[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 87 (Monday, June 27, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H5232-H5239]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           HOMELAND SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McHenry). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, tonight we will be engaging in a discussion 
about our Nation's homeland security. I will be joined by several of my 
colleagues here tonight who have some very interesting thoughts and 
perspectives they would like to share with the American people on this 
most important issue. Homeland security is a matter of concern to all 
Americans, irrespective of their political affiliation. This is 
especially true in the United States Congress. The Committee on 
Homeland Security, of which I am a member, reflects our national 
concern.
  In the last 6 months, our committee has sent to the floor of the 
House some very important legislation designed to make America's 
borders, ports, and transportation facilities less vulnerable to 
terrorist attack or other catastrophe. One such bill is H.R. 1544, the 
Faster and Smarter Funding For First Responders Act of 2005.
  Prior to this bill, grant funding for first responders tasked with 
responding to homeland emergencies was provided in equal percentage to 
all States with an allowance upward for population. Because these funds 
are distributed without regard to safeguarding against risk, there were 
many documented abuses within the system. Of the $6.3 billion in grants 
appropriated by Congress and awarded by the Department of Homeland 
Security since fiscal year 2002, only 31 percent of those funds have 
been spent. Let me repeat: of the $6.3 billion in grants appropriated 
by Congress and awarded by the Department of Homeland Security since 
fiscal year 2002, only 31 percent of those funds have been spent.
  My own home State of Pennsylvania, that State has only spent 17 
percent of these homeland security funds. Hundreds of millions of 
dollars earmarked for homeland projects are currently unaccounted for. 
Moreover, in some instances, local communities received these funds, 
but utilized them in ways that were not consistent with the promotion 
of our homeland security.

                              {time}  2130

  The chart I have here, and I will have those displayed in a moment, 
but these charts that I have here highlight some of the most egregious 
examples of misspent homeland security funds:

[[Page H5233]]

  In Washington, DC, Dale Carnegie public speaking training for 
sanitation workers, $100,000 was spent. These were homeland security 
dollars we are talking about.
  Again in Washington, DC, a rap song to teach children emergency 
preparedness, $100,000.
  Santa Clara County, California, four Segway scooters to transport 
bomb squad personnel at a cost of $18,000.
  Mason County, Washington, biochemical decontamination units left 
sitting in a warehouse for more than a year, with no one trained to use 
it, $63,000.
  South Dakota, on-site paging system for the State agricultural fair 
at $29,995.
  Converse, Texas, a trailer to transport lawnmowers to lawnmower drag 
races, $3,000.
  Des Moines, Iowa, traffic cones, State of Missouri, 13,000 HazMat 
suits for every law enforcement official at $7.2 million.
  Tiptonville, Tennessee, purchases totaling $183,000 including a Gator 
all-terrain vehicle at $8,700 and two defibrillators, one for use at 
high school basketball games, $5,200.
  Washington, DC, computerized car towing service, $300,000. Again, we 
are talking about homeland security funds here.
  Montgomery County, Maryland, 8 large screen plasma television 
monitors for $160,000.
  Prince Georges County, Maryland, digital camera system used for mug 
shots at a half million dollars.
  Newark, New Jersey, air-conditioned garbage trucks at a quarter 
million dollars.
  H.R. 1544 seeks to rectify this deplorable situation by awarding 
grant funds based on risk. It requires that moneys be disbursed to 
those areas where threat vulnerability and consequence of attack is the 
greatest. It provides priority assistance to those first responders and 
first preventers that in fact are facing the highest risk. It 
streamlines the process by which local authorities can apply for and 
receive terrorism preparedness grants. It establishes specific flexible 
and measurable goals for the Department of Homeland Security and 
promotes the development of national standards for first responder 
equipment and training. It encourages regional cooperation to increase 
emergency preparedness. It follows the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission which had this to say about the prior funding formula: 
``Homeland Security assistance should be based strictly on an 
assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. Federal Homeland Security 
assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. It 
should supplement State and local resources based on the risk or 
vulnerabilities that merit additional support. Congress should not use 
this money as pork barrel.'' That was the 9/11 Commission.
  By directing grant funding to threatened areas without regard to 
politics, H.R. 1544 has become a key part of the national security 
reforms necessitated by the September 11 attacks.
  The second piece of legislation that reflects the Homeland Security 
Committee's bipartisan commitment to the preservation of homeland 
security is H.R. 1817, the Homeland Security Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 2006. This act promotes our national security in a number 
of different areas. To help secure our porous borders it authorizes 
funds to hire 2,000 new border patrol agents. In addition, it provides 
$40 million so that local law enforcement agencies have access to the 
training required to apprehend illegal immigrants, some of whom may be 
involved in terrorist activities. To safeguard the cargo coming into 
our ports, it provides money to promote risk-based screening of 
containers in transit to the United States. The Container Security 
Initiative, or CSI, is a Department of Homeland Security initiative or 
program that places customs employees at 36 foreign ports to target and 
inspect these containers before they can gain entry to the United 
States. H.R. 1817 not only funds the existing program, but also makes 
provisions to expand inspections to approximately 50 ports.
  Finally, with regard to deterring a nuclear or biological attack, the 
act promotes the improvement of the department's intelligence-gathering 
capabilities that is necessary to detect incoming threats and to 
develop the means to prevent these efforts.
  H.R. 1817 provides the authorization to maintain the funds necessary 
to keep the country secure, while H.R. 2360, the Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, appropriates the moneys 
required to do the job. Our committee has approved $30.85 billion for 
operations and activities of the Department of Homeland Security. This 
represents an increase of $1.37 billion over fiscal year 2005 and $1.3 
billion above the President's budget request. As with the authorization 
bill, border security is a high priority in this legislation. We have 
appropriated $1.61 billion for border security and an additional $3.2 
billion for customs enforcement, which will allow the Bureau for 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to hire an additional 150 
criminal investigators and 200 immigration enforcement agents. We have 
appropriated $188 million to develop vehicle and cargo inspection 
technologies and we have given the Coast Guard $2.6 billion to perform 
its homeland security missions.
  H.R. 2360 also helps local first responders perform their vital 
homeland security mission. Among other expenditures we have earmarked 
$200 million for a first responders training, $400 million for State 
and local law enforcement terrorism prevention programs and $600 
million for firefighter grants. Since September 11, 2001, Congress has 
provided over $32 billion to first responders. Again, since September 
11, 2001, Congress has provided over $32 billion to our first 
responders, including terrorism prevention and preparedness, general 
law enforcement, firefighter assistance, airport security, seaport 
security, and public health preparedness. And this year's share of that 
funding comes to approximately $3.6 billion.
  Finally, H.R. 2360 goes a long way toward helping us to maintain 
security at our transportation hubs and places deemed to be critical 
infrastructure. We have directed moneys for air cargo security, rail 
security and trucking security. We have earmarked $1.3 billion toward 
research and development, including $651 million to develop 
radiological, nuclear, chemical, biological and high explosives 
countermeasures designed to protect power plants, other industrial 
properties, and the people that work in or live near those particular 
facilities. These programs are expensive, but no mission is more 
important than safeguarding the country against the threat of attack by 
chemical, biological or nuclear agents, unthinkable attacks, and we are 
doing all we can to protect ourselves.
  These three bills, taken together, the First Responders Act, the 
Homeland Security Authorization Act, and Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act reveal that the gentleman from California (Chairman 
Cox), an extraordinary man who the President quite wisely nominated to 
become the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, he has done 
an outstanding job. Chairman Cox and the rest of the Homeland 
Security Committee possess the highest possible commitment to keeping 
our Nation safe from terrorist attack and from other catastrophic 
events. While all these measures were thoroughly debated in the 
committee, they all passed to the floor with relative ease, a testament 
to the timeless adage that so aptly characterizes our political 
process. In America, debates over homeland security, like those 
regarding partisan politics, end at the water's edge.

