Secure Nuclear Facilities Act of 2006

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my friend and colleague, Senator Lieberman, in introducing a bill that addresses an urgent challenge facing our Nation: the need to ensure a strong and effective capability to deal with natural and manmade disasters, whether they are hurricanes and ice storms or terrorist attacks and pandemic diseases.

The U.S. Emergency Management Authority Act is intended to remedy many of the glaring deficiencies that we all saw in the preparation and response to Hurricane Katrina. The U.S.-EMA bill reflects the evidence that the Senate Homeland Security Committee examined during the course of an exhaustive and bipartisan 7-month investigation. The committee convened 22 hearings, heard testimony from 85 witnesses, conducted more than 325 formal interviews, and examined more than 838,000 pages of documents.

The result is a 737-page report that contains 88 recommendations for improving our emergency management system at all levels of government.

Our legislation is an important first step toward implementing the committee's major recommendations for reforming FEMA. We will, as my colleague, Senator Lieberman, indicated, be introducing subsequent legislation to implement other recommendations.

The four key features of the bill that we introduce today will, first, give the new authority statutory protection against actions that could diminish its capabilities and effectiveness, such as departmental reorganizations; second, ensure that the administrator of U.S.-EMA has direct access to the President; third, reunite preparedness functions with response capabilities while expanding U.S.-EMA's authority over other key functions; and fourth, strengthen the authority's regional focus with Federal strike teams for faster, more coordinated and effective responses.

Senator Lieberman and I strongly believe that the best way to achieve the goal of improving the Federal Government's ability to protect American citizens from disaster, to mitigate the impacts, and to promote recovery is to strengthen and expand the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which we have proposed to rename the U.S. Emergency Management Authority. As we saw so starkly and so tragically demonstrated last year, FEMA simply must be made far more effective.

We believe FEMA needs special status within the Department of Homeland Security. Our bill would extend to the reconstituted FEMA the same kinds of statutory protections against departmental reorganizations and raids on resources that currently shield the Coast Guard and the Secret Service. I acknowledge the critical role played by the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, in helping us draft this portion of the bill.

FEMA would also require more regional focus and closer coordination with local State entities, as well as with our nongovernmental partners. They are the first line of response in a disaster. Our legislation bolsters the role of FEMA's regional centers by authorizing the creation of multiagency strike teams to ensure rapid and effective cooperation with first responders and public officials in disaster areas. These strike teams would comprise representatives from all of the Federal agencies that play a role in responding to the disasters. They would train and exercise with their State and local counterparts.

I was struck by the fact that during our investigation, we learned that FEMA sent officials from region I--New England--down to help out in New Orleans. Often they were the lead officials. These were trained and dedicated people, but just think how much more effective they could have been if they had been stationed in the region and working regularly with the public officials in that region and with the first responders.

We believe FEMA needs top-level access and visibility. The administrator of the new U.S. Emergency Management Authority would be designated by our bill as the principal adviser to the President on matters of emergency management and would have direct access to the President. This would establish the administrator in a capacity that is analogous to that of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In addition, the administrator would be authorized to communicate any recommendations, any needs and requirements directly to Congress.

Our intention to keep the strengthened FEMA as part of DHS has stirred more debate than perhaps any other of our recommendations emerging from the Katrina investigation. Some Members of this Chamber, as well as proponents of a bill introduced in the House, insist that FEMA must be extracted from the Department of Homeland Security and restored to independent status. We share the view that the actions of both FEMA and DHS officials before and during the Katrina disaster revealed troubling and, at times, shocking lapses in awareness, agility, and judgment. But we also believe that both logic and practical realities point to reform, not amputation, as the best approach to improved protection for our citizens.

Please recall that it was only 5 years ago--before the 9/11 terror attacks--that the distinguished panel chaired by two of our former colleagues, Senator Hart and Senator Rudman, recommended that America establish a single agency to plan, coordinate, and integrate homeland security operations. The Commission correctly deduced that FEMA was the ``necessary core'' of that new department, and Congress agreed. The logic of that decision stands intact. The Department of Homeland Security's mission extends to all types of hazards and to preparation and mitigation as well as to response. DHS needs FEMA's capabilities and would have to re-create many of them at great cost and with great duplication of effort if FEMA were to be removed from the Department.

Even if that re-creation could somehow be done economically--and the evidence is that it would cost billions of dollars--the result would be new problems for State and local officials who direct first responders. Bifurcated, competing preparedness systems would force State and local officials to engage one system to prepare for natural disasters and another to prepare for terrorist attacks. That does not make sense. Many of the response capabilities are exactly the same whether the catastrophe is caused by a natural disaster such as a hurricane or whether it is the result of a terrorist attack. We know planning and response capabilities are already far too weak in many States. DHS's recent survey of the States proves that. We should not make the problem worse.

For those who argue that FEMA simply cannot thrive, cannot be successful within DHS, an obvious and telling question arises: How, then, did the U.S. Coast Guard, also a unit within DHS, emerge as the universally acclaimed hero of the Katrina response? Everyone believes the Coast Guard was the stellar performer, yet the Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security. So clearly FEMA's problem does not lie in its placement within DHS. Unlike FEMA, however, the Coast Guard has congressionally mandated protections, and our legislation would extend that exact same protection to FEMA's successor agency.

