the Jackson-Lee amendment that
helps to save lives by giving money to the border patrol agents and
protecting those volunteers by telling them that they cannot be at the
border unsafe, unsecured, untrained. We need the Department of Homeland
Security to take charge.
Vote for the Jackson-Lee amendment.
Madam Chairman, I rise to bring a very important issue before the
Committee of the Whole by way of an amendment designated as ``Jackson
Lee #75.'' I would like to once again thank the distinguished Chairman
of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security and the Ranking
Member for showing their awareness of the issue of border violence as
one that rises to a level that requires Federal oversight by agreeing
to the amendment that I offered yesterday during House consideration of
the appropriations measure, H.R. 2360. I also thank the Chairman of the
Committee on Homeland Security for his showing of commitment to
addressing this issue by agreeing to collaborate with the Ranking
Member from Mississippi and me to craft a bipartisan letter to the
Department of Homeland Security to request the collection of data on
this matter.
``Jackson Lee #75'' is based on the same premise of that amendment,
and given that the appropriations measure has placed spending
limitations with respect to national border patrol, it would only be
logical and prudent for the authorization measure to emphasize the
legislative intent to clearly define, monitor, and control this issue
before it becomes an expenditure.
The purpose of this amendment is to put the American people on notice
that the ``Minuteman Project'' has proposed to enter multiple borders
in order to monitor for illegal border crossings.
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local No. 3332 and
the Association for Residency and Citizenship of America (ARCA) support
this important amendment that will prevent impediment to DHS's border
security functions as well as the development of negative issues if
groups such as the Minutemen attempt to enforce immigration law.
The Minuteman Project has good intentions, but we object to the
potential negative social, legal, and economic impact that it can have
on the Texas borders. The problem of porousness of the borders is a
Federal Government problem. It is a Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) problem. DHS has legal jurisdiction over the borders; therefore,
it is DHS that must address our border security needs.
An unofficial, untrained, and uncontrolled militia is the wrong
answer for a problem that is within the Federal Government's
responsibility. If the job is not being done sufficiently, we must look
to Congress and the Executive Branch to exercise oversight and to
improve performance.
The Minuteman Project is headed for the Texas borders, and its
presence will be the recipe for danger, conflict, and increased legal
enforcement costs for the Federal Government. The Houston Chronicle
reported on May 12 that the controversial group that began as a month-
long engagement along the Arizona border plans to enter Texas to
operate its hunt for illegal border crossings.
Other media and eyewitnesses have suggested that many of the
participants in the Minuteman Project have carried firearms, incited
retaliatory measures by gang members,
[[Page H3501]]
incited more groups to organize in a similar fashion along other
American borders, and created a situation that suggests potential
constraints on the individual civil rights of undocumented persons.
The arrival of this group to Texas is an example of what we feared
during its initial engagement during the month of April--propagation in
other borders. Empowerment of unofficial, untrained militia to carry
out the functions of the Federal Government instead of simply improving
the staffing situation at the Customs and Border Patrol and the
Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement Agencies is a dereliction of duty
and a condoning of potential vigilantism.
Several differences between the United States-Mexico border of
Arizona and Texas make it potentially injurious for the arrival of the
Minutemen. The traffic growth in Texas would dramatically increase the
probability of injury or death of aliens or other innocent civilians.
In 2001, U.S. Customs inspectors logged 3,133,619 cargo trucks as
they entered Texas border towns from Brownsville to El Paso, up from
1,897,888 commercial vehicles in fiscal year 1995, the year NAFTA took
effect. Furthermore, the topography at the Texas borders are more dense
and provide more places for people involved in violent disputes to
hide. In addition, even as the leader of the Minuteman Project stated
to the Houston Chronicle, `there are serious logistical problems for
patrols in Texas. Most of the land along the Texas border is privately
owned, and some of it is urbanized, unlike the open land the group
monitored in Arizona.'
What we need instead of a situation of potential violence, violation
of civil rights, and costs associated with restoring peace and security
at the borders is a comprehensive immigration plan like I proposed with
the introduction of my legislation, the `Save America Comprehensive
Immigration Act, H.R. 2092.'
Effective, efficient, and safe border security requires properly
trained personnel. We need to improve our Customs and Border Patrol and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agencies rather than empower
militias to do their job. The enforcement job requires accountability,
training in the area of human rights, language skills, non-violent
restraint techniques, and weapons handling.
The legal accountability principles such as respondeat superior and
vicarious liability do not clearly apply to the Minutemen for injuries
or damage that may be sustained by the private properties that abut the
Texas borders; the heavy stream of commerce constantly traversing the
border; or innocent bystanders who may be in the wrong place at the
wrong time.
The Jackson-Lee amendment seeks to prevent liability ``powder kegs''
from propagating nationally.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues support this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 printed in part B of
House Report 109-84.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Manzullo
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Manzullo:
At the end of title V, add the following new section:
SEC. 509. BUY AMERICAN REQUIREMENT FOR PROCUREMENTS OF GOODS
CONTAINING COMPONENTS.
(a) Requirement.--Notwithstanding any agreement described
in subsection (b), more than 50 percent of the components in
any end product procured by the Department of Homeland
Security that contains components shall be mined, produced,
or manufactured inside the United States.
(b) Agreements Described.--An agreement referred to in
subsection (a) is any of the following:
(1) Any reciprocal procurement memorandum of understanding
between the United States and a foreign country pursuant to
which the Secretary of Homeland Security has prospectively
waived the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.) for
certain products in that country.
(2) Any international agreement to which the United States
is a party.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My amendment strengthens the Buy American Act and restores the
original intent that more than 50 percent of the components in end
products purchased by the Department of Homeland Security shall be
mined, produced, or manufactured inside the U.S.
The Buy American Act originally passed Congress during the Great
Depression. The intent of Congress was that to qualify under the Buy
American Act, a company had to have substantially all of a product
made, grown, or mined in the U.S. However, regulations implementing the
Buy American Act have subsequently redefined ``substantially all'' to
mean simply greater than 50 percent.
Yet even that regulation has been weakened even further over the
years. The Pentagon has used the public interest exception to waive the
Buy American Act to treat the purchase of some foreign goods as if they
were made in America. The original intent of the Buy American Act has
been undermined by procurement memoranda of understanding among the
U.S. and various foreign countries that permit the substitution of
foreign components for components mined, produced, or manufactured
inside the United States. These are not treaties or trade agreements
approved by Congress. These were executive branch agreements not
subject to review by Congress.
Thus, the Buy American laws are basically worthless. There are so
many holes in that law that it means nothing when a company says they
comply with the Buy American Act. The exception, and it is a big one,
is that the domestic content requirement does not have to be met if the
items are procured from certain designated foreign countries.
The Pentagon has memoranda of understanding with 21 developed
countries that waive the Buy American Act because the Defense
Department has determined that for these countries complying with the
Buy American Act is ``inconsistent with the public interest.''
{time} 1630
Basically, a company getting an award from the Pentagon can claim
compliance with the Buy American Act without having to actually make
anything in the United States as long as the components come from one
of those 21 countries. Because the Department of Homeland Security has
a very similar mission to the Department of Defense, protecting the
territory of the U.S. from every possible enemy attack, we should not
allow the DHS to waive the Buy American Act like the Pentagon has done
without an affirmative vote by Congress.
The intent of Congress is to maintain the vibrant industrial base so
that we may remain the strongest Nation on Earth. Even the founder of
modern-day capitalism and free trade, Adam Smith, recognized the need
for a nation to be able to depend upon its own industrial and
agricultural base and not rely on foreign sources for its defense
needs. We cannot maintain our role as global leader on a pure services-
based economy.
It is also important to remember that this amendment does not
increase the share of the Buy American Act. It simply codifies the
content percentage of what is an existing regulation.
Madam Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, this amendment would radically change the current
application of the Buy American Act, and it could place the United
States in violation of most international trade agreements in which we
are signatories, including the World Trade Organization's Government
Procurement Agreement, something, by the way, we are working to get
China to sign right now because of some of the restrictions they are
putting on their procurement policy; the North American Free Trade
Agreement; the U.S.-Israel Free Trade
[[Page H3502]]
Agreement; and the U.S.-Australia Free Trade agreement.
This restriction would have a devastating effect on the Department of
Homeland Security's ability to buy the most high-tech and sophisticated
products at a reasonable price to support our critical anti-terror
efforts. We should be able to get the best high-technology goods at the
lowest cost for the American taxpayer so that we can fight this war on
terrorism in a cost-effective manner.
For instance, this amendment would sweep away the current $175,000
ceiling for the Buy American Act required for the application with the
Trade Agreements Act of 1979. This is the basis for our participation
in the Government Procurement Agreement.
The restriction would cause Customs and border protection problems in
purchasing the best aircraft, the best camera equipment, the best
surveillance equipment from the world market to protect our borders.
Further, the amendment would interfere with critical research and
development agreements we currently have with the United Kingdom.
BlackBerrys, something that most Members use and are used widely
throughout the government, are a Canadian product. Thirty, 40 percent
of its components are made and manufactured in the United States, but
they would be subject to restrictions put on by this amendment.
The United States is already challenged to compete in a global
marketplace. We do not always have a competitive advantage. But
dismantling the regime of free trade agreements that help create and
support the vibrant world marketplace in the end only hurts American
workers.
Besides violating our trade agreements, this provision will require
the Department to pay an artificially high price for products it needs
to protect us against terror. Homeland Security dollars are already
scarce. We should not be wasting our Homeland Security dollars when
U.S. citizens are volunteering their personal time to protect the
southern border.
Under this amendment, businesses are required to certify compliance
with the Buy American Act, potentially exposing American businesses to
civil false claims and other sanctions even if they have made good-
faith efforts to comply with the government-unique requirements. In a
global marketplace where components are assembled throughout the world,
it is often difficult to ascertain what that 50 percent margin is. This
creates significant financial and legal burdens for industry, given
that more and more information technology so critical for the fight
against terror is being sourced in our global economy from around the
world.
Some companies have responded to Buy American Act restrictions by
establishing costly labor-intensive product-tracking systems that are
not needed in their commercial business to ensure that products being
sold to the government meet the government-unique requirements. But
small businesses in particular often cannot afford to establish special
systems for that kind of compliance. So this hurts small businesses
trying to sell to the government in a global economy.
Some companies have simply stopped selling certain products in the
Federal marketplace, denying us access to some of the latest, most
cost-effective products. Further, this decrease in sales is
disproportionately devastating to small businesses.
This radical, in my opinion, Buy American Act provision will impose
financial and legal burdens on commercial companies that sell to our
government. It may well prevent the Department of Homeland Security
from obtaining the best technology to protect our Nation.
Again, BlackBerrys would be subject to this, something that most
Members and most government workers use, because they are from a
Canadian company. This increased restriction on the Department's
ability to obtain needed technology from the world market is a Cold War
anachronism. Given the Department of Homeland Security's growing
reliance on information technology and other advanced products and the
current global nature of the industry, the Department's ability to
fulfill its critical anti-terror mission will be crippled by this
restrictive provision.
I hope that Members have the sense to vote against this, and I urge
that we defeat this amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I rise in support of his amendment.
As to the last speaker, let me tell the Members what is going on
here. In the Department of Homeland Security, they are not allowed to
buy civilian aircraft. What happened just recently was Eurocopter,
which is subsidized by the French and German governments, that is a
subsidy. That is in violation of the trade agreements, and no one is
enforcing it. As a result, in my district Enstrom Helicopter lost a
contract to build civilian helicopters for the Department of Homeland
Security, and the cost for the French/German conglomerate was like $23
million more; so it is costing the taxpayers more money.
I think we have to make a decision in this Nation. Are we going to
continue in these trade agreements that are not enforced? There are
other countries that are subsidizing their workers, and we sit here and
we develop contracts and say because of this treaty or this agreement,
we cannot do it; but yet we do not enforce the provisions of it. And
what we are really doing is telling the Department of Homeland
Security, at least in the helicopter industry, that we will buy
European helicopters as opposed to U.S. helicopters.
We can no longer continue this. Please support the Manzullo
amendment.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Let me just say that what this amendment will require us to do with
precious Homeland Security dollars is pay up to 50 percent more for
goods that bear the American label and in many cases cost us access to
the best high-technology surveillance equipment, lab equipment,
equipment and cameras to protect our borders. I just do not think it
makes any sense in this environment of a global economy, and I urge its
defeat.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) argues that the best
technology is outside the United States. The whole purpose of this
amendment is to try to do something about the 3 million manufacturing
jobs we have lost in the past several years. This simply says whenever
anybody agrees to abide by the Buy American Act, at least buy 50
percent of the content from America. The existing Buy American Act says
they have to buy zero. Congress passed a law that says buy everything
from America. The Department of Defense and other agencies say that
only means 50 percent. Now there is a memorandum of understanding from
the White House that says, by the way, if they buy from the 21
countries, they do not even need to meet the 50 percent.
This is very simple. It says if we want to keep technology in the
United States, then buy the technology that is here. If a particular
item has to be purchased and it is not made in the United States, then
the Buy American Act simply does not apply.
This is a commonsense amendment. I am going to be offering it to
every single authorization bill that I can, and I would urge Members to
vote ``aye'' on this.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22
printed in part B of House Report 109-84.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Putnam
Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Putnam:
[[Page H3503]]
At the end of title V, add the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 509. DISASTER ASSISTANCE FOR FUNERAL EXPENSES.
Section 408(e)(1) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174(e)(1)) is
amended by adding at the end the following: ``The President
may provide assistance for funeral expenses under this
paragraph only if a medical examiner determines that the
death was caused by the major disaster.''.
Modification to Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Putnam
Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be modified in the form at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Putnam:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be added by the amendment
add the following:
At the end of title V, add the following (and conform the
table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 509. DISASTER ASSISTANCE FOR FUNERAL EXPENSES.
Not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act, the
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall--
(1) develop criteria and guidelines for determining if a
death is disaster-related; and
(2) require staff to provide for analysis of each request
for funeral expense assistance in order to support approval
or disapproval of such assistance.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered
by the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Putnam) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, I am delighted to be here to talk about what is an
important issue for the whole country, but it came to light in the
aftermath of the hurricanes in Florida.
Immediately after Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne
ravaged the Sunshine State, with the help of this Congress hurricane
disaster relief assistance was provided to help our State recover from
those devastating storms. And while many of those who suffered damage
are still waiting for FEMA recovery payments, there were a number of
questionable payments that have been made as it related to funeral
expenses for hurricane-related deaths.
For example, the instance in Pensacola of a recovering alcoholic with
cirrhosis of the liver, after Hurricane Ivan blew through town on
September 16, the gentleman went on a binge ``due to misery,'' his
widow told the Miami Herald. He never fully recovered and died of
respiratory failure. His funeral expenses were paid by the American
taxpayer.
A gentleman from Palm Bay, Florida, died of lung cancer 6 days before
Hurricane Frances made landfall. The gentleman was buried before the
hurricane made landfall. His widow said that FEMA damage inspectors
came to her home and suggested she might qualify for funeral expenses.
She said that she did not think her husband's death was related to
Hurricane Frances. She had her husband's funeral paid for by the
American taxpayers.
The Inspector General in the Department of Homeland Security with a
report that came out today echoed these concerns and called for two
specific changes: a change that the Department should develop specific
criteria and guidelines for determining if a death is disaster related,
and a specific requirement that staff of FEMA provide for an analysis
of each request and document the rationale for approval or disapproval
of funeral-related assistance. This is an issue that is hugely
important to Florida as we try to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and
allow FEMA's limited resources to go to those who are truly in need.
We had offered a different approach to this as it related to medical
examiners. With the work of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman
Shuster), we were able to come to a resolution on the appropriate
legislative language that solves this issue, and I am grateful to him
for his leadership.
Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's working
with us to modify language on his amendment. I think all of us know and
I know specifically as I travel to Florida to review some of the damage
and some of the problems that occurred during those hurricanes and with
FEMA coming down there and things they did and did not do, I know
firsthand that there are problems and we need to make these types of
corrections.
I think the gentleman's amendment, by modifying it, has strengthened
the language and put into law not just a process or a regulation by
FEMA but these are going to be standards that FEMA is going to need to
adhere to when they are determining whom to pay funeral expenses to,
those who deserve and those who do not deserve. And we heard of cases,
a couple of hundred of them in Florida where there was fraud, abuse,
and they got funds to pay for funeral expenses; and I think this
language is going to go a long way to making sure that that does not
happen, not only in Florida but across this country.
{time} 1645
On the subcommittee that I chair, the Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management, we are
committed to working with my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Putnam), to talking to the FEMA folks and making sure they are
reviewing these cases in the past, but also going forward.
So the gentleman has my commitment, and we will sit down and, as I
said, talk to the folks from FEMA to see that we clear up this matter.
I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate him working with us.
Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Capito). Does any Member rise in opposition
to this amendment?
Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I want to just take that remaining time
then to thank our delegation chairman, the gentleman from Fort
Lauderdale (Mr. Shaw) for his efforts on this, and all of the other
related FEMA issues; and thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster). This is an important issue for the taxpayers, and it is
important to make sure that people who are truly in need are assisted
by FEMA and those who are not are not able to game the system. I
appreciate the leadership of my colleagues.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified,
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
=========================== NOTE ===========================
May 18, 2005--On Page H 3503 the following appeared: The Acting
CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida.
The online version should be corrected to read: The Acting
CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment as modified, offered by
the gentleman from Florida.
========================= END NOTE =========================
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
May 18, 2005--On Page H 3503 the following appeared: The
amendment was agreed to.
The online version should be corrected to read: The amendment,
as modified, was agreed to.
========================= END NOTE =========================
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 23
printed in Part B of House report 109-84.
Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Souder
Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Souder:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
SEC. ___. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR
OFFICE OF COUNTERNARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT AT
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.
Section 7407(c) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 118 Stat. 3853)
is amended by striking ``2005, there is authorized up to
$6,000,000'' and inserting ``2005 or 2006, there is
authorized up to $6,000,000 for each such fiscal year''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Madam Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It merely extends
the authorized appropriation for the Department of Homeland Security
Office
[[Page H3504]]
of Counternarcotics Enforcement for one year for fiscal year 2006. In
other words, it just inserts 2006 after 2005.
This office was created structurally as part of the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act in December of 2004. We realized
that in narcotics, almost all the major interdiction agencies, Coast
Guard, Border Patrol, and Legacy Customs, are inside Homeland Security.
When you are pursuing international terrorists, you are going to pick
up a share of narcotics as you control the border as much as we can,
and as we move forward we have been picking up narcotics. But it cannot
just be an afterthought.
Twenty-four thousand Americans die each year of drugs. We have had
basically 3,300 roughly die of international terrorism since 2001 and,
in that same time period, nearly 100,000 of narcotics deaths. So we
need to stay focused. We need to do both things simultaneously.
Furthermore, the terrorists are increasingly funded by narcotics.
The administration has been reluctant to adopt this. It is not a
question of whether the individuals at the Department of Homeland
Security are committed to counternarcotics; the question is, is there a
structure in place that puts somebody at the table to make sure that
they never forget that narcotics is part of the Department of Homeland
Security's commission and what they are supposed to do. It is not just
international terrorism, it is also home terrorism and the narcotics
front.
So I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois
(Speaker Hastert) and the cooperation of the Senate as we have created
this office, and we have $6 million in authorized appropriations. If
people followed the Homeland Security appropriations debate yesterday,
they see the problem is that this office has all detailees in it. Even
the head of this office is a detailee. We need full time, paid
employees in this office.
Yesterday, when I withdrew my amendment to set aside this money, it
was said that this comes out of the Office of the Secretary. That is
the way the Department of Homeland Security would like to make it; but,
in fact, our authorizing bill says that $6 million is to be assigned to
the Office of Narcotics.
Now, many of us, including me, have detailees. Detailees are
wonderful, but detailees come and go. They have multiple missions. The
question is if you are really going to have a counternarcotics office,
if this administration is going to stay focused on this, there has to
be an office with some real staff, not people who come and go out of
the office, and especially not a head who has to beg and borrow for
detailees, and people who are assigned for short periods who may or may
not know the issue, and a head of the office who is not even paid by
the Department of Homeland Security.
It shows that this is a continual battle in multiple bills to make
sure that narcotics is part of the structural part of the Department of
Homeland Security, and that narcoterrorism is part of international
terrorism. This amendment merely extends what we have already passed in
this House for last year's authorization to the next year's
authorization that says that up to $6 million can be spent in this
office.
I am looking forward to the commitment from the gentleman from
Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) to make sure some of this money is, in fact,
expended.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to this
amendment?
Mr. SOUDER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, I believe this is a noncontroversial amendment. I
know the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of
my subcommittee, has been very supportive of this also. We have worked
together in a bipartisan way to make sure that this office is a real
office, it has a real voice, it has real money, and I look forward to
working with the appropriators to help make this happen.
Madam Chairman, this amendment would simply extend the authorized
appropriation for the Department of Homeland Security Office of
Counternarcotics Enforcement (OCNE) for fiscal year 2006. The Office
was created by Congress in December 2004, as part of the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458). The Office is
tasked with oversight of all of DHS' drug interdiction activities, with
reporting to Congress on the adequacy and success of those activities,
and with facilitating the coordination of those activities. Section
7407(c) of the Intelligence Reform Act authorized up to $6 million of
the Department's appropriation for departmental management and
operations for fiscal year 2005 to be expended for the Office.
Despite this clear statement of Congressional intent, the President's
overall budget, ONDCP's Drug Strategy Report, and ONDCP's Drug Budget
summary make no mention of the OCNE. This raises the question of
whether the Administration and DHS intend to establish OCNE and drug
control as a priority.
The mission of the office remains just as important this year as last
year. My amendment would therefore extend the current authorization of
appropriations for the Office (contained in Section 7407(c) of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, P.L. 108-458)
through fiscal year 2006.
Madam Chairman, I believe that if we are going to reauthorize DHS for
fiscal year 2006, we should reauthorize the appropriation for this
vital DHS component as well. It is my understanding that Chairman Cox
agrees with me, and is supporting this amendment. I hope that the other
members of the House will join me in supporting this amendment, and
H.R. 1817.
background on the department of homeland security (dhs) office of
counternarcotics enforcement (ocne)
To assist DHS in meeting its vital counterdrug responsibilities,
Congress originally created the Counternarcotics Officer (CNO)
position. Unfortunately, the original law did not clearly define how
the CNO was to fulfill those duties, nor did it give the CNO adequate
status or resources to fulfill them.
In order to correct these problems, Congress passed the 9/11
Commission recommendations legislation in 2004 that replaced the CNO
with a new Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement (OCNE).
Responsibilities of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement:
The Director of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement shall have
oversight responsibility for any programs administered by the DHS that
coordinate anti-drug activities within the Department or between the
Department and other agencies.
The Director of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement shall
represent the Department on all interagency coordinating committees,
task forces, or other bodies intended to foster coordination and
cooperation on anti-drug issues.
The Director of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement shall send
reports to Congress concerning the Department's counternarcotics
responsibilities.
The legislation authorized up to $6 million of the Department's
management funds to be used for the new Office's budget for fiscal year
2005.
Why the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement (OCNE) is Needed
A. Connections Between Drugs and Terrorism
The huge profits created by drug trafficking have financed and will
continue to finance terrorism throughout the world.
As President Bush noted in December 2001, just a few months after the
9/11 attacks, ``[T]he traffic in drugs finances the work of terror,
sustaining terrorists . . . terrorists use drug profits to fund their
cells to commit acts of murder.''
Furthermore, as the U.S. steps up its efforts against more legitimate
sources of funding, terrorist organizations will increasingly turn to
drugs and similar illegal sources. As the 9/11 Commission has noted,
the federal government, including DHS, must be able to adapt to these
shifting strategies of the terrorists.
B. DHS and Drug Interdiction
Strong DHS action against drug trafficking is vital to our overall
efforts to stop the financing of terrorist activities. It was for this
reason that Congress specifically provided that the primary mission of
the Department included the responsibility to ``monitor connections
between illegal drug trafficking and terrorism, coordinate efforts to
sever such connections, and otherwise contribute to efforts to
interdict illegal drug trafficking'' (6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(G))
DHS combines all of our main drug interdiction agencies: the Coast
Guard, legacy Customs Service, and the Border Patrol. No other
department has so many of the nation's ``ground troops'' who patrol our
borders for drugs.
While many divisions of DHS have a vital counternarcotics mission,
none of them is exclusively focused on counternarcotics. In a
department whose reason for creation is counterterrorism, there is a
risk that the anti-drug mission will be neglected.
The Director of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement (OCNE)
will help keep DHS subdivisions focused on counternarcotics. He is the
only official at DHS whose primary duty is counternarcotics.
[[Page H3505]]
C. Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and OCNE
Despite clear Congressional intent, the President's overall FY 2006
budget, ONDCP's FY 2006 Drug Strategy Report and ONDCP's FY 2005 Drug
Budget summary make no mention of the OCNE.
This raises the question of whether the Administration and DHS intend
to establish OCNE and drug control as a priority.
WHAT THE SOUDER ``OCNE'' AMMENDMENT DOES
My amendment would extend the current authorization of appropriations
for the Officer (contained in Section 7407(c) of the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, P.L. 108-458) through
fiscal year 2006.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 24
printed in Part B of House report 109-84.
Amendment No. 24 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Thompson
of Mississippi
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment in
the nature of a substitute made in order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Part B amendment No. 24 in the Nature of a Substitute
offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Complete Homeland Security
Act''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Departmental management and operations.
Sec. 103. Information analysis and infrastructure protection.
Sec. 104. Science and technology.
Sec. 105. Security enforcement and investigations.
Sec. 106. Emergency preparedness and response.
Sec. 107. Office of the Inspector General.
TITLE II--9/11 REFORM BILL ACCOUNTABILITY
Sec. 201. Report on budget request for programs authorized by Public
Law 108-458.
TITLE III--SECURING OUR ENTIRE BORDER ALL THE TIME, EVERY DAY OF THE
WEEK
Subtitle A--Securing our land borders
Sec. 301. Land border security strategy.
Sec. 302. Deployment of surveillance systems along U.S.-Mexico border.
Sec. 303. Creation of northern and southern border coordinators.
Sec. 304. Smart border accord implementation.
Sec. 305. Requiring a vulnerability assessment of land ports of entry.
Sec. 306. Study to determine appropriate level and allocation of
personnel at ports of entry and border patrol sectors.
Sec. 307. Assessment of study by Comptroller General.
Sec. 308. Authorization of appropriations for increase in full-time
Border Patrol agents.
Sec. 309. Border Patrol unit for Virgin Islands.
Sec. 310. Requiring report on the ``One Face at the Border
Initiative''.
Subtitle B--CIS workflow study
Sec. 311. CIS workflow, technology, and staffing assessment.
Subtitle C--Report on border violence
Sec. 321. Studies related to feasibility and cost of locating and
removing eight million undocumented aliens from United
States.
Subtitle D--Center of Excellence on Border Security
Sec. 331. Center of Excellence on Border Security.
TITLE IV--SECURING CHEMICAL PLANTS AND OTHER CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Subtitle A--Chemical Security Improvement
Sec. 411. Short title.
Sec. 412. Definitions.
Sec. 413. Vulnerability assessments and site security plans.
Sec. 414. Whistleblower protection.
Sec. 415. Alternative approaches.
Sec. 416. Enforcement.
Sec. 417. Interagency technical support and cooperation.
Sec. 418. Penalties.
Sec. 419. Protection of information.
Sec. 420. No effect on requirements under other law.
Subtitle B--Critical infrastructure prioritization
Sec. 421. Critical infrastructure.
Sec. 422. Security review.
Sec. 423. Implementation report.
TITLE V--SECURING AIRPORTS, BAGGAGE, AND AIR CARGO
Subtitle A--Prohibition against increase in security service fees
Sec. 501. Prohibition against increase in security service fees.
Subtitle B--Aviation security
Sec. 511. Federal flight deck officers.
Sec. 512. Letters of intent.
Sec. 513. Aviation security capital fund.
Sec. 514. Airport checkpoint screening explosive detection.
Sec. 515. Flight communications.
Sec. 516. Airport Site Access and Perimeter Security.
Sec. 517. MANPAD countermeasure research.
Sec. 518. Air charter and general aviation operations at Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport.
Sec. 519. Inspection of cargo carried aboard commercial aircraft.
TITLE VI--SECURING TRAINS ACROSS AMERICA
Subtitle A--Public Transit Security
Sec. 601. Short title.
Sec. 602. Homeland security public transportation grants.
Sec. 603. Training exercises.
Sec. 604. Security best practices.
Sec. 605. Public awareness.
Sec. 606. National Transportation Security Centers.
Sec. 607. Whistleblower protections.
Sec. 608. Definition.
Sec. 609. Memorandum of agreement.
Subtitle B--Rail Security
Sec. 611. Short title.
Chapter 1--Railroad Security
Sec. 621. Railroad transportation security.
Sec. 622. Freight and passenger rail security upgrades.
Sec. 623. Fire and life-safety improvements.
Sec. 624. Rail security research and development program.
Sec. 625. Rail worker security training program.
Sec. 626. Whistleblower protection.
Sec. 627. Public outreach.
Sec. 628. Passenger, baggage, and cargo screening.
Sec. 629. Emergency responder training standards.
Sec. 630. Information for first responders.
Sec. 631. TSA personnel limitations.
Sec. 632. Rail safety regulations.
Sec. 633. Rail police officers.
Sec. 634. Definitions.
Chapter 2--Assistance to Families of Passengers
Sec. 641. Assistance by national transportation safety board to
families of passengers involved in rail passenger
accidents.
Sec. 642. Rail passenger carrier plans to address needs of families of
passengers involved in rail passenger accidents.
Sec. 643. Establishment of task force.
TITLE VII--SECURING CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Sec. 701. Critical infrastructure.
Sec. 702. Security review.
Sec. 703. Implementation report.
TITLE VIII--PREVENTING A BIOLOGICAL ATTACK
Sec. 801. GAO Report of Department biological terrorism programs.
Sec. 802. Report on bio-countermeasures.
TITLE IX--PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURE
Sec. 901. Report to Congress on implementation of recommendations
regarding protection of agriculture.
TITLE X--OPTIMIZING OUR SCREENING CAPABILITIES
Subtitle A--U.S. visitor and immigrant status indicator technology
database
Sec. 1001. Interoperability of data for United States Visitor and
Immigrant Status Indicator Technology.
Subtitle B--Studies to improve border management and immigration
security
Sec. 1011. Study on biometrics.
Sec. 1012. Study on digitizing immigration benefit applications.
Sec. 1013. Study on elimination of arrival/departure paper forms.
Sec. 1014. Cataloguing immigration applications by biometric.
TITLE XI--SECURING CYBERSPACE AND HARNESSING TECHNOLOGY TO PREVENT
DISASTER
Subtitle A--Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity Enhancement
Sec. 1101. Short title.
Sec. 1102. Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity.
Sec. 1103. Cybersecurity training programs and equipment.
Sec. 1104. Cybersecurity research and development.
Subtitle B--Coordination with National Intelligence Director
Sec. 1111. Identification and implementation of technologies that
improve sharing of information with the National
Intelligence Director.
[[Page H3506]]
Subtitle C--Cybersecurity research
Sec. 1121. Support of basic cybersecurity research.
Subtitle D--Cybersecurity training and equipment
Sec. 1131. Cybersecurity training programs and equipment.
TITLE XII--HELPING FIRST RESPONDERS GET THEIR JOB DONE
Subtitle A--Communications interoperability
Sec. 1201. Interoperable communications technology grant program.
Sec. 1202. Study reviewing communication equipment interoperability.
Sec. 1203. Prevention of delay in reassignment of dedicated spectrum
for public safety purposes.
Subtitle B--Homeland security terrorism exercises
Sec. 1211. Short title.
Sec. 1212. National terrorism exercise program.
Subtitle C--Citizenship Preparedness
Sec. 1221. Findings.
Sec. 1222. Purposes.
Sec. 1223. Citizens Corps; Private sector preparedness.
Subtitle D--Emergency medical services
Sec. 1231. Emergency Medical Services Administration.
Sec. 1232. Sense of Congress.
Subtitle E--Lessons learned information sharing system
Sec. 1241. Lessons learned, best practices, and corrective action.
Subtitle F--Technology transfer clearinghouse
Sec. 1251. Short title.