  And with that I would like now to turn to some of my colleagues who 
have joined me here tonight from the Homeland Security Committee, each 
of whom, many of whom, bring very interesting skills and background to 
this issue. And the first Member of the committee I would like to draw 
your attention to introduce is a good friend, my colleague from the 
10th district of Texas. In addition to working on the International 
Relations and Science Committees, he also serves with me on, as I 
mentioned, the Homeland Security Committee where he is assigned to the 
Subcommittee on the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack and the 
Subcommittee on Management, Integration and Oversight.
  My colleague is a former Texas deputy attorney general and chief of 
terrorism and national security in the Department of Justice for the 
Western Judicial District of Texas. Further, because of his expertise 
in homeland security affairs, the Governor of Texas

[[Page H5234]]

appointed him to be the adviser to the Governor's office on homeland 
security. So with that, I would like to introduce to all of you my good 
friend from the 10th District of Texas (Mr. McCaul).
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to also thank the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) for managing this important debate on 
probably what is the most important issue facing this Nation today. As 
we heard the names of the men and women who served in Iraq and 
Afghanistan who paid the ultimate sacrifice just a few minutes ago in 
this Chamber, I say to the families, we remember. We thank you. We will 
never forget.
  Every day I meet, it is part of our job, we meet with the families 
who have lost loved ones over there. And they all tell me the same 
thing, and that is, finish the job; I do not want my son to have died 
in vain. And finish the job we will. We thank you for your sacrifice 
fighting this war on terror abroad so that we do not have to face it 
here at home. And it has made this Nation more secure in our homeland.
  Back home, this Congress has moved faster than ever in passing 
legislation, which, among other things, fulfills the 9/11 Commission's 
recommendations by bolstering the security along our borders and 
sending the badly needed funding to those areas of our Nation that 
terrorists still see as targets. Indeed, recently the Homeland Security 
Committee visited Ground Zero. The tragic events of 9/11 are still very 
much alive and well in that city. We met with the police commissioner. 
We met with the Liberty Street Firehouse, the fallen heroes, the 
families who survived that tragic day, who lost so many people. And I 
can tell you, you can feel it. It is as if it happened just yesterday.
  And everything we do in this Congress is to provide the tools 
necessary to ensure that another 9/11 never happens again in this 
country. The need for this hard-hitting legislation comes from the 
United States grave and growing problem with undocumented aliens. An 
estimated 8 to 12 million undocumented aliens are here in the United 
States, and it is also estimated that two slip across the border for 
every one that is apprehended. That means that almost 3 million 
undocumented aliens enter our country every year; to put it in 
perspective, roughly the size of the city of Dallas. And in the post-9/
11 world, these figures no longer represent just an immigration 
problem, but rather one of national security.
  This Nation is being compromised by our inability to identify those 
who are coming into our country. And I am convinced that the first step 
we need to take to solve this problem is to secure our borders and to 
better enforce the laws currently on the books. Congress knows that 
immigration plays a major part in our national security. Accordingly, 
we have provided more than $1.5 billion in spending for border 
protection, immigration enforcement, and related activities in the 
109th Congress.
  When combining the homeland security authorization and appropriations 
bill that the House has passed, Congress has supplied funding for all 
2,000 new border patrol agents that were recommended by the 9/11 
Commission and fully authorized by last year's intelligence reform 
bill. These agents will have greater authority to detain and 
incarcerate illegal immigrants, instead of sending them back into our 
communities with a notice to appear in court, something very few abide 
by.
  Indeed, we do not have to look too far back in history to see an 
example of this when Ramsey Yusef entered our country in 1992 and was 
apprehended. He too was given a notice to appear. He too failed to show 
up to the hearing, and instead he joined his fellow colleagues from the 
bin Laden academy to join the first al Qaeda cell in the United States. 
He then conspired to blow up the World Trade Center. Fortunately, he 
was not successful. But that day would come later and his dream would 
be realized with Osama bin Laden's dream to bring down the towers that 
fateful day.

