|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE The leading Copyright |
[Congressional Record: November 13, 2002 (House)]
[Page H8697-H8722]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr13no02-27]
[[pp. H8697-H8722]] HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002
[[Continued from page H8696]]
[[Page H8697]]
TITLE XVI--CORRECTIONS TO EXISTING LAW RELATING TO AIRLINE
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
SEC. 1601. RETENTION OF SECURITY SENSITIVE INFORMATION
AUTHORITY AT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
(a) Section 40119 of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``and the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration each'' after ``for Security''; and
(B) by striking ``criminal violence and aircraft piracy''
and inserting ``criminal violence, aircraft piracy, and
terrorism and to ensure security''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1)--
(A) by striking ``, the Under Secretary'' and inserting
``and the establishment of a Department of Homeland Security,
the Secretary of Transportation'';
(B) by striking ``carrying out'' and all that follows
through ``if the Under Secretary'' and inserting ``ensuring
security under this title if the Secretary of
Transportation''; and
(C) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``the safety of
passengers in transportation'' and inserting ``transportation
safety''.
(b) Section 114 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(s) Nondisclosure of Security Activities.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 552 of title 5,
the Under Secretary shall prescribe regulations prohibiting
the disclosure of information obtained or developed in
carrying out security under authority of the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71) or under
chapter 449 of this title if the Under Secretary decides that
disclosing the information would--
``(A) be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
``(B) reveal a trade secret or privileged or confidential
commercial or financial information; or
``(C) be detrimental to the security of transportation.
``(2) Availability of information to congress.--Paragraph
(1) does not authorize information to be withheld from a
committee of Congress authorized to have the information.
``(3) Limitation on transferability of duties.--Except as
otherwise provided by law, the Under Secretary may not
transfer a duty or power under this subsection to another
department, agency, or instrumentality of the United
States.''.
SEC. 1602. INCREASE IN CIVIL PENALTIES.
Section 46301(a) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(8) Aviation security violations.--Notwithstanding
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, the maximum civil
penalty for violating chapter 449 or another requirement
under this title administered by the Under Secretary of
Transportation for Security shall be $10,000; except that the
maximum civil penalty shall be $25,000 in the case of a
person operating an aircraft for the transportation of
passengers or property for compensation (except an individual
serving as an airman).''.
SEC. 1603. ALLOWING UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND UNITED STATES
NATIONALS AS SCREENERS.
Section 44935(e)(2)(A)(ii) of title 49, United States Code,
is amended by striking ``citizen of the United States'' and
inserting ``citizen of the United States or a national of the
United States, as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22))''.
TITLE XVII--CONFORMING AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
SEC. 1701. INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT OF 1978.
Section 11 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (Public Law
95-452) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``Homeland Security,'' after
``Transportation,'' each place it appears; and
(2) by striking ``; and'' each place it appears in
paragraph (1) and inserting ``;'';
SEC. 1702. EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE.
(a) In General.--Title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 5312, by inserting ``Secretary of Homeland
Security.'' as a new item after ``Affairs.'';
(2) in section 5313, by inserting ``Deputy Secretary of
Homeland Security.'' as a new item after ``Affairs.'';
(3) in section 5314, by inserting ``Under Secretaries,
Department of Homeland Security.'', ``Director of the Bureau
of Citizenship and Immigration Services.'' as new items after
``Affairs.'' the third place it appears;
(4) in section 5315, by inserting ``Assistant Secretaries,
Department of Homeland Security.'', ``General Counsel,
Department of Homeland Security.'', ``Officer for Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties, Department of Homeland
Security.'', ``Chief Financial Officer, Department of
Homeland Security.'', ``Chief Information Officer, Department
of Homeland Security.'', and ``Inspector General, Department
of Homeland Security.'' as new items after ``Affairs.'' the
first place it appears; and
(5) in section 5315, by striking ``Commissioner of
Immigration and Naturalization, Department of Justice.''.
(b) Special Effective Date.--Notwithstanding section 4, the
amendment made by subsection (a)(5) shall take effect on the
date on which the transfer of functions specified under
section 441 takes effect.
SEC. 1703. UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE.
(a) In General.--(1) The United States Code is amended in
section 202 of title 3, and in section 3056 of title 18, by
striking ``of the Treasury'', each place it appears and
inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(2) Section 208 of title 3, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``of Treasury'' each place it appears and
inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of transfer of the United
States Secret Service to the Department.
SEC. 1704. COAST GUARD.
(a) Title 14, U.S.C.--Title 14, United States Code, is
amended in sections 1, 3, 53, 95, 145, 516, 666, 669, 673,
673a (as redesignated by subsection (e)(1)), 674, 687, and
688 by striking ``of Transportation'' each place it appears
and inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(b) Title 10, U.S.C.--(1) Title 10, United States Code, is
amended in sections 101(9), 130b(a), 130b(c)(4), 130c(h)(1),
379, 513(d), 575(b)(2), 580(e)(6), 580a(e), 651(a),
671(c)(2), 708(a), 716(a), 717, 806(d)(2), 815(e), 888,
946(c)(1), 973(d), 978(d), 983(b)(1), 985(a), 1033(b)(1),
1033(d), 1034, 1037(c), 1044d(f), 1058(c), 1059(a),
1059(k)(1), 1073(a), 1074(c)(1), 1089(g)(2), 1090, 1091(a),
1124, 1143, 1143a(h), 1144, 1145(e), 1148, 1149, 1150(c),
1152(a), 1152(d)(1), 1153, 1175, 1212(a), 1408(h)(2),
1408(h)(8), 1463(a)(2), 1482a(b), 1510, 1552(a)(1), 1565(f),
1588(f)(4), 1589, 2002(a), 2302(1), 2306b(b), 2323(j)(2),
2376(2), 2396(b)(1), 2410a(a), 2572(a), 2575(a), 2578,
2601(b)(4), 2634(e), 2635(a), 2734(g), 2734a, 2775,
2830(b)(2), 2835, 2836, 4745(a), 5013a(a), 7361(b),
10143(b)(2), 10146(a), 10147(a), 10149(b), 10150, 10202(b),
10203(d), 10205(b), 10301(b), 12103(b), 12103(d), 12304,
12311(c), 12522(c), 12527(a)(2), 12731(b), 12731a(e),
16131(a), 16136(a), 16301(g), and 18501 by striking ``of
Transportation'' each place it appears and inserting ``of
Homeland Security''.
(2) Section 801(1) of such title is amended by striking
``the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation''
and inserting ``an official designated to serve as Judge
Advocate General of the Coast Guard by the Secretary of
Homeland Security''.
(3) Section 983(d)(2)(B) of such title is amended by
striking ``Department of Transportation'' and inserting
``Department of Homeland Security''.
(4) Section 2665(b) of such title is amended by striking
``Department of Transportation'' and inserting ``Department
in which the Coast Guard is operating''.
(5) Section 7045 of such title is amended--
(A) in subsections (a)(1) and (b), by striking
``Secretaries of the Army, Air Force, and Transportation''
both places it appears and inserting ``Secretary of the Army,
the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Secretary of Homeland
Security''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``Department of
Transportation'' and inserting ``Department of Homeland
Security''.
(6) Section 7361(b) of such title is amended in the
subsection heading by striking ``Transportation'' and
inserting ``Homeland Security''.
(7) Section 12522(c) of such title is amended in the
subsection heading by striking ``Transportation'' and
inserting ``Homeland Security''.
(c) Title 37, U.S.C.--Title 37, United States Code, is
amended in sections 101(5), 204(i)(4), 301a(a)(3), 306(d),
307(c), 308(a)(1), 308(d)(2), 308(f), 308b(e), 308c(c),
308d(a), 308e(f), 308g(g), 308h(f), 308i(e), 309(d), 316(d),
323(b), 323(g)(1), 325(i), 402(d), 402a(g)(1), 403(f)(3),
403(l)(1), 403b(i)(5), 406(b)(1), 417(a), 417(b), 418(a),
703, 1001(c), 1006(f), 1007(a), and 1011(d) by striking ``of
Transportation'' each place it appears and inserting ``of
Homeland Security''.
(d) Title 38, U.S.C.--Title 38, United States Code, is
amended in sections 101(25)(d), 1560(a), 3002(5),
3011(a)(1)(A)(ii)(I), 3011(a)(1)(A)(ii)(II),
3011(a)(1)(B)(ii)(III), 3011(a)(1)(C)(iii)(II)(cc),
3012(b)(1)(A)(v), 3012(b)(1)(B)(ii)(V), 3018(b)(3)(B)(iv),
3018A(a)(3), 3018B(a)(1)(C), 3018B(a)(2)(C), 3018C(a)(5),
3020(m), 3035(b)(2), 3035(c), 3035(d), 3035(e), 3680A(g), and
6105(c) by striking ``of Transportation'' each place it
appears and inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(e) Other Defense-Related Laws.--(1) Section 363 of Public
Law 104-193 (110 Stat. 2247) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1) (10 U.S.C. 113 note), by striking
``of Transportation'' and inserting ``of Homeland Security'';
and
(B) in subsection (b)(1) (10 U.S.C. 704 note), by striking
``of Transportation'' and inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(2) Section 721(1) of Public Law 104-201 (10 U.S.C. 1073
note) is amended by striking ``of Transportation'' and
inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(3) Section 4463(a) of Public Law 102-484 (10 U.S.C. 1143a
note) is amended by striking ``after consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation''.
