Date: 2005-05-18
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Once again. I want to thank both the gentleman from Mississippi . the ranking member. and the chairman of our committee for the fine work they did in producing the bipartisan base bill. but I rise in opposition to the ranking members substitute amendment. This 221page substitute amendment offered in the nature of a substitute to the 40some page base bill that we have is obviously more extensive than what was presented on the floor. and the explanation has been presented on both sides as to why this is the case. However. I would like to refer specifically to the commefnts of the gentleman from Maryland about the additional cost involved in the substitute. nearly $7 billion. The American people have told us they do want us to do what is necessary for homeland security. but they have also said they want us to spend our money wisely. Press reports. as well as our own examination. has shown that there is in the pipeline in homeland security approximately $7 billion that is unspent. The answer is not to come in here and. therefore. increase the base bill by $7 billion. which is $7 billion over the Presidents budget. $7 billion over the Housepassed badge budget. which. therefore. somehow tries to make a statement that more money spent is obviously going to make us safer. We need to mike sure that the Department of Homeland Security is setting the priorities that are necessary. is spending the money in the appropriate ways and answers the question why money is stuck in the pipeline. I would suggest the way to do that is not to give them an additional $7 billion somehow as some sort of attraction for them to tell us how they have not spent that $7 billion. that extra $7 billion that is out there. Let me just say that the provisions in this substitute constitute sweeping changes. sweeping comprehensive changes in the responsibility. mission and funding for the Department over and above what our bipartisan committee presented in the base bill. Such changes cannot be made. I would suggest. in this type of setting without full debate. certainly more than 49 minutes. and consideration of a possible alternatives and consequences. There are important questions here. How do we provide security in the area of the chemical industry? The chemical security portion of this amendment requires broad and sweeping regulation of the chemical industry by the Department of Homeland Security. Maybe that is appropriate. maybe it is not. I do not think we have the basis to make a judgment on this. I would also suggest it is counterproductive to improving our chemical- infrastructure security. It. vlaces unnecessary burdens on potentially thousands of sites that may or may not be the sites at risk that we should be focusing on. Again. it is a question of priority. It ignores the concept of examining high risk to effectively target our security resources. One of the things I thought we had done as a bipartisan committee was come to the conclusion that we really have to be very careful and demand that we set proper priorities. that we cannot go out and try and protect everything. we have to protect those things that are most vulnerable. those things that have the greatest threat. those things that have the worst consequences. I would suggest that this substitute does not do that. I thank the gentleman for the time that he extended to me.