ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers

Home Page

Advanced search


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

Chinese Immig. Daily

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily

 

Chinese Immig. Daily



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free
information!

Copyright
©1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here:



< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

[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 Washington, D.C. and in cities across the 
country--are having difficulty attracting and retaining qualified 
employees, this bill could turn employees of the new department into 
second class workers. What kind of a signal will we send to those 
federal workers if we ask them to move and tell them that they will 
lose many of the guaranteed rights that they now enjoy? How many of 
those workers will decide to leave federal service and move to the 
private sector? For those workers who do stay, how can we expect them 
to demonstrate high morale and commitment when they know that they lack 
the same rights as their federal colleagues in other agencies?
  There is no national security rationale for stripping workers of 
their basic rights. I am particularly concerned about the fate of 
administrative workers in agencies that are to be transferred to the 
new department. Many of them are not directly involved with homeland 
security issues but will nevertheless be denied their rights. Congress 
enacted civil service protections and collective bargaining rights so 
that we could attract the very best to government service. We should 
not give this or any other Administration the right to take them away. 
As we stand together to fight terrorism, we should also stand together 
for the rights and well being of federal workers.
  The House also missed an opportunity today to provide real 
protections for whistle-blowers. I offered an amendment that would 
guarantee American patriots who come forward to expose improprieties 
and threats to

[[Page H8709]]

our security a guarantee that, if they are retaliated against for their 
actions, they will have a right to legal recourse.
  This bill creates an exclusion from the Freedom of Information Act to 
all information dealing with infrastructure vulnerabilities that is 
voluntarily submitted to the new department. This is an unnecessary 
provision because, under current law, the government already has the 
authority to exempt from FOIA information that meets one of several 
standards, including that which is related to national security and 
trade secrets. This bill also exempts committees created by the 
Secretary of Homeland Security from the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 
This would allow the Secretary to create secret forums where lobbyists 
for all sorts of special interests could push their agendas with the 
Administration without concern that the public would find out and 
regardless of whether their discussions are about security or business 
goals.
  The legislation before us today negates the Congressionally-mandated 
requirement that all airports have the ability to screen checked 
baggage for explosives. One of our most frightful and realistic 
vulnerabilities is the status of our air travel system in this country. 
It is a sad message to send to our constituents and the flying public 
that we are not willing to do what it takes to ensure the skies are 
truly safe. Many on the Republican side have argued that the task of 
providing equipment to secure our planes and prevent terrorist devices 
from making their way on board is too costly. We cannot afford to do 
otherwise.
  I am very disappointed to see that the bill before us today takes a 
step away from providing true security for people by protecting them 
from discrimination and mistreatment. Unlike H.R. 5005, which 
establishes an Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties with a 
Director, this new bill simply appoints an officer to review and assess 
information alleging abuses of civil rights, civil liberties, and 
racial and ethnic profiling. I offered an amendment to establish an 
Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and I feel that anything 
less will fail to adequately meet the goal of ensuring that no one is 
mistreated by this new department.
  I would also like to draw my colleagues' attention to the issue of 
how our immigration system is organized within this bill. I come from 
an immigrant-rich district and I have made it a top priority to ensure 
that newcomers to this country are received in a fair and considerate 
manner. I am pleased that H.R. 5710 retains the provisions establishing 
an Ombudsman's office to assist individuals and employers in resolving 
problems with citizenship and immigration services. The bill also takes 
steps to hold the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services 
accountable by requiring it to report how it is handling its 
immigration caseload and how it is working to eliminate its infamous 
backlogs. These are very important steps, and I urge my colleagues to 
continue to work to improve upon these new provisions, as well as the 
organization of immigration functions, so that the quality and 
efficiency of the services offered to immigrants are not compromised, 
and are in fact improved.
  Unfortunately, this bill fails to address even the most obvious and 
immediate homeland security concerns. It does not address the serious 
problem of information sharing and communication among the intelligence 
community. The CIA and FBI are left out of this new department and 
there is no provision in this bill clearly stating the mechanism for 
past communications failures to be fixed. Instead, what the President 
and the Republicans in the House put forth is a massive reorganization 
of the federal government, nothing more than a reshuffling of the deck, 
with a few added tools for the Administration. Simply shifting people 
and agencies will not make America safer and that is all we will 
accomplish if we pass this bill. I urge all members to reject this 
flawed legislation and to focus on efforts that will actually enhance 
our security and maintain our American way of life.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
the 11th-hour version of the Homeland Security Act.
  When the House originally debated this legislation last August, more 
than one hundred amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee. 
Barely \1/4\ of those amendments were considered in order, despite 
recommendations from eleven congressional committees. Now we've been 
presented with a new, 484 page version of the bill, and are not being 
given any time to assess its merits and flaws.
  During our first debate, I introduced an amendment that protected the 
Equal Employment Opportunity and whistleblower rights of civil 
servants. My amendment was unanimously approved, a clear indication 
that federal workers' rights are an important concern for this 
Congress. In fact, this issue was so important that it caused the first 
bill to get bogged down in the Senate for more than three months.
  Although I note that the protections in my Amendment have been 
included, the new version gives the Secretary the authority to 
establish a ``contemporary'' human resources management system, but 
does not define the word ``contemporary'' in this context. This 
authority will affect the 170,000 federal workers who will transfer to 
the new department and deserves careful scrutiny and debate.
  Another disturbing item in this bill is the unprecedented authority 
of the new Secretary, who will be able to transfer funding between 
departments in the new agency without any congressional authority or 
oversight. In other words, Congress can approve appropriations for one 
program, and the Secretary can arbitrarily decide to spend those tax 
dollars on something else, without congressional approval. This 
initiative sets a rather alarming precedent for the entire executive 
branch of government; one that deserves our full and careful attention.
  Either we're going to create a new department, or we're going to 
change the civil service laws and revamp the Executive branch of 
government. I don't believe we should attempt to do both in one piece 
of legislation.
  The American people are counting on us to create a new department 
that will reduce our vulnerability and prevent future terrorist 
attacks. They are also counting on us to do this in a fiscally 
responsible manner. The earliest the new department would be funded 
would be January 11, 2003. If we have a year, then let's take a year 
and do this right. Let's make sure that the new department will deliver 
what it promises, and let's make sure we know what it will cost.
  The Homeland Security Act, as written, is not ready for prime time. 
We have been given no time to review the bill, and no opportunity to 
debate the bill and no option to amend the bill, but we are being asked 
to approve the bill.
  Although there are differences between the first and second versions, 
different, in this case, does not mean better. As I said in my floor 
statement three months ago, if we don't take the time to do this right, 
we're going to have to make the time to do it over, and here we go 
again . . .
  Let's give this legislation the time and attention it deserves and 
create a Department of Homeland Security that will do what we need it 
to do. We must have Homeland Security legislation that actually 
improves our homeland security, not just creates a new federal agency 
with new civil service rules and unmonitored spending authority for its 
Secretary.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, much of the controversy swirling around this 
Homeland Security Act relates to our treatment of Federal employees, 
many of whom stand on the front lines in our war against terrorism.
  I share the deep concern of those who believe that the reorganization 
proposed under this bill will undermine the rights given by law to 
thousands of our Federal employees.
  And let me note: Earlier this year, I specifically asked OPM to cite 
even one example in our nation's history where union membership had 
threatened our national security. OPM could offer none.
  However, the controversy surrounding the rights of Federal employees 
is not the basis of my opposition to this Homeland Security Act. And I 
am deeply concerned that the attention devoted to it obscures the 
larger point.
  As the Baltimore Sun observed on September 23rd:
  ``Months of debate have made clear that this bureaucratic boondoggle 
offers no promise of making the homeland more secure. Worse, it takes 
the focus off the need for tighter oversight of the nation's security 
systems.''
  I am greatly concerned, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation could 
actually harm our ability and readiness to protect our homeland.
  Under this legislation, 22 existing agencies and programs and 170,000 
people would be integrated into this new department.
  Yet, many of the agencies that are critical to our homeland security 
would not even be part of this reorganization.
  Furthermore, this act fails to recognize that the FBI, DEA and INS 
are currently grouped within the Department of Justice, but do not 
effectively communicate with one another.
  As special agent Colleen Rowley's testimony indicated earlier this 
year, the FBI even has trouble communicating within its own agency.
  We must not delude ourselves into believing that rearranging deck 
chairs will protect our ship of state.
  What's needed is greater sharing of information within and among the 
agencies that protect our homeland, so that we may coordinate and 
synthesize the enormous amounts of information that our government 
collects.
  And we need a lean homeland security office that has the mission and 
authority to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy for 
homeland security.
  In analyzing this issue, the General Accounting Office warned in 
July:

[[Page H8710]]

