[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14652-14663]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5005, HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 502 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 502

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5005) to establish the Department of Homeland 
     Security, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed 90 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule.
       Sec. 2. (a) It shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Select Committee on Homeland Security now printed in this 
     bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.
       (b) No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this 
     resolution.
       (c) Except as specified in section 4 of this resolution, 
     each amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules may be offered only in the order printed in the report, 
     may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 
     shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
     specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 
     and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
       (d) All points of order against amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
       Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman 
     of the Select Committee on Homeland Security or his designee 
     to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules not earlier disposed 
     of or germane modifications of any such amendment. Amendments 
     en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered 
     as read (except that modifications shall be reported), shall 
     be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Select 
     Committee on Homeland Security or their designees, shall not 
     be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. For the purpose of inclusion in such amendments 
     en bloc, an amendment printed in the form of a motion to 
     strike may be modified to the form of a germane perfecting 
     amendment to the text originally proposed to be stricken. The 
     original proponent of an amendment included in such 
     amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the 
     Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of 
     the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 4. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules out of the order printed, 
     but not sooner than one hour after the chairman of the Select 
     Committee on Homeland Security or his designee announces from 
     the floor a request to that effect.
       Sec. 5. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House now consider 
House Resolution 502.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the House agreed to consider House Resolution 502.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 
the ranking member of the Committee on

[[Page 14653]]

Rules and a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 502 is a structured rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act. The rule 
provides 90 minutes of general debate, equally divided and controlled 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Select 
Committee on Homeland Security. It provides an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute recommended by the Select Committee on Homeland 
Security now printed in the bill be considered as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment.
  The rule also makes in order only those amendments printed in the 
Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. Each amendment 
may be offered only in the order printed, may be offered only by a 
Member designated in the report, shall be debatable only for the time 
specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment or demand for division 
of the question, except as specified in section 4.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
and waives all points of order against such amendments. The rule 
provides the select committee chairman or his designee en bloc 
authority. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, America has awakened to a new era in global affairs. As 
President Bush has noted, we are today a nation at risk to a new and 
changing threat. We can no longer hold on to the belief that between 
our shores we are free from the violence of the world. On September 11, 
we learned all too well and at all too high a price that a stark new 
reality confronts us as a Nation. We should not doubt that our freedom, 
our liberty, our very way of life are under attack.
  Today we take bold and necessary steps to reshape our Government to 
reflect the sad new reality. The process we will use to take these 
steps is a fair and equitable one, and I would like to take a moment to 
clarify for my colleagues that while this is a structured rule, this 
rule reflects the negotiated recommendations of the House leadership, 
both Republican and Democrat, and will allow for a spirited debate on 
issues focused on homeland security and creation of the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  It is jointly recommended by the Speaker of the House and the 
minority leader and their wisdom ensures that all opinions will be 
considered and all issues pertaining to homeland security are aired 
because, Mr. Speaker, the victims of terror do not care about political 
differences. This nonpartisan process for consideration of H.R. 5005 
illustrates that the security of our homeland simply cannot and must 
not be a partisan issue. Of course, this does not mean that difficult 
decisions have not been made during the process of crafting 
legislation, and it does not mean that more difficult decisions have 
yet to be made here tonight and tomorrow. I had the great honor to 
serve on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, which just 
last week considered and marked up the underlying legislation. Under 
the fair and steady leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), 
Chairman and leader, the Select Committee heard from some of the 
Nation's most selfless, accomplished, and dedicated public servants. We 
also considered the expert recommendations made by the 12 committees of 
jurisdiction in the House and incorporated the vast majority of their 
recommendations. The Select Committee process was fair, open, and 
inclusive. We continue that practice today with this rule, which was 
crafted through joint effort by the majority and the minority.
  The world we live in today is a very different place than it was in 
1947 when the last major reorganization of our Government took place. 
At that time, as noted by President Truman, the world was a place ``in 
which strength on the part of peace-loving nations was still the 
greatest deterrent to aggression.'' Today our military might, while 
still vital to our national defense, is no longer sufficient in and of 
itself to deter aggression and to ensure our national security.
  The perpetrators of terrorism have recognized that our greatest 
strength, the open society in which we live, also makes us vulnerable 
to their attacks. They are shadowy and agile, and they target us like 
predators without distinction between military target and ordinary 
citizen. The war against terror is fought not just on battlefields 
abroad but in our very own cities and towns. We must be able to respond 
at home in a strong, informed, coordinated and agile way.
  The creation of a new Cabinet-level Department is only one part of 
our national response, but it is a very essential part. The new 
Department will consolidate vital preparedness, intelligence analysis, 
law enforcement, and emergency response functions that are currently 
dangerously dispersed among numerous Federal departments and agencies.
  And while no price is too high to ensure the long-term security of 
our Nation, this Department will be created in a way that eliminates 
redundancies and inefficiencies so that costs are minimized.
  Specifically, this bill takes steps to protect our borders through 
inclusion of the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and several 
important functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and 
the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service. The bill ensures that the 
new Department will engage and coordinate with State and local first 
responders by including FEMA and the Secret Service. The bill promotes 
world-class research and development in the public and private sectors. 
And importantly, the bill preserves our essential freedoms and 
liberties while ensuring that the Department is open and accountable to 
Congress and the American people.
  This legislation ensures that the new Department will have all the 
tools it needs to successfully protect and defend America in the near 
future and as the threat continues to evolve. An essential tool in the 
new Department's arsenal will be its flexible and motivated work force 
that can respond swiftly to this shifting threat.
  The legislation maintains all the basic Federal employment 
protections, including protections for whistleblowers and the right to 
collectively bargain, while allowing additional agility in key selected 
areas so that the new Department can attract and retain the best and 
brightest and move personnel when national security requires. The 
success of the new Department will be inexorably linked to the 
abilities, motivation and hard work of its employees, and this bill 
respects and protects their rights.
  President Truman described the period following World War II as ``an 
age when unforeseen attack could come with unprecedented speed.'' 
Fifty-five years later that description applies equally well. Once 
again, Congress must heed the call of our President and take up an 
historic task.
  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 10, but as the Government's efforts 
reach the limits of their own bureaucracies, we have to rethink that 
structure so that our Nation can be even stronger, smarter, and better 
prepared.
  I urge all my colleagues to take the measure of the task very 
seriously. In no uncertain terms, our work will protect the American 
people. I hope that we will have an open, honest, and productive 
discussion. While we may disagree on the minutia, at the end of the 
day, Mr. Speaker, we must not let the safety and security of the 
American people be a casualty of this debate.

                              {time}  1915

  I urge all my colleagues to support this fair rule and the underlying 
bill, and I will now I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, creating the Department of Homeland Security is a 
bipartisan idea and it remains a bipartisan

[[Page 14654]]