(4) Section 4466(h) of Public Law 102-484 (10 U.S.C. 1143
note) is amended by striking ``of Transportation'' and
inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(5) Section 542(d) of Public Law 103-337 (10 U.S.C. 1293
note) is amended by striking ``of Transportation'' and
inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(6) Section 740 of Public Law 106-181 (10 U.S.C. 2576 note)
is amended in subsections (b)(2), (c), and (d)(1) by striking
``of Transportation'' each place it appears and inserting
``of Homeland Security''.
(7) Section 1407(b)(2) of the Defense Dependents' Education
Act of 1978 (20 U.S.C. 926(b)) is amended by striking ``of
Transportation'' both places it appears and inserting ``of
Homeland Security''.
[[Page H8698]]
(8) Section 2301(5)(D) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6671(5)(D)) is amended by
striking ``of Transportation'' and inserting ``of Homeland
Security''.
(9) Section 2307(a) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6677(a)) is amended by
striking ``of Transportation'' and inserting ``of Homeland
Security''.
(10) Section 1034(a) of Public Law 105-85 (21 U.S.C.
1505a(a)) is amended by striking ``of Transportation'' and
inserting ``of Homeland Security''.
(11) The Military Selective Service Act is amended--
(A) in section 4(a) (50 U.S.C. App. 454(a)), by striking
``of Transportation'' in the fourth paragraph and inserting
``of Homeland Security'';
(B) in section 4(b) (50 U.S.C. App. 454(b)), by striking
``of Transportation'' both places it appears and inserting
``of Homeland Security'';
(C) in section 6(d)(1) (50 U.S.C. App. 456(d)(1)), by
striking ``of Transportation'' both places it appears and
inserting ``of Homeland Security'';
(D) in section 9(c) (50 U.S.C. App. 459(c)), by striking
``Secretaries of Army, Navy, Air Force, or Transportation''
and inserting ``Secretary of a military department, and the
Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast
Guard,''; and
(E) in section 15(e) (50 U.S.C. App. 465(e)), by striking
``of Transportation'' both places it appears and inserting
``of Homeland Security''.
(f) Technical Correction.--(1) Title 14, United States
Code, is amended by redesignating section 673 (as added by
section 309 of Public Law 104-324) as section 673a.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 17 of
such title is amended by redesignating the item relating to
such section as section 673a.
(g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
(other than subsection (f)) shall take effect on the date of
transfer of the Coast Guard to the Department.
SEC. 1705. STRATEGIC NATIONAL STOCKPILE AND SMALLPOX VACCINE
DEVELOPMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 121 of the Public Health Security
and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-188; 42 U.S.C. 300hh-12) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by striking ``Secretary of Health and Human Services''
and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security'';
(B) by inserting ``the Secretary of Health and Human
Services and'' between ``in coordination with'' and ``the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs''; and
(C) by inserting ``of Health and Human Services'' after
``as are determined by the Secretary''; and
(2) in subsections (a)(2) and (b), by inserting ``of Health
and Human Services'' after ``Secretary'' each place it
appears.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of transfer of the Strategic
National Stockpile of the Department of Health and Human
Services to the Department.
SEC. 1706. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN SECURITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
FUNCTIONS AND AUTHORITIES.
(a) Amendment to Title 40.--Section 581 of title 40, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a); and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
paragraph (1);
(B) by striking ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting a period; and
(C) by striking paragraph (3).
(b) Law Enforcement Authority.--
(1) In general.--Section 1315 of title 40, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 1315. Law enforcement authority of Secretary of
Homeland Security for protection of public property
``(a) In General.--To the extent provided for by transfers
made pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the
Secretary of Homeland Security (in this section referred to
as the `Secretary') shall protect the buildings, grounds, and
property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the Federal
Government (including any agency, instrumentality, or wholly
owned or mixed-ownership corporation thereof) and the persons
on the property.
``(b) Officers and Agents.--
``(1) Designation.--The Secretary may designate employees
of the Department of Homeland Security, including employees
transferred to the Department from the Office of the Federal
Protective Service of the General Services Administration
pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as officers
and agents for duty in connection with the protection of
property owned or occupied by the Federal Government and
persons on the property, including duty in areas outside the
property to the extent necessary to protect the property and
persons on the property.
``(2) Powers.--While engaged in the performance of official
duties, an officer or agent designated under this subsection
may--
``(A) enforce Federal laws and regulations for the
protection of persons and property;
``(B) carry firearms;
``(C) make arrests without a warrant for any offense
against the United States committed in the presence of the
officer or agent or for any felony cognizable under the laws
of the United States if the officer or agent has reasonable
grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has
committed or is committing a felony;
``(D) serve warrants and subpoenas issued under the
authority of the United States; and
``(E) conduct investigations, on and off the property in
question, of offenses that may have been committed against
property owned or occupied by the Federal Government or
persons on the property.
``(F) carry out such other activities for the promotion of
homeland security as the Secretary may prescribe.
``(c) Regulations.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Administrator of General Services, may prescribe regulations
necessary for the protection and administration of property
owned or occupied by the Federal Government and persons on
the property. The regulations may include reasonable
penalties, within the limits prescribed in paragraph (2), for
violations of the regulations. The regulations shall be
posted and remain posted in a conspicuous place on the
property.
``(2) Penalties.--A person violating a regulation
prescribed under this subsection shall be fined under title
18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 30 days,
or both.
``(d) Details.--
``(1) Requests of agencies.--On the request of the head of
a Federal agency having charge or control of property owned
or occupied by the Federal Government, the Secretary may
detail officers and agents designated under this section for
the protection of the property and persons on the property.
``(2) Applicability of regulations.--The Secretary may--
``(A) extend to property referred to in paragraph (1) the
applicability of regulations prescribed under this section
and enforce the regulations as provided in this section; or
``(B) utilize the authority and regulations of the
requesting agency if agreed to in writing by the agencies.
``(3) Facilities and services of other agencies.--When the
Secretary determines it to be economical and in the public
interest, the Secretary may utilize the facilities and
services of Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies, with the consent of the agencies.
``(e) Authority Outside Federal Property.--For the
protection of property owned or occupied by the Federal
Government and persons on the property, the Secretary may
enter into agreements with Federal agencies and with State
and local governments to obtain authority for officers and
agents designated under this section to enforce Federal laws
and State and local laws concurrently with other Federal law
enforcement officers and with State and local law enforcement
officers.
``(f) Secretary and Attorney General Approval.--The powers
granted to officers and agents designated under this section
shall be exercised in accordance with guidelines approved by
the Secretary and the Attorney General.
``(g) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in
this section shall be construed to--
``(1) preclude or limit the authority of any Federal law
enforcement agency; or
``(2) restrict the authority of the Administrator of
General Services to promulgate regulations affecting property
under the Administrator's custody and control.''.
(2) Delegation of authority.--The Secretary may delegate
authority for the protection of specific buildings to another
Federal agency where, in the Secretary's discretion, the
Secretary determines it necessary for the protection of that
building.
(3) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 13 of title 40, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 1315 and
inserting the following:
``1315. Law enforcement authority of Secretary of Homeland Security for
protection of public property.''.
SEC. 1707. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY REGULATIONS.
Title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 114(l)(2)(B), by inserting ``for a period
not to exceed 90 days'' after ``effective''; and
(2) in section 114(l)(2)(B), by inserting ``ratified or''
after ``unless''.
SEC. 1708. NATIONAL BIO-WEAPONS DEFENSE ANALYSIS CENTER.
There is established in the Department of Defense a
National Bio-Weapons Defense Analysis Center, whose mission
is to develop countermeasures to potential attacks by
terrorists using weapons of mass destruction.
SEC. 1709. COLLABORATION WITH THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND
SECURITY.
(a) Department of Health and Human Services.--The second
sentence of section 351A(e)(1) of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 262A(e)(1)) is amended by striking
``consultation with'' and inserting ``collaboration with the
Secretary of Homeland Security and''.
(b) Department of Agriculture.--The second sentence of
section 212(e)(1) of the Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection
Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8401) is amended by striking
``consultation with'' and inserting ``collaboration with the
Secretary of Homeland Security and''.
[[Page H8699]]
SEC. 1710. RAILROAD SAFETY TO INCLUDE RAILROAD SECURITY.
(a) Investigation and Surveillance Activities.--Section
20105 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``Secretary of Transportation'' in the
first sentence of subsection (a) and inserting ``Secretary
concerned'';
(2) by striking ``Secretary'' each place it appears (except
the first sentence of subsection (a)) and inserting
``Secretary concerned'';
(3) by striking ``Secretary's duties under chapters 203-213
of this title'' in subsection (d) and inserting ``duties
under chapters 203-213 of this title (in the case of the
Secretary of Transportation) and duties under section 114 of
this title (in the case of the Secretary of Homeland
Security)'';
(4) by striking ``chapter.'' in subsection (f) and
inserting ``chapter (in the case of the Secretary of
Transportation) and duties under section 114 of this title
(in the case of the Secretary of Homeland Security).''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `safety' includes security; and
``(2) the term `Secretary concerned' means--
``(A) the Secretary of Transportation, with respect to
railroad safety matters concerning such Secretary under laws
administered by that Secretary; and
``(B) the Secretary of Homeland Security, with respect to
railroad safety matters concerning such Secretary under laws
administered by that Secretary.''.
(b) Regulations and Orders.--Section 20103(a) of such title
is amended by inserting after ``1970.'' the following: ``When
prescribing a security regulation or issuing a security order
that affects the safety of railroad operations, the Secretary
of Homeland Security shall consult with the Secretary.''.
(c) National Uniformity of Regulation.--Section 20106 of
such title is amended--
(1) by inserting ``and laws, regulations, and orders
related to railroad security'' after ``safety'' in the first
sentence;
(2) by inserting ``or security'' after ``safety'' each
place it appears after the first sentence; and
(3) by striking ``Transportation'' in the second sentence
and inserting ``Transportation (with respect to railroad
safety matters), or the Secretary of Homeland Security (with
respect to railroad security matters),''.