                              {time}  2145

  But I say to you, the days of this catch-and-release policy are 
numbered. Congress has also worked hard to ensure that when border 
patrol agents catch undocumented aliens, we now have somewhere to hold 
them before they are extradited. Congress has funded over 4,000 new 
detention beds to help our Federal law enforcement uphold our Nation's 
immigration laws.
  Our Federal law enforcement officers are being stretched too thin and 
being asked to do too much. According to current law, immigration laws 
can only be enforced by Federal law enforcement officials. Couple that 
with existing sanctuary policies in most of our big cities and one can 
easily see why our Federal officers have such a difficult time 
enforcing the laws on our borders.
  This is why I offered an amendment to the Homeland Security 
Authorization Bill that would fund local law enforcement training at 
Federal facilities in order to create a force multiplier so that our 
Federal law enforcement gets the assistance it needs.
  These additions will crack down on illegal immigration in between our 
borders and ultimately lessen the threat of terrorism.
  Congress has also passed legislation to make America's first 
responders more expeditious and more effective by improving the process 
by which they receive their resources. The Faster and Smarter Funding 
For First Responders Act guarantees that the States with the biggest 
risk and the greatest threats receive the necessary funding to protect 
their communities. My home State of Texas, for example, currently ranks 
last in the amount of homeland security dollars received per person. 
And that in a State which claims an international border, the Western 
White House, and a prominent State capital.
  Texas and other States like New York should be receiving more money 
than those other States with fewer targets. And by closing these gaps 
in the defense of our homeland, we have learned what our weaknesses are 
and how to better prepare for, defend against, and preempt a terrorist 
plot.
  Those like al Qaeda who wish to do harm to America have a track 
record of being patient and conspiring until they succeed in their 
terrorist agenda.
  In my former job, I was chief of counterterrorism in the Justice 
Department, I had the Mexican border, the State capital, I had the 
President's ranch. I can tell you the threat is very much still alive 
in this country, and we need to give law enforcement every tool 
necessary to protect us and to fight this war on terror not just abroad 
but at home.
  And with that in mind, this body has moved to address that threat. 
The House passage of the 2006 Homeland Security Authorization and 
Appropriations Act and Faster and Smarter Funding For First Responder 
Act send a clear message to our enemies that we will not stand idly by 
while they plot to do harm to our Nation.
  As the President stated, we will not waiver, we will not tire, we 
will not falter, and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail.
  Mr. DENT. The next speaker tonight who will be joining us in this 
discuss on homeland security is another good friend who brings to us a 
great deal of experience. I would like to introduce to you now my 
colleague from the third district of California. In addition to working 
on the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on the Budget, he 
also serves with me on the Committee on Homeland Security where he is 
assigned to the Subcommittee on Prevention of Nuclear and Biological 
Attack and the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and 
Terrorism Risk Assessment.
  My colleague is a former attorney general for the State of 
California, that State's top law enforcement officer; and he is 
strongly committed to enhancing the quality and depth of congressional 
oversight of our government's intelligence gathering and analysis in 
the provision of homeland security. I would like to introduce the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman and commend him for having this Special Order.
  When we talk about homeland security, we have to talk about those 
investigative techniques that are necessary for us to be able to 
forestall terrorism, terrorist attacks on our homeland; and one of the 
points I would like to make is prompted by comments that aids to the 
ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Judiciary of the United

[[Page H5235]]