priority, but building a big new 170,000 person Federal bureaucracy is 
a difficult project. After all, our goal is not just moving boxes 
around inside the government. It is to increase the security of the 
American people in the real world. To succeed, Democrats have reached 
out to work with the administration. Indeed, the entire House of 
Representatives has worked overtime to make sure we could get this bill 
to the President's desk by September 11.
  On a bipartisan basis, Members have recommended a number of 
important, good faith changes to the administration's original 
proposal. Republican leaders on the Select Committee on Homeland 
Security unfortunately rejected many of these bipartisan improvements, 
and they snuck in several ideological and partisan side issues, 
controversial riders that, in some cases, actually threaten the 
effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security.
  That is why I, along with so many others, have argued from the 
beginning that the entire House needed the opportunity to vote on these 
controversies on the floor. While this rule is not as open as I would 
have liked, it does allow Members to address the most critical issues. 
Several Democratic amendments would add to the underlying bill to 
increase the effectiveness of new departments.
  The Waxman amendment, for instance, would strengthen the White House 
Office of Homeland Security. According to the General Accounting 
Office, creating the new department will take five to 10 years, and 
even after it is completed, much of the work to prevent terrorist 
attacks would be done in other agencies like the CIA and the FBI. The 
Waxman amendment would ensure that the White House Homeland Security 
advisor has the authority and the clout to coordinate all of these 
different governmental agencies to increase the security of the 
American people.
  Additionally, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) has an 
important amendment to ensure the new department shares information 
with State and local first responders, the people on the front lines of 
homeland defense, our local police and fire.
  Other amendments address the controversial provisions in the 
underlying bill. For instance, this bill would undercut the Freedom of 
Information Act. And it would harm whistleblower protections. That 
means that if an employee wanted to alert the public to wrongdoing in 
the Department, the way Coleen Rowley blew the whistle on failures in 
the FBI investigation on Zacarias Moussaoui, he or she might be subject 
to retaliation from supervisors. That is not just wrong, it is bad for 
effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security.
  Fortunately, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the gentlewoman from Hawaii 
(Mrs. Mink) have an amendment to fix this problem and I urge its 
support.
  Additionally, this bill contains language that actually turns back 
the clock on important civil service protections that may be crucial to 
the ideology of some on the other side of the aisle. But it will harm 
the effectiveness of the new department.
  Mr. Speaker, the civil service system protects Americans against a 
spoils system that would allow politicians to reward their friends and 
supporters with important government jobs. It is crucial that the 
Department of Homeland Security be staffed by professionals, not by 
cronies of whichever party happens to hold the White House.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and I have an amendment to 
restore the Committee on Government Reform's bipartisan agreement to 
preserve current civil service protections for the new department. And 
the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) has an amendment to ensure 
employees retain their collective bargaining rights unless their 
responsibilities change. Both of these amendments will protect existing 
workplace rights while preserving the national security flexibility the 
President needs.
  So unless you want to unnecessarily weaken the current civil service 
system, I urge you to support them and to oppose the two amendments 
that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has offered on the other 
side of this issue. Additionally, Republican leaders have, hidden in 
this bill, a provision that protects companies that sell harmful 
products to the public. This language, which was not requested by the 
President, goes well beyond current law and gives companies a get-out-
of-jail free card, no matter how malicious, wanton or reckless their 
conduct may have been. Fortunately, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Turner) has an amendment to ensure companies have legal protection to 
invest in security technology, but without leaving the public helpless 
against every scam artist who claims to have a security-related 
product. It deserves our support.
  Also, the rule make in order an amendment by the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that would maintain the December 31, 2002 
deadline for airline baggage screening. This is a controversial issue 
that was added to the underlying bill by the Select Committee and was 
not requested by the President and it deserves full consideration on 
the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I must note with disappointment, however, that 
Republican leaders are blocking a common sense corporate responsibility 
amendment by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Neal), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner). Their amendment would make corporate 
tax dodgers ineligible for government contracts at the new department 
because if a corporation will not pay its own taxes, then it does not 
deserve to be paid with other people's taxes, but Republican leaders 
insist on protecting this loophole.
  In the interest of time, I will leave it to others to discuss the 
other important amendments. I do want to mention a couple of additional 
ongoing issues surrounding the bill, however. First, we must ensure 
that America's immigration adjudication functions, like family 
reunification and adoption, operate effective, efficiently and fairly 
regardless of which Homeland Security Department structure becomes law, 
we must continue to welcome these law abiding immigrants who helped 
build America even as we focus on protecting ourselves here at home.
  Second, Congress must honestly address the question of how much it 
will cost taxpayers to create this new department. The nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office put the price tag at $4.5 billion and the 
bipartisan leaders of Senate Budget Committee have warned that it could 
add significantly to future spending. Nevertheless, Republican leaders 
in the House cling to the fiction that they can create a 170,000 person 
Federal bureaucracy without spending any additional money. It is no 
small irony that the same Republicans who often campaign against the 
government now want to create a bigger Federal bureaucracy but refuse 
to pay for it.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be honest with the American people. Our national 
security is not cheap and neither is homeland security. Cooking the 
books will only drag us deeper into debt and hurt the credibility of 
the new department we are creating. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, 
creating the Department of Homeland Security is a bipartisan priority, 
so I urge my Republican colleagues to join us in cleaning up this bill 
so that we can pass it with the overwhelming bipartisan majority of 
needs.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to repeat something I have 
said on several occasions in another context. The creation of this new 
department is something that I personally feel very strongly about. On 
September 11 the plane that crashed into the Pentagon struck the office 
of my wife's boss. My wife is an Army officer. Fortunately, she was not 
in his office on that day. Her office is several miles from the 
Pentagon. But two people who work for my wife and her boss were killed 
on September 11; and I want to make sure that nothing like that can 
ever happen again in this country.
  This country deserves the strongest possible protection against 
terrorist

[[Page 14655]]

attacks. And I hope that on a bipartisan basis we will rise to the 
occasion and create a strong, effective new department in the next two 
days.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from the great State of Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart) and fellow member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on this fair and 
balanced rule that has been crafted to facilitate that historic act.
  For weeks now the House has been working its will through committee 
after committee markup. The House further worked its will by agreeing 
to the creation of a Select Committee on Homeland Security to review 
the recommendations of all the committees of jurisdiction. And now the 
Committee on Rules has been given the task to preserve the efforts that 
have been made to keep this a fair and open process, and that is 
exactly what we have done.
  The terrorists and dictators of the world who seek the demise of the 
United States thought that September 11 would change America, but 
Americans have not changed. This Nation is full of true heros. Brave 
men and women who love freedom and will not tolerate those who wish to 
destroy the freedoms we hold dear. But there has been a change the 
terrorists did not expect. We are reorganizing. Just as this country 
has done after previous disasters, we are meeting the challenges before 
us.
  This Act reforms our response to threats at home just as we reformed 
the military following World War II to meet threats abroad. I am very 
pleased to see that a strong intelligence analysis component is 
included in the underlying bill so that the information generated by 
the intelligence community will best serve our national security. 
Additionally, given the enormous flow of goods and services that we see 
coming through our community in South Florida, I have long been a 
proponent of strengthening the resources of Customs agents to support 
the enormous task they are entrusted with. I am pleased to see the 
steps taken to strengthen this role, and I will continue to work to 
ensure that all of our Nation's airports and ports of entry have the 
resources to keep America safe.
  Mr. Speaker, we are meeting the challenge. I urge strong support for 
the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and in 
opposition to the underlying bill.
  We do not need another Federal department. Real homeland security 
means economic security for our workers and our families here at home. 
It means good jobs. It means pensions they can depend on and it means 
health benefits that are there for all.
  It is really interesting that the administration has put this glossy 
report together on this new department, which would be the third 
largest bureaucracy in the government of the United States, over 
170,000 people, and how do we know how many billions of dollars and 
still counting.
  Basically, this is political cover over an operational problem. We 
know that the CIA and the FBI did not do their job completely. We knew 
Osama bin Laden was the number one enemy. We did not know where he was.
  Right after 9-11, what did the FBI and the CIA do? They start 
advertising in The Washington Post for people who could speak Arabic 
and Pashtun because we were not properly staffed inside the departments 
and agencies that should have been functioning. So now we will create 
another department. Does that mean they will have people who can 
translate? Will we have people who can do the job? Will they get the 
computers so they can communicate?
  The FBI and CIA are not in the Homeland Security Agency where we have 
the problem. They are not even part of the solution. What we will get 
from a new department, when we most need coordination in this country 
at every level, we will get chaos.
  I bet the people here on the floor of today have never been about 
setting up a new Federal department. We set up the Department of 
Energy. Are we energy self-sufficient today? No, we are not. We set up 
the Department of Education. Are our kids reading scores going up? No, 
they are not.
  So now at a time when we need really refined targeted efforts across 
this world to deal with the problem that we have not faced before, we 
are setting up the Department, and will it have the staffing that is 
necessary. Just on one agency that they will try to roll in here APHIS, 
the Animal, Plant Health Inspection Service from the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture. The problem is we do not have enough inspectors at the 
border. Are you going to give us more money for inspectors or are you 
just going to ship the box over to another department?
  The problem is not a new department. The problem is making the 
agencies that exist function. I am proud of the people in New York 
City.