SEC. 1711. HAZMAT SAFETY TO INCLUDE HAZMAT SECURITY.
(a) General Regulatory Authority.--Section 5103 of title
49, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``transportation'' the first place it
appears in subsection (b)(1) and inserting ``transportation,
including security,'';
(2) by striking ``aspects'' in subsection (b)(1)(B) and
inserting ``aspects, including security,''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Consultation.--When prescribing a security regulation
or issuing a security order that affects the safety of the
transportation of hazardous material, the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall consult with the Secretary.''.
(b) Preemption.--Section 5125 of that title is amended--
(1) by striking ``chapter or a regulation prescribed under
this chapter'' in subsection (a)(1) and inserting ``chapter,
a regulation prescribed under this chapter, or a hazardous
materials transportation security regulation or directive
issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security'';
(2) by striking ``chapter or a regulation prescribed under
this chapter.'' in subsection (a)(2) and inserting ``chapter,
a regulation prescribed under this chapter, or a hazardous
materials transportation security regulation or directive
issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security.''; and
(3) by striking ``chapter or a regulation prescribed under
this chapter,'' in subsection (b)(1) and inserting ``chapter,
a regulation prescribed under this chapter, or a hazardous
materials transportation security regulation or directive
issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security,''.
SEC. 1712. OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY.
The National Science and Technology Policy, Organization,
and Priorities Act of 1976 is amended--
(1) in section 204(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 6613(b)(1)), by
inserting ``homeland security,'' after ``national
security,''; and
(2) in section 208(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 6617(a)(1)), by
inserting ``the Office of Homeland Security,'' after
``National Security Council,''.
SEC. 1713. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.
Section 7902(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(13) The Under Secretary for Science and Technology of
the Department of Homeland Security.
``(14) Other Federal officials the Council considers
appropriate.''.
SEC. 1714. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF MANUFACTURER.
Section 2133(3) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300aa-33(3)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``under its label
any vaccine set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table'' and
inserting ``any vaccine set forth in the Vaccine Injury
table, including any component or ingredient of any such
vaccine''; and
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting ``including any
component or ingredient of any such vaccine'' before the
period.
SEC. 1715. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF VACCINE-RELATED
INJURY OR DEATH.
Section 2133(5) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300aa-33(5)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``For purposes of the preceding sentence, an adulterant or
contaminant shall not include any component or ingredient
listed in a vaccine's product license application or product
label.''.
SEC. 1716. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF VACCINE.
Section 2133 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300aa-33) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7) The term `vaccine' means any preparation or
suspension, including but not limited to a preparation or
suspension containing an attenuated or inactive microorganism
or subunit thereof or toxin, developed or administered to
produce or enhance the body's immune response to a disease or
diseases and includes all components and ingredients listed
in the vaccines's product license application and product
label.''.
SEC. 1717. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by sections 1714, 1715, and 1716 shall
apply to all actions or proceedings pending on or after the
date of enactment of this Act, unless a court of competent
jurisdiction has entered judgment (regardless of whether the
time for appeal has expired) in such action or proceeding
disposing of the entire action or proceeding.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 600, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and, without objection, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 minutes.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Armey).
General Leave
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H.R. 5710 and to insert extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, what we are doing now is revisiting the issue of
homeland defense. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in June the
President challenged Congress to pass such a bill, and we went to work
on it with a select committee appointed by the Speaker and the minority
leader. On July 23 of this year the House passed H.R. 5005 by a vote of
295 to 132, more than two-thirds of the House.
Mr. Speaker, since that time we have waited upon the other body in
terms of our hopes to have this work completed, and just last Friday
the President again challenged Congress to work on this bill. During
this period of time, from last Friday until today, we have had
extensive consultation between Members of this body on the select
committee, the committee of jurisdiction, the President, Members of the
other body, and all of the committees that have jurisdiction on this
bill.
In light of some of the concerns that we knew were fairly well known
to us on the other side of the building, we were able to very quickly
move through those issues that still remain, fully vet them with all
interested parties, including the committees of jurisdiction in both
bodies, and work out what we believe will be in the form of the bill
before us right now a bill that can comfortably pass both bodies and be
sent to the President for signature.
I should mention, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is essentially the same
bill that was passed by the House of Representatives last July. There
have been a few modifications that have been made to the bill but
nothing that has not been fully vetted with the committees of
jurisdiction and little that Members of this body will find
objectionable.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I agree we need homeland security legislation. It is
clear that the Federal Departments are not working together as they
should to protect our Nation. Unfortunately, the bill that we are
considering today has serious flaws. In fact, I think it may cause more
problems than it solves.
I want to show two charts to this body. Here is how our homeland
security agencies are organized today. This
[[Page H8700]]
one right here. You can see all the different Departments. And the next
chart over here is how they will be organized after the new Department
is created. We are getting more bureaucracy. We are doing so at a
tremendous cost to the taxpayer.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, just creating and
managing the new Department will cost $4.5 billion, and this does not
include any additional spending to make our Nation more secure against
terrorist attacks. This bill gives the new Department a vast array of
responsibilities that have nothing to do with homeland security, such
as administering the national flood insurance program and cleaning up
oil spills.
This bloats the size of the bureaucracy and dilutes the Department's
counterterrorism mission. At the same time, the bill has no effective
mechanism to coordinate the activities of the new Department with those
of the FBI and the CIA and the other agencies that continue to have
major homeland security functions.
I opposed this bill when it was before the House in July. I had hoped
that it would be improved by a deliberative process before it was
brought back for final passage, but instead we were given a massive new
bill this morning that is being rushed through the House with no
opportunity for deliberation and amendment. We do not even know the
full implications of what we are doing in this bill.
Now, I want to talk about one of the hidden provisions we found
buried in this massive bill today. Section 304 severely restricts the
abilities of persons killed or injured by the small pox vaccine to
receive any form of compensation. In fact, if you do not take the
vaccine, but are disfigured or blinded because of your contact with
someone who did, your ability to receive compensation is severely
curtailed. Now think about this for a minute. This was not in the
House-passed bill. This was not in the bill considered on the Senate
floor. Suddenly this bill appears with this provision in it.
Now, I authored the vaccine compensation system that compensates
children who may be injured when they get a vaccine where there is a
bad result. But what we are saying in this hidden provision in the fine
print is if you are hurt, you are out of luck. The vaccine manufacturer
is going to be protected. The vaccine manufacturer for all practical
purposes is going to be immune from liability.
Now this may be a legitimate decision on which we can have a
disagreement, but I would feel differently had it been brought up
honestly, up front, debated. I cannot believe that more than 10 people
in the Congress even know that this provision is in the bill to create
a Department of Homeland Security. I feel that this is a special
interest provision and should not have been brought up in this
particular way.
Another new provision reverses the policy adopted overwhelmingly by
the House that prohibited the new Department from contracting with
expatriate companies that have fled the United States to avoid paying
their taxes. There was an overwhelming vote in the House, a bipartisan
vote, to say to those companies that fled this Nation to act as if they
are a foreign nation so they would not have to pay taxes would not be
permitted to contract with the Department of Homeland Security. Well,
now we got this bill and that provision is missing.
Moreover, the most egregious special interest provisions from the
House bill remain in this legislation. The bill gives immunity to
companies that make faulty bomb detectors, gas masks, or other homeland
security products even if they engage in intentional wrong doing. Can
you imagine that? The bill also allows large campaign contributors to
lobby the new Department for special favors in absolute secret. We used
to have a Freedom of Information Act that could get this information
out before the public, and now we have a new exception created to the
Freedom of Information Act that would allow these secret negotiations.
While the fine print of the bill contains loopholes and special
amenities for corporate America, Federal workers take it on the chin.
Their right to engage in collective bargaining is eliminated. They are
no longer guaranteed the right to appeal grievances to the Merit System
Protection Board.
I do not know what we are thinking. This new Department, this new
bureaucracy will not work without dedicated Federal workers. Yet this
bill treats them like second-class citizens, and this bill also rebuffs
the families of the victims of September 11. All they asked for was an
independent commission to examine what happened on September 11. But
although this commission won overwhelming bipartisan support in the
Senate, it was suddenly dropped from the bill.
There is an old adage that those who do not remember the past are
condemned to repeat it, but that is what we are doing today. The
Department of Energy was created 25 years ago, and it is still
dysfunctional. The Department of Transportation was created 35 years
ago, but it still has major structural problems; and it took nearly 40
years for the reorganization of the Department of Defense to work.
When we consider a bill like this, there is a temptation to ignore
the defects and just vote for it; and perhaps, most likely, that is
what will happen tonight. But voting against this bill could be
politically damaging sometime in the future. But some things are more
important than politics. Genuinely enhancing our national security is
more important than politics, and getting this bill right is more
important than politics.
Mr. Speaker, we should come back next year and make sure we create
this new Department in the best way possible.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Thornberry), an early leader in the effort to create such a
Department as this.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for yielding
me time, and I thank him for his work on this measure. It may well be
his most important contribution to the safety and security of his
grandchildren. I also want to appreciate the staff who have worked so
long and hard to make this possible.
Mr. Speaker, having worked on this issue for close to 2 years, I have
had many doubts that it would ever come to this point; but now I
believe it will happen.
{time} 1845
This is not a perfect bill, and it is relatively easy for me and
others to find fault, ways that we wish it would be different. But all
of those individual differences we may have with provisions are no
competition in my mind to the fact that time is slipping by. If we do
not do it this week, we are at least 3 months further along, 3 months
during which our enemies are plotting and planning against us, more
time during which we are not as prepared as we could and should be,
more months where we are not making preparations to protect ourselves.