States Senate said that he would introduce legislation aimed at 
limiting the government's ability to detain material witnesses 
indefinitely.
  The reason I mention this is that this is just a part of an overall 
criticism of this technique of the investigative community. As a matter 
of fact, the New York Times recently described it this way: that we, 
that is the Federal Government, are ``thrust into a Kafkaesque world of 
indefinite detention without charges, secret evidence, and baseless 
accusations.'' Dozens of people, some were held for weeks and even 
months and the majority were never even charged with a crime. The Times 
seethes, did ``the Bush administration twist the American system of due 
process.''
  An interesting article appeared today in the National Review by 
Andrew McCarthy, who is a former Federal prosecutor who has actually 
prosecuted some of the major terrorist cases in this country, that 
aptly responds to these criticisms of this effort by the Federal law 
enforcement community.
  He says, In point of fact, material witness detentions have been with 
us for decades pursuant to duly enacted law, that is, section 3144 of 
title 18 of the U.S. Code. They were used countless times prior to 9/
11. Hysteria aside, it should come as no surprise that these are 
detentions without charges since by definition the person being 
detained is being detained as a witness, not being charged with a 
crime.
  What would require baseless accusations would be to hold such a 
person as a defendant, which is precisely what the government refrains 
from doing in detaining on material witness law. The proceedings, 
moreover, involve secret evidence only in the sense that all 
proceedings before the grand jury, whether they involve terrorism, 
unlawful gambling or anything in between, are secret Under Federal law. 
The left of course well knows that when investigative information about 
its champions seeps into the public domain, it routinely complains 
about the reprehensible violation of grand jury secrecy rules, a useful 
diversion from dealing with the substance of any suspicions.
  Mr. McCarthy goes on, There were many, many people who were 
identified in that investigation of having had some connection or 
another with the 19 suicide attackers and their al Qaeda support 
network. Some of those connections seem intimate, some attenuated; but 
all of them had to be run down. Just imagine what the 9/11 Commission 
would have said if they had not been.
  So here is the problem, says Andrew McCarthy. You identify a large 
number of people who at a minimum have information that might be vital 
to protecting against terrorist attacks and who might in fact be 
terrorists or at least facilitators. It is very early in the 
investigation, so you do not have sufficient evidence to charge them 
with a crime or to say conclusively either that they are not dangerous 
or they are willing to tell you what they know rather than flee.

  What do you do? It would be irresponsible to do nothing, but you 
cannot watch these people 24-7. There are not anywhere close enough 
agents for that. Well, the law does not require you to do nothing. The 
law which existed before 9/11 but used here permits the government to 
detain people for a brief time in order to compel their information 
either in the grand jury or some other court proceedings.
  Contrary to what you might think from the latest spate of coverage 
and from the comments to aides of the ranking member of the Judiciary 
Committee on the Senate side, the government may not sweep innocent 
people up and hold them in secret.
  While grand jury proceedings are supposed to be kept from the New 
York Times, for instance, they are not kept secret from the court. A 
prosecutor has to go to court and get a material witness arrest 
warrant. This means the arrest does not happen unless the government 
satisfies a Federal judge that there is a reasonable basis to believe, 
A, the person at issue has information that would be important to an 
ongoing investigation and, B, the person might flee without providing 
that information to the grand jury or the court unless the person is 
detained until his testimony can be secured.
  And that is not all. Mr. McCarthy goes on to tell us the arrested 
witness, even though he is not being charged with a crime, is given the 
same kinds of protections that are afforded to actual defendants. The 
witness must promptly be presented upon arrest to a judge so that a 
neutral official can advise him of why he is being held. More 
significantly, counsel is immediately appointed for him at public 
expense if he cannot afford an attorney. Indeed, if he is a foreign 
national, the United States is obligated by law to advise him that he 
is right to have his consulate advised of his arrest. And frequently 
the consulate will not only obtain counsel on behalf of its citizen but 
will also closely monitor the case, including by demands for 
information from the U.S. State Department.
  The lawyer is given information about why the witness is being 
detained. Counsel is permitted to be present at any interview of the 
witness by the government. And although counsel is not permitted to 
accompany the witness inside the Federal grand jury, no witness, 
material or otherwise, has that right, the government is not permitted 
to interview the witness outside the grand jury unless counsel allows 
it.
  In addition, at any time during the course of the detention, counsel 
is permitted to make a bail application to the court; and if the judge 
is satisfied that the bail offered vitiates the risk of flight, the 
witness is freed on the promise to appear for his testimony.
  Furthermore, if at any point the length of detention or the condition 
of the witness's confinement actually offend the witness's fundamental 
rights, counsel may submit a habeas corpus petition seeking the 
witness's immediate release.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to ask, how is that Kafkaesque? How is that 
somehow putting people outside the bounds of law? How is that having 
this administration twisting the Constitution in some way?
  It is, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, this kind of hyperbole, this 
kind of misstatement which makes it more difficult for us to do our 
duty with respect to homeland security. We need to have those 
investigative tools that have been used against organized crime, that 
have been used against organized drug dealers and organizations. We 
need to be able to use those same investigative techniques, those same 
prosecutorial tools against those who would destroy us as a Nation, 
against those who have allied with those who have said it is their duty 
to kill any American, man, woman or child, anywhere in the world, 
combatant or noncombatant.
  We are in a new world, a world of terror, in which we have to respond 
in ways that, yes, are consistent with the Constitution, but ways that 
allow us to protect ourselves in a proper and forceful way. And these 
kinds of criticisms that come from the outside, whether it is with 
respect to Guantanamo or whether it is with respect to the use of laws 
which allow our application of the law against material witnesses, 
these kinds of attacks weaken our ability to do the job.
  And with respect to my second point, let me talk briefly about what 
we have done here in the House of Representatives to respond to the 
demand for us to respond to this unique challenge that is the challenge 
of terrorism.
  One cannot criticize a Congress for responding as best it could in 
the direct aftermath of 9/11. One cannot criticize Congress for doing 
as Congress always does in attempting to respond to some problems, 
throwing money at it. But one can criticize Congress at a time it has 
to take a pause and look at what it has done and seen what it can 
perhaps do better. And that is what we have done with the various bills 
that we have passed out of the House that were mentioned by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
  One of the things that we did in that was respond to the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report when they said homeland 
security assistance should be based strictly on an objective, non-
political assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. These assessments 
should consider the threat of an attack, localities vulnerability to an 
attack, and the possible consequences of an attack.
  Secondly, they told us, Congress should not use this money as a pork 
barrel. Third, they said, Federal homeland security assistance should 
not remain a program for general revenue

[[Page H5236]]

sharing. Fourth, they told us, the Federal Government should develop 
specific benchmarks for evaluating community needs and require that 
spending decisions be made in accordance with those benchmarks. Fifth, 
they told us, each State receiving funds should provide an analysis of 
how funds are allocated and spent within the State.
  Finally, they said, each city and State should have a minimum 
infrastructure for emergency response.