                              {time}  1930

  We could have had 50,000 die. We had 3,000 dead. They did their job. 
We saved 47,000 lives in this country. Our local law enforcement 
people, they need training at the local level. They do not need a new 
Federal Department to do that. They need training moneys to go down to 
the locality. We do not need to cut the law enforcement budget, what 
this administration is doing in terms of cops on the beat.
  In terms of FEMA, I do not want to put FEMA in this Department. FEMA 
works. It took us 10 years to fix FEMA up. So why do we want to stick 
it in this big agency of 170,000 people and we cannot even get direct 
communication to the top? We fought World War II, we did not need this 
Department. We defeated the Communists and the Soviet Union. We did not 
need this Department to do it. We fought the Persian Gulf War. Why do 
we need this now?
  This is political cover for operational problems the administration 
does not want to solve. Vote against the rule and the bill.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), who has 
worked so hard on this issue over the years before it became something 
that the Nation was riveted upon.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
the time and for her considerable contributions as a member of the 
select committee, as a member of leadership and as a member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. We will have a number of 
issues to go through, a number of amendments. I hope my colleagues can 
remember that what we are trying to do is create an integrated 
Department of Homeland Security to make us safer. This is no place for 
political agendas. This is no place for conspiracy theories. This is no 
place to be pointing fingers of blame. This is a place to work on a 
bipartisan basis to make this country safer. That is the only reason to 
create this Department and that must be its goal.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an unusual procedure. It seems to be coming 
rapidly; but in fact, a lot of work has gone into getting this proposal 
together, and I want to take just a second to acknowledge some of the 
people who have made this possible, starting with the bipartisan Hart-
Rudman Commission, co-chaired by Senators Hart and Rudman, including 
our former colleagues Speaker Gingrich and Lee Hamilton, who took 3 
years to look over the next 25 years at the security threats we face 
and said number one is homeland security and what we ought to do is 
create a new Department of Homeland Security. We are doing that.
  Secondly, I want to thank my staff who has spent many, many hours on 
this, particularly Kim Kotlar, who has spent probably more hours 
working on this issue than any other person inside or outside Congress.
  I also want to thank the sponsors 
of the proposal, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Harman), the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs.

[[Page 14656]]

Tauscher), and the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), who worked on a nonpartisan basis 
and a bicameral basis, along with Senator Lieberman and his colleagues, 
to get this proposal here; and it is an example of where we have come 
together, many of us in the Congress, to make us safer.
  Other colleagues have worked on this: the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), and of course, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) in a variety of capacities has been invaluable.
  I think we all ought to thank the Select Committee on Homeland 
Security under the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Armey) leadership for the 
work that they have done; but, Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the 
President of the United States because he could have tinkered around 
the edges and just offered a few token changes, but he took on a tough 
job. He said we want to do this right and that is leadership. That is 
the kind of leadership we expect from a President, and it is the kind 
of leadership we are going to have from this House over the next 2 days 
if we are going to develop this Department with the tools it needs to 
keep us safer.
  I think we can do it, but I think it is going to be a challenge, and 
I hope that as a body we are up to it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. A number of amendments 
will be made in order as the Speaker promised. As we go through them 
one-by-one, it will be important for us to remember that we must have a 
coherent, integrated department that works. I urge our colleagues to 
keep the bigger objectives foremost in our minds and considerations.
  At the beginning of the debate on this bill, however, I think that it 
is important for me to acknowledge some of the people who brought us to 
this day--who, in addition to the Rules Committee, have helped prepare 
this proposal before us.
  My colleagues have been very generous about me introducing a bill to 
create a Department of Homeland Security in March 2001. But, of course, 
I simply borrowed the idea from the Commission on National Security/ 
21st Century, more commonly known as the Hart-Rudman Commission. Under 
the leadership of its chairmen, Senators Hart and Rudman, and with the 
diligent work of an outstanding group of preeminent Americans as 
commissioners, including our former colleagues Lee Hamilton and Speaker 
Gingrich, who initially created the Commission, this Commission took 
three years to study American's national security challenges of the 
next 25 years. Aided by a first-rate staff that was directed by General 
Chuck Boyd, they concluded that our most important challenge has 
homeland security and unanimously recommended that Congress create a 
new department out of the dozens of existing agencies with some 
homeland security mission. It was their vision, courage, and 
persistence in pushing the idea which earns them the first accolades.
  Going somewhat in chronological order, I want to thank my staff and 
especially Kim Kotlar. I suspect they thought that I was ``tilting at 
windmills'' when I told them a year and a half ago that I wanted to 
introduce a bill to create a new Department of Homeland Security. But, 
they swallowed their doubts and in the subsequent months have put many 
hours into brining that idea to reality. Ms. Kotlar, a retired Naval 
intelligence officer, has probably done more work on this proposal than 
any other person. This Congress and our entire Nation join me in owing 
her an enormous debt of gratitude.
  Next, I want to thank the primary sponsors of the proposal in the 
House, Ms. Harman, Ms. Tauscher and Mr. Gibbons. My already 
considerable respect for each of them has only grown during the past 
several months that we have worked together on this measure. I am 
especially grateful to my two colleagues from California that during 
all of the hours they refused to succumb to the temptations of 
partisanship. This has truly been a non-partisan cause. They have kept 
true to that higher calling of serving our Nation. And to them and to 
all of the cosponsors of H.R. 1185 and H.R. 4660, I am grateful.
  I must point out that a number of our other colleagues have worked on 
organizational reform to fight the war on terror and have made 
invaluable contributions to this effort, among them are Mr. Shays, Mr. 
Watts, and Mr. Chambliss. And, of course, this effort has not only been 
non-partisan, it has been bicameral. I want to acknowledge and thank 
Senator Lieberman, who has also worked on this idea for months, and his 
colleagues, Senators Specter and Graham.
  We should all thank and commend the Speaker for recognizing the 
daunting challenge before us and establishing the unique procedures to 
consider this bill. We should also thank Leader Gephardt for helping 
give us the sense of urgency with which we must act.
  The Select Committee, under Leader Armey's direction, has done an 
outstanding job, improving the President's proposal and my original 
proposal in a number of important ways. I want to especially thank Mr. 
Armey and Mr. Portman for their outstanding efforts to do this right 
and to do it fairly with a chance for all to have input.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and commend the President of 
the United States and Governor Tom Ridge. They recognized the problems 
we face with dozens of different agencies having homeland security 
responsibility. They did not try to tinker around the edges or take a 
poll to see what was politically possible to do. Their approach was to 
try to do it right--that's leadership.
  And now it is up to the House to follow the President's example of 
leadership. I trust that we will not be found wanting.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Never again. Never again will the United States be caught unawares 
and lay herself open to terrorist attack. That is certainly a principle 
that every Member of this House and Senate should take to mind as we 
move to plug the holes in our security.
  Since last fall, I have supported the concept of a Cabinet-level 
status for the Director of Homeland Security so that he or she can get 
the funds, can compel the cooperation and coordination necessary among 
the Federal agencies, but now we are rushing through a bill to create 
the largest Federal bureaucracy in 50 years. Is that the proper 
response and answer, 170,000 employees who will ultimately some day be 
merged together into one joint building that will be built somewhere in 
the Washington, D.C., area? How will it work in the interim? Big 
question.
  It does not deal with the two agencies most culpable and most 
problematic in the attacks, the FBI and the CIA, the failures of 
intelligence, the failures that were so much in the headlines before 
this Department was proposed by the White House that they changed their 
position.
  Now it will plug the leaks that made us aware of the failings of the 
CIA and FBI by repealing whistleblower protections and FOIA efforts for 
this agency. It is going to take other effective agencies like the 
Coast Guard, who are doing a tremendous job with not enough resources, 
protecting this country and our coastline and also providing life 
saving and other services and merge them in. Will the Coast Guard still 
be able to function in that place?
  This last week we heard of the failings of the Transportation 
Security Administration created by Congress to defend our traveling 
public and all modes of transportation last fall. The President fired 
his appointee, John Magaw, belatedly; but he did recognize his failings 
and fired him. They are behind schedule, over budget, and they are 
failing to put in place many critical aviation security measures and 
have even failed to begin to deal with other issues, port security and 
the like. They have a new head who I think is tremendous, the former 
commandant of the Coast Guard. He may do well, but let us give him some 
time there to bring it together and bring proposals to Congress.
  The reaction in this bill to the failings of the Transportation 
Security Administration under Mr. Magaw is to waive the deadlines to 
provide critical explosives detection technology. Most Americans are 
amazed today that their baggage is not screened and the things that go 
in the hold of the planes are not screened. We set a deadline of the 
first of next year. Under this bill, there will not be a hard deadline. 
It will be delayed a minimum of 1 year. That means we can expect it 
will be 2 or more years before we can be sure there is not a bomb on 
the plane we are on

