The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“NATIONAL LABORATORIES MEAN NATIONAL SECURITY ACT” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H8196-H8198 on Dec. 1, 2014.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
{time} 1730
NATIONAL LABORATORIES MEAN NATIONAL SECURITY ACT
Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3438) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize use of grants under the Urban Area Security Initiative and the State Homeland Security Grant Program to work in conjunction with a Department of Energy national laboratory.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3438
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 ``National Laboratories Mean National Security Act''.
SEC. 2. USE OF HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT FUNDS IN CONJUNCTION
WITH DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL
LABORATORIES.
Section 2008(a) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 609(a)) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph
(1) by inserting ``including by working in conjunction with a National Laboratory (as defined in section 2(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15801(3)),'' after ``plans,''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Indiana.
General Leave
Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill simply clarifies that State and local governments and emergency management officials may use existing FEMA State Homeland Security Grant Program and Urban Area Security Initiative funds, known as UASI, to work with a national lab or research facility.
H.R. 3438 amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 by inserting a clarification into the ``allowable use'' section of the Homeland Security Grant Program Title. Providing this clarification will allow these State and local first responders to leverage the expertise at national labs, should they choose to do so.
This is a simple, good government measure that will help maximize the use of limited Federal grant dollars.
This bill will allow State and local officials to cut through FEMA's red tape, which makes it harder for first responders to work with Federal national labs and make the best decisions for their homeland security needs. This bill will eliminate hoops that State and local grant recipients have had to go through in order to gain access to this expertise.
H.R. 3438 is a commonsense, bipartisan bill. It is similar to a bill sponsored by former Congressman Dan Lungren in the 112th Congress, which passed the House by voice vote.
I want to thank my colleague from California (Mr. Swalwell) for continuing to work on this issue, and I urge passage of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 3438, the National Laboratories Mean National Security Act, legislation that I have introduced that would expand the way in which national laboratories can help protect our homeland.
I want to thank the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. McCaul, and the ranking member, Mr. Thompson, for allowing this bipartisan bill to move to the floor.
I also want to thank my colleague on the committee, a fellow freshman, Mrs. Brooks, for working with me on this bill. Mrs. Brooks, I understand, is leaving the committee and will be going to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. We are going to miss her.
I have enjoyed working with you also as a fellow prosecutor and as someone who has been an active participant in the United Solutions Caucus, trying to find ways that freshmen, Republican and Democrat, can work together.
We are fortunate in this country to have a system of Department of Energy national laboratories, at which some of the brightest scientists in our country can work on some of the most complex issues of our time.
They are keeping our national nuclear defense secure, advancing clean energy sources, and changing ways to protect us from the threat of chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear terrorist attacks. Now it is time to make sure that we maximize the way that our national laboratories and the gifted minds who work there can protect and secure the homeland.
I am honored to represent two of these national laboratories, Lawrence Livermore and Sandia National Laboratories, and I look forward to representing them again in the 114th Congress.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the thousands of employees at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, and our laboratories across the country for their commitment to country and their faithfulness to science and advancing human progress.
Lawrence Livermore, Sandia, and the remaining DOE labs are truly unique institutions. One part of their uniqueness is their operating structure. This structure has caused an issue, and that is what this bill is designed to fix. It is to maximize and utilize the national laboratories in every way possible to keep us safe and secure at home.
Now, to maximize efficiency and agility at our national laboratories, almost all the laboratories are what is called government-owned, contractor-operated--GOCO. While the Federal government owns the labs, they are operated by private sector organizations. Only one is government-owned and government-operated.
Here is the issue. The Department of Homeland Security issues millions of dollars in grants every year to State and local agencies.
Some State and local homeland security grant recipients have expressed uncertainty about whether or not they can work with Department of Energy national laboratories on homeland security issues with these grant funding sources.
As Members know, FEMA offers grant programs, like the Urban Area Security Initiative, to help States, local governments, and other public servant entities to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks.
In fact, in my district, the Alameda County Sheriff's Office, led by Sheriff Greg Ahern, uses this grant, the UASI grant, to support Urban Shield, which is a comprehensive, region-wide preparedness exercise that prepares first responders in the case of a natural or manmade disaster.
The confusion for some recipients may have been caused by the fact that they believe that they cannot use government-owned, contractor-
operated laboratories with Federal funds. FEMA may have been under a similar impression or been unclear to recipients on this point as well.
These concerns are misplaced. There is no prohibition against using these funds. My bill will make sure, once and for all, that we use and we fully maximize our national laboratories and make sure that every recipient knows these dollars can be used there.
My bill would clarify the issue by explicitly including in law DOE national labs as entities with which FEMA homeland security grant recipients could work.
Providing this clarification would allow our DOE national labs to fully use their knowledge and experience to improve our homeland security. For example, at Sandia National Laboratories, they are providing modeling and simulations to help jurisdictions develop threat hazard identification risk assessments.
Lawrence Livermore houses the National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center, which provides tools that help us predict and map how chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats might spread in the atmosphere.
H.R. 3438 is an important clarification in the law which will allow our scientists at Sandia, Lawrence Livermore, and across the country to more fully contribute to homeland security.
As Mrs. Brooks pointed out, it is also a bipartisan idea, and it is a measure that was sponsored by former Republican Congressman and former prosecutor Dan Lungren, so I think it is fitting that it takes two prosecutors to bring it back to the floor here today to fix this. It passed in the last Congress by a voice vote.
Some of the best and brightest minds in the world are toiling away right now at our national laboratories. Today, let's make sure that nothing stands in the way of maximizing these public servants' ability to keep our country safe.
I urge all Members to support H.R. 3438.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill, and I too want to thank my colleague from California for picking up the torch that Congressman Lungren started that will permit this very important security coordination between our first responders, who work day in and day out on our behalf, and the national labs.
As the Congressman from California has so eloquently stated, they have such incredible scientific expertise that needs to be shared with our first responders, and there is much good that can come from the passage of this bill.
While FEMA is very careful in the manner in which it administers its grant dollars, we believe that this is one of those commonsense pieces of legislation that will make it much more efficient to allow those first responders to gain the incredible knowledge from our national labs, and so I urge its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3438.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________