The temptation to think that the answer is simply to remove FEMA is

strong, but it is wrong. Just as not all motion is forward, not every change is progress. Emergency management expert Professor Donald Kettl of the University of Pennsylvania put it well when he told our committee:

It is tempting to send a strong signal by pulling FEMA out

of DHS. But that would only undermine its ability to

accomplish its mission. Breaking these pieces apart--

separating response to terrorism from response to natural

disasters, separating preparedness from response, separating

FEMA from DHS--would inevitably bring problems.

I would suggest these are just a few of the serious implications that severing FEMA from DHS would cause.

First, coordination and reaction time would suffer. David Paulison, the new Director of FEMA, says that he closely coordinates with the Coast Guard, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Border Patrol, and the Secret Service through weekly meetings. In times of disaster, he can simply make a request to these fellow DHS units; he doesn't have to go through a bureaucratic, formal process. They are all parts of the same department.

Second, training and preparedness would suffer. ADM Thad Allen of the Coast Guard testified before the committee that having FEMA within DHS has allowed much closer working ties and a 350-percent increase in joint training exercises.

Third, DHS's mission capability would suffer. The Homeland Security Act specifies that part of DHS's mission was to act as the focal point for natural and manmade emergencies and for emergency planning. As the Comptroller General has said:

Removing FEMA from DHS might impact the ability of the

department and its remaining components and FEMA itself in

fully addressing the close links between preparedness,

prevention, response, and recovery from all hazards.

Fourth, State and local governments would suffer. If preparedness functions for natural disasters and terrorist attacks were divided, State and local governments would have to deal with two primary points of contact, two sets of regulations, two sources of funding, and two sets of officials. It greatly complicates their tasks.

Fifth, I strongly believe that FEMA would suffer. Removed from DHS, FEMA would lose many of the working relationships I have already described as well as the direct access to the information-gathering and analysis capabilities of other DHS agencies. This would degrade FEMA's ability to plan and train for both natural and manmade disasters and to make efficient use of grant-making authority.

To me, it is clear that a strengthened--a much strengthened--FEMA still belongs in DHS, that the necessary reforms can be carried out while it remains in DHS, and that severing FEMA from DHS would create a host of new problems, resulting in considerable extra expense and duplication, without securing any significant benefits. It is worth noting that America's largest group of first responders has come to the same conclusion. The president of the 274,000-member International Association of Firefighters has written us to say:

Removing FEMA would hinder--rather than help--efforts to

reform our Nation's emergency response system. Having both a

DHS and an independent FEMA would create confusion among

local response personnel and lead to an unproductive

duplication of efforts and turf battles.

Having summarized what I see as compelling arguments for strengthening and protecting FEMA as a component of DHS, let me outline some of the key provisions of our U.S.-EMA bill.

First, the bill establishes a strong position for the Administrator of the U.S. Emergency Management Authority. Once nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, the Administrator will have the standing of a Deputy Secretary, and will operate on a reporting and chain of command model like that of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Day to day, the Administrator will report to the DHS Secretary, but the bill explicitly provides a direct line of communication between the President and the Administrator during a catastrophe. In addition, the Administrator may make whatever recommendations to Congress that he or she deems appropriate.

The bill provides for directors, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, to provide the Administrator with highly qualified professionals in Preparedness and Mitigation, Response, and Recovery. Apart from bolstering the organization, authorizing these posts would send a clear signal to the Nation's Governors and mayors that they will have people of stature with whom to work and confer.

Besides providing the Administrator of U.S.-EMA with an advisory link to the President, the bill specifically tasks the Administrator with providing the federal leadership necessary to prepare for and respond to a disaster, whether man-made or natural. It gives the Administrator responsibility for administering preparedness grant programs, and for monitoring and evaluating the readiness of each of the emergency support functions under the national response plan. These are critical steps for ensuring close cooperation and oversight of preparedness at all levels of government.

The bill specifies that U.S.-EMA is a distinct entity and protects it from reorganization without explicit Congressional approval. This gives U.S.-EMA security identical to that of the Coast Guard.

Another critical element of the bill authorizes a strong regional structure for U.S.-EMA and creates regionally based federal strike teams for rapid response. This will ensure that U.S.-EMA officials are familiar with the people, the vulnerabilities, and the resources of the regions they protect, and will not be introducing themselves to strangers on unfamiliar ground when disaster strikes.

Further recognizing the importance of mult-level government coordination, the bill creates a national advisory council on emergency preparedness and response--made up of State and local officials and emergency management professionals from public, private and NGO sectors--to advise the Administrator of U.S.-EMA.

Our bill provides a statutory basis for chief medical officer to advise the DHS Secretary on medical and public-health issues. Other sections promote public and community preparedness; evaluate the effectiveness of equipment for first responders; reauthorize and expand the emergency management assistance compact; and create an office of terrorism prevention at DHS.

Mr. President, the U.S. Emergency Management Authority Act is not a symbolic gesture, or a quick fix for our problems. It is a thoroughly researched, carefully drafted collection of reforms that will lay the foundation for years of hard work.

The result, we firmly believe, will be a significantly more effective national system of preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery against natural disasters and terror attacks. Building on the insights of the Hart-Rudman Commission and on the important advances embodied in the Homeland Security Act, the U.S.-EMA bill will greatly improve the protections that American citizens need, and deserve.