Sec. 1252. Technology development and transfer.
Subtitle G--Metropolitan medical response system
Sec. 1261. Metropolitan Medical Response System; authorization of
appropriations.
TITLE XIII--FIGHTING DOMESTIC TERRORISM
Sec. 1301. Advisory Committee on Domestic Terrorist Organizations.
TITLE XIV--CREATING A DIVERSE AND MANAGEABLE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Subtitle A--Authorities of Privacy Officer
Sec. 1401. Authorities of Privacy Officer.
Subtitle B--Ensuring diversity in Department of Homeland Security
programs
Sec. 1411. Annual reports relating to employment of covered persons.
Sec. 1412. Procurement.
Sec. 1413. Centers of Excellence Program.
Subtitle C--Protection of certain employee rights
Sec. 1421. Provisions to protect certain employee rights.
Subtitle D--Whistleblower protections
Sec. 1431. Whistleblower protections.
Subtitle E--Authority of Chief Information Officer
Sec. 1441. Authority of Chief Information Officer.
Subtitle F--Authorization for Office of Inspector General
Sec. 1451. Authorization for Office of Inspector General.
Subtitle G--Regional office
Sec. 1461. Colocated regional offices.
Subtitle H--DHS terrorism prevention plan
Sec. 1471. Short title.
Sec. 1472. Department of Homeland Security Terrorism Prevention Plan.
Sec. 1473. Annual crosscutting analysis of proposed funding for
Department of Homeland Security programs.
Subtitle I--Tribal security
Sec. 1481. Office of Tribal Security.
TITLE XV--SECURING OUR PORTS AND COASTLINES FROM TERRORIST ATTACK
Sec. 1501. Security of maritime cargo containers.
Sec. 1502. Study on port risks.
TITLE XVI--AUTHORITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
Sec. 1601. Authority of other Federal agencies unaffected.
TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated for the Department
of Homeland Security $41,036,180,000 for fiscal year 2006.
SEC. 102. DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS.
Of the amount authorized under section 101, there is
authorized for departmental management and operations,
including management and operations of the Office for State
and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness,
$6,463,000,000.
SEC. 103. INFORMATION ANALYSIS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION.
Of the amount authorized under section 101, there is
authorized for information analysis and infrastructure
protection programs and activities $873,245,000.
SEC. 104. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.
Of the amount authorized under section 101, there is
authorized for science and technology programs and activities
$1,827,400,000, of which $418,000,000 shall be appropriated
for aviation-security-related research and development,
$115,000,000 shall be appropriated for the Man-Portable Air
Defense Systems, and $35.4 million will be appropriated for
biological countermeasures and agricultural defense.
SEC. 105. SECURITY ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATIONS.
Of the amount authorized under section 101, there is
authorized for expenses related to border and transportation
security, immigration, and other security and related
functions, $28,414,000,000, of which $380,000,000 shall be
appropriated for the hiring of 2,000 new border patrol
agents.
SEC. 106. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE.
Of the amount authorized under section 101, there is
authorized for emergency preparedness and response programs
and activities, $3,258,531,000.
SEC. 107. OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
Of the amount authorized under section 101, there is
authorized for the Office of the Inspector General,
$200,000,000.
TITLE II--9/11 REFORM BILL ACCOUNTABILITY
SEC. 201. REPORT ON BUDGET REQUEST FOR PROGRAMS AUTHORIZED BY
PUBLIC LAW 108-458.
(a) Explanation of Homeland Security Funding Shortfall.--
(1) Initial report.--Not later than 30 days after the date
of the enactment of this section, the President shall submit
to Congress a report that explains each homeland security
funding shortfall included in the budget submitted to
Congress for fiscal year 2006 under section 1105(a) of title
31, United States Code, including the rationale for
requesting less than the authorized level of funding for each
such funding shortfall.
(2) Annual reports.--Not later than 15 days after the
President submits to Congress the budget for a fiscal year
under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, the
President shall submit to Congress a report that explains
each homeland security funding shortfall included in the
budget for the fiscal year, including the rationale for
requesting less than the authorized level of funding for each
such funding shortfall.
(b) Definition of Homeland Security Funding Shortfall.--In
this section, the term ``homeland security funding
shortfall'' means a program authorized by Public Law 108-458
for which the amount of authorization of appropriation for a
fiscal year--
(1) is specified under such Act, and the President does not
request under such budget the maximum amount authorized by
such Act for such fiscal year; or
(2) is not specified under such Act, and the President does
not request under such budget an amount sufficient to operate
the program as required by such Act.
TITLE III--SECURING OUR ENTIRE BORDER ALL THE TIME, EVERY DAY OF THE
WEEK
Subtitle A--Securing Our Land Borders
SEC. 301. LAND BORDER SECURITY STRATEGY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the heads of all other Federal agencies
with border-related functions or with facilities or lands on
or along the border, shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees (as defined in section 2 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101)) unclassified
and classified versions of a unified, comprehensive strategy
to secure the land borders of the United States not later
than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The submission should include a description of the actions
already taken to implement the strategy.
(b) Contents.--The report shall cover the following areas:
(1) Personnel.
(2) Infrastructure.
(3) Technology.
(4) Coordination of intelligence among agencies.
(5) Legal responsibilities and jurisdictional divisions.
(6) Apprehension.
(7) Budgetary impact.
(8) Flow of commerce and economic impact.
(c) Consultation.--In creating the strategy described in
subsection (a), the Federal agencies described in such
subsection shall consult private sector organizations and
nongovernmental organizations with national security,
privacy, agriculture, immigration, customs, transportation,
technology, legal, and business expertise.
(d) Implementation.--The Secretary shall implement the
strategy not later than 12 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(e) Evaluation.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall track, monitor, and evaluate such strategy to
secure our borders to determine its efficacy.
(f) Report.--Not later than 15 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and every year thereafter for the
succeeding 5 years, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit a report to the Congress on the results
of the activities undertaken under subsection (a) during the
previous year. Each such report shall include an analysis of
the degree to which the border security strategy has been
effective in securing our borders. Each such report shall
include a collection and systematic analysis of data,
including workload indicators, related to activities to
improve and increase border security.
[[Page H3507]]
SEC. 302. DEPLOYMENT OF SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS ALONG U.S.-
MEXICO BORDER.
(a) Initial Threat Assessment.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
conduct an assessment of the threat of penetration of the
land borders of the United States, between the ports of
entry, by terrorists and criminals, and the threat to of such
areas to terrorist attack. In carrying out the threat
assessments under this paragraph, the Secretary shall
categorize the vulnerability of each land border corridor as
``high'', ``medium'', or ``low'' and shall prioritize the
vulnerability of each land border corridor within each such
category. In conducting the threat assessment, the Secretary
of Homeland Security shall consult with appropriate Federal,
tribal, State, local, and private sector representatives.
(2) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit
to the Committee on Homeland Security of the United States
House of Representatives a report that contains--
(A) the results of the threat assessments conducted under
paragraph (1);
(B) with respect to each land border corridor categorized
under paragraph (1) as either a ``high'', ``medium'' or
``low'' land border corridor, descriptions of--
(i) infrastructure and technology improvement projects
required for each land border corridor in order to reduce its
vulnerability; and
(ii) the resources required to make such improvements; and
(C) a description of how the funds will be used to
implement technology and infrastructure improvement projects.
(b) Follow-Up Threat Assessments.--The Secretary of
Homeland Security shall conduct follow-up threat assessments
of the land border between the ports of entry every 2 years
and shall submit such reports to the Committee on Homeland
Security of the House of Representatives.
(c) Plan.--Not later than December 31, 2005, the Secretary
of Homeland Security shall develop a comprehensive plan to
fully deploy technological surveillance systems along the
United States land borders between the ports of entry.
Surveillance systems included in the deployment plan must--
(1) ensure continuous monitoring of every mile of such
borders; and
(2) to the extent practicable, be fully interoperable with
existing surveillance systems and mission systems, such as
the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence Systems already in
use by the Department of Homeland Security.
SEC. 303. CREATION OF NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN BORDER
COORDINATORS.
(a) In General.--Title IV of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 201 seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 402, by redesignating paragraph (8) as
paragraph (9) and by inserting after paragraph (7) the
following:
``(8) Increasing the security of the United States at the
ports of entry located along the northern and southern
borders, and improving the coordination among the agencies
responsible for maintaining that security.''; and
(2) in subtitle C, by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 431. BORDER COORDINATORS.
``(a) In General.--There shall be within the Directorate of
Border and Transportation Security the positions of Northern
Border Coordinator and Southern Border Coordinator, who shall
be appointed by the Secretary and who shall report directly
to the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation
Security.
``(b) Responsibilities.--The Northern Border Coordinator
and the Southern Border Coordinator shall undertake the
following responsibilities along the northern and southern
borders, respectively--
``(1) serve as the primary official of the Department
responsible for coordinating all Federal security activities
along the border, especially at land border ports of entry;
``(2) provide enhanced communication and data-sharing
between Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies on law
enforcement, emergency response, or security-related
responsibilities for areas on or adjacent to the borders of
the United States with Canada or Mexico;
``(3) work to improve the communications systems within the
Department to facilitate the integration of communications of
matters relating to border security;
``(4) oversee the implementation of the pertinent bilateral
agreement (the United States-Canada `Smart Border'
Declaration applicable to the northern border and the United
States-Mexico Partnership Agreement applicable to the
southern border) to improve border functions, ensure
security, and promote trade and tourism;
``(5) consistent with section 5, assess all land border
ports of entry along the appropriate border and develop a
list of infrastructure and technology improvement projects
for submission to the Secretary based on the ability of a
project to fulfill immediate security requirements and
facilitate trade across the borders of the United States; and
``(6) serve as a liaison to the foreign agencies with
responsibility for their respective border with the United
States.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--Section 1(b) of such Act is
amended in the table of contents by inserting after the item
relating to section 430 the following:
``431. Border coordinators.''.
SEC. 304. SMART BORDER ACCORD IMPLEMENTATION.
The President shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees (as defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101)) information about the ongoing
progress on implementation of the Smart Border Accords
through quarterly reports on meetings of the Smart Border
Working Group.
SEC. 305. REQUIRING A VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF LAND PORTS
OF ENTRY.
(a) Initial Assessment.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
conduct an assessment of the vulnerability of each United
States land port of entry to penetration by terrorists and
criminals or terrorist attack. In carrying out assessments
under this paragraph, the Secretary shall categorize the
vulnerability of each port of entry as ``high'', ``medium'',
or ``low'' and shall prioritize the vulnerability of each
port of entry within each such category. In conducting the
assessment, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult
with appropriate State, local, tribal, and private sector
representatives.
(2) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit
to the appropriate congressional committees (as that term is
defined in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 101)) a report that contains--
(A) the results of the assessment conducted under paragraph
(1);
(B) with respect to each port of entry categorized under
paragraph (1) as either a ``high'' or ``medium''
vulnerability port of entry, descriptions of--
(i) infrastructure and technology improvement projects
required for the port of entry in order to reduce its
vulnerability; and
(ii) the resources required to make such improvements; and
(C) a description of how the funds will be used to
implement technology and infrastructure improvement projects.
(b) Follow-Up Assessments.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security shall conduct follow-up assessments of land border
ports of entry every 2 years and shall submit such reports to
the appropriate congressional committees (as defined in
section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
101)).
SEC. 306. STUDY TO DETERMINE APPROPRIATE LEVEL AND ALLOCATION
OF PERSONNEL AT PORTS OF ENTRY AND BORDER
PATROL SECTORS.
(a) Study.--The Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security
shall conduct a study to determine the necessary level and
allocation of personnel of the Bureau (including support
staff) at United States ports of entry and between ports of
entry in order to fully carry out the functions of the Bureau
at such ports and locations. The Commissioner shall update
and revise the study on an annual basis as appropriate.
(b) Requirements.--
(1) In general.--In conducting the study pursuant to
subsection (a), the Commissioner shall take into account the
following:
(A) The most recent staffing assessment from each port
director and the head of each border patrol sector, as
required under paragraph (2).
(B) The most recent relevant information, analyses, and
vulnerability assessments relating to ports of entry and
areas between ports of entry, as described in paragraph (3)
of section 201(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and
made available to the Commissioner in accordance with
paragraph (18) of such section.
(C) Any requests for additional personnel, if needed, from
each port director and the head of each border patrol sector,
including a description of whether the additional personnel
should be assigned on a temporary or permanent basis.
(D) An analysis of the impact of new available technology
on staffing requirements of the Bureau.
(E) An analysis of traffic volume and wait times at ports
of entry.
(F) An analysis of the training regimen for new officers of
the Bureau and inspectors from the former Customs Service and
the former Immigration and Naturalization Service and the
extent to which the creation of the Bureau's Officer position
has changed the personnel needs of the Department.
(2) Additional requirement.--Each port director and the
head of each border patrol sector shall complete and submit
to the Commissioner on an annual basis an assessment of the
level and allocation of personnel necessary to carry out the
responsibilities of such port director or the head of such
border patrol sector, as the case may be.
(c) Reports.--
(1) Initial report.--Not later than 120 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner shall prepare
and submit to the Comptroller General and Congress a report
that contains the results of the study conducted pursuant to
subsection (a).
(2) Subsequent reports.--The Commissioner shall prepare and
submit to the Comptroller General and Congress on not less
than an annual basis a report that contains each updated or
revised study.
SEC. 307. ASSESSMENT OF STUDY BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL.
(a) Assessment.--The Comptroller General shall conduct an
assessment of the study conducted by the Bureau of Customs
and
[[Page H3508]]
Border Protection under section 306 and shall conduct an
assessment of each update or revision to the study. In
conducting the assessment, the Comptroller General is
authorized to solicit input from any personnel of the Bureau.
(b) Report.--The Comptroller General shall prepare and
submit to Congress a report that contains the results of each
assessment conducted pursuant to subsection (a), including
any recommendations thereto that the Comptroller General
determines to be appropriate.
SEC. 308. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR INCREASE IN
FULL-TIME BORDER PATROL AGENTS.
(a) Increase.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary of Homeland Security $300,000,000 for fiscal
year 2006 to increase by not less than 2,000 the number of
positions for full-time active-duty Border Patrol agents
within the Department of Homeland Security above the number
of such positions for which funds were allotted for fiscal
year 2005.
(b) Associated Costs.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland Security
$80,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 to pay the costs associated
with the new hires described in subsection (a), including--
(1) costs to increase by 166 of the number of support staff
positions;
(2) costs to increase by 1333 in the number of vehicles;
and
(3) costs to train the new hires described in subsection
(a) under an agreement with a Department training facility
other than the Artesia Border Patrol Academy.
(c) Facilities Impact Assessment.--The Secretary of
Homeland Security shall conduct a facilities impact
assessment and report findings from such assessment, with
detailed estimates and costs. to the Committee on Homeland
Security of the United States House of Representatives.
SEC. 309. BORDER PATROL UNIT FOR VIRGIN ISLANDS.
Not later than September 30, 2006, the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall establish at least one Border Patrol
unit for the Virgin Islands of the United States.
SEC. 310. REQUIRING REPORT ON THE ``ONE FACE AT THE BORDER
INITIATIVE''.
(a) In General.--Not later than September 30 of each of the
calendar years 2005, 2006, and 2007, the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall prepare and submit to the Congress a
report--
(1) describing and analyzing the goals, success, and
shortfalls of the One Face at the Border Initiative at
enhancing security and facilitating travel;
(2) providing a breakdown of the number of personnel of the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection that were personnel
of the United States Customs Service prior to the
establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, that
were personnel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service
prior to the establishment of the Department of Homeland
Security, and that were hired after the establishment of the
Department of Homeland Security;
(3) describing the training time provided to each employee
on an annual basis for the various training components of the
One Face at the Border Initiative;
(4) outlining the steps taken by the Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection to ensure that expertise is retained with
respect to customs, immigration, and agriculture inspection
functions under the One Face at the Border Initiative; and
(5) reviewing whether the missions of customs, agriculture,
and immigration are appropriately and adequately addressed.
(b) Assessment of Report.--The Comptroller General of the
United States shall the review the reports submitted under
subsection (a) and shall provide an assessment to the
appropriate congressional committees (as defined in section 2
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101))
regarding the effectiveness of the One Face at the Border
Initiative.
Subtitle B--CIS Workflow Study
SEC. 311. CIS WORKFLOW, TECHNOLOGY, AND STAFFING ASSESSMENT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
conduct a comprehensive assessment of the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services (otherwise know as
``U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services'') within the
Department of Homeland Security. Such assessment shall
include study of personnel, administrative and technical
support positions, technology, training, and facilities.
(b) Workflow.--As part of the study, the Secretary shall
examine all elements of such entity's workflow, in order to
determine the most efficient way to handle its work without
compromising security. Any bottlenecks associated with
security matters should be identified and recommendations
should be made on ways to minimize such bottlenecks without
compromising security. The Secretary should assess the
division of work, adequacy of infrastructure (particularly
information technology), as well as personnel needs.
(c) Interactions With Other Organizations.--As part of the
study, the Secretary shall examine such entity's interactions
with other government organizations. Specifically, the
Secretary shall determine whether existing memoranda of
understanding and divisions of responsibility, especially any
which pre-date the establishment of the Department of
Homeland Security, need to be revised in order to improve
service delivery.
(d) Backlog Cost.--As part of the study, the Secretary
shall assess the current cost of maintaining the backlog (as
defined in section 203 of the Immigration Services and
Infrastructure Improvements Act of 2000 (8 U.S.C. 1572)).
(e) Information Technology.--Aspects of this study related
to information technology should be coordinated with the
Chief Information Officer for the Department of Homeland
Security and should build on the findings of the task force
established by section 3 of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of
2000 (Public Law 106-215).
(f) Submission.--The study should be completed not later
than January 1, 2006, and shall be submitted to the Committee
on Homeland Security of the United States House of
Representatives. It shall include recommendations for
resource allocation.
Subtitle C--Report on Border Violence
SEC. 321. STUDIES RELATED TO FEASIBILITY AND COST OF LOCATING
AND REMOVING EIGHT MILLION UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
FROM UNITED STATES.
(a) Feasibility Study.--Commencing not later than 30 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller
General of the United States shall conduct a study to
evaluate--
(1) the ability of the Department of Homeland Security to
develop and implement a program to locate and initiate
removal proceedings on the 8,000,000 undocumented immigrants
who are presently residing in the United States;
(2) an estimate of the additional personnel and other
additional resources such a project would require for the
Department and the Executive Office for Immigration Review;
(3) the amount of time that such development and
implementation would require;
(4) the total cost to develop and implement this program;
(5) the ability of State and local police departments to
assist the Department in implementing this program;
(6) an estimate of the additional personnel and other
additional resources the State and local police departments
would need if they participate with the Department in
implementing this program;
(7) the amount of time away from other State and local
police work that would be required of State and local police
departments to participate in this program; and
(8) the total cost to State and local governments of such
participation.
(b) Study on Consequences of Locating and Removing Eight
Million Undocumented Aliens.--Commencing not later than 30
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a
study on the adverse consequences that could result from
locating and removing 8,000,000 undocumented aliens from the
United States.
Subtitle D--Center of Excellence on Border Security
SEC. 331. CENTER OF EXCELLENCE ON BORDER SECURITY.
The Secretary shall establish a university-based Center for
Border Security following the merit-review processes and
procedures that have been established for selecting
University Programs Centers of Excellence. The Center shall
conduct research, examine existing and emerging border
security technology and systems, and provide education,
technical, and analytical assistance for the Department of
Homeland Security to effectively secure the Nation's borders.
TITLE IV--SECURING CHEMICAL PLANTS AND OTHER CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Subtitle A--Chemical Security Improvement
SEC. 411. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Chemical Security
Improvement Act of 2005''.
SEC. 412. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle:
(1) Alternative approaches.--The term ``alternative
approach'' means an approach that significantly reduces or
eliminates the threat or consequences of a terrorist release
from a chemical source, including an approach that--
(A) uses smaller quantities, nonhazardous forms, or less
hazardous forms of dangerous substances;
(B) replaces a dangerous substance with a nonhazardous or
less hazardous substance; or
(C) uses nonhazardous or less hazardous conditions or
processes.
(2) Chemical source.--The term ``chemical source'' means a
facility listed by the Secretary under section 413(e) as a
chemical source; and--
(3) Dangerous substance.--The term ``dangerous substance''
means a substance present at a chemical source that--
(A) can cause death, injury, or serious adverse effects to
human health or the environment; or
(B) could harm critical infrastructure or national
security.
(4) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of Homeland Security.
(5) Environment.--The term ``environment'' means--
(A) the navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous
zone, and the ocean waters of which the natural resources are
under the exclusive management authority of the United
States; and
(B) any other surface water, ground water, drinking water
supply, land surface or subsurface strata, or ambient air
within the
[[Page H3509]]
United States or under the jurisdiction of the United States.
(6) Owner or operator.--The term ``owner or operator''
means any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or
supervises a chemical source.
(7) Release.--The term ``release'' means any spilling,
leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging,
injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the
environment (including the abandonment or discarding of
barrels, containers, and other closed receptacles containing
any hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant), but
excludes--
(A) any release which results in exposure to persons solely
within a workplace, with respect to a claim which such
persons may assert against the employer of such persons;
(B) emissions from the engine exhaust of a motor vehicle,
rolling stock, aircraft, vessel, or pipeline pumping station
engine; or
(C) the normal application of fertilizer or pesticide.
(8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Homeland Security.
(9) Security measure.--
(A) In general.--The term ``security measure'' means an
action carried out to ensure or enhance the security of a
chemical source.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``security measure'', with
respect to a chemical source, includes measures such as--
(i) employee training and background checks;
(ii) the limitation and prevention of access to controls of
the chemical source;
(iii) the protection of the perimeter of the chemical
source, including the deployment of armed physical security
personnel;
(iv) the installation and operation of intrusion detection
sensors;
(v) the implementation of measures to increase computer or
computer network security;
(vi) the installation of measures to protect against long-
range weapons;
(vii) the installation of measures and controls to protect
against or reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack; and
(viii) the implementation of any other security-related
measures or the conduct of any similar security-related
activity, as determined by the Secretary.
(10) Terrorism.--The term ``terrorism'' has the meaning
given to that term in section 2 of the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101).
(11) Terrorist release.--The term ``terrorist release''
means--
(A) a release from a chemical source into the environment
of a dangerous substance that is caused by an act of
terrorism; and
(B) the theft of a dangerous substance by a person for off-
site release in furtherance of an act of terrorism.
SEC. 413. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND SITE SECURITY PLANS.
(a) Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this subtitle, the Secretary shall
promulgate regulations that--
(A) require the owner or operator of each chemical source
included on the list described in subsection (e)(1)--
(i) to conduct an assessment of the vulnerability of the
chemical source to a terrorist release; and
(ii) to prepare and implement a site security plan that
addresses the results of the vulnerability assessment; and
(B) establish procedures, protocols, and standards for
vulnerability assessments and site security plans.
(2) Contents of vulnerability assessment.--A vulnerability
assessment required under the regulations promulgated under
paragraph (1) or any assessment determined substantially
equivalent by the Secretary under subsection (c) shall
include the identification and evaluation of--
(A) critical assets and infrastructures;
(B) hazards that may result from a terrorist release; and
(C) weaknesses in--
(i) physical security;
(ii) structural integrity of containment, processing, and
other critical infrastructure;
(iii) protection systems;
(iv) procedural and employment policies;
(v) communication systems;
(vi) transportation infrastructure in the proximity of the
chemical source;
(vii) utilities;
(viii) contingency response; and
(ix) other areas as determined by the Secretary.
(3) Contents of site security plan.--A site security plan
required under the regulations promulgated under paragraph
(1) or any plan submitted to the Secretary under subsection
(c)--
(A) shall include security measures to significantly reduce
the vulnerability of the chemical source covered by the plan
to a terrorist release;
(B) shall describe, at a minimum, particular equipment,
plans, and procedures that could be implemented or used by or
at the chemical source in the event of a terrorist release;
(C) shall provide for the assessment and, as applicable,
implementation of alternative approaches in accordance with
section 415; and
(D) shall be developed in consultation with local law
enforcement, first responders, employees, and local emergency
planning committees, as established pursuant to section
301(c) of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know
Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11001(c)).
(4) Security exercises.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this subtitle, the Secretary shall
promulgate regulations establishing procedures, protocols,
and standards for the conduct of security exercises,
including--
(A) the performance of force-on-force exercises that--
(i) involve physical security personnel employed by the
owner or operator of the chemical source to act as the force
designated to defend the facility;
(ii) involve personnel designated by the Secretary to act
as the force designated to simulate a terrorist attempt to
attack the chemical source to cause a terrorist release;
(iii) are designed, overseen, and evaluated by the
Department; and
(iv) are conducted at least once every 3 years; and
(B) the performance of all other such exercises at periodic
intervals necessary to ensure the optimal performance of
security measures.
(5) Guidance to small businesses.--Not later than 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall publish guidance to assist small businesses in
complying with paragraphs (2) and (3).
(6) Threat information.--To the maximum extent practicable
under applicable authority and in the interests of national
security, the Secretary shall provide to an owner or operator
of a chemical source required to prepare a vulnerability
assessment and site security plan threat information that is
relevant to the chemical source.
(7) Coordinated assessments and plans.--The regulations
promulgated under paragraph (1) shall permit the development
and implementation of coordinated vulnerability assessments
and site security plans in any case in which more than 1
chemical source is operating at a single location or at
contiguous locations, including cases in which a chemical
source is under the control of more than 1 owner or operator.
(b) Certification and Submission.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (c), each
owner or operator of a chemical source shall certify in
writing to the Secretary that the owner or operator has
completed a vulnerability assessment and has developed and
implemented (or is implementing) a site security plan in
accordance with this subtitle, including--
(A) regulations promulgated under subsection (a)(1); and
(B) any existing vulnerability assessment or security plan
endorsed by the Secretary under subsection (c)(1).
(2) Submission.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
the promulgation of regulations under subsection (a)(1), an
owner or operator of a chemical source shall provide to the
Secretary copies of the vulnerability assessment and site
security plan of the chemical source for review.
(B) Certification.--
(i) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date on
which the Secretary receives copies of the vulnerability
assessment and site security plan of a chemical source under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall determine whether the
chemical source is in compliance with the requirements of
this Act, including--
(I) paragraph (1);
(II) regulations promulgated under subsections (a)(1) and
(a)(3); and
(III) any existing vulnerability assessment or site
security plan endorsed by the Secretary under subsection
(c)(1).
(ii) Certificate.--If the Secretary determines that the
chemical source is in compliance with the requirements of
this Act, the Secretary shall provide to the chemical source
and make available for public inspection a certificate of
approval that contains the following statement (in which
statement the bracketed space shall be the name of the
chemical source): ``[______] is in compliance with the
Chemical Security Improvement Act of 2005.''
(iii) Determination of noncompliance.--If the Secretary
determines under clause (i) that a chemical source is not in
compliance with the requirements of this Act, the Secretary
shall exercise the authority provided in section 416.
(iv) Report to congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
promulgation of regulations in subsection (a)(1) and for
every year afterwards, the Secretary shall submit to the
Congress a report outlining the number of facilities that
have provided vulnerability assessments and site security
plans to the Secretary, what portion of these submissions
have been reviewed by the Secretary, and what portion of
these submissions are in compliance with clause (i).
(3) Oversight.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall, at such times and
places as the Secretary determines to be appropriate, conduct
or require the conduct of vulnerability assessments and other
activities (including qualified third-party audits) to ensure
and evaluate compliance with this subtitle (including
regulations promulgated under subsection (a)(1) and (c)(1)).
(B) Right of entry.--In carrying out this subtitle, the
Secretary (or a designee), on presentation of credentials,
shall have a right of entry to, on, or through any premises
of an owner or operator of a chemical source.
(C) Requests for records.--In carrying out this subtitle,
the Secretary (or a designee) may require the submission of,
or, on
[[Page H3510]]
presentation of credentials, may at reasonable times seek
access to and copy any documentation necessary for--
(i) review or analysis of a vulnerability assessment or
site security plan; or
(ii) implementation of a site security plan.
(D) Compliance.--If the Secretary determines that an owner
or operator of a chemical source is not maintaining,
producing, or permitting access to the premises of a chemical
source or records as required by this paragraph, the
Secretary may issue an order requiring compliance with the
relevant provisions of this section.
(E) Qualified third-party audits.--The Secretary shall
establish standards as to the qualifications of third-party
auditors. Such standards shall ensure the qualifications of
the third-party auditor provide sufficient expertise in--
(i) chemical site security vulnerabilities;
(ii) chemical site security measures;
(iii) alternative approaches; and
(iv) such other areas as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate and necessary.
(4) Submission of changes.--The owner or operator of a
chemical source shall provide to the Secretary a description
of any significant change that is made to the vulnerability
assessment or site security plan required for the chemical
source under this section, not later than 90 days after the
date the change is made.
(c) Existing Vulnerability Assessments and Security
Plans.--Upon submission of a petition by an owner or operator
of a chemical source to the Secretary in conjunction with a
submission under subsection (b)(2)(A), the Secretary--
(1) may endorse any vulnerability assessment or security
plan--
(A) that was conducted, developed, or required by--
(i) industry;
(ii) State or local authorities; or
(iii) other applicable law; and
(B) that was conducted before, on, or after the date of
enactment of this subtitle; and
(C) the contents of which the Secretary determines meet the
standards established under the requirements of subsections
(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3);
(2) may make an endorsement of an existing vulnerability
assessment or security plan under paragraph (1) contingent on
modification of the vulnerability assessment or security plan
to address--
(A) a particular threat or type of threat; or
(B) a requirement under (a)(2) or (a)(3).
(d) Regulatory Criteria.--In exercising the authority under
subsections (a), (b), (c), or (e) with respect to a chemical
source, the Secretary shall consider--
(1) the likelihood that a chemical source will be the
target of terrorism;
(2) the potential extent of death, injury, or serious
adverse effects to human health or the environment that would
result from a terrorist release;
(3) the potential harm to critical infrastructure and
national security from a terrorist release; and
(4) such other security-related factors as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate and necessary to protect the
public health and welfare, critical infrastructure, and
national security.
(e) List of Chemical Sources.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this subtitle, the Secretary shall develop a
list of chemical sources in existence as of that date.
(2) Considerations.--In developing the list under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall take into consideration the criteria
specified in subsection (d).
(3) Prioritization.--In developing the list under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall determine the potential extent of
death, injury, or severe adverse effects to human health that
would result from a terrorist release of dangerous substances
from a chemical source.
(4) Scope.--In developing the list under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall include at least those facilities that pose a
risk of potential death, injury, or severe adverse effects to
not fewer than 15,000 individuals.
(5) Future determinations.--Not later than 3 years after
the date of the promulgation of regulations under subsection
(a)(1), and every 3 years thereafter, the Secretary shall,
after considering the criteria described in subsection (d)--
(A) determine whether additional facilities (including, as
of the date of the determination, facilities that are
operational and facilities that will become operational in
the future) shall be considered to be a chemical source under
this subtitle;
(B) determine whether any chemical source identified on the
most recent list under paragraph (1) no longer presents a
risk sufficient to justify retention of classification as a
chemical source under this subtitle; and
(C) update the list as appropriate.
(f) 5-Year Review.--Not later than 5 years after the date
of the certification of a vulnerability assessment and a site
security plan under subsection (b)(1), and not less often
than every 5 years thereafter (or on such a schedule as the
Secretary may establish by regulation), the owner or operator
of the chemical source covered by the vulnerability
assessment or site security plan shall--
(1) ensure the vulnerability assessment and site security
plan meet the most recent regulatory standards issues under
subsection (a)(1);
(2)(A) certify to the Secretary that the chemical source
has completed the review and implemented any modifications to
the site security plan; and
(B) submit to the Secretary a description of any changes to
the vulnerability assessment or site security plan; and
(3) submit to the Secretary a new assessment of alternative
approaches.
(g) Protection of Information.--
(1) Critical infrastructure information.--Except with
respect to certifications specified in subsections (b)(1) and
(f)(2)(A), vulnerability assessments and site security plans
obtained in accordance with this subtitle, and all
information derived from those vulnerability assessments and
site security plans that could pose a risk to a particular
chemical source, shall be deemed critical infrastructure
information as defined in section 212 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 131), and subject to all
protections under sections 213 and 214 of that Act.
