[Congressional Record: July 29, 2008 (House)]
[Page H7191-H7192]
PERSONNEL REIMBURSEMENT FOR INTELLIGENCE COOPERATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY ACT
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 6098) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to improve
the financial assistance provided to State, local, and tribal
governments for information sharing activities, and for other purposes,
as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6098
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Personnel Reimbursement for
Intelligence Cooperation and Enhancement of Homeland Security
Act'' or the ``PRICE of Homeland Security Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001,
State, local, and tribal governments redoubled their efforts
to combat terrorism and expended tremendous energy and
financial resources to help the Federal Government fight the
terrorist threat.
(2) States and localities have formed fusion centers, hired
intelligence analysts, and contributed a significant amount
of resources to the expansion of Federal homeland security
efforts.
(3) These actions, in conjunction with the efforts of the
Federal Government and private industry, have materially
contributed to the common defense of this Nation and have
helped keep our homeland secure.
(4) The National Strategy for Information Sharing issued by
the President in October 2007 plainly states that ``The
Federal Government may need to provide financial and
technical assistance, as well as human resource support, to
these fusion centers if they are to achieve and sustain a
baseline level of capability. The objective is to assist
State and local governments in the establishment and the
sustained operation of these fusion centers. A sustained
Federal partnership with State and major urban area fusion
centers is critical to the safety of our Nation, and
therefore a national priority.''.
(5) The Federal Government has endeavored to support these
State efforts through the State Homeland Security Grant
Program and other methods of Federal assistance but have
placed restrictions on the use of these funds that make long-
term planning for fusion centers unmanageable.
(6) It is vital to the security of our homeland that States
and localities are able to continue to receive funding for
the participation of State and local analysts in fusion
centers and in their State and local efforts to combat
terrorism and terrorist-related activities.
SEC. 3. GRANT ELIGIBILITY FOR ANALYSTS.
Section 2008(a) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 609(a)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking
``Grants'' and all that follows through ``plans, through''
and inserting the following: ``The Administrator shall permit
grant recipients under section 2003 or 2004 to use grant
funds to achieve and sustain target capabilities related to
preventing, preparing for, protecting against, and responding
to acts of terrorism, consistent with a State homeland
security plan and relevant local, tribal, and regional
homeland security plans, through''; and
(2) in paragraph (10) by inserting the following after
``analysts'': ``regardless of whether such analysts are
current or new full-time employees or contract employees and
such funding shall be made available without time limitations
placed on the period of time that such analyst can serve
under awarded grants.''.
SEC. 4. USE OF FUNDS FOR PERSONNEL AND OPERATIONAL COSTS.
Section 2008(b)(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 609(b)(2)) is amended by striking so much as precedes
subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:
``(2) Personnel and operational costs.--
``(A) In general.--The recipient of a grant under section
2003 or 2004 may, at the recipient's discretion, use up to 50
percent of the amount of the grant awarded for any fiscal
year to pay for personnel and operational costs, including
overtime and backfill costs, in support of the uses
authorized under subsection (a).''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis)
will each control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague and the ranking member of our Subcommittee
on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment
Dave Reichert, introduced H.R. 6098 earlier this year, and it was
reported unanimously out of our subcommittee and the full committee.
I have to express my personal disappointment that Mr. Reichert is not
here for this debate. I know that this is a subject he is passionate
about, as am I, as are the first responders, so-called ``first
preventers'' who will benefit enormously by its passage.
At issue, Mr. Speaker, is how DHS grant recipients can spend their
money when it comes to hiring and retaining intelligence analysts at
the State and local levels.
In the 9/11 Act, we were clear, grant recipients could use up to 50
percent of their State Homeland Security Grant Program and Urban Area
Security Initiative funding for personnel costs, without time
limitations.
The Department of Homeland Security, however, had other ideas.
Instead of following the law, it capped allowable personnel costs far
below the 50 percent threshold, and it imposed a 2-year limit on how
long States could employ intelligence analysts hired with Federal
dollars. This has had the absurd result of States and localities firing
analysts after 2 years, just to continue to qualify for DHS funding.
Think about this. Someone works for you, is providing excellent,
accurate and actionable intelligence analysis that will help us track
and prevent the next set of threats, and that person gets fired only
because he or she has to be fired in order for money to continue to
flow. This makes absolutely no sense.
DHS' approach, likewise, undermines the culture of constitutionality
that Congress intended to foster at fusion centers in the 9/11 Act.
Many States and localities want to use DHS grant funds to hire and
retain analysts at those centers, which are increasingly becoming the
linchpin for information sharing with the Federal Government. To
sustain this effort, however, State and locals need money to pay for
staff overtime to make fusion centers work, something both Congress and
the President, in his National Strategy For Information Sharing,
strongly support.
But, Mr. Speaker, the Department's grant guidance ignores this, just
as it ignores the stringent privacy and civil liberties training
requirements that are the centerpiece of the 9/11 Act's funding
provision. By forcing States and localities to fire staff every 2 years
in order to access Federal funds, DHS is effectively preventing the
``culture of constitutionality'' from taking root.