[[Page 14657]]

board of. I think explosives are a bigger threat than a takeover of an 
airliner.
  It will also waive contractor liability. Those people who failed to 
screen passengers adequately will be waived of liability.
  If we want to commemorate the tragedy of September 11, we can do it 
better. We can do it by creating something that will work and defend 
America against real threats.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Ohio (Mr. 
Portman), a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security and 
someone who has devoted countless hours to this cause.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) for not just her work on the rule, which I think is a good and 
fair and open rule, but also her work on the Select Committee on 
Homeland Security and adding so much to the effort to put together a 
Department that really will work.
  Today, we are working on a rule that will consider what I think will 
be one of the most important pieces of legislation this House will 
consider in this generation. Our votes on the floor over the next day 
or day and a half will determine the performance of the largest single 
reorganization of government in our history. That is a daunting enough 
task and a huge consolidation challenge; but even more important is 
what this is all about, the mission of this reorganization, and that is 
to protect our families from the shadowy threat of terror.
  We have all talked about some of our personal reflections on this. 
All of us as Members of Congress have had our constituents affected by 
the terrorist attack of September 11. In my hometown of Cincinnati, we 
had the misfortune of having a number of people who were in New York 
City on that fateful day. One was a young man who grew up down the 
street from me, and his funeral took place at a church a few houses 
down from my own home. There I met his young wife and his young kids; 
and as I have gone through this process, I keep thinking back on them. 
Never, never can we let our defenses down and let this happen again.
  We cannot make ourselves immune from terrorism; but we can make our 
country safer, and we as Members of Congress have as our most 
fundamental responsibility to protect our shores and to protect the 
citizens of the United States; and this is what this effort is all 
about. This is to take this Federal effort to protect this country and 
streamline it and consolidate it and make sense so that indeed we can 
do our best as Members of Congress to respond to this threat.
  It is not a partisan issue. It is not an issue that should divide us 
as Democrats or Republicans. It should bring us together as Americans 
to do our best.
  I am encouraged by this rule. I want to commend the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hastert), and I want to commend the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) for putting together a fair rule, 12 amendments 
on each side. I also want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Armey) because in the process of getting this bill to the floor he has 
led the Select Committee on Homeland Security with great distinction. 
It has been an open and fair process.
  I also want to thank the standing committees because they all gave 
input to the Select Committee on Homeland Security. They did it in an 
expeditious way but also a thoughtful way.
  What we ended up with, the underlying bill on the floor before us 
today that this rule will govern, is a good piece of legislation 
because it does create the kind of Department we need, and what kind of 
Department is that? One that has the flexibility and the agility to 
respond to this enormous consolidation challenge, 22 different agencies 
and personnel systems, but also the enormously difficult challenge of 
responding to the actual and deadly threat of terrorism.
  I would urge, Mr. Speaker, as we go through this process that we 
retain those flexibilities, the flexibility to manage, the flexibility 
to budget, the flexibility on personnel, so that indeed we can as 
Members of Congress say that we have done our best, our very best to be 
sure that the Federal Government in every way possible is responding to 
the threat of terrorism and that we have the most efficient and 
effective way to do so.
  The rule that creates this Department deserves our strong support, 
and I urge it on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think the record shows that I have tried to 
be extremely cooperative with the White House and everyone else 
involved in dealing with the aftermath of September 11. Within a week 
after we were hit, I helped, along with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), push a $40 billion supplemental through this place to give the 
President virtually all the money he needed to deal with the problem.
  I appreciate the fact that the committee has corrected a number of 
problems with the original draft. I think that was very useful, but I 
am afraid that what we are about to do will actually in the end weaken 
our ability to respond to terrorist attacks.
  This bill will still do nothing about the central problem of the FBI 
and its relationship with other intelligence agencies. This bill will 
create an additional lack of focus by the new Department that we are 
about to create; and I would point out that it is, in fact, parading 
around under false pretenses. It is called a new Department of Homeland 
Security, but in fact, at this point, there are 133 agencies and 
offices that have some responsibilities with respect to homeland 
security. This bill takes 22 of them, containing 170,000 employees, 
lumps them into one Department and says it is a Department of Homeland 
Security.
  My question is, Who is going to coordinate the 111 offices and 
agencies left out? In my view, that is the central question which is 
not being answered by the legislation; and until it is, we are likely 
to, what the GAO told the committee, we are likely to have 3 to 5 years 
of absolute chaos.
  It also does not do something about the principal problem that we 
still face. After September 11, I talked to every intelligence agency 
in this town. We discovered literally thousands of pages of documents 
lying on floors, sitting on file cabinets, sitting on people's desks of 
raw data, raw intercepts, not looked at by anybody. We need new 
translators. We need a reshaping of the FBI. That is not happening in 
this bill; and until it does, we are going to be making a significant 
mistake.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a 
valued member of the Committee on Rules.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in support of both the rule and the underlying 
legislation, H.R. 5005. This is a fair rule that will allow the House 
to work its will on the Homeland Security bill.
  First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, I think we should all say thank you 
to our distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Armey), and the Select Committee he headed. They have done a first-rate 
job under very difficult circumstances, and for that the people of this 
Nation owe them a debt of gratitude.
  For 200 years, we have been the most open, casual, and free Nation in 
the history of the world. We had the most powerful military in the 
world and our economic strength was challenged by no other. Our people 
enjoyed civil freedoms and liberties of which other citizens could only 
dream. I daresay we took it for granted that we are Americans. 
September 11 changed that forever. Because of that day we feel and are 
vulnerable. Because of that day, we feel helpless.
  In 1777, John Jay, America's first Chief Justice of the Supreme 
Court, and a vigorous defender of the Constitution, wrote, ``Among the 
many objects to which a wise and free people

[[Page 14658]]