  It is clear that fixing the wrong problems, or even worse, fixing the 
right problems poorly, could cause more harm than good in our efforts 
to defend our country against terrorism.''
  This act fails to fix our most obvious problem--effective information 
sharing among agencies.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the creation of 
a Department of Homeland Security and am pleased that we are able to 
consider this important issue before the end of the 107th Congress.
  I am pleased that this legislation largely reflects the 
recommendations of the U.S. Commission on National Security for the 
21st Century, chaired by Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, which 
assessed the nation's security vulnerabilities and recommended the 
creation of a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. By 
consolidating the security functions of 22 separate federal agencies 
into one department, we can ensure that our nation puts forth a united 
front against terrorism on our soil. The new department represents a 
major step forward in our efforts to protect the American people. 
Furthermore, it will serve as an important resource to police, fire, 
and emergency medical service workers, who represent the first line of 
defense against terrorism.
  In July, the House passed a similar measure, H.R. 5005, which I 
supported. However, at that time, I urged my colleagues to improve 
certain provisions in the bill so that we might safeguard civil service 
protections for department employees and preserve existing good 
government laws. I am disappointed that today's bill did not go further 
in those respects. The proposed Department of Homeland Security could 
employ as many as 170,000 people, and we should promote a work 
environment that enhances their ability to protect the American people.
  I will support this legislation today because it is the 
responsibility of Congress to keep America safe from future acts of 
terror. Furthermore, I will closely monitor its implementation to 
ensure that we protect the security of our nation as effectively as 
possible.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, although I am a strong supporter of fully 
utilizing all possible resources to combat this new and tragic war on 
terrorism, I have serious reservations over the proposal being 
presented to us today.
  Realistically, this bill would do nothing more than rearrange the 
deck chairs on the Titanic. What we really need is to address basic 
agency policies and promote efficient exchange of information without 
diminishing critical agency missions.
  Keeping major intelligence gathering sources separated from this 
agency and moving desks across the hall, begs the question as to what 
we will be accomplishing by this move? Will it result in a smoother 
information flow, not just from one Washington office to another, but 
to the actual communities which must have as much lead time as possible 
to prepare for attack? Are we actually expanding agency areas of 
responsibility or will it be business as usual? What are we really 
doing to ensure dam, water supply, energy sources, and transportation 
safety? What are we really doing to provide an enhanced capability to 
address hazardous material, chemical, or biological threats? What are 
we really doing to improve our risk, threat, and vulnerability 
assessments? What are we really doing to improve the delivery of 
emergency food, shelter, and medical care in the event of another 
tragedy?
  Troublesome are inconsistencies found in the bill. For example, is 
the Administration's repeated statements that this bill would 
consolidate training programs, yet, under Section 403 we see the 
Department of Justice's Office of Domestic Programs which does COPS 
training being placed under ``Border and Transportation Security,'' 
while other training programs are being place under ``Emergency 
Preparedness and Response'' under Section 503.
  Another example is found under Section 201(d)7, where the Under 
Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection is 
charged with exercising primary responsibility for public advisories 
related to threats to homeland security, while in Section 214(g) it 
states that the federal government may provide advisories, alerts, 
warnings to relevant companies, targeted sectors, other government 
entities, or the general public regarding potential threats. Where is 
the coordination and are we creating two separate sets of warnings?
  Questions have been raised on the coordination mechanism between 
Homeland Security officials and other Departments. For example, if 
Homeland Security officials are designated to establish research 
efforts and attempt to direct Department of Defense agencies on those 
efforts, who actually has final authority?
  In particular, I am troubled that this legislation offers so little 
to assist first responders, the men and women on the street who 
willingly put themselves in harm's way for the greater good. We must 
ensure that these dedicated citizens are provided with all possible 
resources to both protect them and support their mission.
  I am hopeful that this legislation is defeated and the Congress 
continues to consult with experts in a more circumspect manner and that 
crafts a measured more approach that maximizes our ability to 
anticipate, prevent, and react to acts to terrorism.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 5710, which 
establishes a Department of Homeland Security as an executive 
department of the United States, headed by a Secretary of Homeland 
Security. The primary mission of the Department of Homeland Security 
will be to anticipate and prevent future terrorist attacks, reduce 
America's vulnerability to terrorism, and improve upon our existing 
ability to respond and recover from any possible terrorist attacks. The 
tragedy of the September 11th terrorist attacks underscored a changing 
environment for the United States and exposed glaring weaknesses and 
vulnerabilities in our domestic security infrastructure. As a Congress, 
we must address our most fundamental priority and responsibility, 
ensuring the security and liberty of our nation. Today's legislation 
would do just that, consolidating 22 different agencies with varying 
responsibilities for border security, bioterrorism defenses, and 
disaster mismanagement into one streamlined organization, the 
Department of Homeland Security. Within the Department of Homeland 
Security will be four primary divisions: the Border and Transportation 
Security Directorate, the Emergency Preparedness and Response Division, 
the Science and Technology Directorate, and the Information Analysis 
and Infrastructure Protection Directorate.
  More importantly, H.R. 5710 restructures key agencies by shifting 
control of their directives to the new Department of Homeland Security. 
A key example of this is the abolishment of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service (INS). Instead, the bill creates two new agency 
components, one responsible for immigration enforcement and visa 
matters, and the other handling citizenship matters. This provision is 
similar to legislation I co-sponsored in the previous 106th Congress, 
which would have split the INS into separate agencies to make it more 
efficient, accountable, and fair with regard to general immigration and 
citizenship matters. I am pleased that H.R. 5710 includes these crucial 
reforms, as the INS is an agency in dire need of overhaul.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that H.R. 5710 includes provisions similar 
to H.R. 4598, the Homeland Security Information Sharing Act, which will 
require the administration to develop procedures for the sharing of 
both classified and declassified information between federal agencies 
and the appropriate state and local authorities. Furthermore, existing 
barriers against the sharing of foreign intelligence are relaxed as 
well. As was so clearly demonstrated by the events of September 11th, 
the failure to share and disseminate crucial intelligence and timely 
threat information through the appropriate channels can have 
devastating consequences. While I understand the necessity of 
protecting intelligence-gathering methods, I believe that in order for 
there to be truly effective and comprehensive homeland security, state 
and local officials must be adequately informed of pending threats 
facing their communities. I believe H.R. 5710 strikes that careful 
balance between the protection of intelligence methods and the 
dissemination of necessary intelligence to state and local authorities, 
information crucial to them in protecting their communities.

  Mr. Speaker, while I am in strong support of the core concepts behind 
the Department of Homeland Security, I continue to have some concerns 
about specific aspects of the legislation. I am concerned about 
provisions which would allow the new Department to establish a new 
personnel management system and pay systems for its employees, outside 
of the existing civil service system, which could possibly undermine 
important civil service protections. However, I am pleased that the 
current version of homeland security legislation, H.R. 5710, is an 
improvement over the House-passed H.R. 5005 in regards to civil service 
protection, because it allows for a period of notification, provides 
venues of mediation, and includes provisions for appeal procedures.
  In addition, H.R. 5710 also limits legal liability for certain anti-
terrorism products certified by the new Department. While the desire to 
promote the widespread commercial use of innovative new technology 
against terrorism is laudable, I believe it should not come at the 
expense of important legal accountability and safety standards.
  However, I also find that there is much in H.R. 5710 that is very 
necessary for passage and enactment including authorization for 
Department of Health and Human Services to administer the smallpox 
vaccine to segments of the public, and the creation of tax-deductible 
charitable funds to be used to compensate

[[Page H8711]]

military, law enforcement, and intelligence personnel killed in the 
line of duty as a result of a terrorist action.
  For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I will support H.R. 5710, and 
support the effort to create this timely and vital cabinet-level 
Department. I urge my colleagues to join me as we take the steps 
necessary towards protecting our country from future potential attacks 
and to send a message to the American people before we adjourn the 
107th Congress that this Congress, their Congress is determined and 
resolute in protecting them and their families at all costs.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5710, a 
bill too long delayed, which will establish a Department of Homeland 
Security. I want to acknowledge the perseverance of the President and 
the Leadership, which has enabled this bill to come before us today. I 
also want to acknowledge the long weekends and nights of hard work that 
went into this bill, especially by Margaret Peterlin and the rest of 
the Majority Leader's staff. We appreciate the close working 
relationship our staff on the Science Committee has had with the 
Leadership staff.
  Mr. Speaker, I'll be quite brief today because I outlined the Science 
Committee's perspective on this bill when H.R. 5005 passed in July.
  Let me just say now that I am delighted that the Department of 
Homeland Security will have an Under Secretary for Science and 
Technology. As I keep saying, the war against terrorism, like Cold War, 
will be won as much in the laboratory as on the battlefield. With that 
in mind, we felt it essential that the Department have a directorate 
and an Under Secretary with clear responsibility for R&D across the 
Department. I'm pleased that just about everyone has come around to 
this point of view.
  I believe that cybersecurity and R&D will be among the areas in which 
the Department will make its greatest contribution. These are areas in 
which the Department will not just improving coordination among 
existing agencies, but will have to build new capacity from the 
relatively limited building blocks that are being transferred into the 
Department. I urge passage of this bill.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant 
opposition to the Homeland Security Act today. There is not one Member 
of Congress who does not want to stand in a united front in our war 
against terrorism. And like all Members of this body, I recognize the 
importance of strengthening homeland security. The people of the 30th 
Congressional District of Texas have entrusted me to do both. However, 
in keeping with that trust, I could not vote for legislation that 
creates a sprawling bureaucracy while leaving so many important 
security questions unanswered.
  Let me be clear that I remain committed to providing all of the 
resources necessary to combat terrorism through a strong, efficient 
Department of Homeland Security. I am also extremely supportive of the 
provision in this legislation that extends the December 31, 2002 
deadline an additional year for airports to install explosives 
detection equipment. In my district in Texas, DFW Airport desperately 
needs more time to install the equipment necessary for the baggage 
screening deadline. I worked with leadership to ensure DFW would be 
granted this extension, and I commend negotiators of this legislation 
for including this desperately needed provision.
  Unfortunately, the underlying legislation remains unacceptable for a 
number of reasons, and I must oppose the bill. I strongly oppose the 
provision in this legislation that will arm commercial airline pilots 
and strip away civil service protections for our nation's federal 
workers. As I have repeatedly said during this debate, arming pilots is 
simply not the answer to improving our airline security. If we truly 
want to increase safety aboard our nation's aircraft, we should 
concentrate our resources on putting Air Marshals on 100 percent of all 
flights. I must continue to stress to my colleagues that there are many 
unanswered questions as to whether widespread arming of pilots would 
create more safety hazards than security benefits.
  I also remain concerned that Republicans, under the guise of homeland 
security, have made this legislation on assault on the civil service 
protections of our nation's federal workers. Among its provisions, 
legislation would allow DHS to arbitrarily reduce salaries of employees 
without giving them a legitimate appeals process comparable to 
employees of other federal departments. I cannot support this attempt 
to rob workers of their key employment protections.

  I am also concerned about the disregard the formation of DHS has 
shown for the committee process. When the Science Committee marked up 
the Homeland Security legislation in July, I offered an amendment that 
would have aligned federally funded research at the new department with 
existing policies at the Departments of Defense and Energy. My 
amendment was based upon a sound, proven policy for dealing with 
classified research as articulated in 1985 by former President Ronald 
Reagan in National Security Decision Directive 189. My amendment was 
adopted by a bipartisan majority of almost 2 to 1. Yet when the 
Homeland Security legislation proceeded to the Select Committee, my 
amendment was stripped from the Science Committee's mark.
  When I asked my friend and colleague from North Texas, Mr. Armey, why 
an amendment that passed in committee with overwhelming support was not 
included, he told me that the Science Committee did not support the 
amendment. I was unable to offer my amendment on the floor of the 
House, presumably for the same reason. As a result, once the Department 
of Homeland Security is signed into law, we will have federal agencies 
that conduct classified research in two very different ways, regardless 
of the fact that one of these ways has been proven to be sound policy 
in its almost two decades of use. This is very unfortunate, because it 
is contrary to the expert advice provided at the Science Committee's 
October 10, 2002, hearing entitled, ``Conducting Research During the 
War on Terrorism: Balancing Openness and Security''. Witnesses from 
academia and the Bush Administration attested to the wisdom of NSDD-189 
and how it has been a guiding principle in conducting federally funded 
classified research.
  It is my sincere hope that Congress will heed the advice of expert 
witnesses and two decades of proven science policy and reconsider the 
guidelines for federally funded classified research at the new DHS.
  I realize that this legislation will pass today, and as I have 
mentioned, I sincerely wish I could lend my support to it in extending 
the current deadline for screening all checked baggage with explosive 
detection equipment. But since this bill includes provisions that will 
diminish aviation security and protections, I regret that I must vote 
against this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the President has stated about the 
creation of a Homeland Security Department: ``[we] face an urgent need, 
and we must move quickly, this year, before the end of the 
congressional session.'' We fulfill that request today by passing H.R. 
5710, the Homeland Security Act.
  This bipartisan legislation accomplishes many goals. The Gilmore 
Commission stated in 2000 that the national strategy against terrorism 
must address intelligence, deterrence, prevention, preemption, crisis 
management, and consequence management. This bill does just that.
  H.R. 5710 includes the provisions of H.R. 3482, the Cyber Security 
Enhancement Act, legislation I introduced that passed the House 
overwhelmingly in July. These provisions strengthen the penalties 
against those who commit cyber crimes. They also establish the Office 
of Science and Technology within the National Institute of Justice, 
which guarantees the ability of NIJ to continue managing the important 
work of that office.
  H.R. 5710 also includes legislation I cosponsored to require 
information sharing among Federal, state, and local law enforcement 
agencies.
  The Department of Homeland Security will have a strong law 
enforcement role, but this role is distinct from that of the Department 
of Justice, which remains the principal law enforcement agency of the 
United States.
  The role of the Department of Justice is further enhanced by the 
transfer to it the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the law 
enforcement training functions of the Federal Law Enforcement Training 
Center.
  The Homeland Security bill will improve our nation's immigration 
system by restructuring the INS. The INS has proven time after time 
that in its current form it is unable to handle the implementation of 
our nation's immigration laws. Among other improvements, the INS will 
be split into two agencies--one to handle services and one to handle 
enforcement. This will greatly improve the effectiveness and efficiency 
of our immigration system.
  Defending against terrorists who can strike almost any time anywhere 
requires a change in how we approach the problem. The Department of 
Homeland Security will have a clear focus and clear mission to protect 
Americans from terrorists whether inside or outside our borders.
  I urge my colleagues to support final passage.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5710 creating the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002.
  The protection that we seek today with the creation of the new 
Department is for our people, our property, and our economy. The U.S. 
Customs Service has been on the frontline supporting and defending our 
nation for more than 200 years, since its creation by the fifth Act of 
Congress as the first Federal agency of the new Republic. The many 
functions of Customs are as important today as they were at the start 
of our nation.
  Passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 is the right decision 
for the country. This

