[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 97 (Tuesday, June 26, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H4014-H4015]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
USE OF GRANT FUNDS FOR PROJECTS CONDUCTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A
NATIONAL LABORATORY OR RESEARCH FACILITY
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 5843) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to
permit use of certain grant funds for training conducted in conjunction
with a national laboratory or research facility.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5843
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. USE OF GRANT FUNDS FOR PROJECTS CONDUCTED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH A NATIONAL LABORATORY OR
RESEARCH FACILITY.
Section 2008(a)(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 609(a)(2)) is amended by inserting ``training
conducted in conjunction with a national laboratory or
research facility and'' after ``including''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. King) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, introduced by Mr. Lungren, is a simple
statutory clarification that allows State and local governments and
emergency management officials to use existing FEMA State Homeland
Security Grant Program and Urban Area Security Initiative funds to work
with national labs where appropriate.
H.R. 5843 amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 by inserting a
clarification into the ``allowable use'' section of the Homeland
Security Grant Program section. Clarifying this ``allowable use'' under
the grants program will allow these State and local first responders to
leverage the expertise at national labs for research and training
purposes.
This is a simple, solid, good government measure that will help
maximize the use of limited Federal grant dollars. This bill will allow
State and local officials to cut through FEMA red tape, which makes it
harder for first responders to work with the Federal national labs and
make the best decisions for their homeland security needs. This bill
will eliminate hoops that State and locals have to go through to gain
access to this expertise and training.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren) for
his work on this issue and so many others on the committee.
I urge passage of the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I'm perplexed that the House is considering H.R. 5843
today. I cannot understand why this bill is on the schedule. It was
introduced just over a month ago and has not been vetted by the
committee. Why are we giving expedited attention to a bill that has
just two cosponsors, both of whom are Republican? Whatever the problem
it purports to solve has not been the subject of so much as a Member-
level briefing, let alone a hearing or a markup.
Section 208(a)(13) of the Homeland Security Act already allows the
Department to approve the spending of grant funds on training by
national labs. Without so much as a hearing where the committee can
take testimony on this matter, it is hard to justify taking up precious
House floor time on this bill, especially in a week where we must take
urgent action on Pell Grants and highway funding. So instead, I choose
to use this time to discuss the dwindling Federal support for homeland
security activities, a far more timely concern for State, local, and
tribal authorities than H.R. 5843.
In the wake of the September 11 attack, as a government, we committed
to safeguarding our homeland by building and preserving preparedness
capabilities. Yet since the beginning of the 112th Congress, that
commitment seems to have dangerously wavered.
In just 2 short years, vital Homeland Security Grant Programs have
been significantly cut, and, as a result, the level of preparedness
fostered by the programs, such as the Urban Areas Security Initiative,
Port Security Grant Program, Transit Security Grant Program, and the
Metropolitan Medical Response System, have been undermined. Given that
the authorizations for many of these targeted programs are expiring, a
far better use of our time would be to reauthorize the Transit Security
Grant Program or the Metropolitan Medical Response program.
[[Page H4015]]
Mr. Speaker, before I reserve my time, I would note for the record
that there are two other much more plausible candidates for
consideration by the full House that were introduced by the gentleman
from California. One addressed the cybersecurity threat and was ordered
reported in April. The other authorizes DHS's chemical facility
security program and is pending on the Union Calendar.
Mr. Speaker, speaking of the Union Calendar, I would also note that
this bill is receiving expedited consideration while four measures
ordered reported by the Committee on Homeland Security remain on the
Union Calendar without action.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am proud, at this time, to yield
such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Lungren), who is chairman of the Subcommittee on
Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies;
and during his time on the committee has contributed as much as, if not
more than, any other Member, and, in fact, returned to Congress for the
purpose of doing all he could to enhance our homeland security.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I might say that this should not be a surprise bill to anybody. This
is actually a part of the authorization bill that we already worked on.
It has come about as a result of the fact of complaints from local
jurisdictions that they were unable to utilize funds in a way that they
thought was most effective.
This bill would simply permit recipients of certain FEMA grants to
use this funding for training and exercises conducted in conjunction
with a national lab or Federal research facility. There's no additional
cost. The CBO report shows there's no additional cost. In other words,
the bill expands the allowable use of FEMA grants and ensures that
emergency managers, first responders, and local governments can use
these grant dollars to leverage the expertise of our national labs and
research facilities.
We have had plenty of hearings on the viability of our national labs
and research facilities and the fact that we need to leverage more, in
these tough budget times, their expertise to help us come up with
solutions and prepare, among others, first responders to the challenges
that we face in these times. With fewer grant dollars available, it's
important that State and local governments be able to use them for the
greatest public benefit.
As we all know, State and local governments everywhere are also
operating under severe budget limitations, and increasing the allowable
use of FEMA grants helps these cash-strapped governments to address
their emergency needs. Using our existing national assets for training
and research is another way to efficiently leverage the scientific
expertise available at these facilities.
I just want to correct the record. This is not just cosponsored by
two other Members, both of whom are Republicans. It is cosponsored by
Representative Stark from California and Representative Lujan from New
Mexico. In addition, on the Republican side, Mr. Turner from New York,
Mr. Long from Missouri, Mr. Marino from Pennsylvania, Mr. Bilirakis
from Florida, and Mr. King from New York.
{time} 1710
We have heard not only from entities in the State of California, but
I believe also in New York and New Jersey about concerns that they were
unable to use their grants in the most efficient way, and absent a
clarification of statutory language, FEMA was not going to allow them
to participate in this way.
Now, some would ask what examples might we have of how these funds
might be used. I will just use my home State of California. The Naval
Postgraduate School, which is a Federal entity in Monterey, provides
unique training to State and local officials through its Center for
Homeland Defense and Security. The Lawrence Livermore Laboratory is a
government-owned, contract-operated facility managed through a contract
between the Laboratory Board of Governors and DOE's National Nuclear
Security Administration. These national labs can provide a myriad of
research and technical support to programs that support State and local
emergency responders, things such as risk analysis and security systems
evaluation. And just another example, the Navy Space and Naval Warfare
Systems Command in San Diego has substantial capability and interest in
helping emergency responders with communications and nuclear detention.
So we are responding in as quick a fashion as we can to complaints
that we've heard from local jurisdictions that they were unable to use
their FEMA grants in the most effective way in leveraging, as I say,
the expertise, the unique expertise of national labs and Federal
research facilities. That is the purpose of this legislation. It is a
very simple, a one-sentence clarification of the underlying statute. I
would hope that we have unanimous support for this bill.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to close. I
don't have any more speakers.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, Mr. King had to
leave, and I ask unanimous consent that I control the time of
Representative King.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
California will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, we owe it to our Nation's
first responders to ensure that they have the resources needed to
perform their jobs and to get it right when we alter the allowable uses
for those funds. Getting it right in this body requires deliberation
and debate in the committee of jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the bill we are considering today failed
to receive such deliberation or debate. Therefore, it is hard to say
whether it is responsive to the needs of first responders. What I can
say for a fact is reauthorizing key Homeland Security grant programs
would bolster preparedness and be responsive to the needs of our first
responders.
And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple
bill responding to a simple problem. Actually, this bill undoes redtape
that ought not to be there. It leverages the best assets of the Federal
Government, working with our first responders in our local communities
in ways that they asked us to try and deal with the problem. It's not a
fancy bill. It is a simple bill. It is straightforward. And, therefore,
I ask for a unanimous vote on this from my colleagues, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. King) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 5843.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________