When privacy and civil liberties best practices have no time to
develop, abuses, like the Maryland State Police's apparent spying on
peace protestors and death penalty opponents, are the inevitable
result.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6098 fixes these problems by giving States and
localities the flexibility they need to hire and retain the staff to
keep our communities safe. That is why the bill has been cosponsored by
both Democrats and Republicans, and that is why it was approved on a
unanimous basis by both our subcommittee and the full Homeland Security
Committee last month.
Mr. Speaker, fusion centers, done the right way, are essential for
Homeland Security.
I therefore urge passage of this critically important legislation,
and reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H7192]]
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6098, the
Personnel Reimbursement for Intelligence Cooperation and Enhancement of
Homeland Security Act, sponsored by a great Member, again, another
great Member that I am fortunate to serve with on the Homeland Security
Committee, Congressman Dave Reichert.
This bill, which I have cosponsored, would clarify that grant
recipients under the State Homeland Security Grant Program, and the
Urban Area Security Initiative, can use grant funding to help pay for
analysts at State and local fusion centers.
This clarification is critically important because some of these
fusion centers have had to limit their operations and some may have to
cease operations altogether because of unnecessary restrictions on
Federal funding, despite the intent of the 9/11 bill that became law
last year.
Congressman Reichert's bill wisely updates current law to make clear
that UASI and SHSGP funding can be used to hire and retain these
intelligence analysts without a limitation on how long grants can be
used for this purpose.
This bill also would allow grant recipients to use up to 50 percent
of their annual grant award for personnel and operational costs,
including overtime.
Mr. Speaker, state and local fusion centers play an important role in
filling gaps in information sharing with the Federal Government and
facilitating the dissemination of critical information to States and
localities.
I encourage all of our colleagues to help these centers maximize our
ability to detect, prevent and respond to criminal and terrorist
activity by supporting H.R. 6098.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers on our side. I
am prepared to close debate once the minority has closed.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this bill, as I stated
earlier.
I yield back.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, we have just debated eight bills that come
out of the Homeland Security Committee. I think that is a pretty good
work product. As I mentioned earlier, four of them, those managed by
the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Thompson, I think, are
excellent policy. They come from a variety of subcommittees. And I want
to thank him again, ranking member King and the superb bipartisan staff
that has helped move us along. I urge their passage by this House.
The four bills that I have just managed, and that we debated earlier,
one of which, hopefully will reduce the pernicious practice of
overclassification and selective declassification, a second, which will
reduce the ability to put sensitive but unclassified markings on
documents, a third which will promote the dissemination of open source
information by the Department of Homeland Security, and the fourth,
which will end the absurd practice of having to fire people in order to
continue to receive Federal funds, all go in one direction. And what is
that direction? That direction is to help our first preventers, police
and fire services, who know our neighborhoods best, to get critical
information in real time about what to look for and what to do.
{time} 1345
Without critical information in real time, the cop on the beat could
unfortunately miss the plot that is being pursued in the house right in
front of him because he or she doesn't know what to look for and what
to do.
Each of these bills is designed to get information which the Federal
Government may have or which may appear in open source materials to
that first preventer in real time. And each of these bills also is
designed to reduce and hopefully eliminate the excuses that can cause a
Federal bureaucrat to decide that to protect his turf or her turf or to
protect himself or herself from embarrassment, to say ``Oh, I will just
mark this document `classified' or I will just put an SBU marking on
this document and that way the person next door won't get to see it.''
Well, Mr. Speaker, that's the wrong impulse, it's the wrong signal,
and with passage of these bills, we send a strong message; and more
than that, a strong requirement to the Department of Homeland Security
that at least the people who work there cannot, any longer, use or
abuse the classification and SBU systems in order to protect
themselves.
I'm hopeful that later this afternoon as we debate some additional
bills on the suspension calendar, one of the things we will do is to
use this principle of limiting the categories for ``sensitive but
unclassified'' and take it government-wide. That is legislation that,
as I mentioned, has been reported by the Oversight and Government
Reform Committee, and I believe that will be before us shortly.
I want to say that I endorse that idea. I think it makes sense to
reduce the SBU categories across the government. I think we can make
DHS the gold standard, but hopefully every department of government
that can use those stamps to prevent necessary information from being
shared will get the same strong message.
Let me finally say, as one of the co-authors of the Intelligence
Reform bill of 2004, that we recognized, when we enacted that bill,
that what has been called a ``need-to-know'' culture that has created
stovepipes, so-called stovepipes in our government, had to be changed
to a ``need-to-share'' culture if we were ever going to be able to
connect the dots to prevent the next attack.
Changing a culture from ``need to know'' to ``need to share'' is a
very difficult thing to do, but a piece of that is breaking down the
ways that individuals prevent information from moving off their desks
to the person at the next desk.
And with passage of the four bills we have just debated, I think we
send the strongest possible signal. And with passage of legislation
that Mr. Waxman, I believe, is going to offer strongly, we continue to
send that signal out across the government.
So Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the Reichert bill that we have just
debated. I urge passage of the four bills that I have been managing
during the last hour or so. I call for an ``aye'' vote on the
legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6098, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________
[Congressional Record: July 29, 2008 (House)]
[Page H7267]
PERSONNEL REIMBURSEMENT FOR INTELLIGENCE COOPERATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 6098, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6098, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