find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for 
their safety seems to be the first.'' Today, we have the opportunity to 
make things right. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 provides us with a 
chance to uphold what the Founders considered to be the Federal 
Government's highest responsibility, to protect the people of this 
country.
  We will have a whole new list of heroes to look forward to. They will 
be first responders, firefighters, police officers, State troopers, and 
EMTs. They will be on the front lines here. All of us have in our 
memories seared images of heroism. Whether it was the doughboys at Vimy 
Ridge, or the Marines putting up the flag over Iwo Jima, or the boys at 
Pointe du Hoc climbing that treacherous cliff at Normandy under 
withering machine gun fire, only to take Europe and free it in 11 
months.
  I have a new image of that heroism. It is the image of 50,000 people 
scrambling in utter fear out of burning buildings for their safety, and 
another group of Americans in firefighter uniforms running into those 
buildings to save them. Those are the ones that this homeland security 
bill will start to look toward to get support for.
  We must remember that no one department has been clearly entrusted 
with the security of this country. All will be involved. As such, I 
stand with the President and his efforts to create a new Department of 
Homeland Security. I support this bipartisan measure. I urge my 
colleagues to do the same to ensure that our Nation is prepared, and 
that the freedoms and liberties we hold dear are never threatened 
again.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in lukewarm support of this rule. Even though 
over 100 amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules, only 26, 
barely one-fourth of them, will be considered under this rule. I find 
this disturbing in light of the fact that a great many of the 
recommendations submitted by our subject matter experts were not 
included in the chairman's substitute.
  I am speaking about the subject matter experts on the Committees on 
Government Reform, International Relations, Appropriations, Armed 
Services, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, the Judiciary, 
Science, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Ways and Means.
  Now, I am proud of the fact that there was an opportunity to come 
together on this matter and to make it bipartisan. But an open rule 
would have ensured that the knowledge of these persons and their 
expertise were given due consideration by this body.
  Some of the topics we will not be debating because of this rule 
include an amendment prohibiting the Department from entering into 
contracts with companies who incorporate outside the United States to 
avoid paying taxes; an amendment urging States to cooperatively develop 
uniform standards for State driver's licenses; and, finally, one of my 
amendments, which would have stricken language that grants the 
Secretary the unprecedented authority to prohibit the Inspector General 
from investigating fraud and abuse within the Department.
  The rationale for this authority is that such investigations might 
compromise our national security. The Inspector General Act of 1978 
applies to every major department in the executive branch, including 
the CIA and the military departments. To date, no one from these 
departments and agencies has come forward saying that the autonomy of 
the Inspector General constitutes a threat to national security. It is 
ludicrous to me that the Secretary of the new Department would be 
exempt from laws that all other Secretaries and directors must comply 
with.
  Regrettably, under this rule, we will not have the opportunity to 
debate these matters. It should be obvious, when looking at the number 
and diversity of the amendments submitted, that this bill, as written, 
quite frankly, is not ready for prime time. If ever there was 
legislation that demanded an open rule, this is it. There is no 
stronger evidence of that than the fact that the chairman of the Select 
Committee himself has submitted three en bloc amendments to his own 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me say that this is the most important 
legislation of the 107th Congress to date. We are reorganizing the 
Federal Government and creating a new Department. We have never, to my 
recollection, undertaken such a daunting piece of legislation hampered 
by the restrictions this rule places on us.
  The American people are counting on us to create a Department that 
will do three things: Prevent terrorist attacks, reduce our 
vulnerability, and minimize the damage from attacks that do occur. It 
is not good for our constituents or our colleagues on the committees of 
jurisdiction to limit the number of amendments made in order.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and 
Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary to testify on the Hastert-
Gephardt rule.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  As everyone knows, the Judiciary has, for almost 2 years now, been 
working on the expected division of labor in the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service. On the one hand, we want to streamline the 
enforcement part of Immigration and Naturalization Service while, at 
the same time, giving due attention to the process, naturalization and 
immigrant services, on the other side.
  I am happy to report that the rule that we are considering now would 
allow debate, eventually, on the plan of the Select Committee on 
Homeland Security to take the enforcement border security portions of 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service and make it a part of the 
new Cabinet level of Homeland Security, while leaving in the Justice 
Department those functions to which we have alluded as being immigrant 
services, naturalization, process, et cetera.
  This, in one fell swoop, accomplishes the bifurcation purpose with 
which we started this term's deliberations on the structure of 
Immigration and Naturalization Service. So we are in a position, even 
though the Attorney General and the director of the INS have on their 
own shifted the boxes around in the Justice Department between 
enforcement and process, and even though the Committee on the Judiciary 
has moved on its own to bifurcate the two segments of INS, we now are 
in a position to sanctify the whole process by incorporating that same 
bifurcation in the Department of Homeland Security.
  I am pleased, then, Mr. Speaker, to support the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I commend him for his excellent service on the Select 
Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, today we address a critical piece of the strategy to 
protect our homeland. Paraphrasing Dwight Eisenhower, ``The right 
organization does not guarantee success, but the wrong organization 
guarantees failure.'' I would add that no organization, no organizing 
principle, guarantees chaos, a waste of scarce resources, and, 
ultimately, continued vulnerability.
  The strategy is to prevent another 9-11, to shore up vulnerable 
infrastructure, and make certain we can respond, if necessary, with 
maximum effectiveness. We do this by giving the dedicated, capable 
people in the field the tools and structure to do the job.
  A note on the history of this proposal. Last October, shortly after 
9-11, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) and I, with numerous 
bipartisan cosponsors, introduced legislation to create a statutory 
office in the White House to coordinate and oversee homeland security. 
We felt the executive order establishing Governor Ridge's office was 
inadequate to coordinate more

[[Page 14659]]

than 120 agencies and departments with some jurisdiction over homeland 
security.
  Events have proved us right. Our colleagues, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Thornberry) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) 
took a different approach, recommending the creation of a homeland 
security department of the sort recommended by the Hart-Rudman 
Commission in March 2001.
  This May, the four of us and a bipartisan group from the other body 
melded our approaches. We proposed a Department of Homeland Security 
smaller than the one envisioned in H.R. 5005, and a strong White House 
counter-
terrorism coordinating office. Then, in June, the President unveiled 
his approach, that, in the version reported by the Select Committee, 
places all or part of 22 Federal agencies in a new Department of 
Homeland Security.
  The bill also creates a Homeland Security Council in the White House, 
modeled after the National Security Council, to coordinate homeland 
security efforts across the Federal Government. The administration's 
proposal is a variation of our earlier bill, and I am pleased to be an 
original cosponsor.
  Looking forward, rather than just describing more of what is in the 
bill, I would note several improvements in the base bill and in the 
manager's amendment and several amendments to be adopted and supported 
by the manager.
  First, the establishment of a statutory Homeland Security Council in 
the White House. Second, the creation of a point of entry for thousands 
of companies with cutting-edge homeland security technologies, which 
must be deployed if our homeland is to be safe. Third, an amendment 
that passed the House 422 to 2 that requires the sharing of critical 
and reliable threat information across the Federal Government and down 
to State and local first responders. And, fourth, a sense of Congress 
underscoring the priority to fund trauma care and burn care with 
already appropriated bioterrorism money.
  Mr. Speaker, as a mother of four, I know that perfection is not an 
option. The bill is not perfect. But it is very good, and I urge 
support of this fair rule and adoption of H.R. 5005.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), a member of 
the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time, and I thank our colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle for putting together this piece of legislation. I fully support 
it and support the rule which is before us.
  I will have some comments about some of the amendments, but I wanted 
to stand up and set the stage as far as I am concerned for the 
legislation.
  I have been in this body for eight terms, Mr. Speaker, and during 
those eight terms, my number one priority has been to focus on 
emergency response locally. I have been to every disaster the country 
has had in the last 16 years: Loma Prieta, Northridge, Hurricane 
Andrew, Hugo, the Murrah Building bombing in Oklahoma City, the World 
Trade Center in 1993, and I was at Ground Zero on September 13. I went 
there to try to get lessons that we could learn from the needs that we 
have to respond to both natural and manmade incidents of disaster. 
Those needs are, in fact, addressed by this bill, except perhaps in one 
case.
  The number one overriding need is coordination of intelligence. Five 
years ago we proposed in our defense bill the creation of a national 
data fusion center. Unfortunately, while this agency calls for one 
focus on coordinated intelligence, it does not give the teeth necessary 
to force the FBI and the CIA to become totally involved, and it is 
going to require additional work. But intelligence is in fact an 
overriding priority for us to detect emerging threats.
  The second, and perhaps most important, priority for our first 
responders is communication. We have no integrated system of 
communication for our first responders nationwide. Local fire and 
police cannot talk to each other. That is unacceptable. This 
legislation deals with that issue in a real way.
  The third major priority is support for the first responder. Mr. 
Speaker, the first responder on every disaster in this country, be it 
natural or manmade, will not be the National Guard, will not be the 
FEMA bureaucrat, will not be the Marine Corps Seabird team. The first 
responder in every case will be someone from the 32,000 fire, EMS, and 
law enforcement departments who will be there when that terrorism act 
occurs or when that disaster occurs.
  And as we develop this legislation, I would ask our colleagues to 
keep in mind that that should be our underlying principle; that we 
empower the first responder. They know what to do. They have been 
handling chemical plant fires and other disasters for years. Our job 
must be to empower them with the support they need.
  I thank our colleagues and urge support for this rule and for this 
legislation.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, we all want America to be more secure. The 
American people are entitled to it. We need to eliminate fear and 
insecurity in our post-September 11 Nation, but this bill will not 
accomplish a more effective defense of our Nation because there has 
been no analysis, no risk assessment, no sense of the actual causes of 
insecurity, no justification for sweeping changes in 153 different 
agencies.
  Nothing in this bill will accomplish security superior to what those 
153 agencies can now accomplish through strong leadership. Furthermore, 
it has been 16 hours since this House passed an amendment to the 
intelligence authorization bill which will establish a national 
independent commission to investigate September 11. We will have a new 
Department with 170,000 employees to respond to 9-11, and yet the 
commission that will analyze 9-11 has not even begun its work. That is 
quite a feat.
  Meanwhile, 170,000 new people in this Department, no idea of how the 
organization will integrate, 10 years for the Department to be up and 
running, in the meantime, I predict the reorganization itself will 
represent a threat to the security of our Nation because it will induce 
paralysis and administrative breakdown.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the deputy whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time, and for her work on the Select Committee, along with all other 
Members who served on the committee, and certainly the majority leader 
who led the committee, which allowed all of the other committees to 
make recommendations.
  This rule, a rule brought to the Committee on Rules by the Democratic 
leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the gentleman from 
Illinois (Speaker Hastert), let all of those issues be discussed again 
on the floor. This has been a speedy but thorough process led by our 
Speaker, high cooperation from the minority leader, and certainly the 
committee itself led by the majority leader to get this bill to the 
floor.
  I just heard a suggestion that somehow this would confuse 
administrative lines of control and decisionmaking. I think just the 
opposite. The whole idea of a homeland security agency is to do away 
with that confusion. At a time when people need to respond, they need 
to know who makes the decision to respond. When there are people on the 
ground, they need to know the exact chain of command.
  We do not need people from six agencies all trying to respond in the 
same time in the least effective way. We need the Federal Government 
responding at the same time in the most effective way. This agency 
ensures that. We will have debate on the future of FEMA. FEMA should be 
part of a homeland security agency. Whether it is a natural disaster or 
a terrorist-created disaster, much of the response would be the same. 
We would hope that