[[Page H8712]]

country is only as safe and secure as the economy that supports it. 
Last year over $1 trillion in merchandise was imported into the 
country. That is indispensable fuel for our economy Customs collected 
over $20 billion of revenue. I am pleased the final bill keeps 
important elements recommended by the Ways and Means Committee in order 
to protect the trade functions of the Customs Service that are so vital 
to the strength of this land. In particular, the bill keeps Customs 
core revenue functions whole, which ensures that the many trade and 
enforcement functions will be carried out.
  Our bipartisan agreement in this bill:
  Transfers the Customs Service in its entirety to the Department of 
Homeland Security Division for Border and Transportation Security.
  Identifies revenue-related offices and functions within Customs 
(about 25 percent of the agency) and prohibits reorganization or 
decrease in their resources or staff.
  Requires that adequate staffing of customs revenue services be 
maintained, and requires timely notice to Congress of actions that 
would reduce such service.
  Maintains the Commissioner of Customs as Senate-confirmed.
  Transfers all authority exercised by Customs to Homeland Security 
with the exception of revenue collecting authority, which would remain 
at the Treasury Department. Treasury may delegate this authority to 
Homeland Security.
  On this last point I would like to clarify that our purpose has been 
for the Treasury Department to remain integrated in the revenue, trade, 
and macroeconomic aspects of Customs' work. As such, we do not expect a 
wholesale abandonment of involvement by Treasury. We will scrutinize 
any delegation to assure that it fits within the purpose envisioned by 
Congress.
  For these reasons I urge a ``yes'' vote on House Resolution 5710.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
this bill and to commend my good friend, Majority Leader Armey for his 
efforts in putting together this bipartisan package. This legislation 
will allow us to have a coordinated response to any future terrorist 
threat. H.R. 5710 includes many critical provisions I authored that 
will allow us to work closely with the private sector to deploy the 
latest technology solutions, address ongoing information security 
weaknesses within the federal government, and facilitate necessary 
information sharing among our critical infrastructures.
  The events of September 11th and the ensuing war on terrorism have 
raised an unprecedented awareness of the vulnerabilities we face. This 
has naturally focused more attention on security issues, particularly 
with respect to information security. From my work in the Government 
Reform Committee, it is clear that the state of federal information 
security suffers from a lack of coordinated, uniform management. 
Federal information systems continue to be woefully unprotected from 
both malevolent attacks and benign interruptions.
  Poor information security management has persisted in both the public 
and private sectors long before IT became the ubiquitous engine driving 
governmental, business, and even home activities. As our reliance on 
technology and our desire for interconnectivity have grown, our 
vulnerability to attacks on Federal information systems has grown 
exponentially. The high degree of interdependence between information 
systems, both internally and externally, exposes the Federal 
government's computer networks to potentially serious disruptions.
  Title X of H.R. 5710, the Federal Information Security Management Act 
(FISMA), will require that agencies utilize information security best 
practices that will ensure the integrity, confidentiality, and 
availability of Federal information systems. It builds on the 
foundation laid by the Government Information Security Reform Act 
(GISRA), which requires every Federal agency to develop and implement 
security policies that include risk assessment, risk-based policies, 
security awareness training, and periodic reviews.
  FISMA will achieve several objectives vital to Federal information 
security. Specifically, it will:
  1. Remove GISRA's sunset clause and permanently require a Federal 
agency-wide risk-based approach to information security management with 
annual independent evaluations of agency information security 
practices;
  2. Require all agencies to implement a risk-based management approach 
to developing and implementing information security measures for all 
information and information systems;
  3. Streamline and make technical corrections to GISRA to clarify and 
simplify its requirements;
  4. Strengthen the role of NIST in the standards-setting process; and
  5. Require OMB to implement minimum and mandatory standards for 
Federal information and information systems, and to consult with the 
Department of Homeland Security regarding the promulgation of these 
standards.
  At a time when uncertainty threatens confidence in our nation's 
preparedness, the Federal government must make information security a 
priority. We demand that in our networked era, where technology is the 
driver, every Federal information system must be managed in a way that 
minimizes both the risk that breach or disruption will occur and the 
harm that would result should such a disruption take place. Chairman 
Armey understands this and has shown tremendous leadership by this 
including this critical language in this legislation.
  Additionally, the bill includes the Critical Infrastructure 
Protective Act, which I developed after reviewing Presidential Decision 
Directive (PDD) 63 that identified the ongoing statutory barriers to 
information sharing. This important bill includes a FOIA exemption for 
critical infrastructure information along with recognition for private 
sector information sharing organizations (ISOs). It also includes a use 
protection for information shared with the government and a process 
based on the Defense Production Act of 1959 to address potential 
antitrust concerns.
  In Presidential Decision Directive 63 issued by the previous 
Administration, concerns about the Freedom of Information Act, 
antitrust, and liability were identified as primary barriers to 
facilitating information sharing with the private sector.
  The critical infrastructure of the United States is largely owned and 
operated by the private sector. Critical infrastructures are those 
systems that are essential to the minimum operations of the economy and 
government. Traditionally, these sectors operated largely independently 
of one another and coordinated with government to protect themselves 
against threats posed by traditional warfare. Today, these sectors must 
learn how to protect themselves against unconventional threats such as 
terrorist attacks, and cyber intrusions.
  We must, as a nation, prepare both our public and private sectors to 
protect ourselves against such efforts. As we discovered when we went 
to the caves in Afghanistan, the Al Qaeda groups had copies of GAO 
reports and other government information obtained through FOIA. While 
we work to protect our nation's assets in this war against terrorism, 
we also need to ensure that we are not arming terrorists.
  Today, the private sector has established many information sharing 
organizations (ISOs) for the different sectors of our nation's critical 
infrastructure. Information regarding potential physical or cyber 
vulnerabilities is now shared within some industries, but it is not 
shared with the government, and it is not shared across industries. The 
private sector stands ready to expand this model but has also expressed 
concerns about voluntarily sharing information with the government and 
the unintended consequences it could face for acting in good faith.
  Specifically, there has been concern that industry could potentially 
face antitrust violations for sharing information with other industry 
partners, have their shared information be subject to the Freedom of 
Information Act, or face potential liability concerns for information 
shared in good faith. Additionally, this FOIA exemption extends the 
protection for FOIA to information shared at the state and local 
government level. Also, this bill gives the Secretary of Homeland 
Security the authority to share information protected under this FOIA 
exemption to share it with other impacted federal agencies while 
continuing to enjoy the protection. My language included in H.R. 5005 
will address all three of these concerns. Additionally, consumers and 
operators will have the confidence they need to know that information 
will be handled accurately, confidentially, and reliably.
  The Critical Infrastructure Information Act procedures are closely 
modeled after the successful Year 2000 Information and Readiness 
Disclosure Act by providing a limited FOIA exemption, civil litigation 
protection for shared information, and a new process for resolving 
potential antitrust concerns for information, shared among private 
sector companies for the purpose of correcting, avoiding, communicating 
or disclosing information about a critical infrastructure threat or 
vulnerability.
  This legislation will enable the private sector, including ISOs, to 
move forward without fear from government, so that government and 
industry may enjoy a mutually cooperative partnership. This will also 
allow us to get a timely and accurate assessment of the vulnerabilities 
of each sector to physical and cyber attacks and allow for the 
formulation of proposals to eliminate these vulnerabilities without 
increasing government regulation, or expanding unfunded federal 
mandates on the private sector.
  Also, H.R. 5710 includes language that I developed to allow for 
reaching out to new technology companies that may not being doing 
business with the government. We all know that the Federal, State and 
local governments

[[Page H8713]]