Mr. President, my statement has outlined the reforms we are making to this new agency. They are considerable. They are going to make a real difference, and I hope we can pass legislation before the end of this year to greatly strengthen and improve FEMA and our emergency response system and preparedness on all levels of government.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my friend and colleague, Senator Lieberman, in introducing a bill that addresses an urgent challenge facing our Nation: the need to ensure a strong and effective capability to deal with natural and manmade disasters, whether they are hurricanes and ice storms or terrorist attacks and pandemic diseases.

The U.S. Emergency Management Authority Act is intended to remedy many of the glaring deficiencies that we all saw in the preparation and response to Hurricane Katrina. The U.S.-EMA bill reflects the evidence that the Senate Homeland Security Committee examined during the course of an exhaustive and bipartisan 7-month investigation. The committee convened 22 hearings, heard testimony from 85 witnesses, conducted more than 325 formal interviews, and examined more than 838,000 pages of documents.

The result is a 737-page report that contains 88 recommendations for improving our emergency management system at all levels of government.

Our legislation is an important first step toward implementing the committee's major recommendations for reforming FEMA. We will, as my colleague, Senator Lieberman, indicated, be introducing subsequent legislation to implement other recommendations.

The four key features of the bill that we introduce today will, first, give the new authority statutory protection against actions that could diminish its capabilities and effectiveness, such as departmental reorganizations; second, ensure that the administrator of U.S.-EMA has direct access to the President; third, reunite preparedness functions with response capabilities while expanding U.S.-EMA's authority over other key functions; and fourth, strengthen the authority's regional focus with Federal strike teams for faster, more coordinated and effective responses.

Senator Lieberman and I strongly believe that the best way to achieve the goal of improving the Federal Government's ability to protect American citizens from disaster, to mitigate the impacts, and to promote recovery is to strengthen and expand the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which we have proposed to rename the U.S. Emergency Management Authority. As we saw so starkly and so tragically demonstrated last year, FEMA simply must be made far more effective.

We believe FEMA needs special status within the Department of Homeland Security. Our bill would extend to the reconstituted FEMA the same kinds of statutory protections against departmental reorganizations and raids on resources that currently shield the Coast Guard and the Secret Service. I acknowledge the critical role played by the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, in helping us draft this portion of the bill.

FEMA would also require more regional focus and closer coordination with local State entities, as well as with our nongovernmental partners. They are the first line of response in a disaster. Our legislation bolsters the role of FEMA's regional centers by authorizing the creation of multiagency strike teams to ensure rapid and effective cooperation with first responders and public officials in disaster areas. These strike teams would comprise representatives from all of the Federal agencies that play a role in responding to the disasters. They would train and exercise with their State and local counterparts.

I was struck by the fact that during our investigation, we learned that FEMA sent officials from region I--New England--down to help out in New Orleans. Often they were the lead officials. These were trained and dedicated people, but just think how much more effective they could have been if they had been stationed in the region and working regularly with the public officials in that region and with the first responders.

We believe FEMA needs top-level access and visibility. The administrator of the new U.S. Emergency Management Authority would be designated by our bill as the principal adviser to the President on matters of emergency management and would have direct access to the President. This would establish the administrator in a capacity that is analogous to that of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In addition, the administrator would be authorized to communicate any recommendations, any needs and requirements directly to Congress.

Our intention to keep the strengthened FEMA as part of DHS has stirred more debate than perhaps any other of our recommendations emerging from the Katrina investigation. Some Members of this Chamber, as well as proponents of a bill introduced in the House, insist that FEMA must be extracted from the Department of Homeland Security and restored to independent status. We share the view that the actions of both FEMA and DHS officials before and during the Katrina disaster revealed troubling and, at times, shocking lapses in awareness, agility, and judgment. But we also believe that both logic and practical realities point to reform, not amputation, as the best approach to improved protection for our citizens.

Please recall that it was only 5 years ago--before the 9/11 terror attacks--that the distinguished panel chaired by two of our former colleagues, Senator Hart and Senator Rudman, recommended that America establish a single agency to plan, coordinate, and integrate homeland security operations. The Commission correctly deduced that FEMA was the ``necessary core'' of that new department, and Congress agreed. The logic of that decision stands intact. The Department of Homeland Security's mission extends to all types of hazards and to preparation and mitigation as well as to response. DHS needs FEMA's capabilities and would have to re-create many of them at great cost and with great duplication of effort if FEMA were to be removed from the Department.

Even if that re-creation could somehow be done economically--and the evidence is that it would cost billions of dollars--the result would be new problems for State and local officials who direct first responders. Bifurcated, competing preparedness systems would force State and local officials to engage one system to prepare for natural disasters and another to prepare for terrorist attacks. That does not make sense. Many of the response capabilities are exactly the same whether the catastrophe is caused by a natural disaster such as a hurricane or whether it is the result of a terrorist attack. We know planning and response capabilities are already far too weak in many States. DHS's recent survey of the States proves that. We should not make the problem worse.

For those who argue that FEMA simply cannot thrive, cannot be successful within DHS, an obvious and telling question arises: How, then, did the U.S. Coast Guard, also a unit within DHS, emerge as the universally acclaimed hero of the Katrina response? Everyone believes the Coast Guard was the stellar performer, yet the Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security. So clearly FEMA's problem does not lie in its placement within DHS. Unlike FEMA, however, the Coast Guard has congressionally mandated protections, and our legislation would extend that exact same protection to FEMA's successor agency.