Time is a critical factor. Just yesterday we had another threat, and
whether it is bin Laden's voice or not, it is clear it is someone who
intends to kill more Americans. He is very explicit in the threat. We
cannot sit by and have differences over this provision or that
provision keep us from acting.
Mr. Speaker, organizational reform is no panacea. It does not solve
all of the problems with the FBI or the CIA. It does not do everything,
but what it can do is take 22 agencies, existing agencies that are
scattered around the government, bring them together under one chain of
command so we can actually work together as a team and make things
happen.
That does not mean it solves all of our problems, but it is an
important step. It does not create more bureaucracy, it tries to get a
handle on the bureaucracy we have and make it work more effectively. It
is an important step for us to take tonight. Hopefully the other body
will follow suit and the President can sign it into law so we can begin
to make this country safer.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a very important member of our committee.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) for the time he has spent in pointing out that
this reorganization really has not made the case that America is going
to be safer once this bill passes. As a matter of fact, as the
gentleman points out,
[[Page H8701]]
there is good reason to believe that a reorganization that will take at
least 10 years and possibly more would cause a delay in real measures
that could be taken to make this country somewhat safer. The American
people want to feel safer; and 12,000 people in the last year were
killed by handguns. This bill will not help them. Nor will it help the
thousands of other Americans who die of violent crimes each year in
this country.
What we have here is a paradoxical condition where the party which
has gained the trust and support of the American people because of
their challenge to big government suddenly becomes the party of big
government advocating big government without really big services, big
costs without big benefits, big security promises without big
protections.
Americans ought to be concerned that we have the largest government
department being created here in years without any indication as to how
long the people of this country are going to have to wait to be safer.
So what is the alternative? One immediate alternative would be to
provide more funds for local law enforcement. Every one of us knows
that inevitably law enforcement in this country falls to the
responsibility of the people at the local level. They know the
communities. That is where we ought to be putting the billions of
dollars that are going into creating a new bureaucracy.
There are a few other issues. Public safety depends on truth telling,
exposing bureaucratic failings and busting cover-ups. The truth tellers
are civil servants who blow the whistle, and in the largest Federal
agency of all time being created today surely there are whistles to be
blown, but this bill has dropped the protections. Our committee sat
hours on end trying to ensure protections for whistleblowers. We passed
the protections out of committee. They were stripped out of the bill.
Today if someone blows the whistle, is legally fired, they will not
be able to get their job back or receive damages for unlawful firing.
Whistleblower protection is critical for homeland security; without
such protections, this bill fails.
In addition to that, we are talking about creating 22 different
agencies into one large entity. That does not constitute efficient and
effective government. I urge Members to vote no.
Before I conclude, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) pointed
out something about section 304(c) of the bill. I received a note from
the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, and they raise
serious questions about the Secretary having unlimited power to define
a real or potential threat to take any measures he decides, or to do it
for as long as he wants. These are questions which have been raised
about the administration of countermeasures against smallpox, will
there be quarantines for smallpox immunizations, the definition of a
bioterrorist incident. The American people need to know if this
legislation is going to result in millions of Americans being forced to
take smallpox immunizations and not having any legal protections if
they are injured by those vaccinations.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), an extremely well-informed member of our
Committee on Armed Services.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the only tragedy in this
debate is it has taken us 12 months after 9/11 to move on organizing
our homeland security and 5 months after the President challenged us
with a plan to bring together 22 agencies with 170,000 employees and a
$38 billion budget.
The only tragedy is we passed this in June and here we are today
finally getting around to doing the job of the American people. This
may not be a perfect plan, but I can guarantee this is better than what
we had before 9/11, and even what we have today. It addresses the issue
of coordinating our intelligence.
In fact, one of the four key components of this new agency is
something we in Congress called for in 1999 and 2000 and which the
administration back then looked at us and laughed. It is required in
this plan to have a coordination of intelligence and data fusion. This
plan provides for support for our first responders. In fact, for the
first time, the President has called for $3.5 billion of new money to
support local emergency responders, police, fire, and EMS. It provides
for transportation security and the transfer of technology and the
research necessary to understand emerging threats like chemical and
biological weapons.
This new piece of legislation finally implements a program that we
paid for back in 1997 to use our satellites above to detect wildland
fires so we can go into those areas of the West and deal with them
immediately. That should have been done 5 years ago. This plan provides
for that through a provision that was added in the final conference.
Mr. Speaker, I think of the firefighters across America who to this
day cannot communicate with each other because they are on different
frequencies, and we say we want more time. They do not have more time.
The time to pass this bill is tonight. Hopefully it will pass with
overwhelming bipartisan support, and then we will take the next step,
and the next step is to deal with the oversight jurisdiction, and that
is the role of the Congress.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Civil
Service, Census, and Agency Organization.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see homeland
security under serious consideration, but as a member of the
Subcommittee on Civil Service, Census and Agency Organization, as one
who has looked closely at this legislation, I am very concerned about
provisions in this proposal that would grant the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security and the Director of Personnel
Management blanket authority to set pay and other conditions of
employment without regard to existing civil service rules and
protections.
As a matter of fact, passage of this bill could in fact diminish or
take away hard-won worker rights and protections that it has taken
years and years of blood, sweat and tears to achieve. This bill which
purports to be a compromise would permit administration officials to
completely disregard civil service laws in hiring, firing, promoting
and setting pay for more than 170,000 employees from 22 agencies that
will make up the new agency.
Today these employees are not subject to the whims of agency
officials when it comes to their pay promotions and collective
bargaining rights, but tomorrow they could be. While this compromise
legislation may be a victory for the President, it is a defeat for the
men and women who go to work every day to serve and protect their
country. Many of us have fought to develop and promote safeguards for
small businesses and small business development. I am also disappointed
that a provision that would have ensured that small businesses were
considered and included in contracts awarded by the new department was
omitted from the bill.
A provision that would have established an Office of Small Business
and Disadvantaged Business Utilization in the Department of Homeland
Security was included in the original bill passed by the House but has
been excluded from this bill.
Federal workers, small and disadvantaged businesses, and real
compromise have all fallen victim to the imbalance of power that looms
ahead in the legislative and executive branches of government. Passage
of this bill will cause insecurity among workers and small business
owners as they see themselves set back in the name of homeland
security. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and vote no.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, a committee of jurisdiction.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the most important part of this bill
is its dismantling of the dysfunctional Immigration and Naturalization
Service. The bill abolishes the agency and separates immigration
enforcement from immigration services, the key to reform.
The immigration enforcement half of the INS becomes the Bureau of
Border Security in the Directorate of Border and Transportation
Security. The head
[[Page H8702]]
of the enforcement bureau, the Assistant Secretary, will report to the
Under Secretary of Border and Transportation Security and must have 5
years of law enforcement experience and 5 years of management
experience. This work experience requirement will ensure that
immigration enforcement is headed by someone with the expertise to
enforce our immigration laws. The separation of this function from
immigration services will allow the Assistant Secretary to focus on a
single mission.
As current events have shown with the July 4 Los Angeles Airport
shooter, Lee Malvo, and other recent alien criminals who have been
released by the INS, an unencumbered immigration enforcement unit is
long overdue.
The equally important immigration services half of the INS becomes
the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services apart from other DHS
components. The Director of the services bureau reports directly to the
Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security. This will ensure that
immigration services receives the attention and resources that it
needs, and that it will not be forgotten and neglected in a department
otherwise devoted to fighting terrorism. Our government must remain
welcoming to immigrants who follow our laws.
In addition, the bill requires separate budgets and accounts for the
immigration services and enforcement bureaus so that each bureau
receives all of its designated money and no poaching occurs, as has
been known to happen between the two components in the current INS.
While the bill permits the President to consolidate components within
the two bureaus to make them more efficient, it prohibits the President
from merging the two bureaus back into one agency. This should ensure
that the INS as we know it is history and our years-long effort to
restructure this failed agency will be accomplished.
Mr. Speaker in addition to the monumental immigration and border
security reforms contained in this bill, this legislation will
profoundly affect Federal law enforcement. This legislation moves the
Secret Service, Customs Service, Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Office of
Domestic Preparedness, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and
other law enforcement functions into the DHS.
{time} 1900
At its core, homeland security is a law enforcement function, and law
enforcement should be the predominant role. The Committee on the
Judiciary will closely follow the integration of these important law
enforcement entities to make sure they have the support and authority
that they need to protect the country from terrorism and other criminal
enterprises.
Finally, this legislation moves the law enforcement function of the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to the Department of Justice
as a distinct entity and makes important changes to the way we enforce
explosives law and regulations.
I urge the membership to support this bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the very distinguished ranking member
of the Committee on Government Reform for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation on several
grounds. Up until now, this proposal has been heavy on message but
troubling in its substance. Unlike the rhetoric, approval of this
legislation will have some real consequences for the Federal agencies
we are about to reshuffle, the 170,000 Federal employees who work for
these affected agencies, and the American people.
Its origins are telling. You may recall that the Office of Homeland
Security was created by an executive order on October 8, 2001.
Unfortunately its director, Governor Ridge, was barred by the President
from testifying before Congress, overruled in White House councils, and
preempted by more powerful Cabinet members. Then as public opinion
began to sour against an administration that refused to even let
Governor Ridge testify in public before the Congress, the
administration reversed itself and after some reshuffling of Federal
agencies on chalkboards in the basement of the White House, the
administration proposed the creation of the Department of Homeland
Defense.