will spend billions and billions of dollars to fight the war against 
terror. Contentious floor debates aside, we all support these efforts. 
But to me, the question isn't simply how much we spend, but how well we 
spend it.
  Since the tragic events of 9/11 the Government, in general, and the 
Office of Homeland Security, in particular has been overwhelmed by a 
flood of industry proposals offering various solutions to our homeland 
security challenges. Because of a lack of staffing expertise, many of 
these proposals have been sitting unevaluated, perhaps denying the 
government breakthrough technology.
  In February, I held a hearing in my Subcommittee on Technology and 
Procurement Policy on homeland security challenges facing the 
government. One theme that was expressed unanimously by industry was 
the need for an organized, cohesive, comprehensive process within the 
Government to evaluate private-sector solutions to homeland security 
problems. Now we have part of the solution, with the creation of the 
new Department of Homeland Security in the bill on the floor today. 
Section 313 of this bill will close the loop and provide a vehicle to 
get these solutions into government and to the front lines in the war 
against terror.
  Section 313 of the Homeland Security Act establishes within the 
Department a program to meet the current challenge faced by the Federal 
government, as well as by state and local entities, in leveraging 
private sector innovation in the fight against terror. The section 
would establish a focused effort by:
  Creating a centralized Federal clearinghouse in the new Department 
for information relating to terror-fighting technologies for 
dissemination to Federal, State, local and private sector entities and 
to issue announcements to industry seeking unique and innovative anti-
terror solutions.
  Establishing a technical assistance team to assist in screening 
proposals for terror-fighting technology to assess their feasibility, 
scientific and technical merit and cost.
  Providing for the new Department to offer guidance, recommendations 
and technical assistance to Federal, State, local and private efforts 
to evaluate and use anti-terror technologies and provide information 
relating to Federal funding, regulation, or acquisition regarding these 
technologies.
  Since September 11, we have all been struggling to understand what 
changes will occur in our daily lives, in our economy, and within the 
Government. We now will establish a new Department of Homeland Security 
to focus and coordinate the war against terror. The new section 313 in 
this landmark legislation will give the new Department the framework it 
needs to examine and act on the best innovations the private sector has 
to offer.
  I am pleased to also have authored section 834 at the request of the 
Select Committee to allow federal agencies government-wide to accept 
unsolicited proposals. The language directs the FAR Council to amend 
FAR Part 15 to ensure that a proposal has not been submitted in 
relation to a previously published proposal. This ensures that 
contracting officials are not improperly avoiding a full and open 
competition. Existing ambiguity in the FAR language made government 
contracting officials hesitant to review and accept unsolicited 
proposals. The change recognizes the longstanding procurement reform 
goal of allowing contracting officials to include ``best value'' 
factors when reviewing such a proposal, and adds ``technical merit'' as 
a new criteria, which allows officials to review a proposal for 
potential future benefit. This language is critical as federal agencies 
attempt to update their information technology systems to better 
integrate information and serve the taxpayer. This is another step 
forward in moving the Federal government to a more commercial 
acquisition environment. This change in the FAR will allow federal 
agencies to rapidly acquire new products and services to assist them in 
winning the war on terrorism.
  In ordinary times, primarily because of recent acquisition reforms, 
the current acquisition system will enable the new Department of 
Homeland Security to buy what it needs with reasonable efficiency. 
While we all hope that it will never be needed, we also know that in an 
emergency the new Department may have to quickly and efficiently 
acquire the high tech and sophisticated products and services needed 
for its critical mission. The provisions in H.R. 5710 would permit the 
Department to quickly acquire the emergency goods and services it needs 
while maintaining safeguards against wasteful spending. This authority 
is easily accessed by Department of Homeland Security officials through 
a written determination.
  The acquisition provisions build on contracting authorities currently 
place; in fact, the procedures appear in Part 13 of the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation and provide for an extension of these 
authorities only upon a determination of the Secretary of Homeland 
Security or one of his Senatorially confirmed officials that the terror 
fighting mission of the new Department would be seriously impaired 
without their use. The new authorities would sunset at the end of 
fiscal year 2007. The GAO would be required to report to the Committee 
on Government Reform assessing the extent to which the authorities 
contributed to the mission of the Department, the extent to which the 
prices paid reflect best value, and the effectiveness of the safeguards 
put in place to monitor the use of the new authorities. The current 
government-wide procurement laws will govern the Department's 
``normal'' purchases.
  Specifically, the provisions would raise the current micro-purchase 
threshold from $2,500 to $7,500. It would raise the current $100,000 
threshold for simplified acquisition procedures to $200,000 for use 
within the United States and $300,000 for overseas missions, and permit 
the application of the current streamlined commercial acquisition 
procedures and statutory waivers to noncommercial goods and services 
and increase the current $5,000,000 ceiling on the use of streamlined 
commercial procedures to $7,500,000 for these goods and services.

  How could these new authorities be used?
  Well, for example, the increase in the micro-purchase threshold could 
be used in the event of a terror attack, to permit a Department of 
Homeland Security official at the scene to rent several floors of a 
nearby hotel to house rescue workers by simply presenting his 
Government credit card.
  The increase in the simplified acquisition threshold would permit a 
Department official to quickly enter into a $200,000 contract for 
specialized medical services for rescue workers responding to a terror 
attack.
  The application of streamlined commercial acquisition procedures 
would permit the Department to conduct a limited competition among high 
technology firms for a specialized advisory and assistance services 
contract valued at $7,500,000 to fight a cyber-attack.
  Moreover, I am pleased that the House accepted the Senate Federal 
Emergency Procurement Flexibility Act. This basically extends the same 
emergency procedures given to the new Department to all Federal 
agencies to use to prepare for, or in response to a nuclear, 
biological, chemical, or radiological attack or an act of terrorism for 
the next fiscal year. This is based on legislation that I had 
introduced with my colleague and Chairman, Dan Burton and with Senators 
John Warner and Fred Thompson at the request of Governor Tom Ridge. 
While this authority is not as accessible as it is for the Department 
of Homeland Security, it will certainly go a long way to giving all 
federal agencies additional help in winning the war on terrorism.
  H.R. 5710 gives the Administration the necessary management 
flexibilities it will need to set up the new Department while 
maintaining longstanding statutory protections for the American 
taxpayer and for federal employees. In the civil service area, we 
struck the proper balance between needed flexibility and important 
employee protections. Dedicated federal employees, by virtue of the 
bill's new 30-day mediation period, have received the assurances they 
asked for, while the American people will have the benefit of a 
flexible, modern-day workforce that can respond to ever-evolving 
threats.
  I worked hard to make sure aspects of Senator Voinovich's human 
capital management legislation were included in the legislation; for 
example, having Human Capital Officers within each agency ensures that 
the Department's employees will be given the tools they need to prosper 
and develop professionally. And the demonstration project authority, 
which includes a pay-for-performance component, is a critical step that 
will help give the new department the ability to attract and retain the 
very best employees.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would again like to thank Majority Leader 
Armey for his outstanding leadership on this vital piece of 
legislation. Today, we are giving President Bush legislation that he 
has deemed critical to winning the war on terrorism. Majority Leader 
Armey and his talented staff worked tirelessly to ensure that we would 
get this legislation done this year. I am proud to have worked with my 
House colleagues and the Select Committee on H.R. 5710.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the protection of our national security 
from terrorist threats is a serious and sober matter. Since the events 
of September 11, 2001, we have all labored under a heightened awareness 
of the weight of that responsibility. This legislation represents an 
attempt to balance a wide array of far-flung government duties against 
one most-significant federal duty, the protection of the life and the 
liberty of each U.S. citizen. It is my hope that this legislation will 
help our government to more effectively execute that supreme trust, 
while not compromising lesser responsibilities that are, non-the-less, 
critical to our nation's welfare.
  With that hope in mind, the House Committee on Agriculture acted 
earlier this year to mark up provisions of the Homeland Security

[[Page H8714]]

legislation that impacted the duties of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture. Two areas of concern were the transfer of the Plum Island 
Animal Disease Laboratory to the new Department of Homeland Security, 
and the transfer of certain USDA border inspection functions to that 
same new agency. Our intent as included in House Report 107-609 
accompanying H.R. 5005 is as follows:
  Sec. 310. Transfer of Plum Island Animal Disease Center, Department 
of Agriculture. Transfers the Plum Island Animal Disease Center from 
the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Homeland Security 
and requires the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, upon completion of the transfer, to enter into an agreement 
providing for continued access by USDA for research, diagnostic and 
other programs.
  The Committee recognizes the critical importance of the Plum Island 
Animal Disease Center to the safety and security of animal agriculture 
in the United States. The Committee expects that the transfer of this 
foreign animal disease facility to the Department of Homeland Security 
shall be completed in a manner that minimizes any disruption of 
agricultural research, diagnostic or other Department of Agriculture 
activities. Likewise, the Committee expects that funds that have and 
continue to be appropriated for the maintenance, upgrade, or 
replacement of agricultural research, diagnostic and training 
facilities at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center shall continue to 
be expended for those purposes.
  The Committee shares the goal of expanding the capabilities of the 
Plum Island Animal Disease Center. Likewise, the Committee supports the 
accompanying goal of building agro-terrorism prevention capabilities 
within the Department of Homeland Security. With this in mind, the 
Committee fully expects that in the absence of alternative facilities 
for current Department of Agriculture activities, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security shall make every possible effort to expand and 
enhance agricultural activities related to foreign animal diseases at 
the Plum Island Animal Disease Center.
  Sec. 421. Transfer of Certain Agricultural Inspection Functions of 
the Department of Agriculture.
  (a) Transfers to the Secretary of Homeland Security the functions of 
the Secretary of Agriculture relating to agricultural import and entry 
inspection activities.
  The committee is aware that the Agricultural Quarantine and 
Inspection Program of the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service conducts numerous activities with respect to 
both domestic and international commerce in order to protect the health 
of agriculturally important animals and plants within the United 
States. Within the Department of Homeland Security will be created a 
mission area of Border and Transportation Security. In order that the 
new streamlined border security program operates efficiently, the 
Committee has transferred to the Department of Homeland Security the 
responsibility for certain agricultural import and entry inspection 
activities of the Department of Agriculture conducted at points of 
entry. This transfer will include the inspection of arriving 
passenger's luggage, cargo and means of conveyance into the United 
States to the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security. 
In addition to inspections at points of entry into the United States, 
responsibility for inspections of passengers, luggage and their means 
of conveyance, at points of departure outside the United States, where 
agreements exist for such purposes, shall be the responsibility of the 
Secretary of Homeland Security. The provision allows the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to exercise authorities related to import and entry 
inspection functions transferred including conducting warrantless 
inspections at the border, collecting samples, holding and seizing 
articles that are imported into the United States in violation of 
applicable laws and regulations, and assessing and collecting civil 
penalties at the border. The Committee intends that the Department of 
Agriculture will retain the responsibility for all other activities of 
the Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Program regarding imports 
including pre-clearance of commodities, trade protocol verification 
activities, fumigation activities, quarantine, diagnosis, eradication 
and indemnification, as well as other sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures. All functions regarding exports, interstate and intrastate 
activities will remain at the Department of Agriculture.
  (b) Delineates the laws governing agricultural import and entry 
inspection activities that are covered by the transfer of authorities.
  The Committee is aware that the authority to inspect passengers, 
cargo, and their means of conveyance coming into the United States is 
derived from numerous statutes that date back, in some cases, more than 
100 years. The Committee does not intend that the reference to these 
statutes should be construed to provide any authority to the Secretary 
of Homeland Security beyond the responsibility to carry out inspections 
(including pre-clearance inspections of passengers, luggage and their 
means of conveyance in such countries where agreements exist for such 
purposes) and enforce the regulations of the Department of Agriculture 
at points of entry into the United States.

  (c) Excludes quarantine activities from the term ``functions'' as 
defined by this Act for the purposes of this section.
  While agricultural inspection functions, as well as those related 
administrative and enforcement functions, shall be transferred and 
become the responsibility of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the 
legislation retains all functions to quarantine activities and 
quarantine facilities within the Department of Agriculture. Although 
the Committee has excluded quarantine activities from those functions 
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, the Committee does 
not intend to preclude the Secretary of Homeland Security from taking 
actions related to inspection functions such as seizure or holding of 
plant or animal materials entering the United States. These authorities 
fall within the purview of inspection related enforcement functions 
that shall be transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
  (d) Requires that the authority transferred to the Secretary of 
Homeland Security shall be exercised in accordance with the 
regulations, policies and procedures issued by the Secretary of 
Agriculture; requires the Secretary of Agriculture to coordinate with 
the Secretary of Homeland Security whenever the Secretary of 
Agriculture prescribes regulations, policies, or procedures for 
administering the covered laws related to the functions transferred 
under subsection (a); provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, may issue guidelines 
and directives to ensure the effective use of personnel of the 
Department of Homeland Security to carry out the transferred functions.
  One intention of this legislation is to create a streamlined Border 
and Transportation Security program at points of entry into the United 
States. With regard to the protection of animal and plant health, the 
Committee does not intend or expect the Department of Homeland Security 
to make the determination of what animals, plants, animal or plant 
products, soils, or other biological materials present an unacceptable 
risk to the agriculture of the United States. Policies and procedures 
regarding actions necessary to detect and prevent such unacceptable 
risks shall remain the responsibility of the Secretary of Agriculture. 
Likewise, policies and regulations defining restrictions on movement 
into the United States of substances that would pose a threat to 
agriculture shall continue to be the responsibility of the Secretary of 
Agriculture.
  The Committee has provided authority for the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to issue directives and guidelines in consultation with the 
Secretary of Agriculture in order to efficiently manage inspection 
resources. When exercising this authority, the Committee expects that 
the agricultural inspection function at points of entry into the United 
States shall not be diminished, and as a result, the Committee expects 
that Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that necessary 
resources are dedicated to carrying out agricultural inspection 
functions transferred from the Department of Agriculture.