                              {time}  2200

  This is precisely what we have done with the two bills that have been 
mentioned before. We have said that rational risk assessment should 
drive our strategy, should drive our tactics and should drive our 
funding.
  The House Committee on Homeland Security, with the leadership of the 
gentleman from California (Chairman Cox), reported out the Faster and 
Smarter Funding for First Responders Act. This bill will reduce the 
across-the-board formula for providing homeland security funds to State 
and local responders from .75 to .25 percent. Therefore, under this 
bill, a greater amount of funds will be disbursed solely based on risk 
assessment.
  In April of this year new-Secretary Michael Chertoff testified before 
our committee regarding the need within DHS to promote risk-based 
prioritization and management. He said one of the goals before him is 
to ``build a culture in which the disparate pieces of information are 
being transmitted to our analysts so that they, who have the benefit of 
the fuller picture, can properly analyze all of our information and 
inform our decision-making.'' We do need to make informed decisions.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for having this Special Order 
this evening for us to have an opportunity to recount some of the 
things that are necessary for us to do to provide for the defense of 
our homeland and understand that this threat remains.
  The biggest challenge we have here today is that the longer we are 
successful in forestalling terrorist attacks, the more difficult it is 
to explain to people why we need to continue to keep our defenses up, 
the harder it is to explain that these things do not happen by 
happenstance. Rather, it is because of strong work done by brave men 
and women involved in the protection of our homeland that allow us to 
be safer than we would be otherwise.
  The worst thing we could possibly do is to not maintain our 
persistence and our dedication, our true dedication to doing those 
things that are necessary to protect it, despite the criticism of those 
who easily look at law enforcement, look at homeland security, the 
community, and saying they are going too far too fast.
  Contrary to that, we know we have not done enough, and while we in 
the Congress are required to provide the oversight to ensure that there 
are not abuses in the system and to ensure that no prosecutor, no law 
enforcement agent takes advantage of those tools we have given them, we 
also must make sure that they are not cowed by criticism from doing the 
job that they need to do.
  I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. McCaul) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren). 
I think we have heard quite clearly from these individuals who have 
tremendous and deep experience in law enforcement in their States. They 
bring a perspective here that is very valuable to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and, frankly, to the security of our Nation.
  The next person I would like to introduce tonight also has a great 
deal of experience in law enforcement. Actually, he has 33 years of 
experience as a first responder. He was the sheriff of King County, 
Washington. That is the Seattle area, for those of you not from the 
State of Washington, but the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Reichert) 
Eighth District, again, is just loaded with experience as a first 
responder or a first preventer.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), 
my colleague, former sheriff and extraordinary member of the Committee 
on Homeland Security.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania 
and commend him for sponsoring this hour tonight.
  We have heard about the Faster Smarter First Responder Act. We have 
talked about risk assessment. We have talked about the PATRIOT Act. We 
have talked about better cooperation and those things that we have done 
as members of the Committee on Homeland Security to support first 
responders.
  As a freshman Member and law enforcement officer of 33 years, as my 
friend has indicated, I am honored to be a member of the Committee on 
Homeland Security to represent the thoughts, ideas, needs and concerns 
of first responders across the Nation. The role of the first responder 
has changed since September 11, and it is important that we recognize 
that and equip them accordingly. In the first months of this session, 
we have given them priority risk-based funding and brought them into 
important homeland security decisions.
  What I want to do tonight is to really focus on where the rubber 
meets the road and to just take a moment to look back and then take a 
look forward.
  Where were first responders in 1972 when I started out as a cop, as a 
21-year-old, naive police officer? The things that we did back in 1972 
through the 1970s and into the 1980s was to respond to crime, to 
operate from our police cars and answer burglary calls and respond to 
other crime needs in our community and work with local police 
departments and local school districts.
  Then in the 1980s, we moved ahead and we actually ended up with some 
additional tools. We look back to 1972, and we think about what did we 
have for tools? We had a police car, a gun and a badge essentially, and 
a pair of handcuffs. As we moved forward into the 1980s and into the 
1990s, we ended up with tools like DNA, an automated fingerprint 
identification system, and I know it sounds funny, but computers 
started to come onto the scene. So we added those tools to our arsenal 
of crime-fighting weapons.
  Then we find ourselves in the 1990s, also in the middle of community 
policing and our efforts to work with the community to solve not only 
crime in the communities but to improve the quality of life, to 
interact with leaders of the community, to sit down and listen to their 
needs and concerns and come to some solutions for their neighborhoods, 
even as far as painting over graffiti and towing away old cars. That 
was what police officers did in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.
  Then came along September 11 and our role changed forever, and as my 
good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) just 
said, we now live in a different world.
  After September 11, the role of the first responder has changed. It 
still includes those things that I just talked about, the stuff that 
cops do every day, helping people, arresting crooks, criminals on the 
streets of our cities across this country, but the added responsibility 
now of also being a part of the team and protecting our homeland, and 
they truly are on the front line of that effort.
  In our local community in Seattle we have a Joint Analytical Center 
where police officers from local police departments are assigned to the 
Federal intelligence task force. We have a regional intelligence task 
force gathering information within our specific region in the Northwest 
and sharing with the FBI Joint Analytical Center. That information is 
analyzed, prioritized, and then assigned to the joint terrorism task 
force where, again, local police detectives are a part of and member of 
and participate in investigating and following up those leads that are 
prioritized by the analytical center. Every day, cops on the streets 
today are following up leads to find terrorists, people who are in this 
country to do us harm, and we in the Committee on Homeland Security are 
here to support that effort.