It is a clever proposal, but it is not the solution. We are in a war
against a new and deadly threat, and we need the resources abroad both
for our diplomats to build alliances and for our armed services to
prosecute this war. And at home we need the resources to protect our
citizens. If we were serious about this threat, we would see a budget.
But we just passed another continuing resolution that keeps everything
funded at spending levels that were proposed and approved more than 18
months ago, a budget developed before September 11, 2001.
Where is the money for first responders? $2.6 billion is what is
needed and what the President's party just voted against this
afternoon. Where is the money for the Transportation Security
Administration, which assumed responsibility for airport security in
just 6 days, on November 19? Where is the money to improve border
security or hire more FBI agents? It is not there because we have not
passed the fiscal 2003 appropriation bills, as the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) has made clear.
Instead, we are now considering a proposal to incorporate 22 existing
Federal agencies and transfer more than 170,000 Federal employees. I am
not sure that consolidating Federal agencies is sufficient to address
the challenges that confront us. The difficulty in stitching together
vast and disparate organizational cultures has overwhelmed some of the
best CEOs in the private sector. It is a process that most CEOs will
tell you takes years to complete and more resources than previously
assumed. CBO estimates it will take 5 to 10 years to get this new
agency up and running. This effort is going to divert us from the
important task of protecting this Nation from possible future attacks.
It may strengthen the lines of communication and accountability, but it
does not provide the resources to get the job done.
The bipartisan Commission on National Security found that the Customs
Service, the Border Patrol, and the Coast Guard were all on the verge
of being overwhelmed by a mismatch between their growing duties and
their mostly static resources. There are less than 7,000 customs
inspectors and 619 canine officers to screen thousands of cargo
containers and hundreds of thousands of vehicles entering the United
States every day. Historically, most of these agencies have been
starved of the resources they need to effectively carry out their
mission. With 170,000 civil servants, they are going to have difficulty
establishing a coherent and effective mission.
To be successful, we need to offer superior resources, equipment, and
training. The workforce has to be given the incentive and expectation
to improve performance. At a minimum, the new Department ought to be
able to offer its employees pay parity and benefits. These adjustments
are certain to add additional costs.
So why is the White House not asking for passage of the 2003 budget?
That is what the White House ought to be asking us to do. The only
response we have heard is that this reshuffling of agencies is going to
be budget neutral.
It raises more questions than it answers. How are the agencies going
to respond to programs that have nothing to do with homeland security?
The Coast Guard's role in maritime safety and FEMA's role in national
disasters are just a couple of examples. The CIA, the FBI and other
intelligence agencies, they are the ones that are going to be gathering
data. There is no access to raw data that these intelligence agencies
monitor on the part of the Department of Homeland Security.
I do not think this is a good proposal. It ought to be opposed. We
ought to come up with something better, and we ought to give what is
better the resources necessary to carry out their function.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher), an original sponsor of this bill and one of
the early innovators in the notion of homeland security.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. This
legislation is not perfect, but we must streamline the current
bureaucracy if we are going
[[Page H8703]]
to protect the American people. I have been working for more than a
year to create a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. I would
like to applaud the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) for his
prescient knowledge about this issue and for taking the Hart-Rudman
report 6 months before September 11 and crafting good legislation that
we could follow.
This legislation today accomplishes that by bringing together the
homeland security components of our government, including the national
laboratories, Coast Guard, Border Patrol, and first responders. I am
glad that this bill gives the TSA flexibility to allow larger airports
like Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose and Sacramento more time to
configure their explosive detection systems. This will save commuters
from long lines and ensure that limited resources are being spent on
the best equipment available. I also support the extension of war risk
insurance for the aviation industry that is included in this bill.
To those that claim that this bill will only create a bigger
government, I say this is not about making more bureaucracy, this is
about making the bureaucracy work better. To those that think it is far
from perfect, I say, I agree. I am concerned that this bill does not
create a center to analyze intelligence inside the new agency. And I am
deeply concerned that this bill could allow the President to weaken the
labor protections of civil service employees. But this bill is just a
starting point, and I am committed to work to fix these issues.
We must take this important step toward coordinating the dozens of
government agencies responsible for fighting terrorism. Just as we must
transform our military to be lighter, faster and more lethal at the
time of asymmetrical threats, we must transform this Federal
bureaucracy to be more responsive to threats to the homeland.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I urge this Congress
to continue to work to cure this bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time. Who could be against homeland security? I guess anybody
out there in the public would want to know why should there even be a
debate about what we do about homeland security. But the reality is
that all of us are for homeland security. The question is how do we get
there. That is what this debate is all about.
About 2 weeks ago I participated in a debate on homeland security at
Case Western Reserve University in my congressional district. On the
panel with me was a gentleman from GAO and a professor who has looked
over departments and consolidation over the years. One of the things
that the professor raised was the fact that even with this new
Department of Homeland Security, there are going to be so many more
responsibilities placed on local governments, at the State level, at
the county level, at the Federal level. And in this bill, though it is
presumed that it is, there are not dollars there to support these local
agencies to do that job.
When I think about it, and we thought about it in the session, if
something happens in Cleveland, Ohio, I am not going to call the FBI; I
am going to call 911, and 911 is going to call the Cleveland Police
Department. But in this legislation, I do not believe there is adequate
increase of dollars going to cities. It would have been nice when we
had the opportunity to continue the COPS program that we had given or
designated more dollars to local police departments. Another question I
have is coordination. Another question I have is this whole issue of
public employees who have given their time and effort to the Federal
Government losing their labor rights as a result of a consolidation.
I think that all of us are concerned about homeland security, that
all of us want to tell this world and the people that live in the
United States that we are going to protect them. But before we rush
down the line to make a decision on this new 170,000-person Department
of Homeland Security, we must make a commitment to the people of the
United States that we are really going to secure their homeland.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and, with heartfelt
congratulations, the whip-elect, for the purpose of having a colloquy
with the distinguished gentleman from Alaska, the chairman of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for his kind
comments and for yielding me the time.
I would like to engage in a short discussion with Chairman Young on
two issues which are very important to me and I feel need some
clarification. This relates to the training of pilots to carry firearms
in the cockpit of our commercial airlines and to the training of cabin
crew members in self-defense methods. As the House knows, these
provisions were included in this bill; and I feel they are important
provisions. However, I want to make clear in my own mind and in the
record that these programs are not intended to be a new cost factor for
the Federal Government or for our economically challenged airline
industry. I understand they are voluntary. Just as our Constitution
protects the rights of all citizens to own firearms for self-
protection, we have provided the ability for airline pilots to
voluntarily request that they be allowed to carry firearms for the
protection of their passengers and crew while performing their duties
in flight and other cabin crew to be trained in self-defense methods if
they choose to do so. Nevertheless, I want to make sure the following
is completely clear:
One, the Federal Government and air carriers are not obligated to
compensate a pilot or cabin crew member for participating in any
training program, qualification or requalification to carry a firearm
or to train in self-defense. Again, the word there is ``obligated.'' It
does not mean that they cannot do it at the airline level, but they are
not obligated to do it. And, number two, these training programs cannot
be an excuse or reason to disrupt or otherwise interfere with any
carrier's scheduled service. Therefore, an air carrier will certainly
not be required to disrupt its scheduled service to accommodate a
flight crew member's training after that crew member has already been
scheduled for duty. These sections are not intended to cause further
operational burdens on the airline industry. I just want to be sure in
my own mind in this discussion with Chairman Young that I understand
what this does in a proper way.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, this gentleman, of course, is the
chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I agree
with the gentleman's points. As the sponsor of the original bill for
allowing the pilots to be armed in the cockpit, this is neither a
mandate to disrupt schedules nor a requirement that either the Federal
Government or air carrier compensate any crew member for these
voluntary programs. I want to stress voluntary programs. It just gives
a chance for the pilots themselves to arm and to properly train.
Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that clarification.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Brown).
(Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I do have a question for Chairman
Young at the appropriate time. I want to make my statement and put it
in the Record, but on that same subject as far as the gun provision as
put in the Record and the colloquy, can you clarify for me whether or
not these pilots are going to be trained to carry these guns and how
will it affect the public if the pilot accidentally kills someone?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If my good friend will yield, I can suggest to
her respectfully, under the bill they have to have the training; and I
would rather have my pilot be armed and defend that cockpit as against
an F-16 to be shot down. That is the whole intent. So in the bill they
are trained, yes. All this says is that it is a voluntary process they
go through, but the training is necessary.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. But they will be trained?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Oh, absolutely.
[[Page H8704]]
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Yes, sir.
Let me just say as far as the bill is concerned that it is still the
same flawed bill that this House passed in August. The problems with
creating an agency of this size are still there. I do not see any new
solutions. This bill is still taking agencies with important non-
homeland security duties and placing them in agencies with no mission
statement.
{time} 1915
The first agency to respond to the terrorist acts of September 11 was
the United States Coast Guard. Within minutes, they were guarding our
ports, bridges, and waterways from home. It was so reassuring to know
that they were out there protecting us while other agencies were still
in shock, all under the supervision, by the way, of the Department of
Transportation.
I am strongly opposed to transferring the Coast Guard to the
Department of Homeland Security. Moving the Coast Guard to the new
department is not in the best interest of the Coast Guard, the
Department of Homeland Security, or the American people.
Each year the Coast Guard conducts over 40,000 search and rescue
cases. They inspect U.S. and foreign flag ships and protect millions of
U.S. citizens who travel on cruise ships and ferries each year. Over 80
percent of the Coast Guard's operation budget is spent on missions that
have nothing to do with border protection or Homeland Security.
Another reason why I oppose this bill is because of the horrible
labor provisions. This bill does away with American workers' basic
right to join together and stand up for their rights. This is just
another example of the Bush administration's union-busting policy.