  (e) Requires the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to enter into an agreement to effectuate the transfer 
of functions. The agreement must address the training of employees and 
the transfer of funds. In addition the agreement may include authority 
for the Secretary of Homeland Security to perform functions delegated 
to APHIS for the protection of domestic livestock and plants, as well 
as authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to use employees of the 
Department of Homeland Security to carry out APHIS functions.
  The Committee is aware of the unique nature and the specialized 
training necessary for effective and efficient border inspection 
activities carried out by the Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection 
Program. The Committee expects that the training of personnel and 
detector dogs for this highly specialized function will continue to be 
supervised by the Department of Agriculture.
  While a large proportion of the personnel employed by the 
Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Program are permanently 
stationed at one of 186 points of entry into the United States, the 
Committee is aware that the Secretary of Agriculture commonly redeploys 
up to 20% of the border inspection force in order to manage 
agricultural pests and diseases throughout the United States. In 
completing the transfer of Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection 
Program border inspectors to the Department of Homeland Security, the 
Committee expects that the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary 
of Homeland Security will enter into an agreement whereby inspection 
resources, where possible, would continue to be made available to the 
Secretary of Agriculture in response to domestic agricultural needs.

[[Page H8715]]

  (f) Provides that the Secretary of Agriculture shall transfer funds 
collected by fee authorities to the Secretary of Homeland Security so 
long as the funds do not exceed the proportion of the costs incurred by 
the Secretary of Homeland Security in carrying out activities funded by 
such fees.
  Beginning in fiscal year 2003, the unobligated balance of the 
Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Fund will be transferred to 
other accounts within the Department of Agriculture and will be used to 
carry out import and domestic inspection activities, as well as animal 
and plant health quarantine activities, without additional 
appropriations. Fees for inspection services shall continue to be 
collected and deposited into these accounts in the manner prescribed by 
regulations issued by the Secretary of Agriculture. In effectuating the 
transfer of agricultural import inspection activities at points of 
entry into the United States, the Committee intends that funds from 
these accounts shall be transferred to the Department of Homeland 
Security in order to reimburse the Department of Homeland Security for 
the actual inspections carried out by the Department. The Committee 
expects that the Secretary of Agriculture shall continue to manage 
these accounts in a manner that ensures the availability of funds 
necessary to carry out domestic inspection and quarantine programs.
  (g) Provides that during the transition period, the Secretary of 
Agriculture shall transfer to the Secretary of Homeland Security up to 
3,200 full-time equivalent positions of the Department of Agriculture.
  (h) Makes conforming amendments to Title V of the Agricultural Risk 
Protection Act of 2000 related to the protection of inspection animals.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5710, the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002. I appreciate the cooperation of the 
Select Committee on Homeland Security as the Agriculture Committee 
developed it's recommendations relating to agricultural import and 
entry inspection activities and the Plum Island Animal Disease Center.
  The inspection programs administered by the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service are designed to prevent both the intentional and 
inadvertent introduction of harmful plant and animal pests and diseases 
into the U.S. ecosystem--pests and diseases that could threaten the 
abundance and variety of the U.S. food supply and cost American 
taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to eradicate.
  On average, more than 250,000 people travel to the United States each 
day. In addition, there are millions and millions of pieces of 
international mail and countless commercial import and export 
shipments. As part of the USDA program, Plant Protection and Quarantine 
officers, with help from detector dogs in the USDA's Beagle Brigade 
which sniff luggage for hidden fruits and vegetables, inspect passenger 
baggage, mail, and cargo at all U.S. ports of entry.
  USDA officers make about 2 million interceptions of illegal 
agricultural products every year. Included in that total are more than 
295,000 lots of unauthorized meat and animal byproducts that have the 
potential to carry diseases to American livestock and poultry. 
Inspectors also find nearly more than a 100,000 plant pests and 
diseases that could have been dangerous to our agricultural industry.
  The Administration's original proposal to move APHIS in its entirety 
was made in good faith. However, many of our constituents raised 
concerns about the scope of the proposal. While most organizations 
testified that the border inspection function of the USDA could 
theoretically be transferred, they did so with many concerns regarding 
the delivery of inspection services critical to the mission of 
safeguarding against the introduction of plant and animal pests and 
diseases.
  After a hearing in the Agriculture Committee on June 26th, and 
numerous meetings with the Officer of Homeland Security, the 
Administration agreed to accept modifications of their original 
proposal. Instead of taking the entire Animal Plant & Health Inspection 
Service to the Department of Homeland Security, the Administration has 
accepted our proposal transferring just those agency personnel actually 
conducting import and entry inspections. The Plum Island Animal Disease 
Center would be transferred to the new Department, but access would be 
provided for USDA to continue research, diagnostic and other necessary 
activities.
  Under our recommendation, the rest of APHIS would remain at the 
Department of Agriculture and would continue to operate largely as it 
does today. Additionally, USDA will set the policy for the border 
inspections to be conducted by the Department of Homeland Security and 
will supervise the training of those inspectors. All of the remaining 
functions, such as protecting animal and plant health, facilitating 
imports and exports, administering the Animal Welfare Act, operating 
Wildlife Services and providing technical support for trade 
negotiations, will remain at USDA.
  Mr. Speaker, further clarification of the intent of the House 
Committee on Agriculture was included in House Report 107-609 which 
accompanied the original legislation--H.R. 5005. The description of the 
Committee's action and a statement of Congressional intent with regards 
to the provisions affecting agricultural programs is as follows:
  Sec. 310. Transfer of Plum Island Animal Disease Center, Department 
of Agriculture. Transfers the Plum Island Animal Disease Center from 
the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Homeland Security 
and requires the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, upon completion of the transfer, to enter into an agreement 
providing for continued access by USDA for research, diagnostic and 
other programs.
  The Committee recognizes the critical importance of the Plum Island 
Animal Disease Center to the safety and security of animal agriculture 
in the United States. The Committee expects that the transfer of this 
foreign animal disease facility to the Department of Homeland Security 
shall be completed in a manner that minimizes any disruption of 
agricultural research, diagnostic or other Department of Agriculture 
activities. Likewise, the Committee expects that funds that have and 
continue to be appropriated for the maintenance, upgrade, or 
replacement of agricultural research, diagnostic and training 
facilities at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center shall continue to 
be expended for those purposes.
  The Committee shares the goal of expanding the capabilities of the 
Plum Island Animal Disease Center. Likewise, the Committee supports the 
accompanying goal of building agro-terrorism prevention capabilities 
within the Department of Homeland Security. With this in mind, the 
Committee fully expects that in the absence of alternative facilities 
for current Department of Agriculture activities, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security shall make every possible effort tot expand and 
enhance agricultural activities related to foreign animal diseases at 
the Plum Island Animal Disease Center.
  Sec. 421. Transfer of Certain Agricultural Inspection Functions of 
the Department of Agriculture.
  (a) Transfers to the Secretary of Homeland Security the functions of 
the Secretary of Agriculture relating to agricultural import and entry 
inspection activities.
  The Committee is aware that the Agricultural Quarantine and 
Inspection Program of the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service conducts numerous activities with respect to 
both domestic and international commerce in order to protect the health 
of agriculturally important animals and plants within the United 
States. Within the Department of Homeland Security will be created a 
mission area of Border and Transportation Security. In order that the 
new streamlined border security program operates efficiently, the 
Committee has transferred to the Department of Homeland Security the 
responsibility for certain agricultural import and entry inspection 
activities of the Department of Agriculture conducted at points of 
entry. This transfer will include the inspection of arriving 
passengers, luggage, cargo and means of conveyance into the United 
States to the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security. 
In addition to inspection at points of entry into the United States, 
responsibility for inspections of passengers, luggage and their means 
of conveyance, at points of departure outside the United States, where 
agreements exist for such purposes, shall be the responsibility of the 
Secretary of Homeland Security. The provision allows the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to exercise authorities related to import and entry 
inspection functions transferred including conducting warrantless 
inspections at the border, collecting samples, holding and seizing 
articles that are imported into the United States in violation of 
applicable laws and regulations, and assessing and collecting civil 
penalties at the border. The Committee intends that the Department of 
Agriculture will retain the responsibility for all other activities of 
the Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Program regarding imports 
including pre-clearance of commodities, trade protocol verification 
activities, fumigation activities, quarantine, diagnosis, eradication 
and indemnification, as well as other sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures. All functions regarding exports, interstate and intrastate 
activities will remain at the Department of Agriculture.
  (b) Delineates the laws governing agricultural import and entry 
inspection activities that are covered by the transfer of authorities.
  The Committee is aware that the authority to inspect passengers, 
cargo, and their means of conveyance coming into the United States is 
derived from numerous statutes that date back, in some cases, more than 
100 years. The Committee does not intend that the reference to these 
statutes should be construed to provide any authority to the Secretary 
of Homeland Security beyond the responsibility to carry out inspections 
(including pre-clearance inspections of passengers, luggage and

[[Page H8716]]

their means of conveyance in such countries where agreements exist for 
such purposes) and enforce the regulations of the Department of 
Agriculture at points of entry into the United States.
  (c) Excludes quarantine activities from the term ``functions'' as 
defined by this Act for the purposes of this section.
  While agricultural inspection functions, as well as those related 
administrative and enforcement functions, shall be transferred and 
become the responsibility of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the 
legislation retains all functions related to quarantine activities and 
quarantine facilities within the Department of Agriculture. Although 
the Committee has excluded quarantine activities from those functions 
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, the Committee does 
not intend to preclude the Secretary of Homeland Security from taking 
actions related to inspection functions such as seizure or holding of 
plant or animal materials entering the United States. These authorities 
fall within the purview of inspection related enforcement functions 
that shall be transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
  (d) Requires that the authority transferred to the Secretary of 
Homeland Security shall be exercised in accordance with the 
regulations, policies and procedures issued by Secretary of 
Agriculture; requires the Secretary of Agriculture to coordinate with 
the Secretary of Homeland Security whenever the Secretary of 
Agriculture prescribes regulations, policies, or procedures for 
administering the covered laws related to the functions transferred 
under subsection (a); provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, may issue guidelines 
and directives to ensure the effective use of personnel of the 
Department of Homeland Security to carry out the transferred functions.
  One intention of this legislation is to create a streamlined Border 
and Transportation Security program at points of entry into the United 
States. With regard to the protection of animal and plant health, the 
Committee does not intend or expect the Department of Homeland Security 
to make the determination of what animals, plants, animal or plant 
products, soils, or other biological materials present an unacceptable 
risk to the agriculture of the United States. Policies and procedures 
regarding actions necessary to detect and prevent such unacceptable 
risks shall remain the responsibility of the Secretary of Agriculture. 
Likewise, policies and regulations defining restrictions on movement 
into the United States of substances that would pose a threat to 
agriculture shall continue to be the responsibility of the Secretary of 
Agriculture.
  The Committee has provided authority for the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to issue directives and guidelines in consultation with the 
Secretary of Agriculture in order to efficiently manage inspection 
resources. When exercising this authority, the Committee expects that 
the agricultural inspection function at points of entry into the United 
States shall not be diminished, and as a result, the Committee expects 
that Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that necessary 
resources are dedicated to carrying out the agricultural inspection 
functions transferred from the Department of Agriculture.
  (e) Requires the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to enter into an agreement to effectuate the transfer 
of functions. The agreement must address the training of employees and 
the transfer of funds. In addition the agreement may include authority 
for the Secretary of Homeland Security to perform functions delegated 
to APHIS for the protection of domestic livestock and plants, as well 
as authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to use employees of the 
Department of Homeland Security to carry out APHIS functions.