The temptation to think that the answer is simply to remove FEMA is

strong, but it is wrong. Just as not all motion is forward, not every change is progress. Emergency management expert Professor Donald Kettl of the University of Pennsylvania put it well when he told our committee:

It is tempting to send a strong signal by pulling FEMA out

of DHS. But that would only undermine its ability to

accomplish its mission. Breaking these pieces apart--

separating response to terrorism from response to natural

disasters, separating preparedness from response, separating

FEMA from DHS--would inevitably bring problems.

I would suggest these are just a few of the serious implications that severing FEMA from DHS would cause.

First, coordination and reaction time would suffer. David Paulison, the new Director of FEMA, says that he closely coordinates with the Coast Guard, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Border Patrol, and the Secret Service through weekly meetings. In times of disaster, he can simply make a request to these fellow DHS units; he doesn't have to go through a bureaucratic, formal process. They are all parts of the same department.

Second, training and preparedness would suffer. ADM Thad Allen of the Coast Guard testified before the committee that having FEMA within DHS has allowed much closer working ties and a 350-percent increase in joint training exercises.

Third, DHS's mission capability would suffer. The Homeland Security Act specifies that part of DHS's mission was to act as the focal point for natural and manmade emergencies and for emergency planning. As the Comptroller General has said:

Removing FEMA from DHS might impact the ability of the

department and its remaining components and FEMA itself in

fully addressing the close links between preparedness,

prevention, response, and recovery from all hazards.

Fourth, State and local governments would suffer. If preparedness functions for natural disasters and terrorist attacks were divided, State and local governments would have to deal with two primary points of contact, two sets of regulations, two sources of funding, and two sets of officials. It greatly complicates their tasks.

Fifth, I strongly believe that FEMA would suffer. Removed from DHS, FEMA would lose many of the working relationships I have already described as well as the direct access to the information-gathering and analysis capabilities of other DHS agencies. This would degrade FEMA's ability to plan and train for both natural and manmade disasters and to make efficient use of grant-making authority.

To me, it is clear that a strengthened--a much strengthened--FEMA still belongs in DHS, that the necessary reforms can be carried out while it remains in DHS, and that severing FEMA from DHS would create a host of new problems, resulting in considerable extra expense and duplication, without securing any significant benefits. It is worth noting that America's largest group of first responders has come to the same conclusion. The president of the 274,000-member International Association of Firefighters has written us to say:

Removing FEMA would hinder--rather than help--efforts to

reform our Nation's emergency response system. Having both a

DHS and an independent FEMA would create confusion among

local response personnel and lead to an unproductive

duplication of efforts and turf battles.

Having summarized what I see as compelling arguments for strengthening and protecting FEMA as a component of DHS, let me outline some of the key provisions of our U.S.-EMA bill.

First, the bill establishes a strong position for the Administrator of the U.S. Emergency Management Authority. Once nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, the Administrator will have the standing of a Deputy Secretary, and will operate on a reporting and chain of command model like that of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Day to day, the Administrator will report to the DHS Secretary, but the bill explicitly provides a direct line of communication between the President and the Administrator during a catastrophe. In addition, the Administrator may make whatever recommendations to Congress that he or she deems appropriate.

The bill provides for directors, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, to provide the Administrator with highly qualified professionals in Preparedness and Mitigation, Response, and Recovery. Apart from bolstering the organization, authorizing these posts would send a clear signal to the Nation's Governors and mayors that they will have people of stature with whom to work and confer.

Besides providing the Administrator of U.S.-EMA with an advisory link to the President, the bill specifically tasks the Administrator with providing the federal leadership necessary to prepare for and respond to a disaster, whether man-made or natural. It gives the Administrator responsibility for administering preparedness grant programs, and for monitoring and evaluating the readiness of each of the emergency support functions under the national response plan. These are critical steps for ensuring close cooperation and oversight of preparedness at all levels of government.

The bill specifies that U.S.-EMA is a distinct entity and protects it from reorganization without explicit Congressional approval. This gives U.S.-EMA security identical to that of the Coast Guard.

Another critical element of the bill authorizes a strong regional structure for U.S.-EMA and creates regionally based federal strike teams for rapid response. This will ensure that U.S.-EMA officials are familiar with the people, the vulnerabilities, and the resources of the regions they protect, and will not be introducing themselves to strangers on unfamiliar ground when disaster strikes.

Further recognizing the importance of mult-level government coordination, the bill creates a national advisory council on emergency preparedness and response--made up of State and local officials and emergency management professionals from public, private and NGO sectors--to advise the Administrator of U.S.-EMA.

Our bill provides a statutory basis for chief medical officer to advise the DHS Secretary on medical and public-health issues. Other sections promote public and community preparedness; evaluate the effectiveness of equipment for first responders; reauthorize and expand the emergency management assistance compact; and create an office of terrorism prevention at DHS.

Mr. President, the U.S. Emergency Management Authority Act is not a symbolic gesture, or a quick fix for our problems. It is a thoroughly researched, carefully drafted collection of reforms that will lay the foundation for years of hard work.