Under the pretext of national security, the compromise legislation does
away with all provisions of our Nation's civil service laws for
employees of this new department and allows the President to strip
employees of their rights to collective bargaining. In this bill
employee unions could appeal even anti-worker personnel rules; yet they
have no real power to overturn this.
We have heard many problems with the new Transportation Security
Agency. The problems TSA is facing are a perfect example of why we need
to be more deliberate in creating a homeland security agency. The
Republican Party is supposed to be the party of small government, but
today they are creating a huge monster.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), chairman of the subcommittee of
jurisdiction, who has held over 30 hearings on this subject.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, we have been given a great opportunity to
protect our countrymen and the world.
The Bremer Commission, the Gilmore Commission, the Hart-Rudman
Commission, all warned us to wake up to the terrorist threat.
Unfortunately that call came on September 11.
We need to know, as these commissions urged, what is the threat, what
is our strategy? And how are we going to reorganize to deal with
implement this strategy?
The threat is real. We are at war with terrorists to shut them down
before they use weapons of mass destruction against us. This threat
requires a new strategy. It requires detection and prevention. It
requires us to be proactive and in some cases preemptive.
This new strategy requires us to reorganize, to take various
government departments and bring them together in a focused, unified
approach under the four pillars outlined by the President. The first
has a border and transportation focus. The second is emergency
preparedness and response; one place for first responders to come to in
our government and one place for resources to go out to them.
The third pillar provide chemical, biological, and nuclear
countermeasures. And the final pillar is information analysis, the plug
into the intelligence community.
We need to reorganize our government to be able to implement our new
strategy and confront the new terrorist threat facing this Nation and
the world. We need to wake up and do it now.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, the homeland security bill has a number of problems with
it that invite my opposition. First, it has aviation provisions that
will diminish security and safety. It will give inequitable benefits to
airlines and private security companies. It extends the current
deadline for screening all checked baggage for explosives, with the
most modern explosive detection systems. Rather than encouraging delay,
we ought to be pushing the Transportation Security Administration to
meet existing deadlines. We should force TSA to use equipment that is
now sitting in warehouses and give them the funding they need to
acquire that equipment and meet the deadline rather than extend the
deadline.
The bill requires TSA to allow unlimited numbers of pilots to carry
guns. The Bush administration, their Secretary of Transportation, the
Transportation Security Administration agree with me that there are
many unanswered questions about widespread arming of pilots, whether
that would create more safety hazards than security benefits. There
should be no more than a trial program until these issues are resolved
with a very small number of pilots.
The bill gives much needed relief to the airline from insurance
costs. Yes, I am for that. But it provides no help, no assistance to
airline workers who lost their jobs, lost their health insurance,
deserve better from this Congress, were promised better by this
Congress from this very well. The bill limits the liability of private
security companies, including foreign-owned companies, for the tragedy
of September 11. That is an abomination. That should not be permitted
in this legislation.
The bill continues to have the Commandant of the Coast Guard report
directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security. It allows all of the
Coast Guard's homeland security missions, however, to be transferred
from the Coast Guard, an agency that has defended our shores for over
200 years.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5710, the Homeland Security
Act of 2002.
The aviation provisions in the bill will diminish security and
safety, and give inequitable benefits to airlines and private security
companies. In particular, H.R. 5710 would extend the deadlines for
installing explosive detection systems (EDS) to screen checked baggage
at airports; provides the airlines with $1 billion in relief from
insurance costs, while providing no assistance to those airline workers
who have lost their jobs and their health insurance; limits the
liability of private security companies, including foreign owned
companies, for their roles in the tragedy of September 11th; and
requires the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to allow
unlimited numbers of pilots to carry guns.
Screening of checked baggage is a major building block in the
comprehensive security program we need--a program with redundancies
similar to the redundant safety systems, which have resulted in our
airlines' outstanding safety record.
Extension of the December 31 deadline will do great harm. It will
take all the pressure off TSA and the airports, and we will fail to
install many explosive detection machines that could have been in place
by December 31. This will increase the risk that we will fail to detect
an explosive device in baggage checked by a suicide bomber.
Rather than encouraging additional delay, we should be pushing TSA to
make every effort to meet the existing deadlines. We should force TSA
to use equipment now sitting in waterhouses, and give them the funding
they need to meet the deadline. Existing law allows TSA to deal with
cases where a brief delay is needed. The Aviation Security Act requires
that all baggage that cannot be inspected by EDS must be either matched
with a passenger on the aircraft, or inspected by another means, such
as a manual search, or canine detection in combination with other
means.
Before we extend any deadline for EDS deployment, we should ensure
that such extension requires the TSA to improve the interim program by
mandating positive bag match for connecting passengers, and by
requiring that more bags be subject to direct inspection.
The American traveling public wants to feel secure when they fly, and
part of that security is knowing that their bags have been thoroughly
screened for explosives when they board an aircraft.
As to extending the war risk provisions for another year, I support
legislation to give the
[[Page H8705]]
industry relief from the extraordinary problems created by September
11th and those that will arise from a war with Iraq. The Aviation
Subcommittee has reported out legislation to deal with many of these
problems; increased costs for insurance against terrorism, the loss of
freight and postal business because of security restrictions,
inadequate compensation to the airlines for some extraordinary security
costs, and the implementation of passenger screening programs that
unnecessarily inconvenience passengers who do not threaten security.
But there is a dark cloud hanging over our efforts to help the
industry. While H.R. 5710 gives the airline industry financial relief
from problems created by terrorism and war, the bill does not extend
the same fair treatment to industry employees, who have also suffered
disproportionately from terrorism and war. I and my colleagues on this
side of the aisle insist that there must be balance in any relief
package for the airline industry. H.R. 5710 does not remedy this
problem, and therefore I am unable to support it.
This is not a new issue. When we passed a $15 billion assistance bill
soon after September 11, I, and many of my colleagues, insisted that if
the airline companies were to be afforded relief, so should employees
who had lost their jobs. The Republican leadership told us that there
was no time to develop a consensus proposal on employee relief, but on
the House Floor, Speaker Hastert promised prompt consideration of
employee relief, including financial assistance, ability to retain
health insurance, and training for new careers. Regrettably, the
leadership has not followed through, and the House has never considered
assistance for displaced airline employees.
Aviation industry workers, including employees of airlines, Boeing
and aerospace suppliers, and airports, have suffered unprecedented job
loss and economic uncertainty. Some 100,000 airline employees are out
of work or facing imminent layoff. Another 30,000 Boeing workers are
laid-off along with 51,000 additional aerospace employees. And with
bankruptcies looming large, it is easy to conclude that the staggering
job losses will only grow.
If the airline industry is entitled to special relief because it has
suffered disproportionately from terrorism and war, its displaced
employees are also deserving of relief.
Moreover, H.R. 5710 includes a special interest provision to immunize
airport screening companies whose negligence may have contributed to
the September 11 terrorist hijackings.
In the Aviation Security Act, we expressly decided that private
screening companies should not be relieved of liability for any of
their security deficiencies that played a part in the September 11th
tragedies. However, H.R. 5710 would extend this protection to firms
such as Globe Aviation Services and Huntleigh USA Corp., the security
companies responsible for providing staff at Logan Airport on September
11th and that continue to contract with TSA today.
This provision is nothing more than a special interest provision that
protects negligent airport screening companies at the expense of the
victims of the September 11th tragedy.
Further, the bill requires TSA to allow unlimited numbers of pilots
to carry guns. The Bush Administration agrees with me that there are
many unanswered questions as to whether widespread arming of pilots
would create more safety hazards than security benefits. Until these
issues are resolved, there should be no more than a trial program with
a small number of pilots.
I am also opposed to the bill because of provisions which threaten
the ability of the Coast Guard and FEMA to carry out all of their
important responsibilities, some of which involve security, and some of
which do not. For example, in addition to security, the Coast Guard has
responsibilities for maritime safety, environmental protection, and
drug interdictions and FEMA has responsibilities for aiding recovery
from natural disasters, such as floods and hurricanes.
The bill now before us divides these agencies and threatens their
ability to continue to fulfill all of their responsibilities.
Although the bill continues to have the Commandant of the Coast Guard
report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security, it allows any or
all of the Coast Guard's Homeland Security missions to be transferred
from the Coast Guard--an agency that has defended our Nation's
shorelines for more than 200 years. Under the bill, only non-homeland
security missions of the Coast Guard may not be transferred from the
Coast Guard.
We have been told that the intent was to keep the Coast Guard intact.
How can you do that if you allow their homeland security missions to be
transferred out of the agency?
Similarly, the bill splits the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) in two by transferring and consolidating FEMA's Office of
National Preparedness into a new Office of Domestic Preparedness, which
is under the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security, and
transferring the remaining portion of FEMA to the Directorate of
Emergency Preparedness and Response. By splitting FEMA in two, we
threaten the effectiveness of one of our Nation's most effective and
most respected agencies.
Moreover, this is essentially the same scheme that this Body rejected
in July when, during consideration of the Homeland Security bill, the
House unanimously adopted an amendment to ensure that FEMA would be
kept intact within the new Department of Homeland Security.
In view of these and other deficiencies ion the bill now before us, I
am convinced that the bill will do more harm than good. I urge defeat
of the bill.
aviation
H.R. 5710, the Homeland Security bill, includes aviation provisions
that will diminish security and safety, and give inequitable benefits
to airlines and private security companies.
The bill extends the current deadline for screening all checked
baggage with explosive detection equipment. Rather than encouraging
additional delay, we should be pushing the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) to make every effort to meet the existing
deadlines. We should force TSA to use equipment now sitting in
warehouses, and give them the funding they need to meet the deadline.