[[Page 14660]]

FEMA would get its practice responding to natural disasters, but it 
will get that experience and that ability to respond so if we do have a 
terrorist disaster, we have an agency that is well prepared to respond 
to disasters. FEMA needs to be in this agency. The rule allows a vote 
on that very question.
  We need to have great flexibility with personnel so that Federal 
personnel is used where, when and how it is needed, and those decisions 
can be made in the way that least impacts the disaster, and best 
responds to solving that disaster. The deadlines that have been created 
for airports, we get a chance in this rule to discuss that, but 
deadlines that cannot possibly be met need to be viewed in a way that 
allows us to responsibly do our job.
  Many Members after September 11 thought that we needed to think long 
and hard before we decided to create a new agency like this. Well, we 
have thought long. We have thought hard. The President has set the mark 
by saying we need this agency so we can respond in an appropriate way, 
we can plan in an appropriate way, and the decisions are made in a way 
that people know who makes that decision.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why I urge the support of this rule, support of 
the bill, and we need to get on with this business and get this job 
done so we can begin to organize the Federal Government in a way that 
best meets the challenges we face.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, a few days after the tragedy 
of September 11, a day that none of us will ever forget where we were, 
and those of us in the United States Congress had a firsthand view of 
the billowing smoke from the Pentagon, we knew that we had to turn a 
page in America's history and begin to look at life differently.
  In the course of doing that, I drafted legislation that my colleagues 
joined me in to help prioritize the Federal relief and support for 
those children who had lost one parent or two parents in that tragedy 
on September 11. I remember meeting the Calderon family, two babies who 
had lost their mother.
  And so I come to the floor today to discuss this rule in the context 
that there cannot be or should not be a place for conspiracy theories 
or politics, as was said by one of the Members on this floor, but I 
truly believe that we can and should have been able to do better.
  This bill was marked up. The framework came to us from the White 
House very expeditiously by the committees of jurisdiction, but in the 
mark of the Select Committee, and I thank the chairman, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Armey), the ranking member, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), and the members of the Select Committee, in 
addition to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), came a bill of 200-
plus pages. I believe it warrants the deliberate study that would make 
this a better bill.
  This bill does not have whistleblower protection. I believe it could 
have better communications. Even though it deals with first responders, 
I believe it could do better.
  From the expertise of the Subcommittee on Immigration, I am 
disappointed that this body saw fit not to allow at least minimally a 
debate on how the immigration department should be structured. 
Interestingly enough, the amendment that I offered to establish a 
division 5 is the exact same format that the other body passed today 
out of the Committee on Government Reform. It includes a division of 
immigration affairs, and it includes enforcement and immigration 
services as one, not to put the immigration services in the Department 
of Justice, making it a stepchild with no funding because the other 
body recognizes that the two are intertwined, and they must be able to 
speak together.
  Mr. Speaker, suppose a person is applying for asylum and goes to the 
Department of Justice and Immigration Services, but his brother is 
caught by the Border Patrol in the Department of Homeland Security and 
they give that person another decision, this is not the way to run a 
government or to secure America.
  Interestingly enough, a division that would have comported with the 
format that the President presented the divisions and the way that they 
structured the immigration services is not done by this bill.
  My amendment would have had the children being addressed by the 
Department of Justice.
  Finally, here we are dealing with homeland security, and we have 
NASA, an amendment that was passed by the Committee on Science to help 
NASA collaborate with technologies and research with this new 
Department, an amendment that was rejected by this Committee on Rules 
and this rule.
  I do not know how we can consider this a bipartisan process if we 
leave a whole body of research that NASA has out of the ability to help 
us secure our homeland. I am very glad to see that some component of an 
amendment I had dealing with minorities and small businesses has been 
included, but still we have a problem with the kinds of benefits for 
civil service employees and an amendment dealing with avoiding 
kickbacks, whistleblower protection, protection of minorities and small 
businesses, and the prohibition of contracting with individuals who 
have been convicted of contract-related felonies has not been included.
  Mr. Speaker, we could and can do better. I ask Members to vote 
against this rule because we can do better for the American people.
  I am disturbed at the lack of deliberation and due process 
characterized by the rule put forth by the Rules Committee. I prepared 
six amendments to be considered for H.R. 5005 only that would have 
added to solving some of the difficulties of this large department. 
This process should not be a narrow process but rather an inclusive 
process to strike at the heart of terrorism.


amendment to h.r. 5005, the department of homeland security creating a 
                 fifth division of immigration affairs

  This amendment creates a fifth division to the Department of Homeland 
(DHS) consistent with the President's Proposal and the bill reported by 
the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee to the full Senate, and has 
the best chance of becoming law. It is imperative, as this House 
confirmed in H.R. 3231, that immigration services and enforcement stay 
in tact. Services and enforcement are clearly intertwined because it is 
vital that they talk with each other. It is important for there to be 
consistent decisions made on immigration issues. For example, the 
asylum seeker may present his case to the immigration service division 
in DOJ and get a different ruling by his brother who may have been 
picked up by Border Patrol and received a decision for DHS.
  This is bad policy and does not help those aliens seeking to follow 
the law. We can balance the services and the security needs and provide 
an effective revenue stream to fund these divisions. If DOJ services 
are separated from enforcement they will be treated like a stepchild 
without any support.
  The Jackson-Lee Proposal would create a fifth division within the 
Department of Homeland Security titled the Division of Immigration 
Affairs. This division could house three subdivisions titled; (1) 
Border Security; (2) Immigration Services and (3) Visa processing. My 
amendment envisions having the entire INS (a) pulled from the 
Administration's Border and Transportation Security division; (b) 
placed in its own division headed by an Undersecretary for Immigration 
Affairs; and (c) restructured as envisioned by H.R. 3231, the House INS 
restructuring bill.
  My amendment is consistent with the Hyde-Berman amendment, which 
passed during Judiciary committee markup and is endorsed by the Select 
Committee, is the preferred alternative and consistent with the 
Administration's proposal. This proposal allows the administration of 
visa issuance function to be carried out by State Department employees 
with the oversight and regulatory guidance of the DHS.
  My amendment also includes the Lofgren-Jackson-Lee amendment 
language, which will allow the Administration for Children and Families 
(ACF) within the Department of Health and Human Services to be the lead 
agency with responsibility for unaccompanied alien children.