  We would have never thought years ago that police officers on the 
street would have to respond to calls or train in HazMat uniforms. We 
would have never thought 5, 10, 15 years ago that we would have had to 
worry about our police officers and first responders responding to a 
dirty bomb, a biothreat, or some other weapon of mass destruction, but 
these are the things today

[[Page H5237]]

that our local police officers are trying to deal with, and it is a 
tough, tough job.
  So let us not forget them. Let us support them and we will continue 
to do our work on the Committee on Homeland Security, and I am proud to 
be a member of that committee.
  I thank the gentleman so much for the time to speak tonight on the 
role of first responders.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Reichert) for sharing his thoughts and perspectives 
with us, again a 33-year first responder and police officer from the 
Seattle year.
  Now, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), another fine 
individual, member of the committee, from the Third District of 
Alabama. In addition to working on the Committee on Armed Services and 
the Committee on Agriculture, he also serves with me on the Committee 
on Homeland Security where he is assigned to the Subcommittee on 
Emergency Preparedness, Science, and Technology and chairs the 
Subcommittee on Management, Integration, and Oversight. As chairman of 
this subcommittee, my colleague is very concerned about making sure 
that the Department of Homeland Security operates in the most efficient 
and effective and transparent way possible.
  With that, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Dent) for organizing this discussion tonight. It is vital we take the 
time to talk about these important issues, and I appreciate the 
gentleman's efforts to highlight some of our accomplishments this 
evening.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress has done many good things to help secure 
our homeland, some of which we are discussing tonight, but in other 
areas, we still have a ways to go.
  Take, for example, the issue of border surveillance. About 2 weeks 
ago, the subcommittee I chair held a hearing to discuss the camera 
system that monitors our Nation's northern and southern borders. Known 
as the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System, or ISIS, these 
cameras are a critical link for helping secure our border.
  Unfortunately, this system is not working as planned. What began as a 
program to monitor the border crossing of illegal immigrants, drug 
trafficker, and even terrorists has morphed into what one of our 
witnesses called ``a major project gone awry.''
  According to a 2004 GSA audit, the problems go even further. For 
example, the initial $2 million contract was awarded without full 
competition. Just 1 year later that same contract ballooned to over 
$200 million, again without full competition, and the problems do not 
end there.
  The GSA audit also reported significant issues relating to the 
surveillance system itself: 60-foot poles that were paid for but never 
installed; sensitive equipment that failed to meet electrical codes; an 
operations center where contractors and government employees did little 
or no work for over a year; and not surprisingly, numerous cost 
overruns. To top it off, in September 2004, the GSA abruptly ended the 
maintenance contract. This left approximately 70 border sites without 
monitoring equipment.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better. What we have here, 
plain and simple, is a case of gross mismanagement of a multimillion-
dollar contract. This agreement has violated Federal contracting rules, 
and it has wasted taxpayers' dollars. Worst of all, it has seriously 
weakened our Nation's border security.
  Before DHS spends another $2.5 billion on a replacement system known 
as the America's Shield Initiative, we need to first fix the system we 
have got. With Federal dollars scarce and budgets tight, it is vital 
that the American people know what they are getting.
  Thanks to the work of this Congress and many of my colleagues here 
tonight, we are improving the safety of America's homeland, but we 
still have a ways to go. As we move forward, I hope we can continue to 
address these issues at DHS.
  I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for 
his comments as well and appreciate his leadership on the Committee on 
Homeland Security.
  I would now like to further this conversation tonight, this Special 
Order and this discussion with the American people, and I would like to 
say a few words about the interrelationship between immigration and 
homeland security.
  While so many immigrants who come to this country do so legally and 
with the sole intention of seeking a better life, there are those who 
have links to terrorist organizations or who come here to do us harm. 
To be fully effective, then, the homeland security programs need to 
contain measures to curb illegal immigration and to prevent those who 
would seek to propagate acts of violence from crossing international 
borders.
  Legislation recently passed in the House contains these kinds of 
measures. The Real ID Act is one such provision. It serves to protect 
the homeland in four distinct ways.
  First, it establishes rigorous proof of identity for all driver's 
license applicants and strong security requirements for all licenses 
and State-issued identity cards. It further requires that Federal 
agencies only accept State-issued licenses and ID cards from those 
States that have confirmed by substantial evidence that the applicant 
is lawfully present within the jurisdiction. These measures are 
important because they make it more difficult for would-be terrorists 
to utilize phony or temporary licenses or secure cover for their 
nefarious activities here in the U.S. As the 9/11 Commission states: 
``It is elemental to border security to know who is coming into the 
country. Today more than 9 million people are in the United States 
outside the legal immigration system. All but one of the 9/11 hijackers 
acquired some form of U.S. identification document, some by fraud.