Existing law allows TSA to deal with cases where a brief delay is
needed.
The bill requires TSA to allow unlimited numbers of pilots to carry
guns. The Bush Administration agrees with me that there are many
unanswered questions as to whether widespread arming of pilots would
create more safety hazards than security benefits. Until these issues
are resolved, there should be no more than a trial program with a small
number of pilots.
The bill gives the airlines $1 billion relief from insurance costs,
while providing no assistance to those airline workers who have lost
their jobs and their health insurance.
The bill limits the liability of private security companies,
including foreign owned companies, for the tragedy of 9/11.
coast guard
Although the bill continues to have the Commandant of the Coast Guard
report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security, it allows any or
all of the Coast Guard's Homeland Security missions to be transferred
from the Coast Guard--an agency that has defended our Nation's
shorelines for more than 200 years. Under the bill, only non-homeland
security missions of the Coast Guard may not be transferred from the
Coast Guard.
We have been told that the intent was to keep the Coast Guard intact.
How can you do that if you allow their homeland security missions to be
transferred out of the agency?
fema
Similarly, the bill splits the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) in two by transferring and consolidating FEMA's Office of
National Preparedness into a new Office of Domestic Preparedness, which
is under the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security, and
transferring the remaining portion of FEMA to the Directorate of
Emergency Preparedness and Response. By splitting FEMA in two, we
threaten the effectiveness of one of our Nation's most effective and
most respected agencies.
Moreover, this is essentially the same scheme that this Body rejected
in July when, during consideration of the Homeland Security bill, the
House unanimously adopted an amendment to ensure that FEMA would be
keep intact within the new Department of Homeland Security.
In addressing the issue of our Nation's homeland security, we must
get it right and this bill does not begin to achieve that objective.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Weldon), my wife's favorite Congressman.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader, and
I am truly honored to be described in that fashion. Let me commend the
gentleman on the outstanding work he has done in shepherding what I
think was one of the most problematic pieces of legislation to come
through this body.
Mr. Speaker, I am the chairman of the Committee on Civil Service,
Census and Agency Organization, and I want to just specifically comment
on the civil service issue which I think was the item that was really
holding this up more than anything else. And with 1 minute I cannot get
into this in detail, but I feel very, very strongly that this is a good
compromise product. And indeed as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Portman), my friend, said earlier today, and I am in 100 percent
agreement with him, this will be probably the best civil service system
within the
[[Page H8706]]
Federal Government and can actually serve as a model for how we can
reform the entire system so that it does what the American people want,
which is really promote and reward excellence within our civil service
work force, and that is what the people want who work for our Federal
Government and that is what is necessary to protect the American
people.
This is called the Department of Homeland Security. Let us remember
their mission: Protecting the public.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Select Committee on
Homeland Security.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time. His passion and his persistence are the reason that we are here
tonight to do this important work, and I appreciate the role he played
in moving this legislation through the system as chair of the Select
Committee on Homeland Security.
Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that goes ``Times change and we
change with them too.'' Times have changed and it is imperative to the
security of our country, security of our families that our government
change as well.
On September 11, 2001, the terrorists who struck our homeland killed
more civilians than all our foreign enemies combined. We all woke up to
the fact that the threats we face now are very different from the ones
we faced in the past. During the Cold War, we adapted our government
structure to better utilize the resources we had to fight then a
superpower. Today we face a more unpredictable and a more agile enemy
and a very deadly enemy, and today we must reorganize our government
again so we can stop that enemy before it strikes again, and we are not
ready. There are over 100 departments and agencies with some
involvement in homeland security, and when every one is in charge, no
one is in charge. There is no accountability in the current system.
Last summer President Bush presented to the Congress a very ambitious
and visionary plan to merge and consolidate responsibilities in a new
Department of Homeland Security, similar to what Senator Lieberman had
proposed and what various commissions had proposed. He laid out three
strategic objectives: First, prevention of attacks; second, minimizing
our vulnerabilities; and, third, minimizing the damage and maximizing
recovery should an attack occur. These three pillars provided us with a
clear framework to align our resources, people and capital, and to
align responsibility and accountability. This single unified structure
will make us more efficient, will make us more effective in the fight
against terrorism. It will not make us immune, but it will make us
safer.
I strongly believe in what we are doing tonight, not because we are
creating a new department but because we are doing it the right way. We
are giving this President and future Presidents the flexibility they
will need to make it work. That is budget flexibility; it is
organizational flexibility; and, yes, it is personnel flexibility to be
sure the right people are in the right place at the right time to
protect us. The 21st century threats that we now meet head on cannot be
handled by early 20th century civil service rules and bureaucracy. So,
yes, the President and the new Secretary of Homeland Security will have
the flexibility to design a new human resources management system, but
it is one that will preserve fundamental civil service and worker
protections while at the same time building a team atmosphere that is
absolutely crucial by rewarding and promoting excellence and ensuring
that we can do all we can to recruit the best people to this task.
We have before us, Mr. Speaker, a bill that will both protect the
homeland and protect workers' rights. It is the right balance.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
strongly support this legislation before us tonight. It represents an
agreement between the House and the Senate and the White House, and by
joining together we will send a strong message to the American people
and to the other body that we are committed to doing all we can to
protect our families and our country.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), the chairman of our conference and
a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Armey) for yielding me this time. I appreciate very much his
leadership that he has shown on this issue and his persistence.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this historic initiative to bolster
the safety of Americans with an effective and focused Homeland Security
Department. We are making the bureaucracy work for the American people
rather than having the American people work for the bureaucracy.
The House has come back to work in a post-election session so we can
pass an initiative that has languished for far too long. One year, 2
months and 2 days have passed since attacks on our Nation provoked the
war on terror. Our military has responded with might abroad, but our
vulnerability remains unnecessarily high here at home. From seaports to
the air, roads to the rail, terrorists have too many opportunities to
exploit openings in a hole-ridden fence that is supposed to be our
homeland defense.
I have been working on this issue for many years, and I was
privileged to be a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.
I commend my colleagues on that panel for their commitment, and I
salute the President for his steadfast perseverance even as many
thought we could not get the job done this year.
The domestic terrorism waged on my home State in 1995 opened the eyes
of Americans to the evil that can be perpetrated by as few as two
people. The bombing of the Oklahoma Federal building forever changed
the lives of citizens who thought they were safe. The hijacking of four
airplanes on September 11, 2001, multiplied that catastrophe to
unspeakable proportions. Today, we are about to take a bold step to
respond to such evil by learning from the actions of the past to
prepare for unforeseen acts of terror in the future.
The Department of Homeland Security will organize a government that
is fractured, divided, and underprepared to handle the all-important
task of defending our great Nation from terrorist attack.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have tried to muddy the
waters by invoking special interests over national security. But that
is not what this bill is about. The President needs the freedom and
flexibility to protect the homeland. He, just like every Commander in
Chief since Jimmy Carter, must continue to have the ability to use
presidential prerogative when it comes to the safety of the country.
An amendment I offered months ago in committee remains in today's
legislation and will help foster a better relationship between the
private sector and the new department by establishing a private sector
liaison in the Secretary's office.
{time} 1930
This liaison will also work with government researchers and academia
to procure the best tools mankind has to offer.
Again, we are talking about the security of our Nation. A promise
made is a promise kept. By creating a Department of Homeland Defense,
we will be better prepared for acts of terror.
This is an important victory for the safety of Americans from coast
to coast, border to border. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and
help secure the future of this great land of ours we call home and the
rest of the world calls America.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman), of course, for his leadership, and as
well the bipartisan committee that was crafted in the House reflecting
the work of many of our committees.
Might I say for a moment that I do want to acknowledge the work of
the majority leader, a colleague of mine from Texas. Not knowing what
legislative agenda we will have tomorrow, I
[[Page H8707]]
would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), this might be a
great swan song; and we thank the gentleman very much for the work that
he has done.
I do want to raise some issues, and I appreciate the work of the
Committee on Science and acknowledge that this may be the most
important legislation created since maybe the creation of the now
Defense Department, then the War Department, because it does deal with
defense, security, domestic security, and ensuring that America is
safe.
But we also have to have an agency that works, a Department that
works. The Committee on Science appreciates the creation of the Under
Secretary for Science and Technology and a Homeland Security Institute,
because part of our security is in fact based upon the knowledge that
we have.
I am somewhat disappointed that the idea I had involving involvement
and consultation with NASA because of its extensive satellite system
was not included, but I would look forward to this legislation being
amended forthwith so we can work with this and improve it. I am also
concerned about the function of the Inspector General and the issue of
purging waste, fraud and abuse; and I am concerned as to the structure
of that particular position.
Moving quickly to the immigration issues on the Judiciary Committee,
I am gratified that the Department of Children's Affairs does still
exist as we had designed it under the immigration legislation and in
the Committee on the Judiciary, which separates out a procedure for
children who are unaccompanied who are coming in as illegal immigrants.
I believe that children need to be handled differently, and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and myself were very keen on
this issue, and we thank those for their support.
Let me also say I am very much appreciative of the fact that we do
have a bureau that deals with immigration services. I think that is
good; and I think we should make sure this is a country of immigration,
and immigration does not equate to terrorism.
I hope this bill has some ability to bring people together, but I
also hope we will look at it in the future and make it a better bill.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Aviation.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, not only is this an excellent bill that gives the
President the flexibility he needs to provide homeland and domestic
security, but this bill has some excellent provisions relating to
aviation security and the future security of the aviation industry and
our Nation. Let me address a couple of points that have been made here
today.