The result, we firmly believe, will be a significantly more effective national system of preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery against natural disasters and terror attacks. Building on the insights of the Hart-Rudman Commission and on the important advances embodied in the Homeland Security Act, the U.S.-EMA bill will greatly improve the protections that American citizens need, and deserve.

Mr. President, my statement has outlined the reforms we are making to this new agency. They are considerable. They are going to make a real difference, and I hope we can pass legislation before the end of this year to greatly strengthen and improve FEMA and our emergency response system and preparedness on all levels of government.

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to introduce the High-Performance Green Buildings Act of 2006. This bipartisan bill will go far to further expand Federal green building initiatives and ensure our Federal buildings and schools are safe, efficient and good for the environment.

I would like to thank all of the bill's cosponsors for working with me in a bipartisan manner to introduce this important legislation and implore my colleagues to join us in moving this legislation forward. Not only will this bill improve Federal building efficiency and employee health and productivity, it also demonstrates the leadership of the Federal Government on high-performance green buildings. This bill seeks to codify existing green building initiatives outlined in memorandums of understanding or executive orders, and further enhances ongoing green building programs all across the Federal Government, including the White House. I commend the past and current leadership of the White House Office of the Federal Environmental Executive for all they have done within the administration.

Preliminary studies are showing that high-performance green buildings generate huge savings in utility costs due to their efficient operating systems. These studies have also demonstrated that high-performance green buildings provide a healthier work environment for the occupants, resulting in fewer absences due to illness. This in turn increases worker productivity and ensures fewer health related costs. All of these savings are generated, while sustaining very little impact on surrounding environments.

According to the Department of Energy, throughout the United States buildings account for 39 percent of total energy use, 70 percent of electricity consumption, 38.1 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and 30 percent of raw materials use. The Environmental Protection Agency reports that building related construction and demolition debris account for nearly 37 percent of the total nonindustrial waste, generating 136 million tons of waste in a single year. Building occupants also consume 12 percent of potable water consumption. Why not build buildings that strive to conserve our precious resources, reduce the harmful pollutants that are damaging to the environment and utilize recycled building materials?

In an era of great security concern, green buildings have reduced energy requirements and may use renewable sources of energy that are off the electricity grid. Green buildings also use less water and some even collect rainwater to use throughout the building. Should there be a terrorist act that damages or destroys our Nation's resources, these buildings could assist in keeping our government up and running.

There is no downside to utilizing high-performance buildings. This initiative is taking off in the private sector. According to the U.S. Green Building Council, there are 500 certified green buildings across the United States with 3,000 in the pipeline. This legislation would ensure that the Federal Government is keeping pace with the real world and doing its part to protect the environment and provide a safe workplace for its employees.

In my home State of Vermont, environmental quality and economic opportunity are inextricably linked and green buildings are a visible representation of this connection. The design, construction, and functioning of green buildings will not only enhance environmental quality, worker productivity, and student learning, but will also contribute to the enhancement of a new economy. Environmental technologies and applications represent a new value added area of economic growth that is both efficient and effective.

The Federal Government can learn from progressive policies being implemented in the private sector, State government and our Nation's universities. For example, the University of Vermont, understanding the positive environmental, economic, and human resources benefits, recently adopted a green building policy for its campus that would ensure that all new construction and major renovations be at the certified level of the U.S. Green Building Council's, USGBC, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, LEED, green building rating system. This policy is both responsible and affordable.

In the 108th Congress, I introduced S. 2620, the High-Performance Green Buildings Act of 2004. This new bill updates that earlier version and includes a few new provisions. This legislation will coordinate the efforts within the

Federal Government to promote high-performance green buildings, provide public outreach, and expand existing research.

The General Services Administration, GSA, is the largest civilian landlord in the United States, with over 8,900 buildings in their current inventory. This legislation creates an office within GSA to oversee the green building efforts of agencies within the government. The GSA is a natural leader to focus on our Federal buildings and ensure that they are safe, healthy, and efficient. The GSA is working to provide quality work environments for Federal workers through green initiatives and is currently conducting research on how best to increase workplace effectiveness and occupant comfort. This bill will strengthen what they have already started.

The bill creates a green building advisory committee to advise the office within GSA. The committee will be comprised of key representatives from each relevant agency, State, and local governments, green building associations, experts within the building community, and environmental health experts for both adults and children. This committee will enable the Federal Government to stay up to date with technology and the latest advancements to ensure that high-performance green buildings operate with the maximum efficiency and provide a healthier environment for their occupants.

In addition, research efforts will be expanded to focus on buildings and the impact their systems have on human health and worker productivity. We just don't know enough about the impact of the built environment on its occupants. Take natural daylight for instance. Studies are showing that a simple thing like exposure to daylight actually makes employees more productive and reduces absences due to illness. I would like to pursue this further, as well as an indoor air quality program for all Federal facilities. We need to not only ensure the safety of working employees for existing buildings, but also during construction and renovation of facilities.

The High-Performance Green Buildings Act also requires that a good hard look be taken at the budget process we have used for years and explore ways to improve the approval process for government projects. We need to grow with the times and ensure that our budget process allows us to take full advantage of life-cycle costing. This means that we allow our financial experts to factor in savings that green buildings generate over time, and not just look at the upfront cost of a building. It has been documented that high-performance green buildings recover any initial upfront costs from incorporating efficient systems within the first few years of operation. The average life of a Federal building is over 50 years. In the times of soaring budget deficits, it is imperative the Federal Government pursue all cost-saving options.