 amendment to h.r. 5005, the department of homeland security treatment 
       of minors detained by the department of homeland security

  Another amendment I wanted to offer concerned the treatment of Minors 
by DHS. Minors may, for myriad reasons, come within the custody of the 
DHS. This Amendment would simply ensure that minors in custody of the

[[Page 14661]]

DHS, whether they be aliens or minors from the United States, are 
provided access to independent counsel within 24 hours and the DHS 
endeavors to make contact with a parent or guardian within 48 hours. 
The amendment further requires that the DHS take affirmative action 
towards assisting the minor in contacting the minor's parent or 
guardian.
  Legal permanent resident and U.S. minors may come into the custody of 
the Department of Homeland Security for many reasons. For example, if 
the Coast Guard takes a vessel into custody with children on it, these 
minors may end up in the custody of the DHS. These minors should 
guaranteed minimal procedural protections. My amendment simply made 
this explicit.


      congresswoman sheila jackson-lee nasa amendment to h.r. 5005

  I also wanted to offer a NASA Amendment. The Secretary of Homeland 
Security should not re-invent the wheel. If expertise and resources 
have already been developed at taxpayer expense, and exist in federal 
agencies, they should be put at the disposal of the Secretary.
  NASA is a leader in satellite and information security. NASA has 
developed hardware and software that would help make us less vulnerable 
to cyber-attacks, that could cost billions of dollars and risk many 
lives by compromising our infrastructure.
  My amendment would simply have NASA create an office which would 
catalog resources available at NASA that might be used in the fight 
against terrorism, and make them available to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security through reimbursable consultation or contracts.
  This common sense amendment could save millions of dollars by 
reducing redundancy, and could expedite the process of getting our 
nation prepared for the challenges ahead.
  It would be tragic if an attack occurred, while the technology to 
prevent that attack were readily available at NASA.


 Other Transaction Authority Limitation Amendment to H.R. 5005 offered 
                         by Sheila Jackson-Lee

  The bill as it stands gives ``other transaction authority'' to the 
Secretary. This authority allows the Secretary to bypass many good 
government provisions that regulate the use of independent contractors.
  This authority may be necessary in order to streamline research and 
development, and pilot projects deemed essential for homeland security. 
However, some of the regulations on federal contracting, reflect 
decades of accumulated wisdom, and would be absurd to discard.
  My amendment would NOT block the Secretary's use of ``other 
transaction authority.'' It would simply preserve a few common sense 
aspects of federal procurement law.
  It would stop people who were convicted of contract-related felonies 
from getting more contracts.
  It would protect the abilities of small and minority-owned businesses 
to get contracts.
  It would block the kickbacks that plague the contracting industry.
  It would block the use of taxpayer dollars going to contractors from 
being used to lobby the federal government for more contracts.
  And it protects workers who blow the whistle on fraud and abuse at 
contracting companies.
  If while consolidating different agencies into the Department of 
Homeland Security, we start removing the good government provisions 
that have made those agencies work well in the past--we run the very 
real risk of making the Department much less than the sum of its parts. 
The American people deserve better.


  Amendment Providing Special Assistant to the Secretary of Homeland 
    Security to promote the use of small and disadvantaged business

  My next amendment provides for a Special Assistant to the Secretary 
of Homeland Security to promote the use of women and small business 
concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically 
disadvantaged individuals. The present legislation does not address the 
issue of small business.
  My goal is to provide a holistic approach to small businesses. Not 
just covering the employees but encouraging the creation of small 
business. Small businesses are losing an increasing number of federal 
contracts to bigger business, according to recent data compiled by the 
Small Business Administration. Overall federal contracting dollars fell 
from $202 billion in 1995 to about $190 billion in 1997, a 5.9 percent 
decrease. But small businesses saw a 6.8 percent decline in federal 
contracts.
  Business in cities all over the nation are suffering cuts in 8(a) 
contracts. In the Phoenix area, $30 million in contracts were awarded 
to minority and women-owned firms through the SBA's 8(a) program in 
1995. That number dropped to $19 million in 1997. Similar firms in the 
Baltimore area saw contracting dollars plummet from $250 million in 
1995 to $172 million in 1997.
  More than one-half of minority women-owned firms (59%) are in the 
service sector, which also had the greatest growth (33 percent between 
1997 and 2002). Other industries with the greatest growth were 
transportation/communications/public utilities (21%) and agriculture 
(7%).
  The 10 states with the greatest number of minority women-owned firms 
in 2002 are 1) California; 2) New York; 3) Texas; 4) Florida; 5) 
Illinois; 6) Georgia; 7) Maryland; 8) New Jersey; 9) Virginia; and 10) 
North Carolina.
  Despite growth, the impact of the economy on minority-business 
development resulted in difficulty for entrepreneurs hoping to raise 
capital, something the MBDA is contending with, says Langston. 
According to a 1999 report by the BLACK ENTERPRISE Board of Economists, 
of the $4.2 billion invested through Small Business Investment 
Companies (SBICs), $4.09 billion went to majority firms and other $128 
million went to minority firms. By appointing a Special Assistant small 
business will have a voice in the Department.


                       civil service protections

  I would also like to express my strong objection to the denial of 
basic civil service protections for the thousands of federal workers 
who would be transferred to the proposed department for homeland 
security.
  Quite frankly, I believe that the current proposal would allow for 
arbitrary and unfair treatment of federal employees under the guise of 
increasing ``flexibility.'' I find it hard to understand why federal 
employees whose responsibilities are the same today as they were on 
September 11th, when they responded with courage and dedication, could 
lose civil service protections just because the government's 
organization chart may change. How can the American public feel that 
their homeland is secure if the federal employees of the new department 
do not even feel that their jobs are secure? Moreover, I would argue 
that civil service protections are an invaluable resource that allow 
federal employees, like the FBI's Coleen Rowley, to bring bureaucratic 
failures to light. Stripping workers of their collective bargaining 
rights and whistleblower protections would compromise the very 
structures that help to ensure we meet the desired goal of reducing our 
vulnerability to terrorism.
  I cannot overstate my adamant support for maintaining civil service 
protections in the new department. These protections should not be 
altered or revoked merely because federal employees suddenly find 
themselves working under the umbrella of a different department. I urge 
you to guarantee that, as this important piece of legislation makes its 
way through this committee, current civil service protections are not 
limited in any way. This issue is fundamental to my support for the 
creation of a new department.