(2) Exceptions to penalties.--Section 214(f) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 133(f)) shall not
apply to a person described in that section that discloses
information described in paragraph (1)--
(A) for use in any administrative or judicial proceeding to
impose a penalty for failure to comply with a requirement of
this subtitle; or
(B) for the purpose of making a disclosure evidencing
government, owner or operator, or employee activities that
threaten the security of a chemical source or are
inconsistent with the requirements of this subtitle.
(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall
be construed to authorize the withholding of information from
members of Congress acting in their official capacity.
SEC. 414. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.
(a) In General.--No person employed at a chemical source
may be discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed,
or in any other manner discriminated against because of any
lawful act done by the person--
(1) to provide information, cause information to be
provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding
any conduct which the person reasonably believes constitutes
a violation of any law, rule or regulation related to the
security of the chemical source, or any other threat to the
security of the chemical source, when the information or
assistance is provided to or the investigation is conducted
by--
(A) a Federal regulatory or law enforcement agency;
(B) any member or committee of the Congress; or
(C) a person with supervisory authority over the person (or
such other person who has the authority to investigate,
discover, or terminate misconduct); or
(2) to file, cause to be filed, testify, participate in, or
otherwise assist in a proceeding or action filed or about to
be filed relating to a violation of any law, rule, or
regulation related to the security of a chemical source or
any other threat to the security of a chemical source; or
(3) to refuse to violate or assist in the violation of any
law, rule, or regulation related to the security of chemical
sources.
(b) Enforcement Action.--
(1) In general.--A person who alleges discharge or other
discrimination by any person in violation of subsection (a)
may seek relief under subsection (c), by--
(A) filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor; or
(B) if the Secretary of Labor has not issued a final
decision within 180 days of the filing of the complaint and
there is no showing that such delay is due to the bad faith
of the claimant, bringing an action at law or equity for de
novo review in the appropriate district court of the United
States, which shall have jurisdiction over such an action
without regard to the amount in controversy.
(2) Procedure.--
(A) In general.--An action under paragraph (1)(A) shall be
governed under the rules and procedures set forth in section
42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
(B) Exception.--Notification made under section 42121(b)(1)
of title 49, United States Code, shall be made to the person
named in the complaint and to the person's employer.
(C) Burdens of proof.--An action brought under paragraph
(1)(B) shall be governed by the legal burdens of proof set
forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
(D) Statute of limitations.--An action under paragraph (1)
shall be commenced not later than 90 days after the date on
which the violation occurs.
(c) Remedies.--
(1) In general.--A person prevailing in any action under
subsection (b)(1) shall be entitled to all relief necessary
to make the person whole.
(2) Compensatory damages.--Relief for any action under
paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the
person would have had, but for the discrimination;
(B) the amount of back pay, with interest; and
(C) compensation for any special damages sustained as a
result of the discrimination, including litigation costs,
expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees.
(d) Rights Retained by Person.--Nothing in this section
shall be deemed to diminish
[[Page H3511]]
the rights, privileges, or remedies of any person under any
Federal or State law, or under any collective bargaining
agreement.
SEC. 415. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES.
(a) Assessment.--
(1) In general.--A site security plan under section
413(a)(1) shall provide for the conduct of an assessment of
alternative approaches.
(2) Inclusions.--An assessment under this subsection shall
include information on--
(A) the nature of each alternative approach considered,
such as--
(i) the quantity of each dangerous substance considered for
reduction;
(ii) the form of any dangerous substance considered for
replacement and the form of potential replacements
considered;
(iii) any dangerous substance considered for replacement
and a description of any potential replacements considered;
and
(iv) any process or conditions considered for modification
and a description of the potential modification;
(B) the degree to which each alternative approach
considered could potentially reduce the threat or consequence
of a terrorist release; and
(C) specific considerations that led to the implementation
or rejection of each alternative approach, including--
(i) requirements under this subtitle;
(ii) cost;
(iii) cost savings;
(iv) availability of replacement or modification technology
or technical expertise;
(v) the applicability of existing replacement or
modification technology to the chemical source; and
(vi) any other factor that the owner of operator of the
chemical source considered in judging the practicability of
each alternative approach.
(b) Implementation.--
(1) In general.--A chemical source described in paragraph
(2) shall implement options to significantly reduce or
eliminate the threat or consequences of a terrorist release
through the use of alternative approaches that would not
create an equal or greater risk to human health or the
environment.
(2) Applicability.--This subsection applies to a chemical
source if--
(A) the chemical source poses a potential of harm to more
than 15,000 people, unless the owner or operator of the
chemical source can demonstrate to the Secretary through an
assessment of alternative approaches that available
alternative approaches--
(i) would not significantly reduce the number of people at
risk of death, injury, or serious adverse effects resulting
from a terrorist release;
(ii) cannot feasibly be incorporated into the operation of
the chemical source; or
(iii) would significantly and demonstrably impair the
ability of the owner or operator of the chemical source to
continue its business; or
(B)(i) the chemical source poses a potential of harm to
fewer than 15,000 people; and
(ii) implementation of options to significantly reduce the
threat or consequence of a terrorist release through the use
of alternative approaches if practicable in the judgment of
the owner or operator of the chemical source.
(c) Alternative Approaches Clearinghouse.--
(1) Authority.--The Secretary shall establish a publicly
available clearinghouse to compile and disseminate
information on the use and availability of alternative
approaches.
(2) Inclusions.--The clearinghouse shall include
information on--
(A) general and specific types of alternative approaches;
(B) combinations of chemical sources, substances of
concern, and hazardous processes or conditions for which
alternative approaches could be appropriate;
(C) the scope of current use and availability of specific
alternative approaches;
(D) the costs and cost savings resulting from alternative
approaches;
(E) technological transfer;
(F) the availability of technical assistance;
(G) current users of alternative approaches; and
(H) such other information as the Administrator deems
appropriate.
(3) Collection of information.--The Secretary shall collect
information for the clearinghouse--
(A) from documents submitted by owners or operators
pursuant to this Act;
(B) by surveying owners or operators who have registered
their facilities pursuant to part 68 of title 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (or successor regulations); or
(C) through such other methods as the Secretary deems
appropriate.
(4) Public availability.--Information available publicly
through the clearinghouse shall not allow the identification
of any specific facility or violate the exemptions of section
552(b)(4) of title 5, United States Code.
(5) Study of alternative and inherently safer approaches to
chemical safety and security.--
(A) Study.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into an
arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to provide
for a comprehensive study of--
(i) the currently available chemical technologies,
practices, strategies, and other methods for improving the
inherent safety and security of United States chemical
manufacturing, transportation, and usage sites and
infrastructure against the threat of terrorism;
(ii) methods for assessing the degree of inherent safety of
chemical technologies, practices, strategies, and other
means;
(iii) methods for integrating inherently safer chemical
technologies, practices, strategies, and other means into
risk management for critical infrastructure protection; and
(iv) progress and directions in research in chemical
sciences and technology that may provide new chemical
technologies, practices, strategies, and other means to
improve inherent safety and security.
(B) Report.--
(i) In general.--The arrangement entered into under
subparagraph (A) shall provide that the National Academy of
Sciences shall submit to the Secretary a final report on the
study conducted under subparagraph (A) by no later than 18
months after a contract for the arrangement is signed.
(ii) Recommendations.--The report under this subparagraph
shall include such recommendations regarding government and
private sector practices to encourage the adoption of
currently available inherently safer and more secure chemical
technologies and strategies to reduce the vulnerabilities of
existing and future chemical manufacturing, transportation,
and usage sites and infrastructure, and regarding research
directions in green chemistry and chemical engineering that
would lead to inherently more secure, safer, and economically
viable chemical products, processes, and procedures, as the
Academy determines appropriate.
(C) Transmission to congress.--The Secretary shall promptly
transmit a copy of the report under this subparagraph to the
Congress and make the report available to the public.
SEC. 416. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Failure to Comply.--If an owner or operator of a non-
Federal chemical source fails to certify or submit a
vulnerability assessment or site security plan in accordance
with this subtitle, the Secretary may issue an order
requiring the certification and submission of a vulnerability
assessment or site security plan in accordance with section
413(b).
(b) Disapproval.--The Secretary may disapprove under
subsection (a) a vulnerability assessment or site security
plan submitted under section 413(b) or (c) if the Secretary
determines that--
(1) the vulnerability assessment or site security plan does
not comply with regulations promulgated under section
413(a)(1), or the procedure, protocol, or standard endorsed
or recognized under section 413(c); or
(2) the site security plan, or the implementation of the
site security plan, is insufficient to address--
(A) the results of a vulnerability assessment of a chemical
source; or
(B) a threat of a terrorist release.
(c) Compliance.--If the Secretary disapproves a
vulnerability assessment or site security plan of a chemical
source under subsection (b), the Secretary shall--
(1) provide the owner or operator of the chemical source a
written notification of the determination that includes a
clear explanation of deficiencies in the vulnerability
assessment, site security plan, or implementation of the
assessment or plan;
(2) consult with the owner or operator of the chemical
source to identify appropriate steps to achieve compliance;
and
(3) if, following that consultation, the owner or operator
of the chemical source does not achieve compliance by such
date as the Secretary determines to be appropriate under the
circumstances, issue an order requiring the owner or operator
to correct specified deficiencies.
(d) Protection of Information.--Any determination of
disapproval or order made or issued under this section shall
be exempt from disclosure--
(1) under section 552 of title 5, United States Code;
(2) under any State or local law providing for public
access to information; and
(3) except as provided in section 413(g)(2), in any Federal
or State civil or administrative proceeding.
SEC. 417. INTERAGENCY TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND COOPERATION.
The Secretary--
(1) in addition to such consultation as is required in this
subtitle, shall consult with Federal agencies with relevant
expertise, and may request those Federal agencies to provide
technical and analytical support, in implementing this
subtitle; and
(2) may provide reimbursement for such technical and
analytical support received as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
SEC. 418. PENALTIES.
(a) Judicial Relief.--In a civil action brought in United
States district court, any owner or operator of a chemical
source that violates or fails to comply with any order issued
by the Secretary under this subtitle or a site security plan
submitted to the Secretary under this subtitle or recognized
by the Secretary, for each day on which the violation occurs
or the failure to comply continues, may be subject to--
(1) an order for injunctive relief; and
(2) a civil penalty of not more than $50,000.
(b) Administrative Penalties.--
(1) Penalty orders.--The Secretary may issue an
administrative penalty of not more than $250,000 for failure
to comply with an order issued by the Secretary under this
subtitle.
[[Page H3512]]
(2) Notice and hearing.--Before issuing an order described
in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide to the person
against whom the penalty is to be assessed--
(A) written notice of the proposed order; and
(B) the opportunity to request, not later than 30 days
after the date on which the person receives the notice, a
hearing on the proposed order.
(3) Procedures.--The Secretary may promulgate regulations
outlining the procedures for administrative hearings and
appropriate review under this subsection, including necessary
deadlines.
SEC. 419. PROTECTION OF INFORMATION.
(a) Definition of Protected Information.--
(1) In general.--In this section, the term ``protected
information'' means--
(A) a vulnerability assessment or site security plan
required by subsection (a) or (b) of section 413;
(B) any study, analysis, or other document generated by the
owner or operator of a chemical source primarily for the
purpose of preparing a vulnerability assessment or site
security plan (including any alternative approach analysis);
or
(C) any other information provided to or obtained or
obtainable by the Secretary solely for the purposes of this
subtitle from the owner or operator of a chemical source
that, if released, is reasonably likely to increase the
probability or consequences of a terrorist release.
(2) Other obligations unaffected.--Nothing in this section
affects--
(A) the handling, treatment, or disclosure of information
obtained from a chemical source under any other law;
(B) any obligation of the owner or operator of a chemical
source to submit or make available information to a Federal,
State, or local government agency under, or otherwise to
comply with, any other law; or
(C) the public disclosure of information derived from
protected information, so long as the information disclosed--
(i) would not divulge methods or processes entitled to
protection as trade secrets in accordance with the purposes
of section 1905 of title 18, United States Code;
(ii) does not identify any particular chemical source; and
(iii) is not reasonably likely to increase the probability
or consequences of a terrorist release, even if the same
information is also contained in a document referred to in
paragraph (1).
(b) Disclosure Exemption.--Protected information shall be
exempt from disclosure under--
(1) section 552 of title 5, United States Code; and
(2) any State or local law providing for public access to
information.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Subsection (b) shall not be
construed to apply to a certificate of compliance or a
determination of noncompliance under clause (ii) or (iii),
respectively, of section 413(b)(2)(B).
SEC. 420. NO EFFECT ON REQUIREMENTS UNDER OTHER LAW.
Nothing in this subtitle affects any duty or other
requirement imposed under any other Federal or State law.
Subtitle B--Critical Infrastructure Prioritization
SEC. 421. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
(a) Completion of Prioritization.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall complete the prioritization of the
Nation's critical infrastructure according to all of the
following criteria:
(1) The threat of terrorist attack, based on threat
information received and analyzed by the Office of
Information Analysis of the Department regarding the
intentions and capabilities of terrorist groups and other
potential threats to the Nation's critical infrastructure.
(2) The likelihood that an attack would cause the
destruction or significant disruption of such infrastructure.
(3) The likelihood that an attack would result in
substantial numbers of deaths and serious bodily injuries, a
substantial adverse impact on the national economy, or a
substantial adverse impact on national security.
(b) Cooperation.--Such prioritization shall be developed in
cooperation with other relevant Federal agencies, State,
local, and tribal governments, and the private sector, as
appropriate.
SEC. 422. SECURITY REVIEW.
(a) Requirement.--Not later than 9 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in coordination
with other relevant Federal agencies, State, local, and
tribal governments, and the private sector, as appropriate,
shall--
(1) review existing Federal, State, local, tribal, and
private sector plans for securing the critical infrastructure
included in the prioritization developed under section 421;
(2) recommend changes to existing plans for securing such
infrastructure, as the Secretary determines necessary; and
(3) coordinate and contribute to protective efforts of
other Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies and the
private sector, as appropriate, as directed in Homeland
Security Presidential Directive 7.
(b) Contents of Plans.--The recommendations made under
subsection (a)(2) shall include--
(1) necessary protective measures to secure such
infrastructure, including milestones and timeframes for
implementation; and
(2) to the extent practicable, performance metrics to
evaluate the benefits to both national security and the
Nation's economy from the implementation of such protective
measures.
SEC. 423. IMPLEMENTATION REPORT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 15 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a
report to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate on the implementation of
section 422. Such report shall detail--
(1) the Secretary's review and coordination of security
plans under section 422; and
(2) the Secretary's oversight of the execution and
effectiveness of such plans.
(b) Update.--Not later than 1 year after the submission of
the report under subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide
an update of such report to the congressional committees
described in subsection (a).
TITLE V--SECURING AIRPORTS, BAGGAGE, AND AIR CARGO
Subtitle A--Prohibition Against Increase in Security Service Fees
SEC. 501. PROHIBITION AGAINST INCREASE IN SECURITY SERVICE
FEES.
None of the funds authorized under this Act may be derived
from an increase in security service fees established under
section 44940 of title 49, United States Code.
Subtitle B--Aviation Security
SEC. 511. FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICERS.
(a) Training, Supervision, and Equipment.--Section 44921(c)
of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(3) Dates of training.--The Secretary shall ensure that a
pilot who is eligible to receive Federal flight deck officer
training is offered a choice of training dates and is
provided at least 30 days advance notice of the dates.
``(4) Travel to training facilities.--The Secretary shall
establish a program to improve travel access to Federal
flight deck officer training facilities through the use of
charter flights or improved scheduled air carrier service.
``(5) Requalification and recurrent training.--
``(A) Standards.--The Secretary shall establish
qualification standards for facilities where Federal flight
deck officers can receive requalification and recurrent
training.
``(B) Locations.--The Secretary shall provide for
requalification and recurrent training at geographically
diverse facilities, including military facilities, Federal,
State, and local law enforcement facilities, and private
training facilities that meet the qualification standards
established under subparagraph (A).
``(6) Costs of training.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall provide Federal
flight deck officer training, requalification training, and
recurrent training to eligible pilots at no cost to the
pilots or the air carriers that employ the pilots.
``(B) Transportation and expenses.--The Secretary may
provide travel expenses to a pilot receiving Federal flight
deck officer training, requalification training, or recurrent
training.
``(7) Issuance of badges.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall
issue badges to Federal flight deck officers.''.
(b) Revocation of Deputization of Pilot as Federal Flight
Deck Officer.--Section 44921(d)(4) of title 49, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(4) Revocation.--
``(A) Orders.--The Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security
(Transportation Security Administration) may issue, for good
cause, an order revoking the deputization of a Federal flight
deck officer under this section. The order shall include the
specific reasons for the revocation.
``(B) Hearings.--An individual who is adversely affected by
an order of the Assistant Secretary under subparagraph (A) is
entitled to a hearing on the record. When conducting a
hearing under this section, the administrative law judge
shall not be bound by findings of fact or interpretations of
laws and regulations of the Assistant Secretary.
``(C) Appeals.--An appeal from a decision of an
administrative law judge as a result of a hearing under
subparagraph (B) shall be made to the Secretary or the
Secretary's designee.
``(D) Judicial review of a final order.--The determination
and order of the Secretary revoking the deputization of a
Federal flight deck officer under this section shall be final
and conclusive unless the individual against whom such an
order is issued files an application for judicial review, not
later than 60 days following the date of entry of such order,
in the appropriate United States court of appeals.''.
(c) Federal Flight Deck Officer Firearm Carriage Pilot
Program.--Section 44921(f) of title 49, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Pilot program.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall implement a
pilot program to allow pilots participating in the Federal
flight deck officer program to transport their firearms on
their persons. The Secretary may prescribe any training,
equipment, or procedures that the Secretary determines
necessary to ensure safety and maximize weapon retention.
[[Page H3513]]
``(B) Review.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
initiation of the pilot program, the Secretary shall conduct
a review of the safety record of the pilot program and
transmit a report on the results of the review to Congress.
``(C) Option.--If the Secretary as part of the review under
subparagraph (B) determines that the safety level obtained
under the pilot program is comparable to the safety level
determined under existing methods of pilots carrying firearms
on aircraft, the Secretary shall allow all pilots
participating in the Federal flight deck officer program the
option of carrying their firearm on their person subject to
such requirements as the Secretary determines appropriate.''.
(d) References to Under Secretary.--Section 44921 of title
49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``Under Secretary of
Transportation for Security'' and inserting ``Secretary of
Homeland Security'';
(2) by striking ``Under Secretary'' each place it appears
and inserting ``Secretary''; and
(3) by striking ``Under Secretary's'' each place it appears
and inserting ``Secretary's''.
SEC. 512. LETTERS OF INTENT.
(a) Installation of Eds Systems.--Section 44923(d) of title
49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(7) Installation of eds systems.--Upon the request of a
sponsor for an airport, the Assistant Secretary for Homeland
Security (Transportation Security Administration) shall
revise a letter of intent issued under this subsection to
provide for reimbursement of such additional costs as may be
necessary to achieve complete in-line explosive detection
system installation at the airport.''.
(b) Federal Share.--Section 44923(e) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Deadline for revisions.--The Assistant Secretary for
Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration)
shall revise letters of intent referred to in paragraph (2)
not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this
paragraph.
``(4) Extension of reimbursement schedules.--If the
Assistant Secretary considers it necessary and appropriate
due to fiscal constraints in any fiscal year, the Assistant
Secretary, for purposes of ensuring reimbursement of the
Federal share as provided in paragraph (1), may revise a
letter of intent issued under this section to extend the
reimbursement schedule for one or more fiscal years.''.
SEC. 513. AVIATION SECURITY CAPITAL FUND.
(a) In General.--Section 44923(h)(1) of title 49, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in the second sentence by striking ``in each of fiscal
years 2004 through 2007'' and inserting ``in each of fiscal
years 2004 and 2005, and $650,000,000 in each of fiscal years
2006 and 2007,''; and
(2) in the third sentence by striking ``at least
$250,000,000 in each of such fiscal years'' and inserting
``at least $250,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2004 and
2005, and at least $650,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2006
and 2007,'' .
(b) Discretionary Grants.--Section 44923(h)(3) of such
title is amended by striking ``for a fiscal year,
$125,000,000'' and inserting ``, $125,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and $525,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2006 and 2007,''.
SEC. 514. AIRPORT CHECKPOINT SCREENING EXPLOSIVE DETECTION.
Section 44940 of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subsection (d)(4) by inserting ``, other than
subsection (i),'' before ``except to''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Checkpoint Screening Security Fund.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is established in the
Department of Homeland Security a fund to be known as the
`Checkpoint Screening Security Fund'.
``(2) Deposits.--In fiscal year 2006, after amounts are
made available under section 44923(h), the next $250,000,000
derived from fees received under subsection (a)(1) shall be
available to be deposited in the Fund.
``(3) Fees.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
impose the fee authorized by subsection (a)(1) so as to
collect at least $250,000,000 in fiscal year 2006 for deposit
into the Fund.
``(4) Availability of amounts.--Amounts in the Fund shall
be available until expended for the purchase, deployment, and
installation of equipment to improve the ability of security
screening personnel at screening checkpoints to detect
explosives.''.
SEC. 515. FLIGHT COMMUNICATIONS.
Section 4021 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (118 Stat. 3723) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(d) Flight Communication.--
``(1) Study.--To expand the purposes of the study under
subsection (a), the Assistant Secretary shall conduct a study
on the viability of devices to enable discreet, wireless
communications between flight attendants, pilots, Federal air
marshals, and ground-based personnel during a passenger
commercial aircraft flight to improve coordination of
planning and activities in the event of an act of terrorism.
``(2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Assistant Secretary shall
transmit to Congress a report on the results of the study
conducted under this subsection.''.
SEC. 516. AIRPORT SITE ACCESS AND PERIMETER SECURITY.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the security directives issued by the Acting Administrator of
the Transportation Security Administration on July 6, 2004,
regarding security measures concerning access to sensitive
airport areas constitute an improvement over current practice
but are not sufficient to provide adequate airport access
controls.
(b) Access to Sterile Areas.--Not later than 6 months after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall require airport personnel including
individuals employed in positions such as aircraft
maintenance, catering personnel, aircraft cargo handlers,
aircraft workers with access to an aircraft ramp, aircraft
support facilities personnel, and personnel of airport
vendors, accessing airport sterile areas from unrestricted
areas to undergo security screening equivalent to screening
of passengers and carry-on baggage each time any of these
airport personnel enter a sterile area from an unrestricted
area. The Secretary may issue a waiver of this provision on
an airport-by-airport basis, subject to the following
requirements:
(1) The Secretary shall promptly notify Congress of any
waivers granted under this section, the purpose for which
such waivers were granted, and the duration of the waiver.
(2) Under no circumstances shall a waiver be granted for
more than 7 days, although the Secretary may issue as many
waivers to an airport as is deemed appropriate by the
Secretary. In the event of multiple waivers, the Secretary
shall provide to Congress an estimate of when the airport
will be in compliance with this subsection.
(c) Background Checks for Workers.--The Secretary shall
ensure that all unescorted airport personnel accessing
airport sterile and secured areas have successfully undergone
a background check. The background checks required under this
section shall include, at a minimum:
(1) A fingerprint-based criminal history records check, or,
if such a check is not possible, a check of the National
Criminal Information Center.
(2) A local criminal history check.
(3) Verification of previous employment.
(4) Verification of identity, to include, but not be
limited to, social security number.
(5) A check of all terrorist watch lists operated by the
Federal Government, or upon certification by the Secretary
that it is suitably comprehensive, the terrorist watch list
operated by the Terrorist Screening Center.
This subsection shall apply to all airport personnel hired
more than 3 months after the date of enactment of this Act
and for all airport personnel, regardless of the date on
which they were hired, no more than one year after such date
of enactment.
(d) Report.--The Administrator of the Transportation
Security Administration shall submit to Congress, no later
than January 31, 2005, a report that contains a description
of ongoing efforts and projected timelines for--
(1) developing and implementing uniform screening standards
for airport personnel with access to sterile areas;
(2) completing an assessment of available technologies that
are applicable to securing airport perimeters and making this
information available to airport operators; and
(3) developing and implementing a standardized approach to
conducting airport vulnerability assessments and compliance
inspections.
(e) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to provide passengers, airport
workers, or other personnel not granted regular access to
secure areas before the date of enactment of this Act
authority to do so, regardless of whether such person has
undergone security screening.
(f) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Sterile area.--The term ``sterile area'' means any part
of an airport that is regularly accessible to passengers
after having cleared a passenger security screening
checkpoint.
(2) Secure area.--The term ``secure area'' means parts of
an airport complex not typically accessible to passengers,
including areas outside of terminal buildings, baggage
handling and loading areas, parked aircraft, runways, air
control towers, and similar areas.
(3) Airport personnel.--The term ``airport personnel''
shall mean those persons, whether employed by the airport,
air carriers, or by companies that conduct business in
airports.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amount
authorized under section 901, there is authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this
section. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, this
section shall have no force or affect.
SEC. 517. MANPAD COUNTERMEASURE RESEARCH.
(a) In General.--In addition to research on air-based
MANPAD countermeasures, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall conduct research on alternate technologies, including
ground-based countermeasures.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $115,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 to carry
out this section.
[[Page H3514]]
SEC. 518. AIR CHARTER AND GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS AT
RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT.
Notwithstanding any law, regulation, or agency policy or
directive that has the effect of generally prohibiting
general aviation aircraft from landing at Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport, not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Transportation, acting through the Federal Aviation
Administration, in consultation with the Secretary of
Homeland Security, shall permit the resumption of
nonscheduled, commercial air carrier air charter and general
aviation operations at Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport. In complying with the requirements of this section,
the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the
general aviation industry.
SEC. 519. INSPECTION OF CARGO CARRIED ABOARD COMMERCIAL
AIRCRAFT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall implement a system that uses equipment, technology,
personnel, and other means to inspect 35 percent of cargo
transported in passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier
or foreign air carrier in air transportation or intrastate
transportation. At a minimum, this system shall meet the same
standards as those established by the Secretary for
equipment, technology, and personnel used to screen passenger
baggage. Within 2 years after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall use this system to inspect at
least 65 percent of cargo transported in passenger aircraft.
Not later than three years after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall use this system to inspect at
least 100 percent of cargo transported in passenger
aircraft.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the
Congress a report describing the system established under
subsection (a).
TITLE VI--SECURING TRAINS ACROSS AMERICA
Subtitle A--Public Transit Security
SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Safe Transit and Rail
Awareness and Investments for National Security Act of 2005''
or the ``Safe TRAINS Act''.
SEC. 602. HOMELAND SECURITY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION GRANTS.
(a) Authorization.--The Secretary of Homeland Security is
authorized to make grants for the purpose of improving the
security of public transportation systems against acts of
terrorism. The grant program shall be administered by the
Director of the Office of Domestic Preparedness to ensure
that the program is consistent with other Department of
Homeland Security grant programs.
(b) Considerations.--Among the considerations on which
grants shall be awarded under this section are the following:
(1) Risk of terrorism, including threat assessment,
vulnerabilities of public transportation systems, potential
effects of acts of terrorism against public transportation
systems, and past acts of terrorism against modes of
transportation.
(2) Merits of the proposed projects to increase national
security, based on a consideration of--
(A) threats;
(B) vulnerabilities;
(C) consequences, including human casualties and economic
impacts;
(D) consequence management;
(E) the likelihood that such projects would have been
pursued in the normal course of business and in the absence
of national security considerations; and
(F) feasibility, based on the technical and operational
merits of the projects.
(c) Allowable Use of Funds.--Grants made under this section
shall be used for the purposes of--
(1) support for increased capital investments in cameras,
close-circuit television, and other surveillance systems;
(2) increased capital investment in command, control, and
communications systems, including investments for redundancy
and interoperability and for improved situational awareness,
such as emergency call boxes and vehicle locator systems;
(3) increased training, including for carrying out
exercises under section 603, and technical support for public
transportation employees, especially for security awareness,
prevention, and emergency response, including evacuation and
decontamination;
(4) expanded deployment of equipment and other measures,
including canine detection teams, for the detection of
explosives and chemical, biological, radiological, and
nuclear agents;
(5) capital improvements and operating activities,
including personnel expenditures, to increase the physical
security of stations, vehicles, bridges, and tunnels;
(6) capital improvements and operating activities to
improve passenger survivability in the event of an attack,
including improvements in ventilation, drainage, fire safety
technology, emergency communications systems, lighting
systems, passenger egress, and accessibility by emergency
response personnel;
(7) acquisition of emergency response and support
equipment, including fire suppression and decontamination
equipment; and
(8) expansion of employee education and public awareness
campaigns regarding security on public transportation
systems.
(d) Eligible Recipients.--Grants shall be made available
under this section directly to owners, operators, and
providers of public transportation systems. Owners,
operators, and providers of infrastructure over which public
transportation operates, but which is not primarily used for
public transportation, may also be eligible for grants at the
discretion of the Secretary.
(e) Accountability.--The Secretary shall adopt necessary
procedures, including audits, to ensure that grants made
under this section are expended in accordance with the
purposes of this subtitle and the priorities and other
criteria developed by the Secretary. If the Secretary
determines that a recipient has used any portion of the grant
funds received under this section for a purpose other than
the allowable uses specified for that grant under this
section, the grantee shall return any amount so used to the
Treasury of the United States.
(f) Procedures for Grant Award.--The Secretary shall
prescribe procedures and schedules for the awarding of grants
under this section, including application and qualification
procedures, and a record of decision on applicant
eligibility. The Secretary shall issue a final rule
establishing the procedures not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(g) Cost Share.--Grants made under this section shall
account for no more than--
(1) 85 percent for fiscal year 2006;
(2) 80 percent for fiscal year 2007; and
(3) 75 percent for fiscal year 2008,
of the expense of the purposes for which the grants are used.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out the purposes
of this section--
(1) $1,200,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(2) $900,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
(3) $700,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
Amounts appropriated pursuant to this subsection shall remain
available until expended.
SEC. 603. TRAINING EXERCISES.
(a) Guidelines.--Not later than 4 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall publish guidelines for the conduct by recipients of
grants under section 602 of appropriate exercises for
emergency response and public transportation employee
training purposes.
(b) Plans.--Not later than 6 months after receipt of a
grant under section 602, the recipient of such grant shall
transmit to the Secretary its emergency response plan as well
as a plan for conducting exercises for emergency response and
public transportation employee training purposes pursuant to
the guidelines published under subsection (a).
(c) Exercises.--
(1) Requirement.--Not later than 1 year after receipt of a
grant under section 602, the recipient of such grant shall
conduct an exercise pursuant to the plan for conducting
exercises transmitted under subsection (b).
(2) Exemptions.--The Secretary may exempt a grant recipient
from the requirement under paragraph (1) if the recipient has
recently conducted an equivalent exercise.
(3) Notice and report.--Not later than 30 days after
conducting an exercise under paragraph (1) or as described in
paragraph (2), the recipient shall notify the Secretary that
such exercise has been completed, including a description of
the results of the exercise and findings and lessons learned
from the exercise, and shall make recommendations for
changes, if necessary, to existing emergency response plans.
If the recipient revises an emergency response plan as a
result of an exercise under this subsection, the recipient
shall transmit the revised plan to the Secretary not later
than 6 months after the date of the exercise.
(d) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary shall provide
technical assistance in the design, preparation for, and
conduct of emergency response exercises.
(e) Use of Plans.--The Secretary shall ensure that
information submitted to the Secretary under this section is
protected from any form of disclosure that might compromise
public transportation security or trade secrets.
Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the Secretary may use
such information, on a nonattributed basis unless otherwise
agreed to by the source of the information, to aid in
developing recommendations, best practices, and materials for
use by public transportation authorities to improve security
practices and emergency response capabilities.
SEC. 604. SECURITY BEST PRACTICES.
Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop,
disseminate to appropriate owners, operators, and providers
of public transportation systems, public transportation
employees and employee representatives, and Federal, State,
and local officials, and transmit to Congress, a report
containing best practices for the security of public
transportation systems. In developing best practices, the
Secretary shall be responsible for consulting with and
collecting input from owners, operators, and providers of
public transportation systems, public transportation employee
representatives, first responders, industry associations,
private sector experts, academic experts, and appropriate
Federal, State, and local officials.