High-performance green buildings are not just for Federal buildings, but involve any type of building, including schools. This legislation focuses on providing healthier, more efficient school facilities for our children. The Government Accountability Office reported years ago that over 14 million children have their health affected by poor conditions in schools. The Healthy Schools Network is now reporting 32 million children are at high risk of getting sick from their school facility. It is unacceptable to stand by and let the Nation's children become ill from preventable causes. This bill takes a modest step forward and provides $10 million in grants to state and local education agencies for technical assistance and the implementation of Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, programs to address environmental conditions of our schools like the Tools for Schools Program and the Healthy Schools Environmental Assessment Tool, Healthy SEAT. The bill will help schools develop plans to focus on the design, construction, and renovation of school facilities, and look at systematic improvements for school siting, indoor air quality, reducing contaminants, and other health issues. This legislation also encourages research to study the effects these systems are having on student health and productivity. Our children deserve to learn in an environment that is safe and conducive to learning.

This bill will also promote leadership within the Federal Government by requiring all new construction and acquisition be green, that leases for Federal employees be energy efficient facilities and include green design features, and that guidelines be issued on how to best renegotiate existing leases to adopt these principles. Leadership is also promoted through Federal incentives for government agencies to build high-performance green buildings, as well as expanding the monitoring of each Federal agency's performance in meeting green building requirements and initiatives. It also creates a clearinghouse to keep individuals and entities, including the Federal Government, informed on the information and services that the office would provide.

Finally, by supporting this legislation, we will advance our understanding of green building technologies and implications and simultaneously advance our society. We have the capacity. This legislation provides the Federal leadership to convert our academic buildings to integral components of the curriculum rather than to just facilities that house programs. As learning centers and demonstration facilities, these green buildings will be an example to all of us to be environmentally responsible citizens.

I strongly encourage your support of the High-Performance Green Buildings Act of 2006 and ask unanimous consent that the text of the High-Performance Green Buildings Act of 2006 be printed in the Record, as well as the attached letters of support for the bill.

Mr. President, I thank Chairman Collins who has been good enough to allow me to speak for a few moments first because I have an engagement I am supposed to be at around noon.

I am pleased to join with Chairman Collins today to both introduce and speak in favor of this legislation to reinvent and rebuild FEMA into an agency capable of responding efficiently and effectively to a catastrophe the size and scope of Hurricane Katrina, but also to the natural disasters that in the normal course of events have affected and will affect the American people.

The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee spent 7 months last year and into this year investigating the failed Government response to Hurricane Katrina. Our report recounts a double tragedy of epic proportions, a tragedy caused, in the first instance, by nature, and then a tragedy compounded by human folly and the failure of leadership, including the failure of preparation.

We found that government at all levels--from the Federal Government to the local government, from the White House to FEMA to the Governor's office in Louisiana to the mayor's office in New Orleans--were unprepared, even though the hurricane and its effect on the New Orleans levee system had long been predicted. Likewise, all levels of government were unequipped to deal with the human suffering that followed the storm's landfall and galvanized the attention that ultimately produced the enormous embarrassment and anger of the American people as we watched our fellow Americans suffering in New Orleans and throughout the gulf coast without the support and help they have a right to expect from their government at all levels in a time of disaster.

These failings were caused by negligence, lack of resources, lack of capability, and a lack of leadership. Though we can legislate requirements for those in positions of leadership--and we do in the legislation we are introducing--we cannot legislate leadership. That is a personal quality. But we can legislate bold changes at the Federal level that are critical for our Nation to develop the capacity necessary to protect our people in times of disaster, whether natural or terrorist.

So in the aftermath of our report, we made a number of recommendations about what we believed on a bipartisan basis was needed to improve our preparations, response, and recovery the next time disaster strikes, as it surely will.

One of our recommendations--perhaps the key recommendation--is to rebuild FEMA into a more powerful, better managed, better integrated, better supported organization. Our recommendation was to give the reinvented FEMA, probably for the first time in its history, the authority and muscle to respond to natural disasters and to catastrophes--which is what Katrina was--in the way the American people have a right to expect their Government to respond--with speed, with efficiency, and with effect.

Today we introduce legislation that will do that. We call this new organization the U.S. Emergency Management Authority, U.S.-EMA. But no matter what we call it, this organization, we have concluded, must be in the Department of Homeland Security; in fact, must be at the core of that Department, just as FEMA was originally intended to do when we proposed the new Department in 2002 based on the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman Commission which said that the new Department must be centered around FEMA.

The legislation we are introducing today is the first step in this process. Chairman Collins and I expect soon to introduce a broader bill that will encompass all of our report's key recommendations. But we begin today by reaffirming how important it is to keep this critical national emergency management function in the Department of Homeland Security and how critical it is to strengthen it and rejoin the functions of disaster response with disaster preparedness.