First of all, the extension on the checked baggage screening
requirement. The week of November 12, 2001, when we passed the bill
before it was signed into law November 19, we knew that we could not
manufacture the equipment necessary, that it would be ludicrous to
spend billions of dollars to try to meet arbitrary deadlines with
equipment that does not work. But what we provided for here is
equipment that will work, that can be installed on a realistic basis;
and we have assisted our airlines in not compromising security by
putting in place in fact the very best measures.
We also put a provision in here to arm our pilots. They asked for
that protection. That is a good provision and it is long overdue,
because we know they are the last line of defense; and they have
requested this, seeing the gaps in the security system in transition.
So I am pleased with that provision.
Finally, the survival of the aviation industry. The war risk
provisions and liability provisions are excellent. We held hearings on
this issue, and one of the greatest areas of loss for our aviation
industry is not being able to either obtain or obtain at reasonable
cost liability and war risk insurance.
This does not compromise security, it does not compromise jobs, and
it does not compromise the future economy and progress of this Nation.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill. But it is a good bill,
and it has some excellent provisions. I urge my colleagues to support
this measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman) has 3 minutes remaining, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Armey) has 5 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas has the
right to close.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the arguments on the other side from
people for whom I have an enormous amount of respect. The gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) has been working on this issue for some
time, and the gentlewoman from my own State of California (Mrs.
Tauscher) has also been very involved in creating such a Department. I,
too, have supported the idea of a Department for Homeland Security. But
I think this bill creates so much bureaucracy and inefficiency that I
fear that it will not accomplish its purpose.
Primarily, what we should do is coordinate the activities of the FBI
and the CIA. We know the history of the FBI and its problems. Problems
such as Hansen, a double agent, and how the FBI pursued Wen Ho Lee. We
know about the ongoing problems of coordinating between the FBI and the
CIA. This bill does not do anything to enhance the cooperation between
these two agencies.
Instead of giving the White House the authority to review the budgets
and to coordinate the activities of the agencies of government involved
in defending our homeland, this bill takes all those agencies of
government and puts them into a new Department. Now there has to be a
new bureaucracy set up in this new Department with all these new
employees who used to do other things in other agencies to try to make
this whole thing work.
The President was not originally for this Department. The idea came
from Senator Lieberman, particularly, and others. Many of us argued
there should be a Homeland Security Department with the power to
streamline, not bureaucratize. One that would be limited. One that
controlled the operations of our border agencies, immigration, customs.
We ought to have something along those lines. One with the White House
authority written into law.
The President created an Office of Homeland Security and appointed
Governor Ridge, but that office does not have the authority to make its
decisions stick with other parts of the Federal Government bureaucracy.
I, with all due respect, think this is a real problem with this bill.
In addition, we have not heard anybody on the other side get up and
defend the smallpox special interest provision, the protection for the
manufacturers of the vaccine. No one has even raised that issue on the
other side. It was not in any bill that passed the House nor was before
the Senate. Suddenly it appears here, condemning people who are injured
with the inability to sue if there was negligence on the part of a
manufacturer of a vaccine. This is the ordinary way in which they can
pursue those claims at the present time.
Why is this special interest provision suddenly in this bill? Why is
that here, without any opportunity to have it reviewed or analyzed? Why
do we have provisions in this bill that protect the manufacturers who
engage in negligent behavior when creating devices to be used for
homeland security?
I am troubled by the way this whole bill has been considered, and I
would urge my colleagues to vote against the legislation.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the arguments in opposition
to this bill. One reason being, Mr. Speaker, when we began this debate
I was fascinating myself with the question of how could anybody oppose
this bill. These are the four complaints I have heard:
One, there seems to be a concern that the bill is being rushed to the
floor. The gentleman from California just pointed out, the President of
the United States for a long time did not adopt this idea. It had been
proposed by many people, and many Democrats. Only after seeing the
thorough need and the thorough possibilities for success did the
President in June propose Homeland Defense.
This House of Representatives worked on it, and with the Select
Committee working in consultation with
[[Page H8708]]
all the committees of jurisdiction in this House, with testimony taken
from the chairman and ranking member of each of these committees,
produced the bill that was brought to this floor and passed on July 23
with 295 votes. We have waited on the other body; and only after an
exhaustive wait did the President propose, insist, last week that we
move forward, and now it appears that both bodies will.
Pursuant to the President's insistence of last week, we have worked
literally night and day in consultation with all the committees of
jurisdiction in both bodies and with the White House to craft this
legislation which today we bring to the floor.
In that regard, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we owe an expression of
appreciation to so many staff on both sides of the aisle, on both sides
of the building and in the White House and the agencies of the
government for all of their hard work, night and day, literally, for
the last 4 or 5 days.
But may I take just a moment for a special thank you. Those men and
women who labor on behalf of all of us in the Office of Legislative
Counsel are too seldom recognized; and with the indulgence of this
body, let me single them out for special appreciation for the efforts
they have made.
No, this was not rushed to the floor. We worked hard on it; we worked
together on it. Virtually every Member of this body and the other body
was consulted in some way on some part of this bill.
We are told that America does not care about homeland security. Were
you not listening? I think they made the point last week. They do care.
It is important.
We were told that Members did not get to participate. I know of no
piece of legislation brought before this body in my 18 years I have
been here where there has been more comprehensive, committee-by-
committee, subcommittee-by-subcommittee, Member-by-Member participation
in the process of preparing the bill.
We were told that the bill was being offered for political purposes
in anticipation of the next election. Mr. Speaker, let me say as my
final point, I know of no time in my 18 years in this body where the
principal author of a bill brought to this floor had less interest in
the next election than this time here.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of the homeland
security debate, after studying evidence and listening to Oregonians,
my priorities have been clear. Strengthening the capacity of our
government agencies to defend our nation from terrorist attacks is
necessary and vital to our society. Our nation will benefit from better
communication among federal agencies and from improved safety of air
travel, our borders, our ports, and our water supplies. However, we
must develop a focused strategy to protect our nation rather than
taking cosmetic actions.
We need to address the intelligence failures that led up to the event
of September 11. We need to work with local governments to coordinate
responses to future attacks. The proposed Department does not address
either. A massive restructuring of the federal government will not
necessarily improve the security of our nation.
As has been documented time and again in jarring detail by the news
media, the FBI and CIA were not properly coordinated before September
11. This enormous reorganization, rather than dealing with fundamental
problems between these two agencies, adds a third governmental
department to the uncoordinated mix.
My own experience is that government reorganizations are difficult
and complex. There are many demands on employees and stripping away
workers' protecting will only create friction and uncertainty. It would
be more simple and fair to make adjustments for those employees that
work primarily with intelligence or terrorism investigations than to
strip away the collective bargaining rights of all employees included
in this new government.
Finally, the timing is problematic. The leadership rushed the first
bill through the House in an attempt to pass it into law before the
anniversary of September 11. Now, just days after the election, the
House and Senate Republicans produce a new bill, exempting labor
protections for workers, in back room negotiations. A significant
reorganization would be better served by an open, inclusive process.
The Homeland Security Department, as proposed in this bill, will
detract from our ability to truly protect our nation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the tone of bipartisanship the Republicans
used to win control of Congress has ended. We saw a draft of this bill,
which is the largest reorganization of the Federal government in
decades, only late yesterday afternoon. We were not given any
opportunity to make improvements, and we now find ourselves on the
House floor under a rule that prohibits amendments. I have more
concerns with this legislation that I can count, but I will focus on
three: the anti-labor, anti-immigration, and pro-corporate
irresponsibility provisions.
First, this legislation guts the civil services and collective
bargaining protections that currently exist for Federal employees. It
makes it difficult for employees of the Homeland Security Department to
collective bargain for fair compensation. The argument from the other
side seems to be that employees who have rights might not be able to do
their jobs effectively. But does anyone remember who the heroes of
September 11 were? It was the firefighters and police officers of New
York and Virginia, all of whom were members in good standing of
organized labor. Can anyone suggest that their civil service and union
protections did anything to weaken their resolve? Of course not.
Second, this legislation moves the entire Immigration and
Naturalization Service, its services and enforcement functions, into
the new Department. To the contrary, in the INS reorganization bill
that I supported and we passed earlier this Congress, we kept the
services portion of the INS in the Justice Department and moved only
the enforcement functions to the Homeland Security Department. By
moving both functions of the INS to the Homeland Security Department,
this legislation by implication treats all immigrants are terrorists.
Finally, this bill provides civil liability protections for
government contractors that provided ``anti-terrorism products.'' The
new Secretary could immunize from any tort lawsuit the conduct of any
company that sold defective anti-terrorism products to the government
or the public. This means that a family that purchases a product to
protect itself from terrorism, and finds the product to be useless,
might have no cause of action against the contractor. The immunity
provision also could shift the burden of identifying the wrongdoers and
apportioning blame from the defendant to the victim.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5710, the
Homeland Security Act of 2002. This is the second homeland security
bill the House has considered this session and it is still a far cry
from a measure that will live up to the promise of its name. I am not
convinced this bill will in fact make Americans safer than they are
today. Moreover, the bill contains misguided and dangerous provisions
that may cause more harm than good.
We all agree we must do more to protect our country from threats
posed by those who wish us harm and those who wish to alter the way we
live our lives. I am disappointed that the measure before us does not
represent a more positive step in that direction. I am also
disappointed that provisions I opposed when the House first considered
this legislation are still in the bill.
There are a number of serious problems with this legislation that
force me to vote against it for a second time.
This bill gives broad new authority to the President to reorganize
the massive federal workforce created by this legislation. The bill
gives the President an excuse to disregard and to take away hard-won
civil service protections and collective bargaining rights for
employees of the new Department. At a time when agencies throughout the
federal government--in Washi |
Add to del.icio.us