                               conclusion

  The final outrage of this process rests in the fact that this bill 
gives unbridled attention to the needs of special interest concerns 
over the needs of the people. This bill give corporations that contract 
with the DHS undue protection from lawsuits for faulty and dangerous 
products. In this time of corporate irresponsibility, Congress should 
be doing everything to encourage the best behavior of corporate 
contractors, not giving them product liability protection.
  The creation of the DHS is a chief priority of the Administration and 
Congress has been asked to act in a very short time. The integration of 
functions across many different agencies is a difficult task and the 
time we have spent on this important task is insufficient. I fear that 
we will revisit this matter many times in the future.
  In closing, I would add that the Judiciary Committee has unique 
expertise in the oversight of Justice Department functions that will be 
integrated into the DHS. This expertise should be preserved in order to 
assure that those functions integrated from the DOJ remain effective 
within the DHS.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this has been a very long process. We had a lengthy 
markup in the committee lasting approximately 10 hours. We have had a 
lengthy hearing before the Committee on Rules. We have had negotiations 
on a bipartisan basis over the rule. This is not a perfect rule, but it 
does preserve the minority's right to offer most of the amendments that 
we sought. We would have preferred that we would have been given the 
opportunity to offer the DeLauro amendment.
  This is a very serious matter. It is in the interest of our country 
that our citizens be safe, and it is in the interest of the country 
that this House operate on a bipartisan basis. I believe we have been 
given that opportunity by the majority tonight. And while this is not a

[[Page 14662]]

perfect rule, I urge the adoption of the rule so we can proceed to the 
consideration of the bill on the floor this evening and tomorrow, and 
so we can complete this very important piece of legislation before we 
adjourn for our August recess.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard the beginning of what I believe will be a 
very broad and worthwhile debate on how best to secure our beloved 
country. There is universal recognition among my colleagues that our 
Nation is a different place than it was just 10 months ago, and our 
government must reflect that new reality.
  While the steps that we take today are a simple reorganization of 
existing governmental functions, we should not doubt that our work will 
directly serve the freedom, the liberty and the way of life of all 
American people.
  I urge Members to take measure of the task that we have before us, 
support this fair and open rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Armey), the chairman of the Select Committee on 
Homeland Security, who led us through this process with great decorum 
and statesmanship.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his participation in this 
debate, and thank the Committee on Rules for bringing this rule to the 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, when the President of the United States called us, the 
bicameral, bipartisan leadership of the Congress of the United States, 
to the White House on June 6 of this year and laid before us a plan to 
create a department of homeland defense for the American people, we all 
instantaneously recognized this as a large and daunting task.
  When the House minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt), publicly suggested that we should not only undertake this 
daunting task but should complete it by September 11, we all realized 
that, too, would be even more daunting, but the President of the United 
States jumped right up and saluted that date. So we developed among 
ourselves in this body and the other body a resolve to do everything we 
could to make that date. I do not know whether we will make it or not, 
but I know we will make a good effort.
  The President of the United States sent to us a good proposal, a 
proposal that has served as a useful template for the legislative 
processes of this Congress, of this House. But with respect to that 
template, that proposition, the Speaker of the House made, I thought, 
the most generous and inclusive decisions regarding how we should 
proceed.
  The Speaker of the House recognized that there were 12 standing 
committees of this body that would have appropriate and necessary 
jurisdiction with respect to this legislation, should it be developed, 
and he saw to it that each of these 12 standing committees worked their 
will on the legislation.

                              {time}  2015

  If we take the membership of the Committee on Ways and Means, the 
Committee on Appropriations, Committee on the Judiciary, Committee on 
Agriculture, the Committee on International Relations, the Committee on 
Government Reform, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
Committee on Financial Services, Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, House Committee on Armed Services, and Committee on 
Commerce, and Committee on Energy and Science, we would probably have 
at least two thirds of the Members of this body having served on a 
committee that exercised jurisdiction over this bill. I cannot imagine 
any piece of legislation produced in this body in my 18 years that had 
so large a percentage of the body's hands on the legislative process. 
What could be more inclusive than that?
  But that inclusivity was not, in itself, enough to satisfy the 
Speaker's desire that this be an open, inviting, and inclusive process. 
He then arranged that these 12 different select committees would report 
their work to a select committee comprised of Members of the leadership 
of both the Republican and Democrat party. And we digested the work of 
these 12 different committees after we had had hearings that included 
virtually every member of the cabinet that had anything to do with 
this, each of the chairmen and ranking members of each of these 
committees, and we had a very special hearing that included a group 
that I like to call the bipartisan innovators in the body that had 
presented themselves to this task long before it was conceived by the 
President, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Harman), and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Tauscher) and of course the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) whose 
work was invaluable to us as we proceeded.
  The Speaker, when he set up this process and invited us to go to 
work, agreed that there would be a rule that would govern our 
proceedings, that would be a product of the joint recommendation of 
himself and the minority leader. And at the conclusion of our event, 
102 amendments were offered for consideration to the Committee on 
Rules. The Speaker and the minority leader have spent the last 48 hours 
digesting these, structuring these, negotiating, and have given us this 
rule that defines the content of 27 opportunities to amend this 
legislation and the structure of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I can think of no time ever in my time as a Member of 
this body when we considered anything whatsoever under procedures, 
jurisdictions, participations that were broader and more bipartisan and 
more inviting and more inclusive than this. In the close of business 
this day and the next, we will produce a bill for the Department of 
Homeland Defense, and it will be a bill that will have had, in terms of 
participation in the writing of chapter and verse, the participation of 
virtually every Member of this Congress.
  May I say on behalf of the body, Mr. Speaker, thank you, thank you 
for understanding, Mr. Speaker, how serious this business is, how 
important it is to the Nation, and thank you for making it possible for 
each and every one of us on both sides of the aisle to know that we 
were respected, included, and participated in this process. No Speaker 
ever in the history of the House showed a greater respect for the House 
Members than our Speaker, Mr. Hastert, and if I may again say on behalf 
of all of us, Mr. Speaker, thank you for being the fine man you are.
  You are, Mr. Speaker, a fine servant to freedom, and that is the kind 
of governance we should have in this House. I ask that we vote this 
amendment out of respect to the generosity and inclusiveness of the 
Speaker who made it possible.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today disappointed that 
the Rules Committee would not allow an amendment that would have 
provided the new Department of Homeland Security with the tools that 
are necessary to appropriately respond to a terrorist attack or another 
Homeland Security Emergency.
  The amendment that I speak of is one that I offered in the Committee 
on Government Reform, where it passed by a unanimous vote.
  Government Reform is the Committee that had primary jurisdiction in 
the creation of this new department, yet much of its wonderful 
bipartisan work was unexplainably rejected by the Majority, was not 
allowed in today's Bill and is not even being allowed a chance to be 
debated on the floor today.
  Obviously, prevention needs to be our and the Department of Homeland 
Security's number-one priority, and we must do everything possible to 
prevent all future attacks.
  However, there are two major priorities for homeland security--not 
only preventing terrorism, but also responding to the impacts of 
terrorism should it occur again.
  With this reorganization, we seem to have only focused on the first.
  If a fail-safe system cannot be created, then why are we being 
blocked today from taking the lessons learned from the worst terrorist 
attack in American history and using the research of GAO, CRS and the 
NY Federal Reserve to create an improved system of response?

[[Page 14663]]

  Experience is often the best teacher and very regrettably, New York 
learned much on 9/11.
  The bipartisan amendment that I introduced recognized the need to 
improve the nation's response should we have another attack.
  My amendment does exactly that.
  It gives the Secretary the authority to respond quickly following a 
homeland security event and eliminates much of the redtape New York 
experienced after 9/11.
  These are things that when they need to be done, they need to be done 
quickly. If they are not done quickly then the challenges to the 
affected areas significantly increase.
  I must stress that all of these options are at the discretion of the 
Secretary.
  I cannot imagine why the Majority would not allow the opportunity to 
give the Department of Homeland Security the ability to respond and 
provide aid to schools, hospitals and local governments that may need 
it.
  We know from September 11th that there's a great deal of room for 
improvement in response and recovery operations.
  While the hearts of Washington were 100% behind New York's recovery, 
the system was not adequately prepared to get the job done.
  The series of complications and delays in federal relief efforts for 
New York City show a real need for expanded authority and flexibility 
in disaster recovery operations.
  I think we can all agree that delivering immediate aid, to the right 
people, at the right time, is and will always be our top priority.
  It's painful to think that thousands of people, in any of our 
districts, could once again be left without assistance because of 
outdated rules and inconsistent procedures.
  Sadly, America experienced a major disaster we can learn from, 
showing in some cases what works, and in many cases, how not to 
respond.
  My amendment learns from the past and prepares for the future.
  Enclosed are materials on my amendment. Although my amendment was not 
included, I do support the rule and underlying bill.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________