Our investigation of Hurricane Katrina made it clear to us that preparedness and response are two sides of the same coin. In the years before Katrina, FEMA, the agency charged with coordinating our Nation's response to terrorist attacks or natural disasters, too often was out of the loop when critical decisions about how to prepare--such as how to spend billions of dollars in grants--were made. Exercises were designed and held without serious input by FEMA. FEMA's ability to respond was crippled because it was not central to preparedness, and thus did not have the close relationships needed with state and local officials on the front lines. The preparers and the responders need to be working hand in hand with State and local officials, other Federal agencies, and the private and non-profit sectors if both functions are to work as well as we expect them to.

Our legislation first and foremost will ensure that our preparedness efforts are closely linked, inseparable from the capabilities we need to respond.

Our investigation also made clear that part of FEMA's problem during Hurricane Katrina was that it was an agency weakened by years of budget and staff cuts. At the time the hurricane made landfall, FEMA had been operating with a 15-percent vacancy rate for over a year. And it had a senior political management largely without emergency management experience.

We address these problems by giving the new authority a special status within the Department of Homeland Security--the same special status the Coast Guard and Secret Service now have. With this status, changes to the agency's functions and assets can only be made through statute. Furthermore, we would require that the Administrator and other key officials have the necessary experience and qualifications to get the job done. U.S.-EMA will not be plagued by unqualified appointees like FEMA has been.

The chairman and I also believe FEMA is too Washington-oriented and too disconnected from the real work of preparing for disasters where they actually occur, so we envision a rebuilt agency with robust regional offices to focus on preparedness and response coordination with local and State agencies. Each regional office would house a permanent ``strike team'' that would include representatives from other Federal agencies involved in emergency response to ensure the feds are familiar with regional threats and with state and local emergency personnel.

I know some of my colleagues believe FEMA should be removed from DHS and given the full independent status it once had. But Senator Collins and I know this is not the solution. Removing the agency from the Department will only create additional problems. It would be like removing the Army from the Department of Defense.

The U.S.-EMA, the Government's chief response agency, must have access to the vast resources of the Department of Homeland Security and it needs to work seamlessly with the other agencies that have critical roles to play during catastrophes. The Coast Guard, which performed so admirably during Katrina, might need to be activated. The Department's communications capabilities, law enforcement, intelligence offices, and infrastructure protection will all be needed in response to a catastrophe. In other words, the Federal response must be integrated and that will occur if all agencies have a history of working together within the same Department, if the officials know one another, and if they ultimately serve the same Secretary of Homeland Security.

Furthermore, taking FEMA out of DHS would create more and duplicative bureaucracy. DHS would have to develop its own response capabilities. FEMA would have to develop its own preparedness capabilities. And both would need to have tools for obtaining situational awareness. We do not have the resources to waste on that kind of duplication.

Returning FEMA to an independent agency is not a guarantee that it will be competent. Even when it was independent, FEMA never did develop the capabilities needed to respond to a catastrophe like Katrina. In fact, its response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992--a much smaller storm, killing about 50 people compared to Katrina's 1,500--was a disaster in itself, leading the Government Accounting Office to conclude that it had ``serious doubts about whether FEMA is capable of responding to catastrophic disasters.'' The agency did improve subsequent to Hurricane

Andrew but never had the ability to respond to a storm such as Katrina.

The desperate conditions of gulf coast communities in the week after Katrina's landfall shocked the country. There are many other American communities that are similarly vulnerable--whether to a natural disaster or to terrorist attack. The next catastrophe is coming. We know that. We also know there are significant flaws in the Nation's readiness. We can't afford another response like the one to Katrina.

Our proposal is not about fiddling with bureaucratic flow charts or re-branding, or rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is about plugging the gash in the hull and building a better deck. It is about saving people's lives by bringing together the skills, resources, missions, and authority for effective preparedness and response to catastrophes when local and State agencies are overwhelmed by a terror attack or a natural disaster.

I ask my colleagues for their support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I yield to Chairman Collins for the rest of the introduction of this legislation.

Mr. President, I thank Chairman Collins who has been good enough to allow me to speak for a few moments first because I have an engagement I am supposed to be at around noon.

I am pleased to join with Chairman Collins today to both introduce and speak in favor of this legislation to reinvent and rebuild FEMA into an agency capable of responding efficiently and effectively to a catastrophe the size and scope of Hurricane Katrina, but also to the natural disasters that in the normal course of events have affected and will affect the American people.

The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee spent 7 months last year and into this year investigating the failed Government response to Hurricane Katrina. Our report recounts a double tragedy of epic proportions, a tragedy caused, in the first instance, by nature, and then a tragedy compounded by human folly and the failure of leadership, including the failure of preparation.

We found that government at all levels--from the Federal Government to the local government, from the White House to FEMA to the Governor's office in Louisiana to the mayor's office in New Orleans--were unprepared, even though the hurricane and its effect on the New Orleans levee system had long been predicted. Likewise, all levels of government were unequipped to deal with the human suffering that followed the storm's landfall and galvanized the attention that ultimately produced the enormous embarrassment and anger of the American people as we watched our fellow Americans suffering in New Orleans and throughout the gulf coast without the support and help they have a right to expect from their government at all levels in a time of disaster.

These failings were caused by negligence, lack of resources, lack of capability, and a lack of leadership. Though we can legislate requirements for those in positions of leadership--and we do in the legislation we are introducing--we cannot legislate leadership. That is a personal quality. But we can legislate bold changes at the Federal level that are critical for our Nation to develop the capacity necessary to protect our people in times of disaster, whether natural or terrorist.