  The Committee is aware of the unique nature and the specialized 
training necessary for effective and efficient border inspection 
activities carried out by the Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection 
Program. The Committee expects that the training of personnel and 
detector dogs for this highly specialized function will continue to be 
supervised by the Department of Agriculture.
  While a large proportion of the personnel employed by the 
Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Program are permanently 
stationed at one of 186 points of entry into the United States, the 
Committee is aware that the Secretary of Agriculture commonly redeploys 
up to 20% of the border inspection force in order to manage 
agricultural pests and diseases throughout the United States. In 
completing the transfer of Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection 
Program border inspectors to the Department of Homeland Security, the 
Committee expects that the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary 
of Homeland Security will enter into an agreement whereby inspection 
resources, where possible, would continue to be made available to the 
Secretary of Agriculture in response to domestic agricultural needs.
  (f) Provides that the Secretary of Agriculture shall transfer funds 
collected by fee authorities to the Department of Homeland Security so 
long as the funds do not exceed the proportion of the costs incurred by 
the Secretary of Homeland Security in carrying out activities funded by 
such fees.
  Beginning in fiscal year 2003, the unobligated balance of the 
Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Fund will be transferred to 
other accounts within the Department of Agriculture and will be used to 
carry out import and domestic inspection activities, as well as animal 
and plant health quarantine activities, without additional 
appropriations. Fees for inspection services shall continue to be 
collected and deposited into these accounts in the manner prescribed by 
regulations issued by the Secretary of Agriculture. In effectuating the 
transfer of agricultural import inspection activities at points of 
entry into the United States, the Committee intends that funds from 
these accounts shall be transferred to the Department of Homeland 
Security in order to reimburse the Department of Homeland Security for 
the actual inspections carried out by the Department. The Committee 
expects that the Secretary of Agriculture shall continue to manage 
these accounts in a manner that ensures the availability of funds 
necessary to carry out domestic inspection and quarantine programs.
  (g) Provides that during the transition period, the Secretary of 
Agriculture shall transfer to the Secretary of Homeland Security up to 
3,200 full-time equivalent positions of the Department of Agriculture.
  (h) Makes conforming amendments to Title V of the Agriculture Risk 
Protection Act of 2000 related to the protection of inspection animals.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
our mission to protect and secure the homeland, but also to oppose the 
efforts of those who excuse corporate expatriation.
  Since September 11th, this nation has pulled together to fight the 
war on terrorism. And now, with more military action looming, we must 
face the fact that fighting a war and combating terrorism costs money. 
To fully fund the needs of our military and homeland security, every 
American taxpayer, individual and corporation alike, must be prepared 
to pay their fair share.
  If corporate expatriates are not paying their tax bills (and evidence 
shows they avoid paying $4 billion worth), the American people know 
that someone will have to pick up the slack. We should use everything 
in our arsenal to stop corporate expatriation. No more government 
contracts for financial traitors. No more tax benefits for runaway 
corporations.
  I regret that the Republican leaders struck the very reasonable 
federal contract ban from this bill--a ban supported by 318 Members of 
this House--and inserted instead an ineffective provision that affects 
no one.
  Corporate expatriates cheat the federal government out of needed tax 
revenues and then have the audacity to return for a federal hand-out. 
However, the sensible contract ban passed by the House and then 
championed in the Senate by the late Paul Wellstone, was watered down 
to the ineffective provision we are debating today. Regrettably, this 
provision only affects companies who leave after the date of enactment. 
It makes as much sense as closing the barn door after all the cows are 
out.
  Let's take Tyco, formerly of New Hampshire, now of Bermuda, for 
example. Tyco, which will be unaffected by the ban in this bill, avoids 
paying $400 million a year in U.S. taxes by setting up a shell 
headquarters offshore, but was awarded $182 million in lucrative 
defense and homeland security related contracts in 2001 alone. If Tyco 
had just paid its tax bill, Congress could have easily paid for 400 
explosive detection systems (EDS), which are badly needed to protect 
U.S. travelers at airports around the nation.
  Or let's examine corporate expatriate Ingersoll-Rand, formerly of New 
Jersey, and now also in Bermuda. Ingersoll-Rand, also unaffected by 
this bill, earned as much last year in U.S. defense and homeland 
security federal contracts as it avoids in U.S. taxes annually merely 
by renting a mailbox in Bermuda and calling it `home.' If Ingersoll-
Rand paid its U.S. tax bill, Congress could easily fund the proposed 
Cyberspace Warning Intelligence Network estimated to cost $30 million, 
or could also buy 400,000 gas masks for American citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, the leadership of this House has thwarted all efforts to 
have a legitimate debate and vote on HR 3884, The Corporate Patriot 
Enforcement Act, a bipartisan bill to deny the benefits to corporations 
who flee to tax havens. We must show the American people that this 
Congress will not coddle corporate abusers. These financial traitors 
are escaping income taxes, and then, profiting from the very government 
they have left behind.
  I urge my colleagues to fight for tax fairness, any way we can get 
it.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly five months since 
the President

[[Page H8717]]

called upon Congress to create a new Department of Homeland Security, 
and nearly four months since the House first took up that task. This 
legislation has been through a long journey, full of procedural and 
partisan roadblocks, weighed down by special interests, and slowed by a 
storm of misdirection.
  I could not be more pleased that we are here today with this 
compromise legislation that will finally allow us to move the bill to 
the President's desk. This is a historic achievement.
  In recent days, members of the House and Senate have been through a 
thoughtful, thorough, and cooperative process. Every effort was made to 
address each concern while maintaining a basic framework that creates 
an effective department.
  This legislation will give the new Department of Homeland Security 
the tools it needs to succeed in its mission. And this, in my mind, is 
the key, because the new department's most basic and core mission will 
be to secure America from terrorist attack.
  On September 11, 2001, the streets of New York and Northern Virginia 
were turned to ash, while a grassy field in Pennsylvania played quiet 
witness to the final act of a heroic group of Americans. Creation of 
the Department of Homeland Security is the bold and necessary next step 
we must a take to ensure that this dark day is never repeated.
  We are not creating new government, we are creating better 
government. We are not legislating new bureaucracy, we are streamlining 
to face a new threat. We are making government smarter, more flexible, 
and ultimately, better able to secure America.
  The perpetrators of terrorism are shadowy and agile, and they target 
us like predators without distinction between military target and 
ordinary citizen. They are a 21st Century enemy with an agelessly 
corrupt goal-destruction of life, elimination of liberty, and 
restriction of human freedom.
  Our enemy has recognized that our greatest strength--the open society 
in which we live--also makes us vulnerable to their attacks. We fight 
this enemy not just on battlefields abroad, but in our very cities and 
towns. We must be able to respond at home in a strong, coordinated and 
agile way.
  The new cabinet-level department is only one part of our national 
response, but it is an essential part. The new Department will 
consolidate the vital preparedness, intelligence analysis, law 
enforcement, and emergency response functions that are currently 
dangerously dispersed among numerous federal departments and agencies.
  And in the process, the legislation balances the need to protect 
America with the need to preserve the American way of life that we are 
protecting.
  Thus far, the government has shown immense resolve and dedication, 
going to extraordinary lengths to respond to the terrorist threat. We 
are safer than we were on September 10th one year ago. But as the 
government's efforts reach the limits of their bureaucracies, we must 
rethink our government structure so that our nation can be even 
stronger, smarter, and better prepared.
  One of our revolutionary forefathers, George Mason, once said, 
``Government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, 
protection and security of the people, nation or community.''
  Make no mistake--our work today undertakes this very core function of 
government to secure the American people. I urge all of my colleagues 
to take measure of the task before us, and to support this fair rule 
and the underlying bill.
  It has been a long journey, but this legislation, and the American 
people, are all the better for it.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
5710, the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
  At last, Members of both parties and the Administration have put 
their differences aside and agreed on a strong bill that will make 
America safer by creating a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland 
Security to unite essential agencies in our fight against terrorism 
here at home and abroad.
  On the morning of September 11, 2001, a new enemy brought war to our 
shores. An enemy that considers any innocent man, woman, or child that 
cherishes freedom a target. An enemy that does not necessarily call any 
nation home. And an enemy that can hide for years in plain sight and in 
our own neighborhoods.
  This new kind of war, that makes where we live and work a potential 
battleground, calls for a new response. The United States is a nation 
at risk of terrorist attacks and it will remain so for the foreseeable 
future. We need to strengthen our efforts to protect America, and the 
current governmental structure limits our ability to do so.
  When President Bush established the Office of Homeland Security in 
October 2001, its fundamental mission would be to prevent terrorist 
attacks within the United States, reduce America's vulnerability to 
terrorism, and minimize the damage and recovery from attacks that do 
occur. Mr. Speaker, I believe this new bill will achieve this mission.
  The new department will combine 170,000 workers from 22 agencies, 
including the ATF, Border Patrol, Coast Guard and Customs Service, into 
a Department of Homeland Security with a $37 billion budget. It 
balances concerns of federal workers with the need of the President to 
make personnel decisions in the interest of national security. It 
brings all immigration responsibilities under the Secretary of Homeland 
Security. Immigration services will be kept separate from enforcement 
functions within the Department. This will provide the INS the 
leadership, direction, and focus that I have been advocating for years.
  Now all the necessary functions of government to keep our nation safe 
at home will fall under one department--where they should be. And that 
department will be part of the President's cabinet--and that is where 
it should be.
  Let me add Mr. Speaker that leading a massive new federal department 
that is charged with protecting the homeland during such dangerous 
times is a Herculean task. There is no one in the nation more capable 
and prepared to provide that leadership than our former colleague Tom 
Ridge. Governor Ridge was called on by the President shortly after the 
tragic attacks on our nation and stepped into the breach to provide 
leadership on homeland security. This is not the first time he has 
answered his nation's call in time of war.
  His leadership over the past year has prepared our nation and our 
government for the task ahead. Governor Ridge will succeed and I wish 
him well.
  Finally Mr. Speaker, passage of this bill is the last of the profound 
accomplishments that this Congress has achieved since September 11, 
2001. I am proud of the wise and prudent decisions we have made. Even 
though many on both sides have disagreed over details and those details 
have taken longer to work out than I would have liked, we have never 
disagreed on the goal of our actions. That goal is to protect and 
defend our nation in this new and awful era of war.
  We may suffer another dastardly attack on our shores--given the 
diabolic treachery in which our enemy deals, it is probably certain 
they will attempt to attack us again. But we will endure, care for our 
own, and stand taller than before. As always, we did not ask for this 
war, especially one that attacks us at home. But we will fight it. And 
with the help of this legislation--we will win it.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this legislation. God 
bless America.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
strengthening our Nation's security, but in intense opposition to this 
bill before us. It will create an unwieldy and possibly unworkable 
department of 170,000 federal workers, and spend 4.5 billion dollars 
doing so.
  Without a doubt, every Member of this body supports increasing 
America's security. However, I am troubled by the unseemly and 
unhelpful rush by the President and this body to hastily legislate on 
this matter in the closing days of this Congress. I would note that the 
bill we are debating is the result of a deal reached late yesterday. In 
fact, this bill was introduced early this morning. Why not let the 
public know what we are doing before we do it?
  I served in Congress when we created both the Department of 
Transportation in 1966 and the Department of Energy in 1977. Congress 
held extensive hearings. There was testimony from experts in the 
fields. There were lengthy discussions before we created these 
Departments. However, even with extensive deliberation in Congress, 
folding diverse government agencies into one organization resulted in 
bureaucratic chaos that lasted for many years.
  Likewise, the rush to create the Transportation Security 
Administration after September 11, 2001, has resulted in great 
confusion. TSA was created to take over security screening at our 
Nation's airports--a straightforward task that has not yet been 
accomplished. I think it would be in our Nation's best interest that 
the President ensures that the relatively small TSA is properly 
functioning before tackling a massive restructuring of the government.
  I am also very concerned that this new Department will develop and 
operate in a culture of secrecy without adequate and proper public 
accountability or Congressional oversight. The changes made to the 
Freedom of Information Act are overly broad and restrictive. By 
including Section 214 as part of the backroom agreement, this body is 
ignoring the bipartisan compromise that was reached in the Senate and 
included in both the Senate Government Affairs Committee bill and the 
substitute offered by Senators Graham and Miller in favor of the flawed 
House provision.
  Finally, I note that today we are talking about bureaucratic 
reorganization while the White House has opposed Democratic funding 
initiatives to enhance port security, equip local fire fighters and 
first responders with tools to