SEC. 605. PUBLIC AWARENESS.
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop a
national plan
[[Page H3515]]
for public outreach and awareness. Such plan shall be
designed to increase awareness of measures that the general
public, public transportation passengers, and public
transportation employees can take to increase public
transportation system security. Such plan shall also provide
outreach to owners, operators, providers, and employees of
public transportation systems to improve their awareness of
available technologies, ongoing research and development
efforts, and available Federal funding sources to improve
public transportation security. Not later than 9 months after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
implement the plan developed under this section.
SEC. 606. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SECURITY CENTERS.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Homeland Security,
working jointly with the Secretary of Transportation, shall
establish more than 1 but not more than 4 National
Transportation Security Centers at institutions of higher
education to assist in carrying out this subtitle, to conduct
research and education activities, and to develop or provide
professional training, including the training of public
transportation employees and public transportation-related
professionals, with emphasis on utilization of intelligent
transportation systems, technologies, and architectures.
(b) Criteria.--The Secretary shall designate the Centers
according to the following selection criteria:
(1) The demonstrated commitment of the institution to
transportation security issues.
(2) The use of and experience with partnerships with other
institutions of higher education, Federal laboratories, or
other nonprofit laboratories.
(3) Capability to conduct both practical and theoretical
research and technical systems analysis.
(4) Utilization of intelligent transportation system
technologies and architectures.
(5) Ability to develop professional training programs.
(6) Capability and willingness to conduct education of
transportation security professionals.
(7) Such other criteria as the Secretary may designate.
(c) Funding.--The Secretary shall provide such funding as
is necessary to the National Transportation Security Centers
established under subsection (a) to carry out this section.
SEC. 607. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS.
(a) In General.--No covered individual may be discharged,
demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, reprimanded,
investigated, or in any other manner discriminated against
(including by a denial, suspension, or revocation of a
security clearance or by any other security access
determination) if such discrimination is due, in whole or in
part, to any lawful act done, perceived to have been done, or
intended to be done by the covered individual--
(1) to provide information, cause information to be
provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding
any conduct which the covered individual reasonably believes
constitutes a violation of any law, rule or regulation
relating to national or homeland security, which the covered
individual reasonably believes constitutes a threat to
national or homeland security, or which the covered
individual reasonably believes constitutes fraud, waste or
mismanagement of Government funds intended to be used for
national or homeland security, when the information or
assistance is provided to or the investigation is conducted
by--
(A) a Federal, State or local regulatory or law enforcement
agency (including an office of Inspector General under the
Inspector General Act of 1978);
(B) any Member of Congress, any committee of Congress, or
the Government Accountability Office; or
(C) a person with supervisory authority over the covered
individual (or such other person who has the authority to
investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct);
(2) to file, cause to be filed, testify, participate in, or
otherwise assist in a proceeding or action filed or about to
be filed relating to an alleged violation of any law, rule or
regulation relating to national or homeland security; or
(3) to refuse to violate or assist in the violation of any
law, rule, or regulation relating to national or homeland
security.
(b) Enforcement Action.--
(1) In general.--A covered individual who alleges discharge
or other discrimination by any person in violation of
subsection (a) may seek relief under subsection (c) by--
(A) filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor; or
(B) if the Secretary has not issued a final decision within
180 days after the filing of the complaint and there is no
showing that such delay is due to the bad faith of the
claimant, bringing an action at law or equity for de novo
review in the appropriate district court of the United
States, which shall have jurisdiction over such an action
without regard to the amount in controversy.
(2) Procedure.--
(A) In general.--An action under paragraph (1)(A) shall be
governed under the rules and procedures set forth in section
42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
(B) Exception.--Notification made under section 42121(b)(1)
of title 49, United States Code, shall be made to the person
named in the complaint and to the person's employer.
(C) Burdens of proof.--An action brought under paragraph
(1)(B) shall be governed by the legal burdens of proof set
forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
(D) Statute of limitations.--An action under paragraph (1)
shall be commenced not later than 1 year after the date on
which the violation occurs.
(c) Remedies.--
(1) In general.--A covered individual prevailing in any
action under subsection (b)(1) shall be entitled to all
relief necessary to make the covered individual whole.
(2) Damages.--Relief for any action under paragraph (1)
shall include--
(A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the
covered individual would have had, but for the
discrimination;
(B) the amount of any back pay, with interest;
(C) compensation for any special damages sustained as a
result of the discrimination, including litigation costs,
expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees; and
(D) punitive damages in an amount not to exceed the greater
of 3 times the amount of any compensatory damages awarded
under this section or $5,000,000.
(d) State Secrets Privilege.--If, in any action brought
under subsection (b)(1)(B), the Government asserts as a
defense the privilege commonly referred to as the ``state
secrets privilege'' and the assertion of such privilege
prevents the plaintiff from establishing a prima facie case
in support of the plaintiff's claim, the court shall enter
judgment for the plaintiff and shall determine the relief to
be granted.
(e) Criminal Penalties.--
(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person
employing a covered individual to commit an act prohibited by
subsection (a). Any person violating this paragraph shall be
fined under title 18 of the United States Code, imprisoned
not more than 10 years, or both.
(2) Reporting requirement.--The Department of Justice shall
submit to Congress an annual report on the enforcement of
paragraph (1). Each such report shall (A) identify each case
in which formal charges under paragraph (1) were brought, (B)
describe the status or disposition of each such case, and (C)
in any actions under subsection (b)(1)(B) in which the
covered individual was the prevailing party or the
substantially prevailing party, indicate whether or not any
formal charges under paragraph (1) have been brought and, if
not, the reasons therefor.
(f) Rights Retained by Covered Individual.--Nothing in this
section shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges,
or remedies of any covered individual under any Federal or
State law, or under any collective bargaining agreement. The
rights and remedies in this section may not be waived by any
agreement, policy, form, or condition of employment.
(g) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``covered individual'' means an employee of--
(A) the Department of Homeland Security (which, for
purposes of this section, includes the Transportation
Security Administration);
(B) a Federal contractor or subcontractor; and
(C) an employer within the meaning of section 701(b) of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(b));
(2) the term ``lawful'' means not specifically prohibited
by law, except that, in the case of any information the
disclosure of which is specifically prohibited by law or
specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in
the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign
affairs, any disclosure of such information to any Member of
Congress, committee of Congress, or other recipient
authorized to receive such information, shall be deemed
lawful;
(3) the term ``Federal contractor'' means a person who has
entered into a contract with the Department of Homeland
Security;
(4) the term ``employee'' means--
(A) with respect to an employer referred to in paragraph
(1)(A), an employee as defined by section 2105 of title 5,
United States Code; and
(B) with respect to an employer referred to in subparagraph
(A) or (B) of paragraph (1), any officer, partner, employee,
or agent;
(5) the term ``subcontractor''--
(A) means any person, other than the Federal contractor,
who offers to furnish or furnishes any supplies, materials,
equipment, or services of any kind under a contract with the
Department of Homeland Security or a subcontract entered into
in connection with such a contract; and
(B) includes any person who offers to furnish or furnishes
general supplies to the Federal contractor or a higher tier
subcontractor; and
(6) the term ``person'' means a corporation, partnership,
State entity, business association of any kind, trust, joint-
stock company, or individual.
(h) Terms and Conditions.--A grant under this subtitle
shall be subject to terms and conditions of section 5333 of
title 49, United States Code.
(i) Authorization of Funds.--Of the amounts authorized
under section 101, there is authorized to be appropriated
amounts necessary for carrying out this section. Except as
provided in the preceding sentence, this section shall have
no force or effect.
SEC. 608. DEFINITION.
In this subtitle, the following definitions apply:
[[Page H3516]]
(1) Public transportation employees.--The term ``public
transportation employees'' means security personnel,
dispatchers, vehicle and vessel operators, other onboard
employees, maintenance and support personnel, and other
appropriate employees of owners, operators, and providers of
public transportation systems.
(2) Public transportation systems.--The term ``public
transportation systems'' means passenger, commuter, and light
rail, including subways, buses, commuter ferries, and other
modes of public transit.
SEC. 609. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT.
(a) Requirement to Work Jointly.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security shall work jointly with the Secretary of
Transportation in carrying out this subtitle.
(b) Memorandum.--Within 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and
the Secretary of Transportation shall execute a memorandum of
agreement governing the roles and responsibilities of the
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of
Transportation, respectively in addressing public
transportation security matters, including the process their
department will follow to carry out this subtitle and promote
communications, efficiency, and nonduplication of effort.
Subtitle B--Rail Security
SEC. 611. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Rail Security Act of
2005''.
CHAPTER 1--RAILROAD SECURITY
SEC. 621. RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION SECURITY.
(a) In General.--
(1) Requirements.--The Secretary shall develop, prepare,
implement, and update--
(A) a railroad security assessment under subsection (b)(1);
(B) a railroad security plan under subsection (b)(2);
(C) prioritized recommendations for improving railroad
security under subsection (d);
(D) guidance for the rail worker security training program
as authorized by section 624; and
(E) a national plan for public outreach and awareness for
improving railroad security as authorized by section 627.
(2) Role of secretary of transportation.--The Secretary
shall work jointly with the Secretary of Transportation, in
developing, preparing, revising, implementing, and updating
the documents required by paragraph (1).
(3) Memorandum of agreement.--Within 60 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Secretary of
Transportation shall execute a memorandum of agreement
governing the roles and responsibilities of the Department of
Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation,
respectively, in addressing railroad transportation security
matters, including the processes the departments will follow
to carry out this chapter and promote communications,
efficiency, and nonduplication of effort.
(b) Security Assessment.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete the
security assessment of railroad transportation required under
subsection (a)(1). The security assessment shall include--
(A) identification and evaluation of critical railroad
assets and infrastructures;
(B) identification of threats to those assets and
infrastructures;
(C) identification of vulnerabilities that are specific to
the transportation of hazardous materials by railroad;
(D) identification of redundant and backup systems required
to ensure the continued operation of critical elements of the
railroad system in the event of an attack or other incident,
including disruption of commercial electric power or
communications networks; and
(E) identification of security weaknesses in passenger and
cargo security, transportation infrastructure, protection
systems (including passenger and cargo screening), procedural
policies, communications systems, employee training,
emergency response planning, and any other area identified by
the assessment.
(2) Security plan.--The Secretary shall use the security
assessment completed under paragraph (1) to develop a
transportation modal security plan under section 114(t)(1)(B)
of title 49, United States Code, for the security of the
Nation's railroads. The plan shall--
(A) establish a strategy for minimizing terrorist threats
to railroad transportation systems;
(B) establish a strategy for maximizing the efforts of
railroads to mitigate damage from terrorist attacks;
(C) require the Federal Government to provide increased
security support at high or severe threat levels of alert;
(D) set forth procedures for establishing and maintaining
permanent and comprehensive consultative relations among the
parties described in subsection (c);
(E) include a contingency plan to ensure the continued
movement of freight and passengers in the event of an attack
affecting the railroad system, which shall contemplate--
(i) the possibility of rerouting traffic due to the loss of
critical infrastructure, such as a bridge, tunnel, yard, or
station; and
(ii) methods of continuing railroad service in the
Northeast Corridor in the event of a commercial power loss,
or catastrophe affecting a critical bridge, tunnel, yard, or
station; and
(F) account for actions taken or planned by both public and
private entities to address security issues identified under
paragraph (1) and assess the effective integration of such
actions.
(c) Consultation.--In developing the plan under subsection
(b)(2) and the recommendations under subsection (d), the
Secretary and the Secretary of Transportation shall consult
with the freight and passenger railroad carriers, nonprofit
employee organizations representing rail workers, nonprofit
employee organizations representing emergency responders,
owners or lessors of rail cars used to transport hazardous
materials, shippers of hazardous materials, manufacturers of
rail tank cars, State Departments of Transportation, public
safety officials, and other relevant parties.
(d) Recommendations.--The Secretary shall develop
prioritized recommendations for improving railroad security,
including recommendations for--
(1) improving the security of rail tunnels, rail bridges,
rail switching and car storage areas, other rail
infrastructure and facilities, information systems, and other
areas identified as posing significant railroad-related risks
to public safety and the movement of interstate commerce,
taking into account the impact that any proposed security
measure might have on the provision of railroad service;
(2) deploying surveillance equipment;
(3) deploying equipment to detect explosives and hazardous
chemical, biological, and radioactive substances, and any
appropriate countermeasures;
(4) installing redundant and backup systems to ensure the
continued operation of critical elements of the railroad
system in the event of an attack or other incident, including
disruption of commercial electric power or communications
networks;
(5) conducting public outreach campaigns on passenger
railroads; and
(6) identifying the immediate and long-term costs of
measures that may be required to address those risks.
(e) Report.--
(1) Contents.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the
Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate a report containing the
security assessment, plan, and prioritized recommendations
required by this section, along with an estimate of the cost
to implement such recommendations.
(2) Format.--The report may be submitted in a classified
format if the Secretary determines that such action is
necessary.
(f) Periodic Updates.--The Secretary shall update the
railroad security assessment, security plan, and prioritized
recommendations for improving railroad security under
subsection (a), and the guidance for a railroad worker
security training program under section 105, every 2 years
and submit a report, which may be submitted in both
classified and redacted formats, to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on
Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate not less frequently than April 1 of each even-numbered
year.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary $10,000,000 for the
purpose of carrying out this section.
SEC. 622. FREIGHT AND PASSENGER RAIL SECURITY UPGRADES.
(a) Security Improvement Grants.--The Secretary, in
coordination with the Secretary of Transportation, is
authorized to make grants to freight and passenger railroad
carriers, nonprofit employee organizations that represent
rail workers, shippers of hazardous materials by rail, owners
of rail cars used in the transportation of hazardous
materials, manufacturers of rail tank cars, and State and
local governments, for costs incurred in the conduct of
activities to prevent or respond to acts of terrorism or
sabotage against railroads, or other railroad security
threats, including--
(1) perimeter protection systems, including access control,
installation of better lighting, fencing, and barricades at
railroad facilities;
(2) structural modification or replacement of rail cars
transporting hazardous materials to improve their resistance
to acts of terrorism;
(3) technologies for reduction of tank car vulnerability;
(4) security improvements to passenger railroad stations,
trains, and infrastructure;
(5) tunnel protection systems;
(6) evacuation improvements;
(7) inspection technologies, including verified visual
inspection technologies using hand-held readers and discs;
(8) security and redundancy for critical communications,
computer, and train control systems essential for secure
railroad operations or to continue railroad operations after
an attack impacting railroad operations;
(9) train tracking and interoperable communications
systems;
(10) chemical, biological, radiological, or explosive
detection systems and devices;
(11) surveillance equipment;
(12) additional police and security officers, including
canine units;
[[Page H3517]]
(13) accommodation of cargo or passenger screening
equipment;
(14) employee security awareness, preparedness, and
response training (including compliance with section 625);
(15) public security awareness campaigns;
(16) emergency response equipment, including fire
suppression and decontamination equipment; and
(17) other improvements recommended by the report required
by section 621, including infrastructure, facilities, and
equipment upgrades.
(b) Conditions.--The Secretary shall require recipients of
funds for construction under this section and section 623 of
this Act to apply the standards of section 24312 of title 49,
United States Code, as in effect on September 1, 2004, with
respect to the construction in the same manner as Amtrak is
required to comply with such standards for construction work
financed under an agreement made under section 24308(a) of
such title 49.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary $600,000,000 to carry out
the purposes of this section, of which $100,000,000 shall be
used by the Secretary for making grants to Amtrak, in
accordance with this section. Amounts appropriated pursuant
to this subsection shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 623. FIRE AND LIFE-SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS.
(a) Life-Safety Needs.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to Amtrak for the purposes of carrying out this
section the following amounts:
(1) For the 6 new york tunnels to provide ventilation,
electrical, and fire safety technology upgrades, emergency
communication and lighting systems, and emergency access and
egress for passengers--
(A) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(B) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
(C) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
(D) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
(E) $170,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
(2) For the baltimore & potomac tunnel and the union
tunnel, together, to provide adequate drainage, ventilation,
communication, lighting, and passenger egress upgrades--
(A) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(B) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
(C) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
(D) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
(E) $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
(3) For the washington, district of columbia, union station
tunnels to improve ventilation, communication, lighting, and
passenger egress upgrades--
(A) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(B) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
(C) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
(D) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
(E) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
(b) Availability of Appropriated Funds.--Amounts
appropriated pursuant to this section shall remain available
until expended.
SEC. 624. RAIL SECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment of Research and Development Program.--The
Secretary shall carry out a research and development program
for the purpose of improving railroad security that may
include research and development projects to--
(1) reduce the vulnerability of passenger trains, stations,
and equipment to explosives and hazardous chemical,
biological, and radioactive substances;
(2) test new emergency response techniques and
technologies;
(3) develop improved freight technologies, including--
(A) technologies for sealing rail cars;
(B) automatic inspection of rail cars; and
(C) communication-based train controls;
(4) test wayside detectors that can detect tampering with
railroad equipment;
(5) support enhanced security for the transportation of
hazardous materials by rail, including--
(A) technologies to detect a breach in a tank car and
transmit information about the integrity of tank cars to the
train crew;
(B) research to improve tank car integrity; and
(C) techniques to transfer hazardous materials from rail
cars that are damaged or otherwise represent an unreasonable
risk to human life or public safety; and
(6) other projects recommended in the report required by
section 621.
(b) Coordination With Other Research Initiatives.--The
Secretary shall ensure that the research and development
program authorized by this section is coordinated with other
research and development initiatives at the Department of
Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, and
other Federal agencies.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary $50,000,000 in each of
fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to carry out the purposes of this
section. Amounts appropriated pursuant to this subsection
shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 625. RAIL WORKER SECURITY TRAINING PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
appropriate law enforcement, security, and terrorism experts,
representatives of railroad carriers, and nonprofit employee
organizations that represent rail workers, shall develop and
issue detailed guidance for a rail worker security training
program to prepare rail workers for potential threat
conditions.
(b) Program Elements.--The guidance developed under
subsection (a) shall require such a program to include, at a
minimum, elements that address the following:
(1) Determination of the seriousness of any occurrence.
(2) Crew and passenger communication and coordination.
(3) Appropriate responses to defend oneself.
(4) Use of protective devices.
(5) Evacuation procedures.
(6) Live situational training exercises regarding various
threat conditions, including tunnel evacuation procedures.
(7) Any other subject the Secretary considers appropriate.
(c) Railroad Carrier Programs.--Not later than 60 days
after the Secretary issues guidance under subsection (a) in
final form, each railroad carrier shall develop a rail worker
security training program in accordance with that guidance
and submit it to the Secretary for approval. Not later than
60 days after receiving a railroad carrier's program under
this subsection, the Secretary shall review the program and
approve it or require the railroad carrier to make any
revisions the Secretary considers necessary for the program
to meet the guidance requirements.
(d) Training.--Not later than 1 year after the Secretary
approves the training program developed by a railroad carrier
under this section, the railroad carrier shall complete the
training of all rail workers in accordance with that program.
(e) Updates.--The Secretary shall update the training
guidance issued under subsection (a) from time to time to
reflect new or different security threats, and require
railroad carriers to revise their programs accordingly and
provide additional training to their rail workers.
SEC. 626. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION.
(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 201 of title 49,
is amended by inserting after section 20115 the following:
``Sec. 20116. Whistleblower protection for railroad security
matters
``(a) Discrimination Against Employee.--No railroad carrier
engaged in interstate or foreign commerce may discharge a
railroad employee or otherwise discriminate against a
railroad employee because the employee (or any person acting
pursuant to a request of the employee)
``(1) provided, caused to be provided, or is about to
provide or cause to be provided, to the employer or the
Federal Government information relating to a perceived threat
to security;
``(2) provided, caused to be provided, or is about to
provide or cause to be provided, testimony before Congress or
at any Federal or State proceeding regarding a perceived
threat to security;
``(3) has assisted or participated, or is about to assist
or participate, in any manner in a proceeding or any other
action to enhance railroad security; or
``(4) refused to violate or assist in the violation of any
law, rule, or regulation related to railroad security.
``(b) Enforcement Action.--
``(1) In general.--A person who alleges discharge or other
discrimination by any person in violation of subsection (a)
may seek relief under subsection (c) by
``(A) filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor; or
``(B) if the Secretary of Labor has not issued a final
decision within 180 days of the filing of the complaint and
there is no showing that such delay is due to the bad faith
of the claimant, bringing an action at law or equity for de
novo review in the appropriate district court of the United
States, which shall have jurisdiction over such an action
without regard to the amount in controversy.
``(2) Procedure.--
``(A) In general.--An action under paragraph (1)(A) shall
be governed under the rules and procedures set forth in
section 42121(b) of this title.
``(B) Exception.--Notification made under section
42121(b)(1) of this title, shall be made to the person named
in the complaint and to the employer.
``(C) Burdens of proof.--An action brought under paragraph
(1)(B) shall be governed by the legal burdens of proof set
forth in section 42121(b) this title.
``(D) Statute of limitations.--An action under paragraph
(1)(A) shall be commenced not later than 90 days after the
date on which the violation occurs.
``(c) Remedies.--
``(1) In general.--An employee prevailing in any action
under subsection (b)(1) shall be entitled to all relief
necessary to make the employee whole.
``(2) Compensatory damages.--Relief for any action under
paragraph (1) shall include
``(A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the
employee would have had, but for the discrimination;
``(B) the amount of back pay, with interest; and
``(C) compensation for any special damages sustained as a
result of the discrimination, including litigation costs,
expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees.
``(d) Rights Retained by Employee.--Except as provided in
subsection (e), nothing in this section shall be deemed to
diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of any employee
under any Federal or State law, or under any collective
bargaining agreement.
``(e) Election of Remedies.--An employee of a railroad
carrier may not seek protection
[[Page H3518]]
under both this section and another provision of law for the
same allegedly unlawful act of the railroad carrier.
``(f) Disclosure of Identity.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
without the written consent of the employee, the Secretary of
Labor may not disclose the name of an employee of a railroad
carrier who has provided information about an alleged
violation of this section.
``(2) Exception.--The Secretary of Labor shall disclose to
the Attorney General the name of an employee described in
paragraph (1) of this subsection if the matter is referred to
the Attorney General for enforcement.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 201 of title 49, is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 20115 the following:
``20116. Whistleblower protection for railroad security matters.''.''
SEC. 627. PUBLIC OUTREACH.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall develop a national plan for public
outreach and awareness. Such plan shall be designed to
increase awareness of measures that the general public,
railroad passengers, and railroad employees can take to
increase railroad system security. Such plan shall also
provide outreach to railroad carriers and their employees to
improve their awareness of available technologies, ongoing
research and development efforts, and available Federal
funding sources to improve railroad security. Not later than
9 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall implement the plan developed under this
section.
SEC. 628. PASSENGER, BAGGAGE, AND CARGO SCREENING.
The Secretary shall--
(1) analyze the cost and feasibility of requiring security
screening for passengers, baggage, and cargo on passenger
trains; and
(2) report the results of the study, together with any
recommendations that the Secretary may have for implementing
a rail security screening program to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on
Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 629. EMERGENCY RESPONDER TRAINING STANDARDS.
Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall issue training
standards for persons responsible for responding to emergency
situations occurring during transportation of hazardous
materials by rail, in accordance with existing regulations,
to ensure their ability to protect nearby persons, property,
or the environment from the effects of accidents involving
hazardous materials.
SEC. 630. INFORMATION FOR FIRST RESPONDERS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall
provide grants to Operation Respond Institute for the purpose
of
(1) deploying and expanding the Operation Respond Emergency
Information System software;
(2) developing, implementing, and maintaining a railroad
infrastructure mapping program that correlates railroad
right-of-way information with highway grid maps and overhead
imagery of traffic routes, hazardous materials routes, and
commuter rail lines; and
(3) establishing an alert and messaging capability for use
during emergencies involving freight and passenger railroads.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation to
carry out this section $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years
2005, 2006, and 2007. Amounts appropriated pursuant to this
subsection shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 631. TSA PERSONNEL LIMITATIONS.
Any statutory limitation on the number of employees in the
Transportation Security Administration, before or after its
transfer to the Department of Homeland Security, does not
apply to the extent that any such employees are responsible
for implementing the provisions of this title.
SEC. 632. RAIL SAFETY REGULATIONS.
Section 20103(a) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``safety'' the first place it appears,
and inserting ``safety, including security''.
SEC. 633. RAIL POLICE OFFICERS.
Section 28101 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``the rail carrier'' each place it appears and
inserting ``any rail carrier''.
SEC. 634. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this chapter--
(1) the terms ``railroad'' and ``railroad carrier'' have
the meaning given those terms in section 20102 of title 49,
United States Code; and
(2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Homeland
Security, acting through the Under Secretary of Homeland
Security for Border and Transportation Security.
CHAPTER 2--ASSISTANCE TO FAMILIES OF PASSENGERS
SEC. 641. ASSISTANCE BY NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
TO FAMILIES OF PASSENGERS INVOLVED IN RAIL
PASSENGER ACCIDENTS.
(a) In General.--Subchapter III of chapter 11 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 1138. Assistance to families of passengers involved in
rail passenger accidents
``(a) In General.--As soon as practicable after being
notified of a rail passenger accident within the United
States involving a rail passenger carrier and resulting in a
major loss of life, the Chairman of the National
Transportation Safety Board shall
``(1) designate and publicize the name and phone number of
a director of family support services who shall be an
employee of the Board and shall be responsible for acting as
a point of contact within the Federal Government for the
families of passengers involved in the accident and a liaison
between the rail passenger carrier and the families; and
``(2) designate an independent nonprofit organization, with
experience in disasters and posttrauma communication with
families, which shall have primary responsibility for
coordinating the emotional care and support of the families
of passengers involved in the accident.
``(b) Responsibilities of the Board.--The Board shall have
primary Federal responsibility for
``(1) facilitating the recovery and identification of
fatally injured passengers involved in an accident described
in subsection (a); and
``(2) Communicating with the families of passengers
involved in the accident as to the roles of.--
``(A) the organization designated for an accident under
subsection (a)(2);
``(B) Government agencies; and
``(C) the rail passenger carrier involved,
with respect to the accident and the post-accident
activities.
``(c) Responsibilities of Designated Organization.--The
organization designated for an accident under subsection
(a)(2) shall have the following responsibilities with respect
to the families of passengers involved in the accident:
``(1) To provide mental health and counseling services, in
coordination with the disaster response team of the rail
passenger carrier involved.
``(2) To take such actions as may be necessary to provide
an environment in which the families may grieve in private.
``(3) To meet with the families who have traveled to the
location of the accident, to contact the families unable to
travel to such location, and to contact all affected families
periodically thereafter until such time as the organization,
in consultation with the director of family support services
designated for the accident under subsection (a)(1),
determines that further assistance is no longer needed.
``(4) To arrange a suitable memorial service, in
consultation with the families.
``(d) Passenger Lists.--
``(1) Requests for passenger lists.--
``(A) Requests by director of family support services.--It
shall be the responsibility of the director of family support
services designated for an accident under subsection (a)(1)
to request, as soon as practicable, from the rail passenger
carrier involved in the accident a list, which is based on
the best available information at the time of the request, of
the names of the passengers that were aboard the rail
passenger carrier's train involved in the accident. A rail
passenger carrier shall use reasonable efforts, with respect
to its unreserved trains, and passengers not holding
reservations on its other trains, to ascertain the names of
passengers aboard a train involved in an accident.
``(B) Requests by designated organization.--The
organization designated for an accident under subsection
(a)(2) may request from the rail passenger carrier involved
in the accident a list described in subparagraph (A).
``(2) Use of information.--The director of family support
services and the organization may not release to any person
information on a list obtained under paragraph (1) but may
provide information on the list about a passenger to the
family of the passenger to the extent that the director of
family support services or the organization considers
appropriate.
``(e) Continuing Responsibilities of the Board.--In the
course of its investigation of an accident described in
subsection (a), the Board shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, ensure that the families of passengers involved
in the accident
``(1) are briefed, prior to any public briefing, about the
accident and any other findings from the investigation; and
``(2) are individually informed of and allowed to attend
any public hearings and meetings of the Board about the
accident.
``(f) Use of Rail Passenger Carrier Resources.--To the
extent practicable, the organization designated for an
accident under subsection (a)(2) shall coordinate its
activities with the rail passenger carrier involved in the
accident to facilitate the reasonable use of the resources of
the carrier.
``(g) Prohibited Actions.--
``(1) Actions to impede the board.--No person (including a
State or political subdivision) may impede the ability of the
Board (including the director of family support services
designated for an accident under subsection (a)(1)), or an
organization designated for an accident under subsection
(a)(2), to carry out its responsibilities under this section
or the ability of the families of passengers involved in the
accident to have contact with one another.
``(2) Unsolicited communications.--No unsolicited
communication concerning a potential action for personal
injury or wrongful
[[Page H3519]]
death may be made by an attorney (including any associate,
agent, employee, or other representative of an attorney) or
any potential party to the litigation to an individual (other
than an employee of the rail passenger carrier) injured in
the accident, or to a relative of an individual involved in
the accident, before the 45th day following the date of the
accident.
``(3) Prohibition on actions to prevent mental health and
counseling services.--No State or political subdivision may
prevent the employees, agents, or volunteers of an
organization designated for an accident under subsection
(a)(2) from providing mental health and counseling services
under subsection (c)(1) in the 30-day period beginning on the
date of the accident. The director of family support services
designated for the accident under subsection (a)(1) may
extend such period for not to exceed an additional 30 days if
the director determines that the extension is necessary to
meet the needs of the families and if State and local
authorities are notified of the determination.
``(h) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
``(1) Rail passenger accident.--The term `rail passenger
accident' means any rail passenger disaster occurring in the
provision of
``(A) interstate intercity rail passenger transportation
(as such term is defined in section 24102); or
``(B) interstate or intrastate high-speed rail (as such
term is defined in section 26105) transportation,
regardless of its cause or suspected cause.
``(2) Rail passenger carrier.--The term `rail passenger
carrier' means a rail carrier providing
``(A) interstate intercity rail passenger transportation
(as such term is defined in section 24102); or
``(B) interstate or intrastate high-speed rail (as such
term is defined in section 26105) transportation,
except that such term shall not include a tourist, historic,
scenic, or excursion rail carrier.
``(3) Passenger.--The term `passenger' includes
``(A) an employee of a rail passenger carrier aboard a
train;
``(B) any other person aboard the train without regard to
whether the person paid for the transportation, occupied a
seat, or held a reservation for the rail transportation; and
``(C) any other person injured or killed in the accident.
``(i) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in
this section may be construed as limiting the actions that a
rail passenger carrier may take, or the obligations that a
rail passenger carrier may have, in providing assistance to
the families of passengers involved in a rail passenger
accident.
``(i) Relinquishment of Investigative Priority.--
``(1) General rule.--This section (other than subsection
(g)) shall not apply to a railroad accident if the Board has
relinquished investigative priority under section
1131(a)(2)(B) and the Federal agency to which the Board
relinquished investigative priority is willing and able to
provide assistance to the victims and families of the
passengers involved in the accident.
``(2) Board assistance.--If this section does not apply to
a railroad accident because the Board has relinquished
investigative priority with respect to the accident, the
Board shall assist, to the maximum extent possible, the
agency to which the Board has relinquished investigative
priority in assisting families with respect to the
accident.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for such
chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 1137 the following:
``1138. Assistance to families of passengers invoolved in rail
passenger accidents.''.
SEC. 642. RAIL PASSENGER CARRIER PLANS TO ADDRESS NEEDS OF
FAMILIES OF PASSENGERS INVOLVED IN RAIL
PASSENGER ACCIDENTS.
(a) In General.--Part C of subtitle V of title 49, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new chapter:
``CHAPTER 251--FAMILY ASSISTANCE
``Sec.
``25101. Plans to address needs of families of passengers involved in
rail passenger accidents.
``Sec. 25101. Plans to address needs of families of
passengers involved in rail passenger accidents
``(a) Submission of Plans.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this section, each rail
passenger carrier shall submit to the Secretary of
Transportation and the Chairman of the National
Transportation Safety Board a plan for addressing the needs
of the families of passengers involved in any rail passenger
accident involving a train of the rail passenger carrier and
resulting in a major loss of life.