So in the aftermath of our report, we made a number of recommendations about what we believed on a bipartisan basis was needed to improve our preparations, response, and recovery the next time disaster strikes, as it surely will.

One of our recommendations--perhaps the key recommendation--is to rebuild FEMA into a more powerful, better managed, better integrated, better supported organization. Our recommendation was to give the reinvented FEMA, probably for the first time in its history, the authority and muscle to respond to natural disasters and to catastrophes--which is what Katrina was--in the way the American people have a right to expect their Government to respond--with speed, with efficiency, and with effect.

Today we introduce legislation that will do that. We call this new organization the U.S. Emergency Management Authority, U.S.-EMA. But no matter what we call it, this organization, we have concluded, must be in the Department of Homeland Security; in fact, must be at the core of that Department, just as FEMA was originally intended to do when we proposed the new Department in 2002 based on the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman Commission which said that the new Department must be centered around FEMA.

The legislation we are introducing today is the first step in this process. Chairman Collins and I expect soon to introduce a broader bill that will encompass all of our report's key recommendations. But we begin today by reaffirming how important it is to keep this critical national emergency management function in the Department of Homeland Security and how critical it is to strengthen it and rejoin the functions of disaster response with disaster preparedness.

Our investigation of Hurricane Katrina made it clear to us that preparedness and response are two sides of the same coin. In the years before Katrina, FEMA, the agency charged with coordinating our Nation's response to terrorist attacks or natural disasters, too often was out of the loop when critical decisions about how to prepare--such as how to spend billions of dollars in grants--were made. Exercises were designed and held without serious input by FEMA. FEMA's ability to respond was crippled because it was not central to preparedness, and thus did not have the close relationships needed with state and local officials on the front lines. The preparers and the responders need to be working hand in hand with State and local officials, other Federal agencies, and the private and non-profit sectors if both functions are to work as well as we expect them to.

Our legislation first and foremost will ensure that our preparedness efforts are closely linked, inseparable from the capabilities we need to respond.

Our investigation also made clear that part of FEMA's problem during Hurricane Katrina was that it was an agency weakened by years of budget and staff cuts. At the time the hurricane made landfall, FEMA had been operating with a 15-percent vacancy rate for over a year. And it had a senior political management largely without emergency management experience.

We address these problems by giving the new authority a special status within the Department of Homeland Security--the same special status the Coast Guard and Secret Service now have. With this status, changes to the agency's functions and assets can only be made through statute. Furthermore, we would require that the Administrator and other key officials have the necessary experience and qualifications to get the job done. U.S.-EMA will not be plagued by unqualified appointees like FEMA has been.

The chairman and I also believe FEMA is too Washington-oriented and too disconnected from the real work of preparing for disasters where they actually occur, so we envision a rebuilt agency with robust regional offices to focus on preparedness and response coordination with local and State agencies. Each regional office would house a permanent ``strike team'' that would include representatives from other Federal agencies involved in emergency response to ensure the feds are familiar with regional threats and with state and local emergency personnel.

I know some of my colleagues believe FEMA should be removed from DHS and given the full independent status it once had. But Senator Collins and I know this is not the solution. Removing the agency from the Department will only create additional problems. It would be like removing the Army from the Department of Defense.

The U.S.-EMA, the Government's chief response agency, must have access to the vast resources of the Department of Homeland Security and it needs to work seamlessly with the other agencies that have critical roles to play during catastrophes. The Coast Guard, which performed so admirably during Katrina, might need to be activated. The Department's communications capabilities, law enforcement, intelligence offices, and infrastructure protection will all be needed in response to a catastrophe. In other words, the Federal response must be integrated and that will occur if all agencies have a history of working together within the same Department, if the officials know one another, and if they ultimately serve the same Secretary of Homeland Security.

Furthermore, taking FEMA out of DHS would create more and duplicative bureaucracy. DHS would have to develop its own response capabilities. FEMA would have to develop its own preparedness capabilities. And both would need to have tools for obtaining situational awareness. We do not have the resources to waste on that kind of duplication.

Returning FEMA to an independent agency is not a guarantee that it will be competent. Even when it was independent, FEMA never did develop the capabilities needed to respond to a catastrophe like Katrina. In fact, its response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992--a much smaller storm, killing about 50 people compared to Katrina's 1,500--was a disaster in itself, leading the Government Accounting Office to conclude that it had ``serious doubts about whether FEMA is capable of responding to catastrophic disasters.'' The agency did improve subsequent to Hurricane

Andrew but never had the ability to respond to a storm such as Katrina.

The desperate conditions of gulf coast communities in the week after Katrina's landfall shocked the country. There are many other American communities that are similarly vulnerable--whether to a natural disaster or to terrorist attack. The next catastrophe is coming. We know that. We also know there are significant flaws in the Nation's readiness. We can't afford another response like the one to Katrina.

Our proposal is not about fiddling with bureaucratic flow charts or re-branding, or rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is about plugging the gash in the hull and building a better deck. It is about saving people's lives by bringing together the skills, resources, missions, and authority for effective preparedness and response to catastrophes when local and State agencies are overwhelmed by a terror attack or a natural disaster.

I ask my colleagues for their support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I yield to Chairman Collins for the rest of the introduction of this legislation.