[[Page H8718]]

effectively respond to another terrorist attack, and to improve 
security at nuclear weapons facilities. In addition, in key critical 
infrastructure areas where millions of Americans may be at risk, the 
Bush Administration has dropped the ball. For example, at present, 
there are no federal standards in place to require chemical plants to 
assess their vulnerabilities and take steps to reduce them. The 
Attorney General of the United States has failed to conduct or even 
initiate an evaluation of the state of chemical facility security 
(including the security of transportation regulated substances) as 
required by federal law (P.L. 106-40). Bureaucratic reorganization, 
even on a grand scale like this bill, is no substitute for real action 
with respect to chemical plant security and adequate funding for 
critical security needs.
  In sum, I have serious concerns about the management and 
effectiveness of this new Department. The lessons learned from past 
governmental reorganizations is that simply rearranging the 
bureaucratic boxes usually does not get the intended result--oftentimes 
it gets you more confusion, more expense, more people and less work. 
This reorganization may actually make the country more vulnerable 
during the lengthy transition period--not less--particularly if it 
becomes the substitute for needed action and funding.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The amendment contained in section 2 of H. Res. 600 is considered as 
adopted.
  Pursuant to H. Res. 600, the bill is considered read for amendment 
and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Roemer

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. ROEMER. I am, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Roemer moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5710 to the 
     Select Committee on Homeland Security with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:

       At the end, add the following new title:

 TITLE XVIII--NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED 
                                 STATES

     SEC. 1801. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       There is established the National Commission on Terrorist 
     Attacks Upon the United States (in this title referred to as 
     the ``Commission'').

     SEC. 1802. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of the Commission are to--
       (1) examine and report upon the facts and causes relating 
     to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, occurring at 
     the World Trade Center in New York, New York, in Somerset 
     County, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon in Virginia;
       (2) ascertain, evaluate, and report on the evidence 
     developed by all relevant governmental agencies regarding the 
     facts and circumstances surrounding the attacks;
       (3) build upon the investigations of other entities, and 
     avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings, 
     conclusions, and recommendations of--
       (A) the Joint Inquiry of the Select Committee on 
     Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee 
     on Intelligence of the House of Representatives regarding the 
     terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (hereinafter in this 
     title referred to as the ``Joint Inquiry'');
       (B) other executive branch, congressional, or independent 
     commission investigations into the terrorist attacks of 
     September 11, 2001, other terrorist attacks, and terrorism 
     generally;
       (4) make a full and complete accounting of the 
     circumstances surrounding the attacks, and the extent of the 
     United States' preparedness for, and response to, the 
     attacks; and
       (5) investigate and report to the President and Congress on 
     its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective 
     measures that can be taken to prevent acts of terrorism.

     SEC. 1803. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Members.--The Commission shall be composed of 10 
     members, of whom--
       (1) 1 member shall be appointed by the President, who shall 
     serve as a co-chairperson of the Commission;
       (2) 1 member shall be appointed by the minority leader of 
     the Senate, in consultation with the minority leader of the 
     House of Representatives, who shall serve as a co-chairperson 
     of the Commission;
       (3) 2 members shall be appointed by the majority leader of 
     the Senate;
       (4) 2 members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives;
       (5) 2 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of 
     the Senate; and
       (6) 2 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (b) Qualifications; Initial Meeting.--
       (1) Political party affiliation.--Not more than 5 members 
     of the Commission shall be from the same political party.
       (2) Nongovernmental appointees.--An individual appointed to 
     the Commission may not be an officer or employee of the 
     Federal Government or any State or local government.
       (3) Other qualifications.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     individuals appointed to the Commission should be prominent 
     United States citizens, with national recognition and 
     significant depth of experience in such professions as 
     governmental service, law enforcement, the armed services, 
     law, public administration, intelligence gathering, commerce 
     (including aviation matters), and foreign affairs.
       (4) Initial meeting.--If 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, 6 or more members of the Commission 
     have been appointed, those members who have been appointed 
     may meet and, if necessary, begin the operations of the 
     Commission.
       (c) Quorum; Vacancies.--After its initial meeting, the 
     Commission shall meet upon the call of the co-chairpersons or 
     a majority of its members. Six members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum. Any vacancy in the Commission 
     shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same 
     manner in which the original appointment was made.

     SEC. 1804. FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--The functions of the Commission are to--
       (1) conduct an investigation that--
       (A) investigates relevant facts and circumstances relating 
     to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, including any 
     relevant legislation, Executive Order, regulation, plan, 
     policy, practice, or procedure; and
       (B) may include relevant facts and circumstances relating 
     to--
       (i) intelligence agencies;
       (ii) law enforcement agencies;
       (iii) diplomacy;
       (iv) immigration, nonimmigrant visas, and border control;
       (v) the flow of assets to terrorist organizations;
       (vi) commercial aviation;
       (vii) the role of congressional oversight and resource 
     allocation; and
       (viii) other areas of the public and private sectors 
     determined relevant by the Commission for its inquiry;
       (2) identify, review, and evaluate the lessons learned from 
     the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, regarding the 
     structure, coordination, management policies, and procedures 
     of the Federal Government, and, if appropriate, State and 
     local governments and nongovernmental entities, relative to 
     detecting, preventing, and responding to such terrorist 
     attacks; and
       (3) submit to the President and Congress such reports as 
     are required by this title containing such findings, 
     conclusions, and recommendations as the Commission shall 
     determine, including proposing organization, coordination, 
     planning, management arrangements, procedures, rules, and 
     regulations.
       (b) Relationship to Intelligence Committees' Inquiry.--When 
     investigating facts and circumstances relating to the 
     intelligence community, the Commission shall--
       (1) first review the information compiled by, and the 
     findings, conclusions, and recommendations of, the Joint 
     Inquiry; and
       (2) after that review pursue any appropriate area of 
     inquiry if the Commission determines that--
       (A) the Joint Inquiry had not investigated that area;
       (B) the Joint Inquiry's investigation of that area had not 
     been complete; or
       (C) new information not reviewed by the Joint Inquiry had 
     become available with respect to that area.

     SEC. 1805. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Hearings and evidence.--The Commission or, on the 
     authority of the Commission, any subcommittee or member 
     thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out this title--
       (A) hold such hearings and sit and act at such times and 
     places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, 
     administer such oaths; and
       (B) subject to paragraph (2)(A), require, by subpoena or 
     otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and 
     the production of such books, records, correspondence, 
     memoranda, papers, and documents,
     as the Commission or such designated subcommittee or 
     designated member may determine advisable.
       (2) Subpoenas.--
       (A) Issuance.--
       (i) In general.--A subpoena may be issued under this 
     subsection only upon--

       (I) the agreement of the co-chairpersons; or
       (II) the affirmative vote of 5 members of the Commission.

       (ii) Signature.--Subject to clause (i), subpoenas issued 
     under paragraph (1)(B) may be issued under the signature of 
     either co-chairperson or both co-chairpersons of the 
     Commission, the chairperson of any subcommittee created by a 
     majority of the Commission, or any member designated by a 
     majority of the Commission, and may be

[[Page H8719]]

     served by any person designated by the co-chairperson, 
     subcommittee chairperson, or member.
       (B) Enforcement.--
       (i) In general.--In the case of contumacy or failure to 
     obey a subpoena issued under paragraph (1)(B), the United 
     States district court for the judicial district in which the 
     subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found, or 
     where the subpoena is returnable, may issue an order 
     requiring such person to appear at any designated place to 
     testify or to produce documentary or other evidence. Any 
     failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the 
     court as a contempt of that court.
       (ii) Additional enforcement.--In the case of any failure of 
     any witness to comply with any subpoena or to testify when 
     summoned under authority of this section, the Commission may, 
     by majority vote, certify a statement of fact constituting 
     such failure to the appropriate United States attorney, who 
     may bring the matter before the grand jury for its action, 
     under the same statutory authority and procedures as if the 
     United States attorney had received a certification under 
     sections 102 through 104 of the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States (2 U.S.C. 192 through 194).
       (b) Contracting.--The Commission may, to such extent and in 
     such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter 
     into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its 
     duties under this title.
       (c) Information From Federal Agencies.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission is authorized to secure 
     directly from any executive department, bureau, agency, 
     board, commission, office, independent establishment, or 
     instrumentality of the Government information, suggestions, 
     estimates, and statistics for the purposes of this title. 
     Each department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, 
     independent establishment, or instrumentality shall, to the 
     extent authorized by law, furnish such information, 
     suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the 
     Commission, upon request made by either co-chairperson, the 
     chairperson of any subcommittee created by a majority of the 
     Commission, or any member designated by a majority of the 
     Commission.
       (2) Receipt, handling, storage, and dissemination.--
     Information shall only be received, handled, stored, and 
     disseminated by members of the Commission and its staff 
     consistent with all applicable statutes, regulations, and 
     Executive Orders.
       (d) Assistance From Federal Agencies.--
       (1) General services administration.--The Administrator of 
     General Services shall provide to the Commission on a 
     reimbursable basis administrative support and other services 
     for the performance of the Commission's functions.
       (2) Other departments and agencies.--In addition to the 
     assistance prescribed in paragraph (1), departments and 
     agencies of the United States may provide to the Commission 
     such services, funds, facilities, staff, and other support 
     services as they may determine advisable and as may be 
     authorized by law.
       (e) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property.
       (f) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as departments and agencies of the United States.