``(b) Contents of Plans.--A plan to be submitted by a rail
passenger carrier under subsection (a) shall include, at a
minimum, the following:
``(1) A plan for publicizing a reliable, toll-free
telephone number, and for providing staff, to handle calls
from the families of the passengers.
``(2) A process for notifying the families of the
passengers, before providing any public notice of the names
of the passengers, either by utilizing the services of the
organization designated for the accident under section
1138(a)(2) of this title or the services of other suitably
trained individuals.
``(3) An assurance that the notice described in paragraph
(2) will be provided to the family of a passenger as soon as
the rail passenger carrier has verified that the passenger
was aboard the train (whether or not the names of all of the
passengers have been verified) and, to the extent
practicable, in person.
``(4) An assurance that the rail passenger carrier will
provide to the director of family support services designated
for the accident under section 1138(a)(1) of this title, and
to the organization designated for the accident under section
1138(a)(2) of this title, immediately upon request, a list
(which is based on the best available information at the time
of the request) of the names of the passengers aboard the
train (whether or not such names have been verified), and
will periodically update the list. The plan shall include a
procedure, with respect to unreserved trains and passengers
not holding reservations on other trains, for the rail
passenger carrier to use reasonable efforts to ascertain the
names of passengers aboard a train involved in an accident.
``(5) An assurance that the family of each passenger will
be consulted about the disposition of all remains and
personal effects of the passenger within the control of the
rail passenger carrier.
``(6) An assurance that if requested by the family of a
passenger, any possession of the passenger within the control
of the rail passenger carrier (regardless of its condition)
will be returned to the family unless the possession is
needed for the accident investigation or any criminal
investigation.
``(7) An assurance that any unclaimed possession of a
passenger within the control of the rail passenger carrier
will be retained by the rail passenger carrier for at least
18 months.
``(8) An assurance that the family of each passenger or
other person killed in the accident will be consulted about
construction by the rail passenger carrier of any monument to
the passengers, including any inscription on the monument.
``(9) An assurance that the treatment of the families of
nonrevenue passengers will be the same as the treatment of
the families of revenue passengers.
``(10) An assurance that the rail passenger carrier will
work with any organization designated under section
1138(a)(2) of this title on an ongoing basis to ensure that
families of passengers receive an appropriate level of
services and assistance following each accident.
``(11) An assurance that the rail passenger carrier will
provide reasonable compensation to any organization
designated under section 1138(a)(2) of this title for
services provided by the organization.
``(12) An assurance that the rail passenger carrier will
assist the family of a passenger in traveling to the location
of the accident and provide for the physical care of the
family while the family is staying at such location.
``(13) An assurance that the rail passenger carrier will
commit sufficient resources to carry out the plan.
``(14) An assurance that the rail passenger carrier will
provide adequate training to the employees and agents of the
carrier to meet the needs of survivors and family members
following an accident.
``(15) An assurance that, upon request of the family of a
passenger, the rail passenger carrier will inform the family
of whether the passenger's name appeared on any preliminary
passenger manifest for the train involved in the accident.
``(c) Limitation on Liability.--A rail passenger carrier
shall not be liable for damages in any action brought in a
Federal or State court arising out of the performance of the
rail passenger carrier in preparing or providing a passenger
list, or in providing information concerning a train
reservation, pursuant to a plan submitted by the rail
passenger carrier under subsection (b), unless such liability
was caused by conduct of the rail passenger carrier which was
grossly negligent or which constituted intentional
misconduct.
``(d) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the terms `rail passenger accident' and `rail
passenger carrier' have the meanings such terms have in
section 1138 of this title; and
``(2) the term `passenger' means a person aboard a rail
passenger carrier's train that is involved in a rail
passenger accident.
``(e) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in
this section may be construed as limiting the actions that a
rail passenger carrier may take, or the obligations that a
rail passenger carrier may have, in providing assistance to
the families of passengers involved in a rail passenger
accident.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of chapters for
subtitle V of title 49, United States Code, is amended by
adding after the item relating to chapter 249 the following
new item:
``251. FAMILY ASSISTANCE.......................................25101''.
SEC. 643. ESTABLISHMENT OF TASK FORCE.
(a) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, in
coordination with the National Transportation Safety Board,
organizations potentially designated under section 1138(a)(2)
of title 49, United States Code, rail passenger carriers,
[[Page H3520]]
and families which have been involved in rail accidents,
shall establish a task force consisting of representatives of
such entities and families, representatives of passenger rail
carrier employees, and representatives of such other entities
as the Secretary considers appropriate.
(b) Model Plan and Recommendations.--The task force
established pursuant to subsection (a) shall develop--
(1) a model plan to assist passenger rail carriers in
responding to passenger rail accidents;
(2) recommendations on methods to improve the timeliness of
the notification provided by passenger rail carriers to the
families of passengers involved in a passenger rail accident;
(3) recommendations on methods to ensure that the families
of passengers involved in a passenger rail accident who are
not citizens of the United States receive appropriate
assistance; and
(4) recommendations on methods to ensure that emergency
services personnel have as immediate and accurate a count of
the number of passengers onboard the train as possible.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate a report containing the
model plan and recommendations developed by the task force
under subsection (b).
TITLE VII--SECURING CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
SEC. 701. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
(a) Completion of Prioritization.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall complete the prioritization of the
Nation's critical infrastructure according to all of the
following criteria:
(1) The threat of terrorist attack, based on threat
information received and analyzed by the Office of
Information Analysis of the Department regarding the
intentions and capabilities of terrorist groups and other
potential threats to the Nation's critical infrastructure.
(2) The likelihood that an attack would cause the
destruction or significant disruption of such infrastructure.
(3) The likelihood that an attack would result in
substantial numbers of deaths and serious bodily injuries, a
substantial adverse impact on the national economy, or a
substantial adverse impact on national security.
(b) Cooperation.--Such prioritization shall be developed in
cooperation with other relevant Federal agencies, State,
local, and tribal governments, and the private sector, as
appropriate.
SEC. 702. SECURITY REVIEW.
(a) Requirement.--Not later than 9 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in coordination
with other relevant Federal agencies, State, local, and
tribal governments, and the private sector, as appropriate,
shall--
(1) review existing Federal, State, local, tribal, and
private sector plans for securing the critical infrastructure
included in the prioritization developed under section 701;
(2) recommend changes to existing plans for securing such
infrastructure, as the Secretary determines necessary; and
(3) coordinate and contribute to protective efforts of
other Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies and the
private sector, as appropriate, as directed in Homeland
Security Presidential Directive 7.
(b) Contents of Plans.--The recommendations made under
subsection (a)(2) shall include--
(1) necessary protective measures to secure such
infrastructure, including milestones and timeframes for
implementation; and
(2) to the extent practicable, performance metrics to
evaluate the benefits to both national security and the
Nation's economy from the implementation of such protective
measures.
SEC. 703. IMPLEMENTATION REPORT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 15 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a
report to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate on the implementation of
section 702. Such report shall detail--
(1) the Secretary's review and coordination of security
plans under section 702; and
(2) the Secretary's oversight of the execution and
effectiveness of such plans.
(b) Update.--Not later than 1 year after the submission of
the report under subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide
an update of such report to the congressional committees
described in subsection (a).
TITLE VIII--PREVENTING A BIOLOGICAL ATTACK
SEC. 801. GAO REPORT OF DEPARTMENT BIOLOGICAL TERRORISM
PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit a report to the Committee on Homeland
Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate
assessing the full history of Department of Homeland Security
activities with regard to biological terrorism and
recommending which Department of the Government should
administer such activities.
(b) Included Contents.--The report shall consider and
discuss--
(1) progress made in implementing the BioShield program;
(2) how effectively the Department of Health and Human
Services is administering the BioShield program;
(3) whether the Department of Health and Human Services has
the administrative capability necessary to fully implement
the BioShield program; and
(4) the legislative history of the BioShield program,
including the legislation that established the program as it
was introduced in the Congress and considered and reported by
the Select Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives.
SEC. 802. REPORT ON BIO-COUNTERMEASURES.
Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security in consultation
with the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
transmit to the Congress a report with recommendations, on--
(1) the feasibility of supplying first responders, not
limited to law enforcement, firefighters and emergency
medical service personnel, with biological and chemical agent
countermeasures or vaccinations when necessary;
(2) the appropriate levels and types of biological and
chemical agents, industrial materials and other hazardous
substances that first responders should be protected against;
and
(3) the system and appropriate means of accessing,
delivering, storing and dispersing countermeasures to first
responder personnel.
TITLE IX--PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURE
SEC. 901. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PROTECTION OF
AGRICULTURE.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall report to the
Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate by no later than 120 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act regarding how the
Department of Homeland Security will implement the applicable
recommendations from the Government Accountability Office
report entitled ``Homeland Security: Much is Being Done to
Protect Agriculture from a Terrorist Attack, but Important
Challenges Remain'' (GAO-05-214).
TITLE X--OPTIMIZING OUR SCREENING CAPABILITIES
Subtitle A--U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
Database
SEC. 1001. INTEROPERABILITY OF DATA FOR UNITED STATES VISITOR
AND IMMIGRANT STATUS INDICATOR TECHNOLOGY.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
(1) The Congress is troubled by the security gap on the
Nation's borders caused by delays in linking fingerprint data
in IDENT with criminal history data contained in IAFIS.
(2) The Congress expected that, by the end of 2004, such
interoperability would be in place at airports, seaports, and
the largest and busiest Border Patrol stations and land
border ports of entry, but this will not be completed until
December 31, 2005.
(3) With implementation of a new visa tracking system, and
enrollment of millions of visitors in US-VISIT, it is
essential that the Directorate of Border and Transportation
Security collaborate with the Federal Bureau of
Investigations to ensure that IDENT can retrieve, in real
time, biometric information containing in IAFIS, and that
IAFIS can retrieve, in real time, biometric information
contained in IDENT.
(b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall prepare, and submit to the Committee on Homeland
Security of the United States House of Representatives, a
report that details the status of the effort to achieve real-
time interoperability of IAFIS and IDENT, including the
following:
(1) The steps the Department will take to achieve this
goal, the funds needed to achieve this goal, and a timetable
to achieve this goal.
(2) A description of the effort being made to address the
recommendations in the March, 2004, Department of Justice
Inspector General report and subsequent December, 2004,
report, which documented the need to integrate existing
biometric databases; and
(3) The plan for maintaining the interoperability of IAFIS
and IDENT, once achieved.
(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) The term ``IAFIS'' means the Integrated Automated
Fingerprint Identification System maintained by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation of the Department of Justice.
(2) The term ``IDENT'' means the Automated Biometrics
Identification System maintained by the Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security.
(3) The term ``US-VISIT'' means the United States Visitor
and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology maintained by the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the Department of
Homeland Security.
Subtitle B--Studies to Improve Border Management and Immigration
Security
SEC. 1011. STUDY ON BIOMETRICS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, shall conduct a comprehensive study
of all biometric identifiers that
[[Page H3521]]
might be collected for purposes of processing and
adjudicating applications and petitions for immigration
benefits, and shall determine which among these identifiers
would be most appropriate for the purposes described in
subsection (b). The Secretary shall provide the resources
necessary to properly conduct the study.
(b) Uses.--In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary
shall consider the use of a biometric identifier--
(1) to register or catalogue a petition or application for
an immigration benefit upon submission to the appropriate
Federal agency;
(2) to check the petitioner or applicant against watch
lists;
(3) as part of the integrated entry and exit data system
required under section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1365a);
and
(4) to conduct background checks with Federal intelligence
agencies.
(c) Factors.--The Secretary shall consider the following
factors in making the determination under subsection (a):
(1) Accuracy
(2) The technology available.
(3) Economic considerations.
(4) Storage.
(5) Efficiency.
(6) Feasibility.
(d) Submission.--The study should be completed not later
than January 1, 2006, and shall be submitted to the Committee
on Homeland Security of the United States House of
Representatives.
SEC. 1012. STUDY ON DIGITIZING IMMIGRATION BENEFIT
APPLICATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
conduct a comprehensive study on digitizing all applications
and petitions for an immigration benefit, including digital
storage, cataloguing, and the ability to apply for all types
of immigration benefits through digital means. The study
should consider costs for both the Federal Government and the
applicant or petitioner, as well as the feasibility for all
types of persons to apply by digital means.
(b) Submission.--The study should be completed not later
than January 1, 2006, and shall be submitted to the Committee
on Homeland Security of the United States House of
Representatives.
SEC. 1013. STUDY ON ELIMINATION OF ARRIVAL/DEPARTURE PAPER
FORMS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
conduct a comprehensive study on replacing Department of
Homeland Security paper Form Number I-94 (Arrival/Departure
Record) and Form Number I-94W (NIV Waiver Arrival/Departure
Record) with procedures that ensure that the functions served
by such forms are being carried out by electronic or
digitized means. The study should consider the costs and
savings to the Federal Government of such replacement.
(b) Submission.--The study should be completed not later
than January 1, 2006, and shall be submitted to the Committee
on Homeland Security of the United States House of
Representatives.
SEC. 1014. CATALOGUING IMMIGRATION APPLICATIONS BY BIOMETRIC.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
conduct a comprehensive study on whether all applications and
petitions for an immigration benefit shall be registered or
catalogued by the receiving agency using a biometric
identifier. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall study
one or more alternative biometric identifiers to be used for
such purposes.
(b) Submission.--The study should be completed not later
than January 1, 2006, and shall be submitted to the Committee
on Homeland Security of the United States House of
Representatives. It shall include recommendations for
resource allocation.
TITLE XI--SECURING CYBERSPACE AND HARNESSING TECHNOLOGY TO PREVENT
DISASTER
Subtitle A--Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity Enhancement
SEC. 1101. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Department of Homeland
Security Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2005''.
SEC. 1102. ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CYBERSECURITY.
Section 201(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 121(b)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph:
``(3) Assistant secretary for cybersecurity.--There shall
be in the Department an Assistant Secretary for
Cybersecurity, who shall be appointed by the President.'';
and
(3) in paragraph (4), as redesignated by subparagraph (A)
of this paragraph--
(A) by striking ``Analysis and the'' and inserting
``Analysis, the''; and
(B) by striking ``Protection shall'' and inserting
``Protection, and the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity
shall''.
SEC. 1103. CYBERSECURITY TRAINING PROGRAMS AND EQUIPMENT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, acting
through the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity, may
establish, in conjunction with the National Science
Foundation, a program to award grants to institutions of
higher education (and consortia thereof) for--
(1) the establishment or expansion of cybersecurity
professional development programs;
(2) the establishment or expansion of associate degree
programs in cybersecurity; and
(3) the purchase of equipment to provide training in
cybersecurity for either professional development programs or
degree programs.
(b) Roles.--
(1) Department of homeland security.--The Secretary, acting
through the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and in
consultation with the Director of the National Science
Foundation, shall establish the goals for the program
established under this section and the criteria for awarding
grants under the program.
(2) National science foundation.--The Director of the
National Science Foundation shall operate the program
established under this section consistent with the goals and
criteria established under paragraph (1), including
soliciting applicants, reviewing applications, and making and
administering grant awards. The Director may consult with the
Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity in selecting awardees.
(3) Funding.--The Secretary shall transfer to the National
Science Foundation the funds necessary to carry out this
section.
(c) Grant Awards.--
(1) Peer review.--All grant awards under this section shall
be made on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis.
(2) Focus.--In making grant awards under this section, the
Director shall, to the extent practicable, ensure geographic
diversity and the participation of women and underrepresented
minorities.
(3) Preference.--In making grant awards under this section,
the Director shall give preference to applications submitted
by consortia of institutions to encourage as many students
and professionals as possible to benefit from this program.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of the amount
authorized under section 101, there is authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out this section
$3,700,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(e) Definitions.--In this section, the term ``institution
of higher education'' has the meaning given that term in
section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001(a)).
SEC. 1104. CYBERSECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
Title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
181 et. seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``SEC. 314. CYBERSECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
``(a) In General.--The Under Secretary for Science and
Technology shall support research and development, including
fundamental, long-term research, in cybersecurity to improve
the ability of the United States to prevent, protect against,
detect, respond to, and recover from cyber attacks, with
emphasis on research and development relevant to large-scale,
high-impact attacks.
``(b) Activities.--The research and development supported
under subsection (a), shall include work to--
``(1) advance the development and accelerate the deployment
of more secure versions of fundamental Internet protocols and
architectures, including for the domain name system and
routing protocols;
``(2) improve and create technologies for detecting attacks
or intrusions, including monitoring technologies;
``(3) improve and create mitigation and recovery
methodologies, including techniques for containment of
attacks and development of resilient networks and systems
that degrade gracefully; and
``(4) develop and support infrastructure and tools to
support cybersecurity research and development efforts,
including modeling, testbeds, and data sets for assessment of
new cybersecurity technologies.
``(c) Coordination.--In carrying out this section, the
Under Secretary for Science and Technology shall coordinate
activities with--
``(1) the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity; and
``(2) other Federal agencies, including the National
Science Foundation, the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency, and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, to identify unmet needs and cooperatively support
activities, as appropriate.
``(d) Nature of Research.--Activities under this section
shall be carried out in accordance with section 306(a) of
this Act.''.
Subtitle B--Coordination With National Intelligence Director
SEC. 1111. IDENTIFICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGIES
THAT IMPROVE SHARING OF INFORMATION WITH THE
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE DIRECTOR.
Section 201(d)(8) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 121(d)) is amended by inserting ``, including
identifying and implementing technologies that improve
sharing of information with the National Intelligence
Director,'' after ``within the Federal Government''.
Subtitle C--Cybersecurity Research
SEC. 1121. SUPPORT OF BASIC CYBERSECURITY RESEARCH.
(a) In General.--Title III of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (Public Law 107-296; 6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.) is amended by
adding the following:
``SEC. 314. SUPPORT OF BASIC CYBERSECURITY RESEARCH.
``The Secretary, through the Directorate of the Department
of Science and Technology
[[Page H3522]]
and subject to the availability of appropriations, shall fund
basic cybersecurity research, including the following:
``(1) Development of information technology design
protocols, methodologies, and applications to improve the
integration of security control and protocols into next-
generation-networks, mobile and wireless networks, and
computing devices and applications.
``(2) Development of network-based control mechanisms for
improving the capability of operators and service providers
to disable malicious action by hostile actors.
``(3) Development of mechanisms for improving international
network responsiveness to cybersecurity threats, including
predictive modeling, communication mechanisms and information
sharing systems.
``(4) Modeling of the cyber vulnerabilities of the Nation's
critical infrastructures, including Supervisory Control and
Data Acquisition (SCADA) and Digital Control Systems (DCS).
``(5) Mapping of key interdependences, choke-points, and
single points-of-failure within the Nation's cyber critical
infrastructure and the development of remediation programs.
``(6) Development of technologies, methodologies, and
applications to mitigate the most common cyber
vulnerabilities affecting networks, including viruses, worms,
and denial-of-service attacks.
``(7) Identification of emerging cybersecurity threats and
vulnerabilities affecting next-generation networks and mobile
and wireless networks.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the items
relating to title III the following:
``Sec. 314. Support of basic cybersecurity research.''.
Subtitle D--Cybersecurity Training and Equipment
SEC. 1131. CYBERSECURITY TRAINING PROGRAMS AND EQUIPMENT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, acting
through the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity, may
establish, in conjunction with the National Science
Foundation, a program to award grants to institutions of
higher education (and consortia thereof) for--
(1) the establishment or expansion of cybersecurity
professional development programs;
(2) the establishment or expansion of associate degree
programs in cybersecurity; and
(3) the purchase of equipment to provide training in
cybersecurity for either professional development programs or
degree programs.
(b) Roles.--
(1) Department of homeland security.--The Secretary, acting
through the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and in
consultation with the Director of the National Science
Foundation, shall establish the goals for the program
established under this section and the criteria for awarding
grants under the program.
(2) National science foundation.--The Director of the
National Science Foundation shall operate the program
established under this section consistent with the goals and
criteria established under paragraph (1), including
soliciting applicants, reviewing applications, and making and
administering grant awards. The Director may consult with the
Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity in selecting awardees.
(3) Funding.--The Secretary shall transfer to the National
Science Foundation the funds necessary to carry out this
section.
(c) Grant Awards.--
(1) Peer review.--All grant awards under this section shall
be made on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis.
(2) Focus.--In making grant awards under this section, the
Director shall, to the extent practicable, ensure geographic
diversity and the participation of women and underrepresented
minorities.
(3) Preference.--In making grant awards under this section,
the Director shall give preference to applications submitted
by consortia of institutions to encourage as many students
and professionals as possible to benefit from this program.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out this
section $3,700,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(e) Definitions.--In this section, the term ``institution
of higher education'' has the meaning given that term in
section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001(a)).
TITLE XII--HELPING FIRST RESPONDERS GET THEIR JOB DONE
Subtitle A--Communications Interoperability
SEC. 1201. INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY GRANT
PROGRAM.
Section 430 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
238) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Interoperable Communications Grants.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following
definitions shall apply:
``(A) Communications interoperability.--The term
`communications interoperability' means the ability of public
safety service and support providers, including emergency
response providers, to communicate with other responding
agencies and Federal agencies if necessary, through
information technology systems and radio communications
systems, and to exchange voice, data, or video with one
another on demand, in real time, as necessary.
``(B) Eligible state.--The term `eligible State' means a
State that--
``(i) has submitted a plan under paragraph (4); and
``(ii) the Secretary determines has not achieved adequate
statewide communications interoperability.
``(C) Public safety agencies.--The term `public safety
agencies' includes emergency response providers and any other
persons that the Secretary determines must communicate
effectively with one another to respond to emergencies.
``(2) In general.--The Secretary shall--
``(A) make grants on a competitive basis directly to local
governments (including a consortium of local governments) and
public safety agencies within eligible States, in
consultation with the chief executives of the State or
States, for the purpose of assisting in the development of
interoperable communications systems at any stage,
including--
``(i) planning, system design, and engineering;
``(ii) procurement and installation of equipment;
``(iii) operations and maintenance of equipment; and
``(iv) testing and technology development; and
``(B) make grants to eligible States for initiatives
necessary to achieve communications interoperability within
each State, including--
``(i) statewide communications planning;
``(ii) system design and engineering;
``(iii) procurement and installation of equipment;
``(iv) operations and maintenance of equipment; and
``(v) testing and technology development initiatives.
``(3) Coordination.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that grants
administered under this subsection are coordinated with the
activities of other entities of the Department and other
Federal entities so that grants awarded under this
subsection, and other grant programs related to homeland
security, facilitate the achievement of the strategy
developed under section 6 of the Faster and Smarter Funding
for First Responders Act of 2005.
``(B) Relationship to existing grant programs.--Nothing in
this Act shall provide for the combination of grant funds
among the grant program established under this subsection and
any other grant programs administered by the Department of
Homeland Security, including the State Homeland Security
Grant Program of the Department, or any successor to such
grant program, and the Urban Area Security Initiative of the
Department, or any successor to such grant program.
``(4) Eligibility.--
``(A) Submission of plan.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under this subsection, each eligible State, or local
governments or public safety agencies within an eligible
State or States, shall submit a communications
interoperability plan to the Secretary that--
``(i) addresses any stage of the development of
interoperable communications systems, including planning,
system design and engineering, procurement and installation,
operations and maintenance, and testing and technology
development;
``(ii) if the applicant is not a State, includes a
description of how the applicant addresses the goals
specified in any applicable State plan or plans submitted
under this section; and
``(iii) is approved by the Secretary.
``(B) Incorporation and consistency.--A plan submitted
under subparagraph (A) may be part of, and shall be
consistent with, any other homeland security plans required
of the submitting party by the Department.
``(5) Award of grants.--
``(A) Considerations.--In approving plans and awarding
grants under this subsection, the Secretary shall consider--
``(i) the nature of the threat to the eligible State or
local jurisdiction;
``(ii) the location, risk, or vulnerability of critical
infrastructure and key national assets;
``(iii) the number, as well as the density, of persons who
will be served by interoperable communications systems;
``(iv) the extent of the partnerships, existing or planned,
established between local jurisdictions and agencies
participating in the development of interoperable
communications systems, and their coordination with Federal
and State agencies;
``(v) the level of communications interoperability already
achieved by the jurisdictions;
``(vi) the extent to which the communications
interoperability plan submitted under paragraph (4)
adequately addresses steps necessary to implement short-term
or long-term solutions to communications interoperability;
``(vii) the extent to which eligible States and local
governments, in light of their financial capability,
demonstrate their commitment to expeditiously achieving
communications interoperability by supplementing Federal
funds with non-Federal funds;
``(viii) the extent to which grants will expedite the
achievement of interoperability in the relevant jurisdiction
with Federal, State, and local agencies; and
[[Page H3523]]
``(ix) the extent to which grants will be utilized to
implement advanced communications technologies to promote
interoperability.
``(B) Cost sharing.--
``(i) In general.--The Federal share of the costs of an
activity carried out with a grant to an applicant awarded
under this section shall not exceed 75 percent.
``(ii) In-kind matching.--Each recipient of a covered grant
may meet the matching requirement under clause (i) by making
in-kind contributions of goods or services that are directly
linked with the purpose for which the grant is made,
including personnel overtime, contractor services,
administrative costs, equipment fuel and maintenance, and
rental space.
``(6) Reimbursement.--
``(A) In general.--Unless otherwise requested by the
recipient of a grant under this subsection, grants shall not
be awarded to reimburse the recipient for prior expenditures
related to achieving communications interoperability.
``(B) Exception.--The Secretary shall reimburse public
safety agencies directly for costs incurred for expenditures
related to achieving communications interoperability, if--
``(i) the public safety agency expended funds after
September 11, 2001, and before the date of enactment of this
subsection; and
``(ii) such expenditures are consistent with and supportive
of the communications interoperability plan approved by the
Secretary under paragraph (4)(A)(iii).
``(C) Termination of authority.--The authority of the
Secretary under subparagraph (B) shall terminate one year
after the date on which the Department of Homeland Security
first allocates grant funds for this program.
``(7) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $500,000,000
for fiscal year 2006, $750,000,000 for fiscal year 2007,
$1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $1,250,000,000 for
fiscal year 2009, $1,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, and
such sums as are necessary each fiscal year thereafter, to
carry out the purposes of this subsection.''.
SEC. 1202. STUDY REVIEWING COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT
INTEROPERABILITY.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
conduct a study reviewing communication equipment
interoperability and the viability of an acquisition strategy
that requires all agencies to purchase equipment made by
manufacturers that have committed to allow their products to
be reverse engineered, so that interoperability can be
assured regardless of manufacturer.
(b) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the Congress a
report on the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the study by not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1203. PREVENTION OF DELAY IN REASSIGNMENT OF DEDICATED
SPECTRUM FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) communications interoperability is a critical problem
faced by our Nation's first responders;
(2) permanently correcting this problem requires broadcast
spectrum dedicated for use by first responders; and
(3) Congress supports prompt action to make certain
dedicated spectrum is available for use by first responders.
Subtitle B--Homeland Security Terrorism Exercises
SEC. 1211. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Homeland Security
Terrorism Exercises Act of 2005.''
SEC. 1212. NATIONAL TERRORISM EXERCISE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 430 of the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 238) is amended by striking ``and'' after
the semicolon at the end of paragraph (8), by striking the
period at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting ``; and'',
and by adding at the end the following:
``(10) designing, developing, performing, and evaluating
exercises at the National, State, territorial, regional,
local, and tribal levels of government that incorporate
government officials, emergency response providers, public
safety agencies, the private sector, international
governments and organizations, and other appropriate entities
to test the Nation's capability to prevent, prepare for,
respond to, and recover from threatened or actual acts of
terrorism.''.
(b) National Terrorism Exercise Program.--
(1) Establishment of program.--Title VIII of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subtitle:
``Subtitle J--Terrorism Preparedness Exercises
``SEC. 899A. NATIONAL TERRORISM EXERCISE PROGRAM.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, through the Office for
Domestic Preparedness, shall establish a National Terrorism
Exercise Program for the purpose of testing and evaluating
the Nation's capabilities to prevent, prepare for, respond
to, and recover from threatened or actual acts of terrorism
that--
``(1) enhances coordination for terrorism preparedness
between all levels of government, emergency response
providers, international governments and organizations, and
the private sector;
``(2) is--
``(A) multidisciplinary in nature, including, as
appropriate, information analysis and cybersecurity
components;
``(B) as realistic as practicable and based on current risk
assessments, including credible threats, vulnerabilities, and
consequences;
``(C) carried out with the minimum degree of notice to
involved parties regarding the timing and details of such
exercises, consistent with safety considerations;
``(D) evaluated against performance measures and followed
by corrective action to solve identified deficiencies; and
``(E) assessed to learn best practices, which shall be
shared with appropriate Federal, State, territorial,
regional, local, and tribal personnel, authorities, and
training institutions for emergency response providers; and
``(3) assists State, territorial, local, and tribal
governments with the design, implementation, and evaluation
of exercises that--
``(A) conform to the requirements of paragraph (2); and
``(B) are consistent with any applicable State homeland
security strategy or plan.
``(b) National Level Exercises.--The Secretary, through the
National Terrorism Exercise Program, shall perform on a
periodic basis national terrorism preparedness exercises for
the purposes of--
``(1) involving top officials from Federal, State,
territorial, local, tribal, and international governments, as
the Secretary considers appropriate;
``(2) testing and evaluating the Nation's capability to
detect, disrupt, and prevent threatened or actual
catastrophic acts of terrorism, especially those involving
weapons of mass destruction; and
``(3) testing and evaluating the Nation's readiness to
respond to and recover from catastrophic acts of terrorism,
especially those involving weapons of mass destruction.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the items
relating to title VIII the following:
``Subtitle J--Terrorism Preparedness Exercises
``Sec. 899a. National terrorism exercise program.''.
Subtitle C--Citizenship Preparedness
SEC. 1221. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that individual citizens must be a
significant part of our overall approach to the Nation's
security because--
(1) September 11, 2001, confirmed that all Americans have
responsibility for homeland security;
(2) the United States will not be secure until the hometown
is secure and the ``publicity and the vigilance of ordinary
Americans make a difference'' in their communities' abilities
to prepare for, to train for, and to respond to disasters of
all kinds; and
(3) emergency responders can become overwhelmed in a
catastrophic event and citizens must be prepared and trained
to take care of themselves and others.
SEC. 1222. PURPOSES.
The purpose of this title is to to provide an orderly and
continuing means of assistance by the Federal Government to
State, local, and tribal governments in carrying out their
responsibilities to engage all Americans in homeland security
to provide an orderly and continuing means of assistance by
the Federal Government to State, local, and tribal
governments in carrying out their responsibilities to engage
all Americans in homeland security by--
(1) achieving greater coordination among citizens, the
private sector, non-governmental organizations, and all
emergency responder disciplines through Citizen Corps
Councils;
(2) encouraging individuals and communities to prepare for
all hazards and threats;
(3) providing Federal assistance to establish, to build,
and to sustain Citizen Corps Councils, which foster a
comprehensive partnership among all emergency responder
disciplines, government officials, the private sector,
community and faith-based organizations to develop a local,
risk-based strategy plan to engage citizens in hometown
security through accurate preparedness information through
public education and outreach; timely event-based
information, including alerts and warnings; training in
preparedness, prevention, and emergency response skills; and
opportunities for collaboration with local emergency
responders through volunteer programs, exercises, community
outreach, and other coordinated efforts to promote citizen
preparedness;
(4) focusing on how both to include people with
disabilities and special needs in emergency preparedness and
response training and collaboration opportunities and to
ensure that emergency responders are better preparedness to
meet the needs of this segment of society; and
(5) endorsing homeland security plans and strategies that
integrate citizen/volunteer resources and participation and
task force/advisory council memberships that include
advocates for increased citizen participation.
SEC. 1223. CITIZENS CORPS; PRIVATE SECTOR PREPAREDNESS.
Title I of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 104. CITIZEN CORPS AUTHORIZATION.
``(a) Administration and Supervision.--Citizen Corps and
other community preparedness programs in the Department of
Homeland Security shall be administered by the Executive
Director of the Office of State
[[Page H3524]]
and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness under the
supervision and direction of the Secretary.
``(b) Executive Director.--The Executive Director---
``(1) shall serve as Chair of the National Citizen Corps
Council;
``(2) shall convene meetings of the National Citizen Corps
Council at his own discretion or at the direction of the
Secretary;
``(3) shall coordinate with State, local, and tribal
government personnel, agencies, and authorities, and with the
private sector, to ensure adequate planning, equipment,
training, and exercise activities to fulfill the mission of
engaging citizens in homeland security; and
``(4) shall provide periodic reports on the status of
Citizen Corps and citizen preparedness to the Homeland
Security Council through the Secretary.
``(c) Uses of Funds.--Funds made available under this title
shall be used for the following:
``(1) Activities related to the component programs of
Citizen Corps, including but not limited to Community
Emergency Response Teams, Fire Corps, Volunteers in Police
Service, USA on Watch, and Medical Reserve Corps.
``(2) To provide funding to States in accordance with
Public Law 107-296, except that States must pass through at
least 80 percent of funds received under this title to local
Citizen Corps Councils.
``(3) State and local Citizen Corps councils may purchase
educational materials for use in elementary and secondary
schools for emergency preparedness education programs.
``(d) Coordination With Other Federal Entities.--The
Executive Director--
``(1) shall support the coordination among all Federal
entities to develop and sustain Citizen Corps and citizen
preparedness and participation, especially the Departments of
Health and Human Services, Justice, Commerce, Education, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and Corporation for National
and Community Service; and
``(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 Executive Director's responsibilities under
this title or otherwise provided by law.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
to carry out the provisions of this title--
``(1) for fiscal year 2006, $50 million;
``(2) for fiscal year 2007, $55 million;
``(3) for fiscal year 2008, $60 million;
``(4) for fiscal year 2009, $65 million; and
``(5) for fiscal year 2010, $70 million.
``SEC. 105. PRIVATE SECTOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM.
``(a) Preparedness Program.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of the enactment of this title, the Secretary shall
develop and implement a program to enhance private sector
preparedness for emergencies and disasters, including
emergencies resulting from acts of terrorism.
``(b) Program Elements.--In carrying out the program, the
Secretary shall develop guidance and identify best practices
to assist or foster action by the private sector in--
``(1) identifying hazards and assessing risks and impacts;
``(2) mitigating the impacts of a wide variety of hazards,
including weapons of mass destruction;
``(3) managing necessary emergency preparedness and
response resources;
``(4) developing mutual aid agreements;
``(5) developing and maintaining emergency preparedness and
response plans, as well as associated operational procedures;
``(6) developing and maintaining communications and warning
systems;
``(7) developing and conducting training and exercises to
support and evaluate emergency preparedness and response
plans and operational procedures;
``(8) developing and conducting training programs for
security guards to implement emergency preparedness and
response plans and operations procedures; and
``(9) developing procedures to respond to external requests
for information from the media and the public.
``(c) Standards.--
``(1) In general.-- The Secretary shall support the
development of, promulgate, and regularly update as necessary
national voluntary consensus standards for private sector
emergency preparedness that will enable private sector
organizations to achieve optimal levels of emergency
preparedness as soon as practicable. Such standards include
the National Fire Protection Association 1600 Standard on
Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity
Programs.
``(2) Consultation.--The Secretary shall carry out
paragraph (1) in consultation with the Under Secretary for
Emergency Preparedness and Response, the Under Secretary for
Science and Technology, the Under Secretary for Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, and the Special
Assistant to the Secretary for the Private Sector.
``(d) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate the
program with, and utilize to the maximum extent practicable--
``(1) the voluntary standards for disaster and emergency
management and business continuity programs developed by the
American National Standards Institute and the National Fire
Protection Association; and
``(2) any existing private sector emergency preparedness
guidance or best practices developed by private sector
industry associations or other organizations.''.
Subtitle D--Emergency Medical Services
SEC. 1231. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Establishment.--Title V of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (Public Law 107-296) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 510. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established, within the
Directorate of Emergency Preparedness and Response, an
Emergency Medical Services Administration to oversee and
coordinate government efforts related to emergency medical
services response to incidents of terrorism, including
governmental and nongovernmental emergency medical services.
``(b) Responsibilities.--The head of the Emergency Medical
Services Administration shall--
``(1) coordinate activities related to emergency medical
services and homeland security;
``(2) serve as liaison to the emergency medical services
community;
``(3) evaluate training programs and standards for
emergency medical services personnel;
``(4) conduct periodic assessments into the needs and
capabilities of emergency medical services providers,
including governmental and nongovernmental providers;
``(5) conduct periodic research into the number of
emergency medical services personnel, including governmental
and nongovernmental emergency medical services, as well
emergency medical services providers that are associated with
fire departments or hospital-based.
``(c) Nationwide Needs Assessment.--The head of the
Emergency Medical Services Administration shall conduct
nationwide needs assessment of emergency medical services
capabilities and needs related to equipment, training, and
personnel.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the items
related to title V the following:
``Sec. 510. Emergency Medical Services Administration.''.
SEC. 1232. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should
review the current system for distributing Emergency
Management Performance Grants and consider distributing grant
funds to State emergency managers rather than to State
homeland security directors.
Subtitle E--Lessons Learned Information Sharing System
SEC. 1241. LESSONS LEARNED, BEST PRACTICES, AND CORRECTIVE
ACTION.
(a) In General.--In conjunction with the National Memorial
Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, the Secretary shall support the continued
growth and operation of the Lessons Learned Information
Sharing (LLIS.gov) system to promote the generation and
dissemination of peer-validated lessons learned, best
practices, and corrective actions across the entire range of
emergency response and homeland security disciplines for all
local, state, tribal, and national jurisdictions. Lessons
Learned Information Sharing is the recognized national
collaborative network to enhance preparedness and prevention
capabilities throughout the country. In supporting Lessons
Learned Information Sharing, the Secretary shall ensure the
following:
(1) that the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention
Terrorism (MIPT), in its unique role as an independent and
honest broker of lessons learned, best practices, and
corrective action, remain the Department's official steward
of Lessons Learned Information Sharing;
(2) that the Lessons Learned Information Sharing system be
expanded to include research and analysis on all primary,
secondary, and tertiary emergency response and homeland
security disciplines;
(3) that the successful model of the Lessons Learned
Information Sharing system be applied to address the lessons
learned and best practices needs of both the private sector
and the American public at large;
(4) that the Lessons Learned Information Sharing system be
expanded and made available to the emergency responders and
domestic security officials of our international allies, as
deemed appropriate by the Secretary, to include the
collection and accommodation of international lessons learned
and best practices;
(5) that the Lessons Learned Information Sharing system
serve as the host platform and parent system for the
Department's Corrective Action and Improvement Program that
supports the Homeland Security National Exercise Program,
Senior Officials Exercises, and Top Officials (TopOff)
exercises, in accordance with the Department's Homeland
Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP);
(6) that the Lessons Learned Information Sharing system
support the continued analysis and implementation of the
National Preparedness Goal and National Preparedness Guidance
as required by Homeland Security Presidential Decision
Directive Eight;
(7) that the Lessons Learned Information Sharing System
shall study the feasibility of developing a non-secure
section for non-confidential and non-sensitive information;
[[Page H3525]]
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--The Secretary is
authorized to be appropriated $17,000,000 for the fiscal year
2006 to carry out the above requirements.
Subtitle F--Technology Transfer Clearinghouse
SEC. 1251. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Department of Homeland
Security Technology Development and Transfer Act of 2005''.
SEC. 1252. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER.
(a) Establishment of Technology Clearinghouse.--Not later
than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall complete the establishment of the Technology
Clearinghouse under Section 313 of the Homeland Security Act
of 2002.
(b) Transfer Program.--Section 313 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 193) is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following
new paragraph:
``(6) The establishment of a homeland security technology
transfer program to facilitate the identification,
modification, and commercialization of technology and
equipment for use by Federal, State, and local governmental
agencies, emergency response providers, and the private
sector to prevent, prepare for, or respond to acts of
terrorism.'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsection:
``(c) Technology Transfer Program.--In developing the
program described in subsection (b)(6), the Secretary, acting
through the Under Secretary for Science and Technology,
shall--
``(1) in consultation with the other Undersecretaries of
the Department and the Director of the Office for Domestic
Preparedness, on an ongoing basis--
``(A) conduct surveys and reviews of available appropriate
technologies that have been, or are in the process of being
developed or demonstrated by the Department, other Federal
agencies, or the private sector or foreign governments and
international organizations and that may be useful in
assisting Federal, State, and local governmental agencies,
emergency response providers, or the private sector to
prevent, prepare for, or respond to acts of terrorism;
``(B) conduct or support research and development as
appropriate of technologies identified under subparagraph
(A), including any necessary modifications to such
technologies for anti-terrorism use;
``(C) communicate to Federal, State, and local governmental
agencies, emergency response providers, or the private sector
the availability of such technologies for anti-terrorism use,
as well as the technology's specifications, satisfaction of
appropriate standards, and the appropriate grants available
from the Department to purchase such technologies;
``(D) coordinate the selection and administration of all
technology transfer activities of the Science and Technology
Directorate, including projects and grants awarded to the
private sector and academia; and
``(E) identify priorities based on current risk assessments
within the Department of Homeland Security for identifying,
researching, developing, modifying, and fielding existing
technologies for anti-terrorism purposes; and
``(2) in support of the activities described in paragraph
(1)--
``(A) consult with Federal, State, and local emergency
response providers;
``(B) consult with government and nationally recognized
standards organizations as appropriate;
``(C) enter into agreements and coordinate with other
Federal agencies and foreign governments and international
organizations as the Secretary determines appropriate, in
order to maximize the effectiveness of such technologies or
to facilitate commercialization of such technologies; and
``(D) consult with existing technology transfer programs
and Federal and State training centers that research,
develop, and transfer military and other technologies for use
by emergency response providers.''.
(c) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology shall transmit to the Congress a description of
the progress the Department has made in implementing the
provisions of section 313 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002, as amended by this Act, including a description of the
process used to review unsolicited proposals received as
described in subsection (b)(3) of such section.
(d) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section (including the
amendments made by this section) shall be construed to alter
or diminish the effect of the limitation on the authority of
the Secretary of Homeland Security under section 302(4) of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 182(4)) with
respect to human health-related research and development
activities.
Subtitle G--Metropolitan Medical Response System
SEC. 1261. METROPOLITAN MEDICAL RESPONSE SYSTEM;
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Authorizations of Appropriations.--For the Metropolitan
Medical Response System within the Department of Homeland
Security, there is authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000
for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2008.
(b) Reservation of Amounts for Local Responsibilities.--Of
the amounts appropriated under subsection (a) for a fiscal
year, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall reserve not
less than 90 percent to provide funds to the appropriate
local entities for carrying out local responsibilities with
respect to the Metropolitan Medical Response System.
TITLE XIII--FIGHTING DOMESTIC TERRORISM
SEC. 1301. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC TERRORIST
ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Requirement To Establish.--Title I of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 104. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC TERRORIST
ORGANIZATIONS.
``(a) Establishment.--To assist the Secretary in
identifying the threat posed by domestic terrorist
organizations, the Secretary shall establish an advisory body
pursuant to section 871(a) by not later than 60 days after
the date of the enactment of this section, which shall be
known as the Advisory Committee on Domestic Terrorist
Organizations.
``(b) Report.--The advisory committee shall submit to the
Secretary, by not later than 6 months after its establishment
by the Secretary under subsection (a) and not later than
every 1 year thereafter, a report on the threat posed by
domestic terrorist organizations. Each report shall--
``(1) include an assessment of the nature and scope of
domestic terrorist organization threats to the homeland;
``(2) detect and identify threats of domestic terrorist
organizations against the United States;
``(3) assess the Department's performance in detecting,
identifying, and countering domestic terrorist organizations
and their threat to the homeland; and
``(4) suggest improvements in the Department's efforts to
detect, identify, and counter domestic terrorist
organizations and their threat to the homeland.
``(c) Advise on Particular Threats.--At the Secretary's
discretion, the Advisory Committee may also advise the
Secretary on particular threats posed by domestic terrorist
organizations.
``(d) Membership.--
``(1) In general.--The Advisory Committee shall consist of
representatives of 15 organizations that have long-standing
experience in monitoring domestic terrorist organizations and
assessing their danger, and shall include a representative of
each of--
``(A) the Southern Poverty Law Center;
``(B) the Simon Wiesenthal Center;
``(C) the Anti-Defamation League;
``(D) the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People;
``(E) the Arab American Institute;
``(F) the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee;
``(G) the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs; and
``(H) the National Abortion Federation.
``(2) Ex officio members.--The Secretary shall designate
one or more officers of the Department to serve as ex officio
members of the Advisory Committee. One of such ex officio
members from the Department shall be the designated officer
of the Federal Government for purposes of subsection (e) of
section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 App.
U.S.C.).
``(e) Applicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--
Notwithstanding section 871(a), the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 App. U.S.C.), including subsections (a),
(b), and (d) of section 10 of such Act, and section 552b(c)
of title 5, Untied States Code, shall apply to the Task
Force.
``(f) Terrorist Organization Defined.--In this section, the
term `domestic terrorist organization' means an organization
that is based primarily in the United States and that engages
in domestic terrorism (as that term is defined in section
2331 of title 18, United States Code) or that has the
capability and intent to engage in domestic terrorism.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the items
relating to title I the following:
``Sec. 104. Advisory Committee on Domestic Terrorist Organizations.''.
TITLE XIV--CREATING A DIVERSE AND MANAGEABLE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Subtitle A--Authorities of Privacy Officer
SEC. 1401. AUTHORITIES OF PRIVACY OFFICER.
Section 222 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
142) is amended--
(1) by inserting before the first sentence the following:
``(a) Appointment and Responsibilities.--'';
(2) in subsection (a) (as designated by the amendment made
by paragraph (1) of this section) by striking ``to assume''
and inserting ``as the Privacy Officer of the Department. The
Privacy Officer shall have''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Authority To Investigate.--The Privacy Officer shall
have the same authority as the Inspector General of the
Department to require employees of the Department to produce
documents and answer questions, with respect to any matter
within the authority of the senior official under subsection
(a).
``(c) Term of Office.--The term of appointment of an
individual as Privacy Officer shall be 5 years.
``(d) Reports to Congress.--The Privacy Officer shall
submit reports directly to the
[[Page H3526]]
Congress regarding any matter within the authority of the
Privacy Officer under this section, without any prior comment
or amendment from the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, or any
other officer or employee of the Department or the Office of
Management and Budget.''.
Subtitle B--Ensuring Diversity in Department of Homeland Security
Programs
SEC. 1411. ANNUAL REPORTS RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT OF COVERED
PERSONS.
(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Homeland
Security;
(2) the term ``Department'' means the Department of
Homeland Security;
(3) the term ``covered persons'' means--
(A) racial and ethnic minorities;
(B) women; and
(C) individuals with disabilities;
(4) the term ``category'', as used with respect to covered
persons, refers to the categories of persons identified in
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively, of paragraph
(3); and
(5) the term ``element'', as used with respect to the
Department, means a directorate of the Department and the
office of the Secretary.
(b) Annual Reports.--Not later than February 1 of each
year, the Secretary shall prepare and transmit to each House
of Congress a report on the employment of covered persons by
the Department during the preceding fiscal year. Each such
report shall include, for each element of the Department, the
following:
(1) The total number of individuals holding positions
within such element as of the end of such fiscal year and, of
that number, the percentage (in the aggregate and by
category) that covered persons comprised.
(2) For each pay grade, pay band, or other pay
classification of each pay schedule and for every other rate
of pay--
(A) the total number of individuals holding positions
within such element as of the end of such fiscal year who
were subject to each such pay classification or rate; and
(B) of the respective numbers under subparagraph (A), the
percentage (in the aggregate and by category) that covered
persons comprised.
(3) The total number of individuals appointed to positions
within such element during such fiscal year and, of that
number, the percentage (in the aggregate and by category)
that covered persons comprised.
(c) Unclassified Form.--Each report under this section
shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a
classified annex if the Secretary considers one to be
necessary.
SEC. 1412. PROCUREMENT.
(a) Report.--Not later than 360 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Chief Procurement Officer of the
Department of Homeland Security shall submit to the Secretary
of Homeland Security, the Committee on Homeland Security of
the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report
that--
(1) identifies each program of the Department for which the
aggregate value of contracts awarded in fiscal year 2005
under the program to persons that are small disadvantaged
business, women-owned small businesses, or historically
underutilized business zones (popularly known as ``HUBZones''
) was less than 5 percent of the total value of all contracts
awarded under the program in that fiscal year; and
(2) identifies and describes any barriers to achieving a
goal of awarding to such persons each fiscal year contracts
having an aggregate value of at least 5 percent of the total
value of all contracts awarded under the program in the
fiscal year.
(b) Action Plan.--
(1) Action plan required.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of the submission of the report required under
subsection (a), the Chief Procurement Officer, in
consultation with Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Businesses Utilization of the Department, shall develop ,
submit to the Committees referred to in subsection (a), and
begin implementing for each program identified under
subsection (a)(1) an action plan for achieving the goal
described in subsection (a)(2).
(2) Performance measures and timetable.--Each action plan
shall include performance measures and a timetable for
compliance and achievement of the goal described in
subsection (a)(2).
SEC. 1413. CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE PROGRAM.
In selecting the first institution of higher education
selected after the date of the enactment of this Act under
the Department of Homeland Security Centers of Excellence
program, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall select an
otherwise eligible applicant that is an historically black
college or university that receives assistance under part B
of title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C
106 et seq), an hispanic-serving institution (as that term is
defined in section 502 of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1101a), or a tribally controlled college or
university (as that term is defined in section 2 of the
Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of
1978 (25 U.S.C. 1801).
Subtitle C--Protection of Certain Employee Rights
SEC. 1421. PROVISIONS TO PROTECT CERTAIN EMPLOYEE RIGHTS.
(a) Collective Bargaining, Appeals, Etc.--
(1) In general.--Section 9701(c) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``(F),'' after ``(E),'';
and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``59, 72, 73, and 79,''
and inserting ``and 59,''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 9701(f) of title 5,
United States Code, is repealed.
(b) Rates of Pay.--Section 9701(d) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period and inserting
``; or''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) to fix the pay for any position at a rate that is
less than--
``(A) in the case of a position that (if this chapter had
not been enacted) would have been subject to the provisions
of this title relating to the General Schedule, the rate
determined under such provisions; or
``(B) in the case of any other position, the rate
determined under such provisions for the position that is
most similar in its duties and responsibilities to those of
such other position (as determined under regulations) and
that is subject to such provisions.''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) Subsection (a).--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296; 6 U.S.C.
101 note).
(2) Subsection (b).--The amendments made by subsection (b)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act
and shall apply with respect to pay for service performed in
any pay period beginning on or after such date.
Subtitle D--Whistleblower Protections
SEC. 1431. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS.
(a) In General.--No covered individual may be discharged,
demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, reprimanded,
investigated, or in any other manner discriminated against
(including by a denial, suspension, or revocation of a
security clearance or by any other security access
determination) if such discrimination is due, in whole or in
part, to any lawful act done, perceived to have been done, or
intended to be done by the covered individual--
(1) to provide information, cause information to be
provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding
any conduct which the covered individual reasonably believes
constitutes a violation of any law, rule or regulation
relating to national or homeland security, which the covered
individual reasonably believes constitutes a threat to
national or homeland security, or which the covered
individual reasonably believes constitutes fraud, waste or
mismanagement of Government funds intended to be used for
national or homeland security, when the information or
assistance is provided to or the investigation is conducted
by--
(A) a Federal, State or local regulatory or law enforcement
agency (including an office of Inspector General under the
Inspector General Act of 1978);
(B) any Member of Congress, any committee of Congress, or
the Government Accountability Office; or
(C) a person with supervisory authority over the covered
individual (or such other person who has the authority to
investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct);
(2) to file, cause to be filed, testify, participate in, or
otherwise assist in a proceeding or action filed or about to
be filed relating to an alleged violation of any law, rule or
regulation relating to national or homeland security; or
(3) to refuse to violate or assist in the violation of any
law, rule, or regulation relating to national or homeland
security.
(b) Enforcement Action.--
(1) In general.--A covered individual who alleges discharge
or other discrimination by any person in violation of
subsection (a) may seek relief under subsection (c) by--
(A) filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor; or
(B) if the Secretary has not issued a final decision within
180 days after the filing of the complaint and there is no
showing that such delay is due to the bad faith of the
claimant, bringing an action at law or equity for de novo
review in the appropriate district court of the United
States, which shall have jurisdiction over such an action
without regard to the amount in controversy.
(2) Procedure.--
(A) In general.--An action under paragraph (1)(A) shall be
governed under the rules and procedures set forth in section
42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
(B) Exception.--Notification made under section 42121(b)(1)
of title 49, United States Code, shall be made to the person
named in the complaint and to the person's employer.
(C) Burdens of proof.--An action brought under paragraph
(1)(B) shall be governed by the legal burdens of proof set
forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
(D) Statute of limitations.--An action under paragraph (1)
shall be commenced not later than 1 year after the date on
which the violation occurs.
(c) Remedies.--
(1) In general.--A covered individual prevailing in any
action under subsection (b)(1) shall be entitled to all
relief necessary to make the covered individual whole.
(2) Damages.--Relief for any action under paragraph (1)
shall include--
[[Page H3527]]
(A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the
covered individual would have had, but for the
discrimination;
(B) the amount of any back pay, with interest;
(C) compensation for any special damages sustained as a
result of the discrimination, including litigation costs,
expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees; and
(D) punitive damages in an amount not to exceed the greater
of 3 times the amount of any compensatory damages awarded
under this section or $5,000,000.
(d) State Secrets Privilege.--If, in any action brought
under subsection (b)(1)(B), the Government asserts as a
defense the privilege commonly referred to as the ``state
secrets privilege'' and the assertion of such privilege
prevents the plaintiff from establishing a prima facie case
in support of the plaintiff's claim, the court shall enter
judgment for the plaintiff and shall determine the relief to
be granted.
(e) Criminal Penalties.--
(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person
employing a covered individual to commit an act prohibited by
subsection (a). Any person violating this paragraph shall be
fined under title 18 of the United States Code, imprisoned
not more than 10 years, or both.
(2) Reporting requirement.--The Department of Justice shall
submit to Congress an annual report on the enforcement of
paragraph (1). Each such report shall (A) identify each case
in which formal charges under paragraph (1) were brought, (B)
describe the status or disposition of each such case, and (C)
in any actions under subsection (b)(1)(B) in which the
covered individual was the prevailing party or the
substantially prevailing party, indicate whether or not any
formal charges under paragraph (1) have been brought and, if
not, the reasons therefor.
(f) Rights Retained by Covered Individual.--Nothing in this
section shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges,
or remedies of any covered individual under any Federal or
State law, or under any collective bargaining agreement. The
rights and remedies in this section may not be waived by any
agreement, policy, form, or condition of employment.
(g) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``covered individual'' means an employee of--
(A) the Department of Homeland Security (which, for
purposes of this section, includes the Transportation
Security Administration);
(B) a Federal contractor or subcontractor; and
(C) an employer within the meaning of section 701(b) of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e(b));
(2) the term ``lawful'' means not specifically prohibited
by law, except that, in the case of any information the
disclosure of which is specifically prohibited by law or
specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in
the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign
affairs, any disclosure of such information to any Member of
Congress, committee of Congress, or other recipient
authorized to receive such information, shall be deemed
lawful;
(3) the term ``Federal contractor'' means a person who has
entered into a contract with the Department of Homeland
Security;
(4) the term ``employee'' means--
(A) with respect to an employer referred to in paragraph
(1)(A), an employee as defined by section 2105 of title 5,
United States Code; and
(B) with respect to an employer referred to in subparagraph
(A) or (B) of paragraph (1), any officer, partner, employee,
or agent;
(5) the term ``subcontractor''--
(A) means any person, other than the Federal contractor,
who offers to furnish or furnishes any supplies, materials,
equipment, or services of any kind under a contract with the
Department of Homeland Security or a subcontract entered into
in connection with such a contract; and
(B) includes any person who offers to furnish or furnishes
general supplies to the Federal contractor or a higher tier
subcontractor; and
(6) the term ``person'' means a corporation, partnership,
State entity, business association of any kind, trust, joint-
stock company, or individual.
(h) Authorization of Funds.--Of the amounts authorized
under section 101, there is authorized to be appropriated
amounts necessary for carrying out this section. Except as
provided in the preceding sentence, this section shall have
no force or effect.
Subtitle E--Authority of Chief Information Officer
SEC. 1441. AUTHORITY OF CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER.
Section 703 of the Department of Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 343) is amended by inserting ``(a) In
General.--'' before the first sentence, and by adding at the
end the following:
``(b) Line Authority.--The Secretary shall delegate to the
Chief Information Officer direct line authority to oversee
all chief information officers of the agencies of the
Department, and other key information technology personnel of
the Department, with respect to their responsibilities to
oversee, integrate, and protect information technology
systems of the Department. The Chief Information Officer
shall report directly to the Secretary.''.
Subtitle F--Authorization for Office of Inspector General
SEC. 1451. AUTHORIZATION FOR OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.
In lieu of any amount otherwise authorized for the Office
of the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland
Security, there is authorized to be appropriated for such
office $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
Subtitle G--Regional Office
SEC. 1461. COLOCATED REGIONAL OFFICES.
Not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop
and implement a plan for establishing consolidated and
colocated regional offices for the Department of Homeland
Security in accordance with section 706 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 346), that will--
(1) enable a rapid, robust, and coordinated Federal
response to threats and incidents;
(2) enhance all-hazards preparedness across the United
States with respect to terrorism, natural disasters, other
emergencies;
(3) provide integrated capabilities among the Department of
Homeland Security, other Federal agencies, and Stated and
local governments; and
(4) maximize cost savings and efficiencies through
establishment of regional offices at current DHS agency
regional structures with contiguous multi-State operations.
Subtitle H--DHS Terrorism Prevention Plan
SEC. 1471. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Department of Homeland
Security Terrorism Prevention Plan Act of 2005''.
SEC. 1472. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TERRORISM
PREVENTION PLAN.
(a) Requirements.--Not later than one year after the date
of enactment of the Act, and on a regular basis thereafter,
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall prepare and submit
to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate a Department of Homeland
Security Terrorism Prevention Plan. The Plan shall be a
comprehensive and integrated plan that includes the goals,
objectives, milestones, and key initiatives of the Department
of Homeland Security to prevent acts of terrorism on the
United States, including its territories and interests.
(b) Contents.--The Secretary shall include in the Plan the
following elements:
(1) Identification and prioritization of groups and
subgroups that pose the most significant threat of committing
acts of terrorism on the United States and its interests.
(2) Identification of the most significant current,
evolving, and long term terrorist threats to the United
States and its interests, including an evaluation of--
(A) the materials that may be used to carry out a potential
attack;
(B) the methods that may be used to carry out a potential
attack; and
(C) the outcome the perpetrators of acts of terrorism aim
to achieve.
(3) A prioritization of the threats identified under
paragraph (2), based on an assessment of probability and
consequence of such attacks.
(4) A description of processes and procedures that the
Secretary shall establish to institutionalize close
coordination between the Department of Homeland Security and
the National Counter Terrorism Center and other appropriate
United States intelligence agencies.
(5) The policies and procedures the Secretary shall
establish to ensure the Department gathers real time
information from the National Counter Terrorism Center;
disseminates this information throughout the Department, as
appropriate; utilizes this information to support the
Department's counter terrorism responsibilities; integrates
the Departments information collection and analysis
functions; and disseminates this information to its
operational units, as appropriate.
(6) A description of the specific actions the Secretary
shall take to identify threats of terrorism on the United
States and its interests, and to coordinate activities within
the Department to prevent acts of terrorism, with special
emphasis on prevention of terrorist access to and use of
weapons of mass destruction.
(7) A description of initiatives the Secretary shall take
to share critical terrorism prevention information with, and
provide terrorism prevention support to, State and local
governments and the private sector.
(8) A timeline, with goals and milestones, for implementing
the Homeland Security Information Network, the Homeland
Security Secure Data Network, and other departmental
information initiatives to prevent acts of terrorism on the
United States and its interests, including integration of
these initiatives in the operations of the Homeland Security
Operations Center.
(9) Such other terrorism prevention-related elements as the
Secretary considers appropriate.
(c) Consultation.--In formulating the Plan the Secretary
shall consult with--
(1) the Director of National Intelligence;
(2) the Director of the National Counter Terrorism Center;
(3) the Attorney General;
(4) the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense;
(6) the Secretary of State;
[[Page H3528]]
(7) the Secretary of Energy;
(8) the Secretary of the Treasury; and
(9) the heads of other Federal agencies and State, county,
and local law enforcement agencies as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(d) Classification.--The Secretary shall prepare the Plan
in both classified and nonclassified forms.
SEC. 1473. ANNUAL CROSSCUTTING ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED FUNDING
FOR DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PROGRAMS.
(a) Requirement To Submit Analysis.--The Secretary of
Homeland Security shall submit to the Congress, concurrently
with the submission of the President's budget for each fiscal
year, a detailed, crosscutting analysis of the budget
proposed for the Department of Homeland Security, by budget
function, by agency, and by initiative area, identifying the
requested amounts of gross and net appropriations or
obligational authority and outlays for programs and
activities of the Department for each of the following
mission areas:
(1) To prevent terrorist attacks within the United States.
(2) To reduce the vulnerability of the United States to
terrorism.
(3) To minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery,
from terrorist attacks that do occur within the United
States.
(4) To carry out all functions of the agencies and
subdivisions within the Department that are not related
directly to homeland security.
(b) Funding Analysis of Multipurpose Functions.--The
analysis required under subsection (a) for functions that are
both related directly and not related directly to homeland
security shall include a detailed allocation of funding for
each specific mission area within those functions, including
an allocation of funding among mission support functions,
such as agency overhead, capital assets, and human capital.
(c) Included Terrorism Prevention Activities.--The analysis
required under subsection (a)(1) shall include the following
activities (among others) of the Department:
(1) Collection and effective use of intelligence and law
enforcement operations that screen for and target individuals
who plan or intend to carry out acts of terrorism.
(2) Investigative, intelligence, and law enforcement
operations that identify and disrupt plans for acts of
terrorism or reduce the ability of groups or individuals to
commit acts of terrorism.
(3) Investigative activities and intelligence operations to
detect and prevent the introduction of weapons of mass
destruction into the United States.
(4) Initiatives to detect potential, or the early stages of
actual, biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear
attacks.
(5) Screening passengers against terrorist watch lists.
(6) Screening cargo to identify and segregate high-risk
shipments.
(7) Specific utilization of information sharing and
intelligence, both horizontally (within the Federal
Government) and vertically (among Federal, State, and local
governments), to detect or prevent acts of terrorism.
(8) Initiatives, including law enforcement and intelligence
operations, to preempt, disrupt, and deter acts of terrorism
overseas intended to strike the United States.
(9) Investments in technology, research and development,
training, and communications systems that are designed to
improve the performance of the Department and its agencies
with respect to each of the activities listed in paragraphs
(1) through (8).
(d) Separate Displays for Mandatory and Discretionary
Amounts.--Each analysis under subsection (a) shall include
separate displays for proposed mandatory appropriations and
proposed discretionary appropriations.
Subtitle I--Tribal Security
SEC. 1481. OFFICE OF TRIBAL SECURITY.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) is
amended--
(1) by inserting after section 801 the following new
section:
``SEC. 802. OFFICE OF TRIBAL SECURITY.
``(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
`Tribal Homeland Security Act'.
``(b) Establishment.--There is established within the
Department of Homeland Security the Office of Tribal
Security.
``(c) Director.--The Office of Tribal Security shall be
administered by a Director, who shall be appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate. The Director shall
report to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
``(d) Duties.--The Director shall be responsible for
coordinating relations between the Federal Government and
federally recognized Indian tribes on issues relating to
homeland security, which shall include the following duties:
``(1) Providing a point of contact within Department of
Homeland Security which shall be responsible for--
``(A) meeting the broad and complex Federal
responsibilities owed to federally recognized Indian tribes
by the Department of Homeland Security; and
``(B) soliciting and, where appropriate, addressing the
homeland security concerns of federally recognized Indian
tribes and other parties interested in Indian affairs.
``(2) Communicating relevant policies of the Department of
Homeland Security to federally recognized Indian tribes and
the public.
``(3) Promoting internal uniformity of Department of
Homeland Security policies relating to Indian country (as
defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code).
``(4) Coordinating with the Directorate of Border and
Transportation Security and tribal governments to develop a
comprehensive border security policy that addresses law
enforcement, personnel, and funding issues in Indian country
(as defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code)
on the United States borders with Canada and with Mexico.
``(5) Coordinating with the Directorate for Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection and tribal governments
to develop appropriate policies for infrastructure protection
on Indian lands, as well as information sharing mechanisms
with tribal governments.
``(6) Coordinating with the Directorate of Emergency
Preparedness and Response and the Office of State and Local
Government Coordination and Preparedness to help ensure that
tribal governments are fully informed of, have access to, and
may apply for all Department of Homeland Security grant
opportunities for emergency response providers, and to
develop and achieve preparedness goals for tribal governments
that are consistent with national goals for terrorism
preparedness, as determined by the Department.
``(7) Coordinating with the Director of Science and
Technology to identify opportunities to conduct research and
development of homeland security technologies or scientific
understanding for tribal universities or private sector
entities.
``(8) Coordinating with the Office of Citizenship and
Immigration Services and other relevant offices within the
Department of Homeland Security with immigration service and
enforcement related functions to develop policies on issues
related to citizenship and the movement of members of
federally recognized Indian tribes across the United States
border, taking into consideration the unique characteristics
of certain federally recognized Indian tribes with
jurisdiction over lands adjacent to the Canadian and Mexican
borders.
``(9) Coordinating with other offices within the Department
of Homeland Security to develop and implement sound policies
regarding Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title
18, United States Code) and tribal governments.''; and
(2) in the table of sections, by inserting after the item
relating to section 801 the following new item:
``Sec. 802. Office of Tribal Security.''.
TITLE XV--SECURING OUR PORTS AND COASTLINES FROM TERRORIST ATTACK
SEC. 1501. SECURITY OF MARITIME CARGO CONTAINERS.
(a) Regulations.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall issue regulations for the security of maritime cargo
containers moving within the intermodal transportation system
in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (2).
(2) Requirements.--The regulations issued pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall be in accordance with recommendations of
the Maritime Transportation Security Act Subcommittee of the
Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of the Department
of Homeland Security, including recommendations relating to
obligation to seal, recording of seal changes, modal changes,
seal placement, ocean carrier seal verification, and
addressing seal anomalies.
(b) International Agreements.--The Secretary shall seek to
enter into agreements with foreign countries and
international organizations to establish standards for the
security of maritime cargo containers moving within the
intermodal transportation system that, to the maximum extent
practicable, meet the requirements of subsection (a)(2).
(c) Container Targeting Strategy.--
(1) Strategy.--The Secretary shall develop a strategy to
improve the ability of the Department of Homeland Security to
use information contained in shipping bills of lading to
identify and provide additional review of anomalies in such
bills of lading. The strategy shall include a method of
contacting shippers in a timely fashion to verify or explain
any anomalies in shipping bills of lading.
(2) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report on the
implementation of this subsection, including information on
any data searching technologies that will be used to
implement the strategy.
(d) Container Security Demonstration Program.--
(1) Program.--The Secretary is authorized to establish and
carry out a demonstration program that integrates non-
intrusive inspection equipment, including radiation detection
equipment and gamma ray inspection equipment, at an
appropriate United States seaport, as determined by the
Secretary.
(2) Requirement.--The demonstration program shall also
evaluate automatic identification methods for containers and
vehicles and a data sharing network capable of transmitting
inspection data between ports and appropriate entities within
the Department of Homeland Security.
[[Page H3529]]
(3) Report.--Upon completion of the demonstration program,
the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report on the implementation of this subsection.
(e) Consolidation of Container Security Programs.--The
Secretary shall consolidate all programs of the Department of
Homeland Security relating to the security of maritime cargo
containers, including the demonstration program established
pursuant to subsection (d), to achieve enhanced coordination
and efficiency.
(f) Port Security Grant Funding.--Section 70107(h) of title
46, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out subsections
(a) through (g) $400,000,000 for fiscal years 2006 through
2012.''.
(g) Definition.--In this section, the term ``appropriate
congressional committees'' means--
(1) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives; and
(2) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate.
SEC. 1502. STUDY ON PORT RISKS.
The Secretary of Homeland Security shall complete a study
evaluating the terrorism risk factors associated with the
port of Miami and ports along the Gulf of Mexico and in the
Carribean, including the United States Virgin Islands. This
study should include: whether these ports are more at risk of
terrorist attack considering the larger trade volume with
Central American countries than other coastal ports, whether
these ports are currently receiving the grants that are
needed to ensure their safety, considering the studied risks
and what are the vulnerabilities of these Gulf ports.
TITLE XVI--AUTHORITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
SEC. 1601. AUTHORITY OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES UNAFFECTED.
Nothing in this Act affects the authority under statute,
regulation, or Executive order of other Federal agencies than
the Department of Homeland Security.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 283, the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and a Member opposed each will control
20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, I appreciate the work of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox) to include many Democratic suggestions in this
bill, and I want to say that most of the provisions in his bill are
good ones.
But the truth is that this bill does not address a large number of
dangerous security gaps. For example, this bill does not close serious
security gaps in chemical plants, aviation, railroads, passenger trains
and railroads, buses, border security, the ability of first responders
to communicate in an emergency, the importance of protecting privacy,
and a whole host of other areas where we must improve security. This
bill does not even mention chemical plants or airports. How can we call
this an authorization bill?
My substitute, Madam Chairman, addresses all of these areas, and
more. First, the substitute makes funding for homeland security a
priority. The President's budget and this bill does not fulfill the
commitment we made in the 9/11 Act the President signed into law in
December, but this substitute meets those challenges.
For example, for just a mere $92 million called for in the 9/11 Act,
we could install radiation portal monitors in every port of entry in
this country. My substitute offers solutions where the bill does not
give the answers. For example, it protects our borders by requiring DHS
to put technology in place to ensure that every mile of the border is
monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It protects our ports by
authorizing new port security grants. It protects airlines and prevents
hijackings by installing new, in-line baggage screening systems that
work better and faster. And, in an area where I strongly disagree with
the chairman, we fully sponsor the development of research on how to
counter shoulder-fired missiles that terrorists can use to shoot down a
plane.
My substitute also strengthens security requirements for chemical
plants, which the GAO recently found must have security standards.
Finally, my substitute also recognizes that DHS is a new agency and
is not perfect. We provide new authority to protect privacy, sponsor
diversity, and create a stronger Inspector General. In the end, if we
are going to call something an authorization bill, let us use it to
close genuine security gaps. My substitute will do that; this bill will
not.
There can be no more wasted time. We must do what it takes now to
make America secure.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COX. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the substitute amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
If my colleague from Mississippi would indulge me for a moment, I
would like to yield the first portion of my time for purposes of a
colloquy to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), and I yield
to him 1 minute.
Mr. SIMMONS. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman and the gentleman
from Mississippi for all the hard work that they have done to bring
this authorization bill to the floor. I fully intend to support the
bill as I did in committee, but I would like to take a moment at this
time to discuss a concern that Members have, like myself, the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
King), and ask for the chairman's commitment that the committee will
pursue these issues.
We have heard from the Department of Homeland Security employees and
their representatives regarding their concerns with the final personnel
regulations that the Department issued in February. Some of these
provisions in the regulations are troubling. They limit collective
bargaining rights, and they appear to reduce due process standards for
employees of the Department. Both of these issues were specifically
addressed in the Homeland Security Act that created the Department, and
my concern is that the regulations promulgated following that act do
not adhere to the requirements of the act to maintain collective
bargaining rights.
I would ask that the committee provide its members with the
opportunity to question appropriate administration officials about
these regulations, as well as to provide employees and their
representatives the opportunity to give us their views.
Mr. Chairman, I would also ask that if we find these regulations do
not follow the mandate of the original law or do not promote fairness
and efficiency, that the committee will review these regulations and
consider making appropriate changes to the regulations.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from
Connecticut raises an important issue. I thank the gentleman for his
leadership, not only on this issue, but across the board as an
outstanding member and chairman of the Committee on homeland security.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The time of the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) has expired.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Section 841 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 authorized the
Department of Homeland Security to establish a 21st century human
resources management system. That new system, referred to as MAX HR, is
designed to allow the Department to respond quickly to homeland
security threats, while supporting the Department's employees with
modern human resources principles.
I will ensure that the committee conducts a review of the new
personnel regulations with special attention, I say to the gentleman,
to the concerns that he raised, and I commit to working with him on any
appropriate changes to those regulations, in close coordination with
the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Davis) of the Committee on
Government Reform, which developed the underlying legislation in this
area.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
(Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from
California (Chairman Cox) for their work and leadership on this bill,
but I would also especially like to compliment the
[[Page H3530]]
ranking member for his work on this substitute. There is much in the
bill that is good; the substitute is even better, for the reasons
outlined by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
However, there is one provision that is the same in both the bill and
the substitute and equally good in both cases, and that is the
provisions regarding cyber security.
As Members know, in the 108th Congress there was a Subcommittee on
Cyber Security within the Select Committee on Homeland Security. The
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) was the chairman and I was the
ranking member, and we worked very hard together to craft the provision
that is incorporated in the bill and in the substitute. We held over 17
hearings and further briefings, and we heard from the private sector.
I think that is why the following people support our provision: The
Business Software Alliance, the Computer and Communications Industry
Association, the Cyber Security Industrial Alliance, the Financial
Services Roundtable, the Higher Education and Information Technology
Alliance, the Information Technology Association of America, the
Information Technology Industry Council, the National Association of
State Chief Information Officers, the Software and Information Industry
Association, Tech Net, and the Association of American Universities,
the Association of Research Libraries, the National Association of
College and University Business Officers, and the list goes on and on.
{time} 1700
The bill does something, and the substitute does something that is
very important, and that is, to elevate the attention paid to
cybersecurity within the Department.
You know, several years ago when the strategy for cybersecurity was
adopted, we had a cyberperson in the White House who drafted that plan
and had the attention of the White House.
Since that time, this position has devolved to one that really does
not have direct access to decision-makers. In fact, the last person to
hold the job, Amit Yoran, from Silicon Valley, quit 1 year to the day
after he took the job; and we do not have a permanent replacement for
him to this day.
We have got contractors. In fact, the current contractor is not even
on the payroll. It is a Carnegie Mellon employee. We need to have
attention at the highest level for cybersecurity. Let me be clear. The
job of securing cyberspace at DHS is just not getting done.
Recently, Berkley professor Shankar Sastry warned of the possibility
of what he called a digital Pearl Harbor. He urged that the Nation act
before it is too late. We in Congress must not stand by while our
cyberinfrastructure remains vulnerable and so little is accomplished in
the Department of Homeland Security.
Securing cyberspace must be a national priority. The substitute and
the bill do it. And I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Thompson) for including it.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Mike Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment. As chairman of the Management Integration Oversight
Subcommittee, I have concerns about some of the management changes
proposed today.
In my analysis, this amendment would create several conflicting
changes. It would modify the roles and responsibilities of several key
officials within the Department. It would also limit the Secretary's
flexibility in making organizational decisions.
And, finally, it seems the amendment contains several duplicating and
premature measures. For example, this amendment would require the chief
information officer to report directly to the Secretary. In the
process, it would also give the CIO direct line authority over other
chief information officers in agencies throughout the Department.
Now, I agree with my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Thompson), that it is important we address the reporting and line
authority issues. In fact, just last month we held a hearing with these
officials to explore ways to improve information sharing within the
DHS.
However, we also found other improvements to consider. The chief
financial officer, the chief procurement officer, and the chief human
capital officer, for example, may also need additional authorities.
So in regards to this amendment, while I agree we need to reassess
the internal management issues, I believe they should not be addressed
in this type of piecemeal fashion.
Secretary Chertoff has begun a 90-day review of the Department's
programs, policies and operations. Until we hear the results of the
Secretary's review at the end of this month, I believe we should hold
off on making these types of changes.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to point out that the amendment adds
$7 billion in unauthorized spending above the bill's proposed funding
level. In contrast, the bipartisan Homeland Security Committee bill, as
written, provides the Secretary the needed flexibility during this top-
to-bottom review while ensuring our limited resources are spent wisely.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the pending amendment.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, James Carafano, who is a homeland
security researcher, said recently that technology is not a substitute
for strategy.
And we know, as has been earlier reported this month by Eric Lipton,
and he wrote the following, ``After spending more than $4.5 billion on
screening devices to monitor the Nation's ports and borders and
airports and mail and air, the Federal Government is moving to replace
or alter much of the antiterrorism equipment, concluding that it is
ineffective, unreliable, or too expensive to operate.''
He went on to say: ``Each of those areas where we have missed the
mark.'' That is why I think this substitute should be given great
consideration by all of us, not only those that serve on the Homeland
Security Committee.
We have a unity of effort here. Do not translate, do not interpret
this substitute as breaking that commitment that we have made to that
unity of purpose. And I want to commend my good friend, the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), who stood shoulder to shoulder with
the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) through all of these
hearings that we have been having.
But, the ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Thompson), your steady leadership on our committee is going to go a
long way beyond our vote today. I applaud you for offering a
substitute.
The Department of Homeland Security was formed because of the
catastrophic terrorist attack on September 11. Our joint mission now is
to help prevent and respond to any potential future assault.
Nothing that we do here in Washington is more important. Nothing. The
critical duty with which we are charged warrants legislative proposals
that are as comprehensive and judicious as possible. The substitute
succeeds in this regard. It makes America safer.
For example, the substitute requires a comprehensive border
protection plan. We all agree on that. It puts technology in place to
monitor the entire border all the time, not some of the time.
Secures the chemical plants. We have even had an amendment to that
effect. Makes vital port and transit security improvements and creates
necessary structural changes at the Department of Homeland Security. We
all agree on that.
We know that the State and local governments need as much help as
possible to meet their urgent security needs. We note that first
responders require an array of assistance to help them achieve even a
baseline level of readiness. The substitute addresses this. For
example, we authorize $500 million in grants for interoperability
communications equipment to our men and women on the frontlines.
As the 9/11 report states, again, we go back to what we consider to
be the dictionary for us to look at: ``Compatible and adequate
communications among public safety organizations at the local, State
and Federal levels remains an important problem.''
[[Page H3531]]
Our legislation should reflect what is in the 9/11 report and nothing
less and nothing more. Yet the Congress has done nothing to address
this. Indeed, many provisions signed into law by last year's 9/11 Act,
a bipartisan measure as you recall, have gone unfunded and forgotten by
this administration. We voted on it. Where is the power of both bodies
involved in our unity of purpose?
What is the use if we vote, both sides of the aisle, and the
administration does not follow through? This substitute attempts to
remedy this situation. We authorize additional border agents. We
mandate risk assessment for chemical and nuclear plants, and we assure
that port and rail are adequately secured. We all agree on these
things.
We know that there can be no more wasted time. We must do what it
takes now to make our country safe, stronger, and more secure. This
substitute does that, Mr. Chairman. I implore my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to vote ``aye.''
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member, the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), for being such a great leader on this
new committee, for being bipartisan, and for being an advocate for a
safe and secure America.
Unfortunately, I rise in option to this amendment, the Thompson
substitute, not so much because of what it does, but because of what it
fails to do.
My reading of the amendment suggests that it does not incorporate
many of the provisions of the Homeland Security Authorization Act that
passed unamended and by voice vote in the Subcommittee on Intelligence,
Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, of which I am the
chairman.
For example, personnel flexibility, such as bonuses for the
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, so we
can attract the best and brightest young people into this Department to
engage in good productive intelligence activities, you cannot have good
intelligence activities without good people. And those personnel
flexibilities are lacking. I do not see any provision requiring that
the office of information analysis receive all terrorist threat
information from components within DHS, which goes to the heart of
information sharing.
One of the great tragedies of 9/11 is that so many components of our
government did not share information; and perhaps if they had, we could
have avoided that tragedy.
I do not see any recommendations with regard to the color-coded
homeland security advisory system, which so many of us feel is
confusing to the American people, and which we recommended be more
risk-based, regional, and focused so that people have a legitimate
picture of what the risks may be on any particular day when there is an
alert.
All of the work on open-source intelligence, which I believe is so
critical to strengthening our intelligence capabilities nationally, I
do not see them in there. And so it does not appear to me to address
some very fundamental issues relative to the intelligence piece of the
Department of Homeland Security which we are trying to build.
On this basis, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reluctantly urge my
colleagues to vote against the substitute.
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks at this point in the Record.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this legislation
and the Democratic Substitute being offered by the gentleman from
Mississippi. I would like to commend the Chairman and Ranking Member of
the Committee on Homeland Security for bringing this bill to the
floor--the first authorizing bill for the Department of Homeland
Security since the Department was created.
This bill does many good things. It authorizes additional funding to
cover the full cost of hiring an additional two thousand border patrol
agents in order to meet the first year target established in the
Intelligence Reform bill last year. Regrettably, the appropriations
bill that passed the House yesterday fell short of actually finding
these critically needed personnel by 500. But that does not diminish
this accomplishment in the bill. This bill contains several important
provisions that will help to fix the Directorate for Intelligence
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, which, in my judgment, has
struggled the most to find its direction in the new department. And the
bill raises the level of our government's top cybersecurity official to
an Assistant Secretary within IAIP, something that should have been
done when the Department was created.
This bill makes progress in some key areas, and I intend to support
it, but I regret that it falls short in a number of critical areas,
leaving us terribly vulnerable on many fronts.
Cargo security, both in the air and on the sea, have not been
adequately addressed in this legislation. Our Nation's plan to secure
cargo containers, I believe, makes sense; but it relies entirely on
knowing--and trusting--the people that are packing the containers
overseas. Customs and Border Protection is way behind in certifying
participants in the C-T PAT program, and this bill does not authorize
adequate funding to accelerate the process of validating the
applications of those who are already gaining the benefits. My friend
from California, Ms. Sanchez, sought to propose an amendment to address
this problem, but the rule did not allow for its consideration, a
serious oversight.
And there is absolutely no excuse for permitting unscreened cargo
onto passenger aircraft. This is a problem we have known about since
Pan Am Flight 103 was destroyed by a terrorist's bomb over Lockerbie,
Scotland killing over 270 people. My good friend from Massachusetts,
Mr. Markey, wanted to offer an amendment to the bill that would require
this cargo to be screened, and it is long overdue. A similar amendment
had been approved previously by the House, but the leadership has
refused to allow its consideration today.
This bill also fails to take sufficient steps to meet other critical
needs that we have been talking about here in the House since 9/11. The
installation of in-line explosive detection systems at all of our
Nation's passenger airports is one of the top technological solutions
to improving the performance of our TSA screener force. Given what
terrorist were able to perpetrate in Madrid, providing funding for real
rail and transit security must become a higher priority. And we must
work harder to improve security at our Nation's chemical plants--
especially those that are located in heavily populated areas. Some of
my Democratic colleagues offered amendments to accomplish these goals,
but each has been blocked from consideration by the Majority.
But we now have an opportunity to vote on these items en bloc. The
Democratic substitute, proposed by Mr. Thompson, addresses all of these
issues, and is a much more complete blueprint for combating terrorism
than the underlying document. The House must move aggressively to fill
the gaps that we see everyday in the operations of the Department of
Homeland Security. We do our constituents a grave disservice if we do
not.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Ranking
Member Thompson's substitute amendment.
While H.R. 1817 takes important steps in improving our security and
preparedness, it simply does not go far enough.
Now, the Thompson substitute contains the critical provisions that I
believe must be in any comprehensive, effective DHS authorization. Now,
all told this amendment would provide about $41 billion for our
homeland security needs, nearly $7 billion more than requested by the
President.
This substitute would provide additional grant funds for continuing
needs, in port, rail, transit and bus security, communications
interoperability and firefighter hiring and preparedness. It also
enhances air security by requiring that 100 percent of air cargo be
screened within 3 years, tightening restrictions on access to sensitive
airport areas, and providing flight crews the training and
communications tools to effectively respond in an emergency.
Furthermore, the Thompson amendment ensures that we fulfill
commitments made in the intelligence reform bill to implement the 9/11
Commission's recommendations.
It authorizes funding for nearly 2,000 new border patrol agents and
provides resources to install explosive detection systems to baggage
screening at airports, which is a critical unmet need at T.F. Green
Airport in Rhode Island.
Now, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Nuclear
and Biological Threats, I am particularly pleased to note that the
Democratic substitute would provide for the
[[Page H3532]]
installation of radiation portal monitors at all ports of entry. This
is a key step in our efforts to keep dangerous materials out of our
borders.
Finally, this substitute makes significant progress in addressing
critical infrastructure protection. It provides funding for an
assessment of risks to nuclear and chemical plants and requires that
chemical plants capable of threatening a large number of people in the
worst-case situation take steps to increase security, implement safer
technologies when feasible.
Just as importantly, the amendment sets deadlines for completion of a
list of high-priority critical infrastructure assets. Now, this list
should be the very basis for our Nation's security plans and funding
decisions, and there is no excuse for the continuing delays in its
completion.
{time} 1715
Mr. Speaker, while we are indeed safer today than we were on
September 11, the truth is that there still remains a significant
security gap that must be filled.
The Thompson substitute takes a comprehensive approach to addressing
these vulnerabilities, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time,
and I rise in opposition to the Thompson substitute.
As the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Nuclear and
Biological Attack, I want to point out that the minority's substitute
proposal is not, contrary to its billing, complete, especially in the
area of nuclear terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, while some consider the probability of nuclear attack
to be low, I fear that this lax position could have devastating
consequences on the United States. If a terrorist organization were to
smuggle and detonate a 10-kiloton nuclear device, which is not
unreasonable for a basic terrorist bomb, in downtown Manhattan, it
would immediately kill more than half a million people. The
consequences, however, would not stop with the tragic loss of life.
The New York Stock Exchange could lose trillions in business
transactions alone and the world's financial markets would be
immediately crippled. Cleaning up the radioactive mess could cost
billions, if not trillions, of dollars and take years to complete. We
could, in essence, witness a total economic meltdown in the United
States.
The Thompson substitute does little to prevent such a catastrophe.
H.R. 1817 does.
Section 105 of H.R. 1817, for example, authorizes funding for a
Nuclear Detection Office within the Department to coordinate and
advance weapons of mass destruction detection efforts domestically as
well as abroad. The Thompson substitute does not.
In addition, section 213 of H.R. 1817 revises the 2002 Homeland
Security Act to ensure that the appropriate analytical expertise is
employed by the Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection in the Department to discern specific threats involving use
of nuclear weapons or biological agents to inflict mass casualties. The
Thompson substitute does not.
Furthermore, section 214 of H.R. 1817 establishes an entity within
the Department that will be responsible for alternative analysis of
threats to ensure that the government's efforts at our borders and at
foreign ports to prevent the importation and subsequent use of nuclear
weapons or biological agents are actually effective. The Thompson
substitute does not.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine a scenario whereby this government has
to answer the question of how we failed to prevent an attack by
terrorists using a weapon of mass destruction on the American people.
Such an attack is much too important and too critical for our national
security to simply include it as a footnote in a 220-page substitute. I
can assure my colleagues that my subcommittee will, in the coming
months, vigorously work to produce legislation that focuses on the
Department's attention on preventing such catastrophic terrorist
events.
H.R. 1817 is not the final word on this issue, but it is an important
first step, and as such, I encourage my colleagues to join me in
opposing the Thompson substitute and supporting H.R. 1817.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Thompson) for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, despite the expenditure of billions of dollars on
homeland security since September 11, the reality is that America's
ports, chemical facilities, transportation systems and critical
infrastructure are still to this day vulnerable to attack.
Are we better off? Yes. Are we where we need to be? No.
As Stephen Flynn, the former U.S. Coast Guard Commander and a
foremost expert on homeland security, stated a few months ago on Meet
the Press, ``The measures we have been cobbling together are hardly fit
to deter amateur thieves, vandals and hackers, never mind determined
terrorists.''
This Congress can and must, Mr. Chairman, do more to protect our
citizens from attack at home, even as we take the fight to our enemies
abroad.
That is what the Thompson substitute does.
It provides $6.9 billion more than the Republican bill, including
funding to fulfill our homeland security commitments in the
Intelligence Reform Act.
It includes $1 billion for grants for port, rail, transit and bus
security, critical priorities; $380 million to hire 2,000 new border
agents; and $500 million to ensure that first responders can
communicate with one another.
It requires a plan to ensure that all air cargo on passenger planes
is screened, giving sufficient time to develop the requisite
technologies, and it sets deadlines for establishing security plans for
critical infrastructures.
Republicans will and are objecting to the funding level in our
substitute, but let us put it in perspective, Mr. Chairman.
This additional funding is nearly $2 billion less than the funding
the Bush administration has failed to account for, some $8.8 billion,
in Iraq. Mr. Chairman, if the Bush administration can lose track of
nearly $9 billion in Iraq, I submit that we ought to be able to find
$6.9 billion to make this Nation, its people, its communities and its
families safer and more secure.
I urge my colleagues to support the Thompson substitute.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), but before I yield, Mr. Chairman,
can the Chair tell me how much time remains on our side?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California (Mr.
Cox) has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentleman for yielding me time.
Once again, I want to thank both the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Thompson), the ranking member, and the chairman of our committee for
the fine work they did in producing the bipartisan base bill, but I
rise in opposition to the ranking member's substitute amendment.
This 221-page substitute amendment offered in the nature of a
substitute to the 40-some page base bill that we have is obviously more
extensive than what was presented on the floor, and the explanation has
been presented on both sides as to why this is the case. However, I
would like to refer specifically to the comments of the gentleman from
Maryland about the additional cost involved in the substitute, nearly
$7 billion.
The American people have told us they do want us to do what is
necessary for homeland security, but they have also said they want us
to spend our money wisely. Press reports, as well as our own
examination, has shown that there is in the pipeline in homeland
security approximately $7 billion that is unspent. The answer is not to
come in here and, therefore, increase the base bill by $7 billion,
which is $7 billion over the President's budget, $7 billion over the
House-passed badge budget, which, therefore, somehow tries to make a
statement that more money spent is obviously going to make us safer.
We need to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security is
setting the priorities that are necessary,
[[Page H3533]]
is spending the money in the appropriate ways and answers the question
why money is stuck in the pipeline.
I would suggest the way to do that is not to give them an additional
$7 billion somehow as some sort of attraction for them to tell us how
they have not spent that $7 billion, that extra $7 billion that is out
there.
Let me just say that the provisions in this substitute constitute
sweeping changes, sweeping comprehensive changes in the responsibility,
mission and funding for the Department over and above what our
bipartisan committee presented in the base bill. Such changes cannot be
made, I would suggest, in this type of setting without full debate,
certainly more than 40 minutes, and consideration of a possible
alternatives and consequences.
There are important questions here. How do we provide security in the
area of the chemical industry? The chemical security portion of this
amendment requires broad and sweeping regulation of the chemical
industry by the Department of Homeland Security. Maybe that is
appropriate, maybe it is not. I do not think we have the basis to make
a judgment on this. I would also suggest it is counterproductive to
improving our chemical infrastructure security. It places unnecessary
burdens on potentially thousands of sites that may or may not be the
sites at risk that we should be focusing on. Again, it is a question of
priority.
It ignores the concept of examining high risk to effectively target
our security resources. One of the things I thought we had done as a
bipartisan committee was come to the conclusion that we really have to
be very careful and demand that we set proper priorities, that we
cannot go out and try and protect everything; we have to protect those
things that are most vulnerable, those things that have the greatest
threat, those things that have the worst consequences. I would suggest
that this substitute does not do that.
I thank the gentleman for the time that he extended to me.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, right now in the Republican bill there is
no protection added for the single greatest problem that we know still
exists, which is the protection of chemical facilities in the United
States of America. Whether it be on land or in rail cars, both of these
chemical-type storage areas are still wide open.
Secondly, whistleblowers, if they turn in a shareholder scandal at
Enron, get more protection than a nuclear power plant guard or a TSA
guard who, as a latter day homeland security Paul Revere comes forward
to warn the public that there is danger, the Republicans do not protect
these whistleblowers. The Democratic bill does.
Finally, the cargo which goes onto planes in America, passenger
planes, is not screened. Something this size, not screened. Something
this size, which is cargo, which goes on to passenger planes next to
our bags, is not screened. The Republican bill says this to those
people: Warning, cargo on this plane has not been screened for
explosives for your children.
Vote for the substitute if my colleagues want to protect the children
and families of this country.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness, Science, and Technology, I rise in opposition to the
EPS&T provisions in the Thompson substitute.
The base bill presents well-thought-out solutions to real terrorist
threats by prioritizing and maximizing how U.S. tax dollars are spent.
The Thompson substitute does not prioritize spending. It does not
recognize that not all threats are created equal. It does not exercise
any fiscal restraint whatsoever. It just throws a lot of money at
problems. Such an approach does not enhance our Nation's security or
provide adequate support for our dedicated first responders.
The emergency preparedness, science, and technology, EPS&T,
provisions in the Thompson substitute address important issues, but are
ill-conceived and fraught with unintended consequences.
For example, subtitle A of title VII would establish a new, separate
grant interoperability program. It is ill-advised. A new program will
encourage inconsistencies in communication systems purchased with
Federal grants and, unfortunately, dilute funding for other critical
grant programs.
This program is also not needed. Indeed, in fiscal year 2004, grant
recipients obligated over $925 million for interoperability projects
through existing programs, the single largest use of grant funding with
more than $6 billion in the pipeline, it is unspent and unobligated, to
State and local government available for first responders.
Subtitle D of title VII would establish a parallel EMS bureaucracy
within the Department's Emergency Preparedness and Response, EP&R,
Directorate. Such a new bureaucracy will not enhance terrorism
preparedness. EMS entities already exist within the Department of
Transportation and the U.S. Fire Administration of the EP&R
Directorate. This provision is also premature and will undercut the
Department's efforts to implement organizational reform.
Subtitle G of title VII would authorize the Metropolitan Medical
Response System. Yet, MMRS, which provides funding to U.S. cities to
develop plans and capabilities for coping with the medical consequences
of a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction is nearly
complete. Since its inception in 1997, the program has assisted 124
cities in establishing such plans and capabilities.
There is simply no need to maintain MMRS as a separate grant program.
Indeed, the funds provided under other existing grant programs, such as
the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Urban Area Security
Initiative, may be used for such purposes.
For these and other reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against the
Thompson substitute.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
{time} 1730
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Thompson substitute, and I commend him for his leadership and hard work
in crafting this amendment, which fills many of the security gaps we
were not able to do in the underlying bill.
I also congratulate our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cox), for fulfilling his promise to establish an annual legislative
review of the Department and for his leadership.
Mr. Chairman, included in the Thompson substitute is an amendment I
sponsored during the markup to provide for a border patrol unit in the
Virgin Islands, a number one priority of all law enforcement in my
district, the single most important missing ingredient in the defense
of the territory, and one more weak link in the protection of our
Nation.
With over 175 miles of unprotected and open borders, the Virgin
Islands is increasingly becoming a gateway of choice to the U.S. for
human smugglers. Because of the lack of such a unit, the Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, our local police, Fish and Wildlife, and the
National Park Service have to utilize their stretched resources and
personnel to respond and to assist.
I want to thank Chairman Cox for including language in the report to
have the Department station some of the additional border patrol units
in the Virgin Islands and for also including tribal coordination in the
Office of State and Local Coordination in recognition of the sovereign
nature of the tribal nations.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1817 is a good bill; but, nonetheless, the
substitute makes significant improvements in many areas, and I urge my
colleagues to support the Thompson substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Thompson Substitute and
I urge my colleagues to support its adoption. I commend the gentleman
from Mississippi for his hard work in crafting an amendment which seeks
to fill many of the security gaps that were not able to be addressed in
the underlying bill.
I want to begin though, Mr. Chairman, by congratulating the Chairman
of the Home-
[[Page H3534]]
land Security, my friend Chris Cox for fulfilling his promise to
establish an annual legislative review of the Department of Homeland
Security. It has been an honor and a distinct pleasure to serve with
Chairman Cox, first as a member of the Select Committee on Homeland
Security in the last Congress and again in this Congress on the
permanent Committee.
Over the past nearly two and a half years, our committee has traveled
across the country meeting with the men and women on the front lines of
defending our homeland. The bill before us today as well as the Faster
and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act which we debated and
passed last week are largely the product of those efforts.
Included in the Thompson substitute, Mr. Chairman, is an amendment I
sponsored during the markup of H.R. 1817 in committee, to provide for a
border patrol unit in the Virgin Islands--the number one priority of
all of the law enforcement first responders in my district and the
single most important missing ingredient in the defense of the
Territory and yet another weak link in the protection of our Nation.
With over 175 miles of unprotected and open borders, the Virgin
Islands is today the gateway to the U.S. and our Nation's southern most
border. It is also increasingly becoming the gateway of choice to the
U.S. for human smugglers.
Since 1998 hundreds of Chinese nationals have entered the U.S. Virgin
Islands, but there are many more from other countries of the Caribbean
and South America and the Middle East as well.
Those dropping the aliens ashore have identified the Virgin Islands
as an area from which illegals can try to travel undetected to the U.S.
mainland. In fact, the Coast Guard, this past February 29th, detained
72 illegal immigrants on St. Thomas.
Because of the lack of a Border Patrol Unit in the territory other
federal agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have
to spend a significant amount of man-hours apprehending, processing,
detaining and watching aliens in custody.
ICE has to use between 6 and 8 agents in every landing of 12 to 15
aliens. At a rate of on average 3 to 4 landing per month more than 80
hours are spent processing these aliens. Time which could be used to
investigate conspiracies, smuggling organizations and dismantling
rings.
In addition, our local Police Department, Fish and Wildlife, and the
National Park Service also have to utilize their stretched resources
and personnel to respond and assist.
Mr. Chairman, having a Border Patrol Unit assigned to the Virgin
Islands would also enable us to deal with the other serious problem we
face which is drug smuggling. ICE has identified several trafficking
organizations that use the USVI to conduct drug smuggling operations,
with marihuana, cocaine and heroin being shipped to the territory on a
weekly basis. And we know, Mr. Chairman, of the connection and
relationship between drugs and terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Cox for agreeing to include
language in the report of H.R. 1817, to encourage DHS to station some
of the additional 2000 Boarder Patrol agents called for in the bill in
the Virgin Islands. I also want to thank him for amending the title of
the Office of State and Local Coordination to the Office of State,
Local and Tribal Coordination in response to another amendment I
offered in committee in recognition of the sovereign nature of our
Tribal Nations.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1817 is a good bill. I am proud to have been a
part of its development as a member of the Homeland Security Committee.
I would nonetheless urge my colleagues to support the substitute
offered by Ranking Member Bennie Thompson because it makes significant
improvements in key areas including fulfilling our commitments in the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism prevention, as well as new security
measures for rail and public transit biometrics and other screening
measures.
I urge my colleagues to support the Thompson substitute.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on
the other side.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California (Mr.
Cox) has 5 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Thompson) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member and the other
members of the committee right in the teeth of this debate about the
differences between the base bill and the Democratic substitute simply
to remind us what we agree about. We agree about the base bill. And
what we are talking about doing in the Democratic substitute is, in
some part, restating the base bill and, in some part, adding money to
it to go further.
One of the principles that I hope we can establish in this annual
authorization process is that when we bring a bipartisan DHS
authorization bill to the floor, that that bill is within the House-
passed budget; it bears a close connection to the appropriations
process, and this year we have a unique circumstance where we are on
the floor literally 1 day after the homeland security appropriation
bill has passed, so we know exactly what kind of money we are dealing
with so that when we impose national security priorities on the
executive branch and we provide policy guidance to the Department of
Homeland Security, we are doing so in the real world, not in a fantasy
world with pretend numbers and budget resources that simply do not
exist.
The only real objection that I have to the Democratic substitute,
because I agree with a great deal of the policy, is that it takes $7
billion from thin air and adds it on top of, not in substitute for, the
provisions of the base bill. As a result, it is not about setting
priorities; it is merely a wish list without any sense of priority.
I would say that it abdicates the responsibility of the authorizing
committee and places all the burden on the appropriators were it not
for the fact that we just voted on the appropriation bill yesterday. So
every single Member knows that this is not a real $7 billion we are
playing with here.
Rather than being called the Complete Homeland Security Act, it might
be called the Death By Report Act because it does not help the
Department of Homeland Security to run down terrorists; it instead
sends them off on a mission to fill out reports. This substitute, in
one of its key differences from the base text, is very heavy on reports
and on plans and on studies and on assessments. It includes no fewer
than 61 new initial reports, annual reports, follow-up reports, plans,
strategies, studies, and reviews. That is not congressional direction;
it is congressional misdirection.
There has got to be a focus on preventing terrorism, on doing the
job, this most important, fundamental national security mission that we
have assigned to the Department to do, rather than filling out
paperwork. The substitute itself is 221 pages long, and in some
respects it is not ready for action by the full House because its
provisions have not yet been vetted even in hearings in subcommittee or
full committee before the Department.
I daresay that some of those things, such as port security, chemical
plant security, and so on, are policies with which I would agree. They
are things that we intend to do as a committee this year. I have stated
over and over, as recently as yesterday before the Committee on Rules,
that because this is the first authorization bill for a Department
which itself has existed for only 2 years, and which was thoroughly
authorized in a charter written from top to bottom by this Congress
just a few years ago, this bill is smaller this year than it will ever
be in future years.
Moreover, because the Secretary is in the midst of his 90-day review
of the Department's operation top to bottom as he takes the helm of
what for him is a brand-new responsibility, we are trying to give him a
few days more, he is due to report to us in June, to give us his
roadmap. And that means we will be back on this floor with more
authorizing legislation on the very subjects covered by the substitute
amendment.
For all those reasons, I respectfully, but strongly, oppose this
amendment.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
The Thompson substitute is necessary. It fills great holes in our
major bill. There is not one dollar in this bill for the transportation
that America
[[Page H3535]]
uses to go to work: rail, light rail, buses, subways, ferries. Yet even
after Madrid, we are not dealing with the al Qaeda favorite. One-third
of all the attacks has been on public transportation.
Cargo within four blocks of the Capitol. Explosives. One car, 14
miles. If one attack occurred, 100,000 people dead in a half-hour. How
can we reauthorize or authorize the first homeland security bill
without having any section in that bill on rail security? I do not
think we can.
The American people deserve better. The Thompson substitute is
clearly superior.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support certainly of H.R. 1817,
but it is not enough. It is not good enough.
This administration claims to make fighting terrorism its top
priority, and that is why we set up the Department of Homeland
Security. You are not supposed to tell us from homeland security what
it is we cannot do, but what we can do.
I agree that maybe Secretary Ridge did not have enough information,
did not have enough at his disposal, so he told us about the alerts;
the yellow lights, the orange and the red and all of that; told us to
go out and buy flashlights, duct tape, water, and plastic sheeting. But
it is time to get serious.
Homeland security should not be a sound bite or a reelection
strategy. We have got to do something about the border. This President
promised us 2,000 border agents. We have citizens who have taken it
upon themselves to protect our border, and here we are talking about we
do not have enough money to fund 2,000 agents when we are giving a
bonus to Halliburton. Give me a break.
We need money for first responders. We need money for our ports and
our containers. This substitute will help to fill that gap. It is time
we put our money where our mouths are.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson)
has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Mississippi.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi has 1 minute.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, immediate action should have been taken on
chemical plant security after the wake-up call we got from the 9/11
attacks. I have introduced the Chemical Security Act in the past two
Congresses, but the House has never considered my legislation.
Across the country, the EPA has identified 123 facilities where a
toxic gas release due to a terrorist attack could injure or kill more
than 1 million people. The Thompson substitute would give the problem
of chemical security plants and their security the attention it needs,
and I would urge the House to adopt the Thompson substitute for that
provision and all the other reasons that have been given here today.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say to the gentleman from New
Jersey that the point he raises about chemical security is an extremely
important one, and I wanted to make sure that all the Members knew that
on June 14 the Committee on Homeland Security will be having a hearing
on that very topic. We intend, in the balance of this year, to go very
deeply into our responsibilities for chemical plant security.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this is a substitute that is complete. If you look at
it, it addresses all the vulnerabilities of our country; and I ask the
body to support it.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I spoke just a moment ago about some of the provisions
in this bill that, in my view, do not belong there, most notably the $7
billion that has no offset and, therefore, breaks the House-passed
budget and is completely out of sync with the homeland security
appropriation bill for which we had a large, nearly unanimous
bipartisan vote yesterday.
But I would like to talk in the remaining seconds available about
what this bill, the Thompson substitute, does not do. It does not
incorporate, inexplicably, many of the bipartisan provisions that we
have already agreed upon in the base bill. I have to believe that that
was a drafting oversight; but were we to substitute for the base bill,
we would lose the provisions that give, for example, flexibilities to
the Information Analysis Office in the Department of Homeland Security
to hire more intelligence agencies, something that has been a big
priority of our committee for 3 years now. We would lose the reforms of
the color-coded Homeland Security Advisory System, which both
Republicans and Democrats have agreed upon.
As a result, we would be far better off to stick with the bipartisan
provisions that are in the bill, rather than in the partisan provisions
that appear in the Thompson substitute. I urge Members to reject the
substitute.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, as so many of you know, I represent a border
district and am a former law enforcement officer. For the last year, I
have been talking to a number of you about my concerns about border
security, based on things I am hearing from border law enforcement
officers.
I rise in support of the gentleman from Mississippi's substitute,
which contains the amendment the Rules Committee yesterday disallowed
from consideration by the House. Mr. Thompson's substitute draws from
some ideas included in a border security bill I introduced earlier this
year.
So many of my constituents--and our colleagues here in Congress--are
profoundly frustrated with the budget-driven nature of our border
security. This amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security
to develop and implement a Comprehensive Border Strategy to secure U.S.
borders--one that focuses on the needs of our national and border
security rather than on the cost.
This amendment seeks a comprehensive approach that considers:
staffing, infrastructure, technology, coordination of intelligence
among agencies, legal responsibilities, jurisdictional issues,
apprehension statistics, budgetary consequences, and the impact on the
flow of commerce and legitimate travelers. It also requires
implementation of the ``American Shield Initiative'' to address
vulnerabilities between the ports-of-entry, which remains largely
unaddressed since 9-11.
I urge all of us to focus our attention on a comprehensive border
security policy by both authorizing and appropriating the funds
necessary to secure our borders. The men and women who protect our
border do an extraordinary job.
We owe them full funding of the security initiatives we determine are
necessary for the protection of the people and places that we hold dear
in the United States. It is simply not enough to talk about border
security, it is an urgent matter for us to put our money where our
mouth is when it comes to protecting our borders and our Nation.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment--and I thank Mr.
Thompson, Mr. Stupak and Mr. Reyes for their leadership on this issue.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the amendment in Nature of a Substitute as offered by the distinguished
Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from
Mississippi. It provides for $6.9 billion more in funding than the base
bill (or the President's budget), including the funding needed to
fulfill the homeland security commitments in the Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 and to meet other priorities.
Of the priorities that it proposes to meet is $380 million to hire
2,000 new border agents. As the Ranking Democrat of the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, I understand
the gravity of this allocation and how irresponsible it would be to
omit it from the base bill. First Responder communications is funded
under the Amendment in the amount of $500 million. As a major proponent
of the Citizen Corps Council model that was created by President Bush
himself but not funded, I appreciate the value of this level of funding
for better communications systems for our front line personnel.
In addition, the Thompson substitute would provide $1 billion in
grants for port, rail, transit, and bus security. These aspects of our
transportation system have been given inadequate attention by the
underlying bill. Again, with respect to aiding our first responders,
the Thompson substitute would allocate $150 million to restore funding
for FIRE Act grants.
[[Page H3536]]
Amidst the contentious debate about aviation security and the
question as to the adequacy of our screening processes, Ranking Member
Thompson seeks to attack the root of the issue by providing $418
million for aviation security research.
In terms of overall policy provisions, the Amendment calls for a
comprehensive border strategy and technology that would monitor the
entire border 24/7; new authority to ensure chemical plants are
secured; a 3-year plan to ensure all air cargo on passenger planes is
screened maritime cargo container security standards; new security
measures for rail and public transit deadlines for establishing
security plans for all critical infrastructure improvements in
biometrics and other screening technology a new DHS council to monitor
domestic terrorism; creation of an Assistant Secretary of
Cybersecurity; and changes to DHS to ensure its operations are diverse
and manageable.
Mr. Chairman, the Thompson substitute is a prudent, comprehensive,
and responsible alternative to that offered by the Chairman of the
Homeland Security Committee. I support it fully and ask that my
colleagues join me.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Thompson
amendment in the nature of a substitute. This amendment sets forth a
comprehensive, integrated policy to promote homeland security. This
amendment is a true substitute amendment and covers important areas
where Federal security plans are sorely needed--such as rail and
transit transportation--that are omitted from the underlying bill.
Frankly, the Thompson amendment demonstrates that the Democrats in this
body have the better plan for securing our Nation.
I'd like to thank the Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland
Security, Congressman Thompson, for actively working with me to develop
this comprehensive amendment. In particular, I'd like to thank him for
recognizing the important role that the Department of Transportation
(DOT) has in devising and implementing transportation security
regulations. DOT has extensive experience in security and has the
primary responsibility for the efficiency and safety of transportation.
For transportation security to work well, it is imperative that the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and DOT work on security plans in
tandem. The transportation provisions in this amendment insure that the
Department of Homeland Security and Department of Transportation will
work together to ensure that this Nation has the strongest, smartest
homeland security procedures, which do not unnecessarily undermine
efficiency or compromise safety.
I'd like to highlight some of these provisions. Section 518 of the
amendment is the language from H.R. 1496, a bipartisan bill which I
cosponsored and which was reported by the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee in April, to allow general aviation to return
to National Airport. Opening National Airport to general aviation is
long overdue.
In Vision 100, reported by the Transportation Committee and passed by
Congress in 2003, Congress mandated that National Airport be open to
general aviation after a security plan is established. To date, this
Administration has not taken action to comply with this directive. I am
disappointed that the Administration has avoided reopening general
aviation at National Airport for this long, and this legislation is
necessary to fully restore our transportation system, and our economy.
Further, I strongly support Title VI of the Thompson amendment. This
title provides for transit security and passenger and freight rail
security. Again, rail and transit security are areas where DOT and DHS
must work together. This amendment would provide for that.
Subtitle B is taken directly from H.R. 2351, the ``Rail Security Act
of 2005,'' which I introduced earlier this month. It requires that
within 180 days of enactment, the Secretary of Homeland Security and
the Secretary of Transportation shall develop and implement a railroad
security assessment, a railroad security plan, and prioritized
recommendations for improving railroad security. The amendment also
requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of
Transportation to execute a memorandum of agreement governing the roles
and responsibilities of their Departments in addressing railroad
transportation security matters.
Moreover, the amendment focuses on an issue that security bills often
ignore: the importance of ensuring that key workers have the support
and training required to protect our rail system, whether those workers
are railroad employees or emergency responders. Rail workers are truly
the eyes and ears of the rail industry. They greet passengers, sell
tickets, operate trains, maintain track and signal systems, dispatch
trains, operate bridges, and repair cars. They are in the most direct
position to spot security risks and potential threats. This bill
requires rail carriers to provide security training to these workers to
ensure that they are prepared to take appropriate action against threat
conditions.
While I do support most of these provisions in the Thompson
amendment, I have serious concerns about one particular section.
Section 519 would mandate that 100 percent of air cargo on passenger
planes be physically inspected. While ensuring the security of air
cargo is a laudable goal, this mandate is not the best way to
accomplish that goal. The effect of this amendment would be to force
air carriers to remove all cargo from passenger aircraft, jeopardizing
27,000 direct jobs and $4 billion in annual revenue.
No available technology exists today to efficiently and effectively
screen all air cargo for explosives. Most of the cargo screening
technologies referenced by those in favor of this amendment are basic
or high energy x-ray systems, which currently are not certified
explosive detection systems (EDS) for cargo. U.S. airlines have
implemented significant cargo inspection and screening measures
mandated by Congress and enforced by TSA. First, only known shippers
(shippers who are part of the Known Shipper database) may ship cargo on
passenger aircraft. Second, all cargo is subject to random inspection.
In addition, U.S. airlines have collaborated with TSA and the U.S.
Postal Service to develop and implement a canine mail-screening program
for mail carried on passenger airlines. The airlines continue to assist
TSA in programs to evaluate the utility of explosive detection systems
(EDS) and canines for cargo screening. These programs are the best
methods available for ensuring cargo security.
However, Mr. Chairman, my concerns about the cargo security provision
are outweighed by the many good security provisions in the amendment. I
support the Thompson amendment. It is a comprehensive approach to
providing the best security for our Nation. I urge its passage.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) will be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 printed in part B offered by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Meek), amendment No. 13 printed in part B offered by the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), amendment No. 18 printed in part
B offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), amendment No. 20
printed in part B offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee), and amendment No. 24 printed in part B offered by the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic votes
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Meek of Florida
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Meek) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184,
noes 244, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 183]
AYES--184
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
[[Page H3537]]
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--244
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Evans
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--5
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Lucas
Millender-McDonald
Tancredo
{time} 1812
Messrs. McHUGH, HEFLEY, COSTA, GOODE, Ms. BEAN, Ms. GRANGER, Mr.
STEARNS and Mrs. MYRICK changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. DeFAZIO, Ms. HOOLEY, Mr. BOYD and Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Ms. Hooley
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The pending business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 363,
noes 65, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 184]
AYES--363
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Conaway
Conyers
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Terry
[[Page H3538]]
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOES--65
Baird
Bartlett (MD)
Berry
Blunt
Bonilla
Boustany
Buyer
Cannon
Cantor
Cole (OK)
Cooper
Costa
Davis (FL)
Ehlers
English (PA)
Everett
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Gillmor
Gutknecht
Harris
Hayes
Hensarling
Hoekstra
Istook
Johnson, Sam
King (IA)
Kingston
LaTourette
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marchant
Mica
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Nadler
Ney
Obey
Otter
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Platts
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Rohrabacher
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shays
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Souder
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tierney
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--5
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Lucas
Millender-McDonald
Tancredo
{time} 1823
Mr. FORD changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SHERMAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Norwood
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The pending business is the demand
for a recorded vote on amendment No. 18 offered by the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242,
noes 185, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 185]
AYES--242
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLay
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Higgins
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sweeney
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--185
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kolbe
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--6
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Lucas
Millender-McDonald
Sullivan
Tancredo
{time} 1831
Mr. PORTER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The pending business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 245, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 186]
AYES--182
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
[[Page H3539]]
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--245
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Lucas
Millender-McDonald
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
{time} 1840
Ms. BEAN changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 24 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Thompson
of Mississippi
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment No. 24 in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196,
noes 230, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 187]
AYES--196
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--230
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
[[Page H3540]]
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--7
Kaptur
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Lucas
McDermott
Millender-McDonald
Tancredo
{time} 1847
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). Are there further amendments to the
bill?
There being no other amendments, the question is on the amendment in
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed
to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hastings of Washington) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Acting
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. 1817) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for the
Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes, pursuant to
House Resolution 283, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not,
the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi moves to recommit the bill H.R.
1817 to the Committee on Homeland Security with instructions
to report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
TITLE VI--ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 601. AVIATION SECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
To carry out section 4011(b) of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (118 Stat. 3714), there is
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland
Security for the use of the Transportation Security
Administration $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 for research
and development of advanced biometric technology applications
to aviation security, including mass identification
technology.
SEC. 602. BIOMETRIC CENTER OF EXCELLENCE.
To carry out section 4011(d) of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (118 Stat. 3714), there is
authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2006
for the establishment by the Secretary of Homeland Security
of a competitive center of excellence that will develop and
expedite the Federal Government's use of biometric
identifiers.
SEC. 603. PORTAL DETECTION SYSTEMS.
To carry out section 44925 of title 49, United States Code,
there is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Homeland Security for the use of the Transportation Security
Administration $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 for
research, development, and installation of detection systems
and other devices for the detection of biological, chemical,
radiological, and explosive materials.
SEC. 604. IN-LINE CHECKED BAGGAGE SCREENING.
To carry out section 4019 of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (49 U.S.C. 44901 note; 118
Stat. 3721), there is authorized to be appropriated for
fiscal year 2006 $400,000,000 to carry out the in-line
checked baggage screening system installations required by
section 44901 of title 49, United States Code.
SEC. 605. CHECKED BAGGAGE SCREENING AREA MONITORING.
To carry out section 4020 of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (49 U.S.C. 44901 note; 118
Stat. 3722), there is authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of Homeland Security for the use of the Under
Secretary for Border and Transportation Security such sums as
may be necessary for fiscal year 2006 to provide assistance
to airports at which screening is required by section 44901
of title 49, United States Code, and that have checked
baggage screening areas that are not open to public view, in
the acquisition and installation of security monitoring
cameras for surveillance of such areas in order to deter
theft from checked baggage and to aid in the speedy
resolution of liability claims against the Transportation
Security Administration.
SEC. 606. IMPROVED EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS.
To carry out section 4024 of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (49 U.S.C. 44913 note; 118
Stat. 3724), there is authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of Homeland Security for the use of the
Transportation Security Administration $100,000,000 for
fiscal year 2006 for the purpose of research and development
of improved explosive detection systems for aviation security
under section 44913 of title 49, United States Code.
SEC. 607. MAN-PORTABLE AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS (MANPADS).
To carry out section 4026 of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (22 U.S.C. 2751 note; 118
Stat. 3724), there is authorized to be appropriated such sums
as may be necessary for fiscal year 2006.
SEC. 608. PILOT PROGRAM TO EVALUATE USE OF BLAST RESISTANT
CARGO AND BAGGAGE CONTAINERS.
To carry out subsections (a) and (b) of section 4051 of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (49
U.S.C. 44901 note; 118 Stat. 3728), there is authorized to be
appropriated $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2006. Such sums shall
remain available until expended.
SEC. 609. AIR CARGO SECURITY.
To carry out section 4052(a) of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (49 U.S.C. 44901 note; 118
Stat. 3728), there is authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 for research and
development related to enhanced air cargo security
technology, as well as for deployment and installation of
enhanced air cargo security technology. Such sums shall
remain available until expended.
SEC. 610. FEDERAL AIR MARSHALS.
To carry out section 4016 of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (49 U.S.C. 44917 note; 118
Stat. 3720), there is authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary of Homeland Security for the use of the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement $83,000,000 for fiscal
year 2006 for the deployment of Federal air marshals under
section 44917 of title 49, United States Code. Such sums
shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 611. INCREASE IN FULL-TIME IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATORS.
To carry out section 5203 of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (118 stat. 3734), there is
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
in fiscal year 2006 for the Secretary of Homeland Security to
increase by not less than 800 the number of positions for
full-time active duty investigators within the Department of
Homeland Security investigating violations of immigration
laws (as defined in section 101(a)(17) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17)) in fiscal year 2006
above the number of such positions for which funds were made
available during the preceding fiscal year.
SEC. 612. INCREASE IN DETENTION IN DETENTION BED SPACE.
To carry out section 5204 of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (118 Stat. 3734), there is
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
in fiscal year 2006 for the Secretary of Homeland Security to
increase by not less than 8,000 the number of beds available
for immigration detention and removal operations of the
Department of Homeland Security above the number for which
funds were allotted for the preceding fiscal year.
SEC. 613. BORDER SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES FOR USE BETWEEN PORTS
OF ENTRY.
To carry out subtitle A of title V of the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (118 Stat. 3732), there
is authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 for fiscal year
2006 for the formulation of a research and development
program to test various advanced technologies to improve
border security between ports of entry as established in
sections 5101, 5102, 5103, and 5104 of the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
[[Page H3541]]
SEC. 614. INCREASE IN FULL-TIME BORDER PATROL AGENTS.
To carry out section 5202 of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (118 Stat. 3734), there is
authorized to be appropriated $380,000,000 for the Secretary
of Homeland Security to increase by not less than 2,000 the
number of positions for full-time, active-duty border patrol
agents within the Department of Homeland Security, in fiscal
year 2006, above the number of such positions for which funds
were allotted for the preceding fiscal year.
SEC. 615. IMMIGRATION SECURITY INITIATIVE.
To carry out section 7206 of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act (118 Stat. 3817), there are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland
Security to carry out the amendments made by subsection (a)
$40,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
TITLE VII--CARGO INSPECTION
SEC. 701. INSPECTION OF CARGO CARRIED ABOARD COMMERCIAL
AIRCRAFT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall implement a system that uses equipment, technology,
personnel, and other means to inspect 35 percent of cargo
transported in passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier
or foreign air carrier in air transportation or intrastate
transportation. At a minimum, this system shall meet the same
standards as those established by the Secretary for
equipment, technology, and personnel used to screen passenger
baggage. Within 2 years after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall use this system to inspect at
least 65 percent of cargo transported in passenger aircraft.
Not later than three years after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall use this system to inspect at
least 100 percent of cargo transported in passenger
aircraft.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the
Congress a report describing the system established under
subsection (a).
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Mississippi?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of
his motion.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, last year we passed the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which included
significant funding boosts for homeland security programs.
When the President signed the 9/11 bill, he made a commitment to our
law enforcement personnel. He said, ``We will continue to work with
Congress to make sure they have got the resources necessary to do their
jobs.''
However, when the President's budget came out in January, it failed
to fully fund the programs in the 9/11 Act. Frontline officers tell us
that they do not have the resources they need to get the job done. The
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Service has been in a hiring
freeze since late last year. The border patrol simply does not have the
manpower or the support staff to be able to effectively do its job.
Simply signing a bill is not enough. You have got to do what you
promised to do. What we have been asking for today, in introducing this
bill, is for the President to explain why it is not necessary to fully
fund the 9/11 Act to better secure our Nation.
Accountability is the key to homeland security. If the President is
not going to make sure that homeland security increases are identified
as being needed and are in the budget, then the American people deserve
to know why.
Additionally, this motion to recommit addresses a major threat in
aviation security. The Rules Committee blocked consideration of this
important measure, Mr. Speaker. Every day the TSA fails to inspect the
millions of tons of cargo shipped in the belly of passenger planes is
yet another day American lives are put at risk.
I urge my colleagues to join me and approve this motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, in this recommitment motion, you will get a
chance, on the majority side, to vote on whether or not you want to
screen cargo that is on passenger planes.
We take off our shoes. Americans take off their shoes, families
putting their children on flights to head on vacation or go to school.
They all take off their shoes.
But underneath, in the cargo bay of those passenger planes, almost
none of the cargo which sits right next to those bags is screened. If
something is this size, 16 ounces, no paperwork. Nothing.
If it is the same size as the bag your children and you have, it does
not get screened. It is going on right next to your bags. And so what
our amendment says is, you got a warning. The cargo on this plane has
not been screened for explosives. That is the Republican bill.
The Democratic substitute says that 100 percent of all baggage, all
cargo as well, on passenger planes is screened. If you care about your
families, if you care about implementing one of the key recommendations
in the 9/11 report, then vote for the Democratic recommittal motion.
This is the only chance you are going to have to vote on this issue.
Vote ``yes'' on the recommittal motion.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of the time.
Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit would authorize full funding for
all of the homeland security measures called for in the Intelligence
Reform Act adopted last year: aviation security research and
development, full detection systems, biological, chemical, radiation
and explosive materials, passenger baggage screening equipment, air
cargo security, Federal air marshals and border security measures.
It also includes a requirement that within 3 years all air cargo on
passenger planes be screened.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on this motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I want to draw our attention to what is actually in the
motion to recommit. It consists of 15 sequential sections that do
nothing more than authorize monies, and a final section, which my
colleague from Massachusetts just spoke about, concerning air cargo
which contains no reference to money, whatsoever, but which, according
to the Department of Homeland Security, would effectively double the
budget of the TSA.
Let me read to you the dollar amounts in each of the sections,
because I want to draw Members' attention to the fact that there are no
offsets. There are no sources of funding for these provisions.
Section 601 adds $20 million without any funding source; section 602,
$1 million; section 603, a quarter billion dollars; section 604, $400
million dollars and so on.
I mention this because we are here on the floor for the first time
considering the Department of Homeland Security authorization bill in
an annual process that is beginning now, but which will go on for the
indefinite future. And we are seeking to establish a precedent.
And that precedent is that just as with other national security
authorize legislation that we bring to the floor, in this bill, it is
real money. In this bill, we are authorizing funding within the House-
passed budget and consistent with amounts that we actually intend to
appropriate.
Now, we have a unique opportunity this year because the order of
consideration of the appropriations bill and the authorization bill was
reversed. Just yesterday on the floor of this House, Members voted on
the appropriations bill so we actually know real dollar numbers that
Secretary Chertoff and the Department of Homeland Security will have to
work with. And virtually every Member on this floor just voted for that
bill yesterday.
{time} 1900
So, if we are to come to the floor today and vote for funding figures
which are different from what we know will actually happen, we will be
placing priorities before the Department of Homeland Security and
mandates on the Department of Homeland Security that we know it cannot
meet.
There are some other anomalies with the funding provisions in the
motion to recommit that I am certain must be drafting mistakes.
I do not doubt for a moment the passion of the gentleman from
Massachusetts when it comes to the question of screening air cargo, but
I have to draw Members' attention to the fact that
[[Page H3542]]
the dollar figure that is authorized for the Department of Homeland
Security for air cargo in the motion to recommit is $100 million. That
would be a $15 million cut from the actual number that we appropriated
last year and a $28 million cut from what we just voted for air cargo
screening in yesterday's appropriations bill. I do not know why we
would do that.
The same thing is true for air marshals. This House is very
interested in putting air marshals on airplanes to protect the flying
public. The motion to recommit sets the authorized funding level for
air marshals at $83 million. The appropriations bill that we just voted
for yesterday would give the Department of Homeland Security $700
million, not $83 million for air marshals. Why would we cut air
marshals, unless it is a drafting mistake in the motion to recommit?
As I said, this is an historic moment on the floor of this House, and
I want to draw our attention to what we are about to do, as soon as we
finish the motion to recommit. We are about to vote on what will be the
first of an annual authorization for the Department of Homeland
Security.
That bill is bipartisan. Both sides agree on everything that is in
it. It fully funds 2,000 new Border Patrol agents. It establishes a top
level new Assistant Secretary for Cyber Security within the Department
of Homeland Security. It beefs up the intelligence capability at the
Department of Homeland Security. It reforms the threat warning system.
It establishes the Homeland Security Information Network that will link
thousands of local agencies across the country in real-time to the
Department. It does all of this and much more within the House-passed
budget and within the confines of the appropriations bill that we just
passed yesterday.
This is exactly the norm that is set for us in the authorizing
legislation that comes from the Committee on Armed Services to fund the
Pentagon and that comes to us from the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence to fund the intelligence community. Those authorization
bills all live within the budget. So, too, must we in this homeland
security authorization bill this year and every year hereafter.
To my colleagues on the Democratic side, I understand what they are
doing in this motion, seeking to draw attention to critical issues such
as cargo security and chemical plant security that are not yet the
subject of authorizing language on the floor of this House. I commit to
my colleagues that this bill on which we agree is a beginning and that
our new committee will use its jurisdiction to develop bipartisan
legislation on these subjects, just as we have on first responders,
just as we did last week on the floor of this House, and just as we
have on this historic $34 billion authorization for the Department of
Homeland Security.
Mr. Speaker, if I may in conclusion say that I am thoroughly
impressed with the effort and the work that has been put forth on both
sides of the aisle on this bill, with the performance and the
leadership of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), my
colleague. May I say that there has not been 1 day since September 11
when any Member of this House has forgotten the lesson of homeland
security that we learned on that day, chief among which is that we must
always put the security of this country ahead of partisan politics.
The bill that we will vote on in a moment, the homeland security
authorization bill, does that, and I look forward to standing shoulder-
to-shoulder with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), with
all the members of the committee, and with, I believe, all the Members
of this House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without
objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199,
noes 228, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 188]
AYES--199
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--228
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
[[Page H3543]]
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Feeney
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Lucas
Millender-McDonald
Tancredo
Announcement by The Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the
vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1920
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 424,
noes 4, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 189]
AYES--424
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--4
Gutierrez
Markey
Obey
Paul
NOT VOTING--5
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Lucas
Millender-McDonald
Tancredo
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1927
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________