                              {time}  2215

  ``Acquisition of these forms of identification would have assisted 
them in boarding commercial flights, renting cars, and other necessary 
activities.'' That is from the 9/11 Commission.
  The REAL ID Act also makes it easier to deny asylum to and deport 
would-be terrorists. Prior to REAL ID, individuals who allegedly 
committed certain terrorist acts could be denied admission to the U.S., 
but an anomaly within U.S. immigration law provided that once here, 
individuals who had committed these same acts could not be deported. 
The REAL ID Act rectifies this situation.
  In addition, terrorist organizations have been using front 
organizations and alleged charities to support and provide cover for 
their terrorist activities. As President Bush has stated, 
``International terrorist networks make frequent use of charitable or 
humanitarian organizations to obtain clandestine, financial and other 
support for their activities.'' Money given to terrorist organizations 
is fungible. Unfortunately, prior to the act, an alien could provide 
funding or other material support to many terrorist organizations and 
then escape deportation merely by claiming he did not know the funds 
would be spent on weapons or explosives.
  The REAL ID Act, by contrast, directs that an alien who provides 
funds or other material support to a terrorist is inadmissible and 
deportable if he knew or reasonably should have known that he was 
giving to a terrorist organization.
  Finally, the REAL ID Act provides an important component to the 
physical security of the United States. In 1996, Congress mandated the 
building of a 14-mile border fence inland from the Mexican border in 
the San Diego area. The goal was to curb illegal entries into the most 
heavily trafficked corner of the United States and to guarantee 
security at the U.S. naval base in San Diego. More than 8 years later, 
that fence is still not completed, in large part because the 
construction is tied up in litigation. In order to facilitate the 
construction of this important security perimeter, the act waives all 
Federal laws necessary to ensure the expeditious completion of this 
structure.
  Immigration as a security issue was also the subject of portions of 
the Homeland Security Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006. The act 
fully funded the hiring and training of some 2,000

[[Page H5238]]

border patrol agents. It also clarifies the existing authorities of 
State and local law enforcement personnel to apprehend, detain, remove, 
and transport illegal aliens in the routine course of their duty.
  Further, it buttresses up that policy determination that local police 
have the right to help enforce U.S. immigration laws by appropriating 
$40 million in training funds for these same municipal authorities. 
These funds are available to reimburse those communities that choose to 
send officers to the Department of Homeland Security programs run by 
ICE, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, designed to train and 
certify these officers in the enforcement of Federal immigration laws. 
Having officers trained in this way can only work to the detriment of a 
would-be terrorist detained as a result of his committing a crime 
unrelated to national security.
  As I have described, the Homeland Security Act has a strong border 
security component, but so does the homeland appropriation bill. The 
appropriation bill provides $19.4 billion for border protection, 
immigration enforcement, and related activities, an increase of $1.9 
billion over fiscal year 2005 enacted levels and $285 million over the 
President's budget request. These funds support a robust revitalization 
of immigration enforcement efforts, both along our borders and within 
the interior of the Nation.
  Specific funding includes, but is not limited to, $3.2 billion for 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, providing an additional 150 
criminal investigators and 200 immigration enforcement agents; $61 
million for border security technology, including surveillance and 
unmanned aerial vehicles; $20 million for replacement border patrol 
aircraft; $690 million to fund 3,870 beds to house illegal immigrants 
detained in U.S. facilities; $119 million to fund fugitive operations 
teams; and $211 million for transportation and removal of undocumented 
aliens.
  All these measures I have previously described are designed to 
enforce immigration laws, but we must also remember that in doing so we 
are contributing to the preservation of our homeland security as well. 
By preventing access to this country by undocumented aliens, by 
removing those who are here illegally, and by training local police 
officers to help enforce immigration laws, we will increase the odds 
that a would-be terrorist seeking to enter our country will be stopped 
before he can wreak any acts of violence against our citizenry.
  Another comment I would like to make with respect to this whole issue 
of homeland security is this. We have heard from a number of speakers 
tonight about what the United States Congress is doing to make our 
homeland more safe and more secure. We have heard about the PATRIOT 
Act, the Homeland Security Authorization Act, the First Responder Bill, 
and the appropriations act. But, really, the bottom line is, why are we 
going through this? The events of 9/11 should have woken up everyone. I 
believe they did. Many of us lost friends. I had a relative in the 
first tower on the 91st floor who escaped, luckily. The plane entered 
that tower in the 93rd floor, and he lived to talk about it.
  So we have all been touched by this in one way or another, and 
certainly as a freshman Member of Congress I spend a great deal of time 
going to orientation sessions and being fed a lot of information. I 
have felt sometimes that being a Member of Congress is sometimes like 
drinking water out of a fire hose. A lot of information is thrown at 
you very quickly, and you do your best to absorb it all.
  When I was up at Harvard University to be engaged in the orientation 
program, I met an interesting individual up there, a man name Grahm 
Allison, who wrote a book called ``Nuclear Terrorism,'' and I highly 
recommend that people read it because it helps bring focus and 
clarity to the issue of homeland security and why this government, and 
not just in the Department of Homeland Security but throughout our 
Federal Government, State government, our local officials are working 
so diligently to protect us from unspeakable criminal acts that our 
enemies would like to commit against us.

  I will go to this book, again entitled ``Nuclear Terrorism: The 
Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe,'' written by Grahm Allison, but he 
quotes an individual named Suleiman Abu Gheith, who was Osama bin 
Laden's official press spokesman. Nine months after the 9/11 attacks, 
Suleiman Abu Gheith made this announcement, and it was put out on al 
Qaeda Web sites. He says: ``We have the right to kill 4 million 
Americans, 2 million of them children, and to exile twice as many and 
wound and cripple hundreds of thousands.''
  What a frightening and extraordinary statement. He says he wants to 
kill, that al Qaeda wants to kill 4 million Americans. He did not say 
1.5 million Americans, he did not say 8 million Americans. He said 4 
million, 2 million children. How did he get to that number? He goes on 
to explain. He itemizes the number. He goes on and he says that for 50 
years in Palestine he blames the Jews, and with the blessing and 
support of the Americans he says the Jews exiled nearly 5 million 
Palestinians and killed nearly 260,000. They wounded nearly 180,000 and 
crippled nearly 160,000. And he talks about the American bombings and 
the siege of Iraq, as he says more than 1.2 million Muslims were killed 
in the past decade.
  So he blames Israel and the United States. He says in the war against 
the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, America killed 12,000 Afghan 
civilians and 350 Arab jihad fighters. In Somalia, America killed 
13,000 Somalies. So as he itemizes this number, he somehow gets to 4 
million. This is what our enemies are saying about us.
  So, then, he asks the rhetorical question as to how should a good 
Muslim, in his case what he considers a good Muslim, which is not what 
most of us or most Muslims would consider to be a good Muslim, I am 
sure, but he said, ``Citing the Koran and other Islamic religious texts 
and traditions,'' he answers his question by saying, ``anyone who 
peruses these sources reaches a single conclusion: the sages have 
agreed that the reciprocal punishment to which the verses referred to 
is not limited to a specific instance. It is a valid rule for 
punishments for infidels, for licentious Muslims, and for the 
oppressors.''
  He concludes: ``According to the numbers in the previous section of 
the lives lost among Muslims because of Americans, directly or 
indirectly, we are still at the beginning of the way. The Americans 
have still not tasted from our hands what we have tasted from theirs. 
We have not reached parity with them.'' He says, ``Parity will require 
killing 4 million Americans.''
  This is very frightening. And I would suggest to everyone here today 
that 4 million Americans is a very big number. On September 11 we lost 
nearly 3,000 of our own. It would require 1,400 attacks of 3,000 people 
to get to 4 million.
  Al Qaeda is quite clear in their intentions, and it is my belief that 
they intend to pursue whatever weapons are available to them to 
maximize the amount of damage they can upon the American people. And 
that is why our committee is so dedicated, is so committed to making 
sure that our folks at Homeland Security have what they need to do the 
job to protect us.
  Finally, I want to turn to another man who is a great leader and a 
friend from my home State of Pennsylvania. I would like to introduce my 
colleague from the Seventh District of Pennsylvania. In addition to 
being a senior member of the Committee on Armed Services and the 
Committee on Science, he also serves with me on the House Homeland 
Security Committee, where he is vice chairman.
  He is also active on the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, 
Science and Technology, as well as the Subcommittee on Intelligence, 
Information Sharing and Risk Assessment. He is a former first responder 
himself, an active student of international relations, and an expert on 
ballistic missile proliferation.
  He, too, is an author of a highly acclaimed book, ``Countdown to 
Terror.'' I have been talking about books, so I might as well mention 
this one too. It has been talked about quite a bit in the press, and it 
highlights his concerns about terrorist failures and the spread of 
ballistic missile technology in Iran. So without any further discussion 
from me, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and

[[Page H5239]]

colleague for yielding to me and thank him for this outstanding Special 
Order. I hope that our colleagues tonight have been listening, because 
they have seen an outstanding assemblage of excellent young Members of 
Congress who are picking up the mantle and taking the lead on homeland 
security issues in our committee.
  This is the first year for the full operation of the authorization 
committee for homeland security funding and oversight, and it is 
extremely important that we get off to a good start. I just want to 
say, as a Member who was very aggressively behind this committee, I am 
overwhelmingly pleased and positive with the type of membership we have 
on this committee. My colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Dent), is an example of an outstanding leader who is committed; and he 
has brought together an assemblage of Members tonight who have 
articulated the various parameters of the concerns we face, from first 
responders, to our borders, to protecting our ports and our airports, 
and for all of the significant work that has been accomplished under 
Secretary Ridge, now being accomplished under our current new Secretary 
and under the able leadership of the chairman of our House Homeland 
Security Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and our 
appropriations subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. Speaker, later on this evening I will be offering another Special 
Order that will reveal some absolutely amazing information for the 
American people. I will divulge tonight the information that prior to 
9/11, not only did we know about the Mohammed Atta cell, but that the 
Special Forces Command in our military actually wanted to take action 
against that cell, and we did not take that action.
  I will be discussing our intelligence in detail, and by following 
through on a special project that was initiated under the leadership of 
General Shelton focusing on al Qaeda. But at this point in time, I 
wanted to stop by and thank our distinguished Members, thank the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) for his leadership, and say to 
those who participated in this Special Order, if we are going to win 
the battle and protect the homeland, all Members must play the critical 
role that you have played tonight and pick a specialty area that you 
have a focus on so we as a team can make sure that our country is 
properly protected.

                          ____________________