     SEC. 1806. NONAPPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 
                   ACT.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
     U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Commission.
       (b) Public Meetings and Release of Public Versions of 
     Reports.--The Commission shall--
       (1) hold public hearings and meetings to the greatest 
     extent feasible; and
       (2) release public versions of the reports required under 
     section 1810 (a) and (b).
       (c) Public Hearings.--Any public hearings of the Commission 
     shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the protection 
     of information provided to or developed for or by the 
     Commission as required by any applicable statute, regulation, 
     or Executive Order.

     SEC. 1807. STAFF OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Appointment and compensation.--The co-chairpersons, in 
     accordance with rules agreed upon by the Commission, may 
     appoint and fix the compensation of a staff director and such 
     other personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission 
     to carry out its functions, without regard to the provisions 
     of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the 
     competitive service, and without regard to the provisions of 
     chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title 
     relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, 
     except that no rate of pay fixed under this subsection may 
     exceed the equivalent of that payable for a position at level 
     V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (2) Personnel as federal employees.--
       (A) In general.--The executive director and any personnel 
     of the Commission who are employees shall be employees under 
     section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of 
     chapters 63, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, and 90 of that title.
       (B) Members of commission.--Subparagraph (A) shall not be 
     construed to apply to members of the Commission.
       (b) Detailees.--Any Federal Government employee may be 
     detailed to the Commission without reimbursement from the 
     Commission, and such detailee shall retain the rights, 
     status, and privileges of his or her regular employment 
     without interruption.
       (c) Consultant Services.--The Commission is authorized to 
     procure the services of experts and consultants in accordance 
     with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at 
     rates not to exceed the daily rate paid a person occupying a 
     position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5315 of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 1808. COMPENSATION AND TRAVEL EXPENSES.

       (a) Compensation.--Each member of the Commission may be 
     compensated at not to exceed the daily equivalent of the 
     annual rate of basic pay in effect for a position at level IV 
     of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, 
     United States Code, for each day during which that member is 
     engaged in the actual performance of the duties of the 
     Commission.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--While away from their homes or 
     regular places of business in the performance of services for 
     the Commission, members of the Commission shall be allowed 
     travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, 
     in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the 
     Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703(b) 
     of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 1809. SECURITY CLEARANCES FOR COMMISSION MEMBERS AND 
                   STAFF.

       The appropriate executive departments and agencies shall 
     cooperate with the Commission in expeditiously providing to 
     the Commission members and staff appropriate security 
     clearances in a manner consistent with existing procedures 
     and requirements, except that no person shall be provided 
     with access to classified information under this section who 
     would not otherwise qualify for such security clearance.

     SEC. 1810. REPORTS OF THE COMMISSION; TERMINATION.

       (a) Interim Reports.--The Commission may submit to the 
     President and Congress interim reports containing such 
     findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective 
     measures as have been agreed to by a majority of Commission 
     members.
       (b) Final Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     the first meeting of the Commission, the Commission shall 
     submit to the President and Congress a final report 
     containing such findings, conclusions, and recommendations 
     for corrective measures as have been agreed to by a majority 
     of Commission members.
       (c) Termination.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission, and all the authorities of 
     this title, shall terminate 60 days after the date on which 
     the final report is submitted under subsection (b).
       (2) Administrative activities before termination.--The 
     Commission may use the 60-day period referred to in paragraph 
     (1) for the purpose of concluding its activities, including 
     providing testimony to committees of Congress concerning its 
     reports and disseminating the final report.

     SEC. 1811. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Commission 
     to carry out this title $3,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

  Mr. ROEMER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to 
recommit.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, before I explain what my motion is, I see on 
the other side of the aisle, on the Republican side, somebody that 
served on the Committee on Education and the Workforce with me, and 
someone who has decided to step down after serving the country so well 
through his years, and has managed one of his final bills here.
  I would just like to recognize the contributions of the majority 
leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), and salute him for his 
service to the body.
  Mr. Speaker, oftentimes motions to recommit are both partisan and 
procedural. This motion is neither one. It is not partisan in that it 
is a reflection actually of the substance of a bipartisan agreement 
arrived at by members of the intelligence committees in both Chambers, 
on both sides of the aisle. It is not only bipartisan, it is 
substantive in what it tries to achieve: to create an independent 
commission to respond to the national and the international tragedy of 
2,900 and 4,800 people dead with the terrorist attack on September 11.
  Why on this bill would we offer an independent committee, an 
independent blue ribbon commission to

[[Page H8720]]

look at answers as to why this tragic attack was perpetrated upon this 
country, and how to prevent future attacks? Why on homeland security?
  Well, we passed the defense appropriations bill. In that bill we 
increased funding, and we have a plan for fighting terrorism in 
Afghanistan and around the world. When we are going to have a Homeland 
Security Department, as this bill lays out, we need to make sure that 
we understand how and why the September 11 tragedy took place, and to 
put all our resources together with the very best people that we can 
get to serve on this commission, Democrats and Republicans, to protect 
this country from future attacks and to make sure 2,900 people, 290 
people, or 29 people do not die in another attack on this great Nation.
  So this is not procedural, this is not partisan; this is an 
independent commission put forward by people such as Senator Shelby, 
Senator McCain, and Senator Lieberman. It is reflective of a vote that 
took place in this body on the intelligence authorization bill, that 
passed this body, and one that passed the Senate with a 90 to 8 vote.
  I think it is critically important that as we have reacted to attacks 
like Pearl Harbor on this great Nation, and it took us not 11 months to 
react to it but 11 days for President Roosevelt to say that we need to 
get to the facts and we need to find the answers, we do not need 
political witch-hunts or fingerpointing, we need to protect this 
country from any other kind of attack. That is what this independent 
blue ribbon commission would set forward. So it is bipartisan and it is 
substantive. It is on the right vehicle, the homeland security vehicle.
  I may hear from somebody who opposes this that it would delay the 
creation of this Homeland Security Department, that the President wants 
and needs this bill to create this. It is a high priority of his.
  I highly respect the President and his priorities, and respect the 
White House for their hard work on this bill. But I also say that this 
needs to be done and it needs to be done now. It needs to be done 
because we are at the end of the session, in the last few hours of 
this, the body's deliberative policymaking, and it needs to be done in 
a bipartisan way.
  Mr. Speaker, when we read the headlines today in the papers and we 
read in the New York Times and the Post and the South Bend Tribune from 
my hometown that Osama bin Laden is going to attack, and he is 
applauding the attacks in Bali and Tunisia and Yemen and the killing of 
American soldiers, and he is prodding them to attack again, we need to 
act now. We need to pass with bipartisan votes this recommittal motion.
  It is a forthwith recommittal. It would not send the motion back to 
the committee, it would come right back to the floor and stay on the 
floor. It will not delay one second this homeland security bill.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Armey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) for raising this subject. The gentleman is correct, this motion 
to recommit is not procedure, it is not partisan; it is substantive, 
and it is important. I want to appreciate the gentleman for his 
interest and his commitment to this subject.
  Why, then, Mr. Speaker, would I ask that we oppose the gentleman's 
motion? In all due respect to the gentleman's work, his commitment, and 
his fervor for the subject, all of which I applaud, I think we need to 
recognize that we had such language in the bill and we took it out. Why 
would we do that? Because we felt that it was not comprehensive enough 
to do exactly the job the gentleman from Indiana says is important, and 
we believed it could be properly structured. That work will be done.
  The gentleman says it must be done now. More importantly, I would say 
that it must be done correctly. The negotiations between very important 
and well-informed members of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, whose work is to be applauded here, and the White House 
and others will go on; so it will be done. Let me encourage the 
gentleman to know that.
  We have done our job here. We will do this kind of a review. It will 
all be done right and it will be done thoroughly and it will be done 
soon. But doing it soon is better than doing it now.
  I want to thank again the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). He is 
so correct in encouraging us to get this job done, get it done as 
quickly as possible, and get it done right. We must understand and we 
must care and we must, for the sake of all of our Nation, prevent any 
atrocities like that in the future.
  So if I may, Mr. Speaker, close, again with my most sincere 
appreciation for the gentleman from Indiana, with respect for what he 
proposes and assurance that the gentleman's objectives will be 
fulfilled, and fulfilled soon, and ask that the body at this time, for 
this moment, reject this motion to recommit and move this other larger 
work forward.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, we need to pass an Intelligence Authorization 
bill before the year is over. If we don't, our nation's intelligence 
community will not be able to take advantage of the much-needed 
increases in funding that we in Congress have appropriated for them. At 
this time in our Nation's history, when we face so many threats, we 
simply can't allow that.
  But we need to pass an intelligence authorization bill that addresses 
all of the challenges we face. That means including the provision so 
many of us support for an independent commission to investigate the 911 
terrorist attacks.
  Many of my constituents lost their loved ones in the World Trade 
Center attacks. I am here on the floor today because widows like Lori 
Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, and Patty Casazza from central New Jersey 
do not want other Americans to share the fate of their husbands. They 
want our government to ensure that it is doing absolutely everything it 
can to prevent future terrorist attacks from claiming American lives.
  The Administration keeps telling the public that another terrorist 
attack is inevitable. They say it is not whether another attack will 
happen, but when it will happen. Another attack is only inevitable if 
we do not fully examine what went wrong prior to 911. It is only 
inevitable if we do not learn from our mistakes.
  All of us want to improve coordination and communication between the 
government agencies that are responsible for our security. We want to 
streamline and integrate their functions. We want to reform how they 
provide for our security and we want to do it in a systematic and 
scientific fashion. But we cannot begin fixing things until we know 
exactly what is broken.
  When a reasonable person gets sick, he goes to the doctor to get a 
diagnosis. He does not try to treat himself. When a patient tries to 
heal himself sometimes all he does is makes things even worse. That's 
why Congressional oversight committees are not enough to fix our 
security apparatus.
  Both Republicans and Democrats support an independent commission 
because we do not believe that agencies like the FBI and CIA are 
capable of healing themselves. We believe that they need an independent 
commission of experts who will dispassionately and honestly diagnose 
their problems and prescribe the proper treatment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage. This will be a 15-minute vote on the motion to 
recommit followed by a 5-minute vote on passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 203, 
nays 215, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 476]

                               YEAS--203

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)

[[Page H8721]]


     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--215

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Blagojevich
     Borski
     Condit
     Frank
     Hooley
     Houghton
     John
     McKinney
     Morella
     Rangel
     Roukema
     Shadegg
     Stump

                              {time}  2018

  Mr. SAXTON changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. MASCARA, HILLIARD, and DOGGETT changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 299, 
nays 121, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 477]

                               YEAS--299

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moore
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--121

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern

[[Page H8722]]


     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Rahall
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Blagojevich
     Borski
     Condit
     Frank
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Morella
     Rangel
     Roukema
     Rush
     Stump

                              {time}  2030

  Messrs. ROTHMAN, ROYCE, and BACA changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________





Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here: