Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to inquire of the majority leader when he expects the bill that was just pulled to be rescheduled?

Ms. PELOSI. So it is our understanding we are leaving at 20 after 12 on Thursday, coming back at 6:30 on Tuesday, and we may be out next Friday?

Ms. PELOSI. Is the gentleman referencing the provision in the bill that was put in by the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), from the gentleman's own party?

Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, I am glad the gentleman ended on that note, because further to remind our colleagues, the President's Leave No Child Behind bill, H.R. 1, the flagship bill on education that was passed by this body, had $7 billion in the President's bill for education, but in this bill cutting the investment in education leaves millions of children behind. So it is a high priority for us, and we look forward to that bill coming to the floor. Would the distinguished majority leader tell us when the bankruptcy conference report would be scheduled?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I was particularly interested in the Labor, Health, Human Services and Education bill, when that would come to the floor, because in its present form it cuts $7 billion in education from the Leave No Child Behind bill that was passed, H.R. 1, with great fanfare early in the year. So we are very, very interested in the resolution and the debate on that bill. Would that bill be coming up next week?

Ms. PELOSI. I would further like to inquire of the majority leader when the appropriations bills will come to the floor?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for having this very important special order this evening on this day that is etched in the hearts and minds of all Americans. I want to first commend the gentleman, my colleague from New York (Mr. Engel), and extend to him and the members of the New York delegation, especially the dean, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for the magnificent hospitality extended to the Congress. Over 300 Members of Congress traveled to New York on Friday to the place where George Washington took the oath of office as our first President of the United States. What more suitable place could there be than for us to express our grief to all those who personally suffered on September 11 and, indeed, to our entire country which shares in that grief? But New York took a hit and all those from surrounding areas, as the gentleman said, many from New Jersey, certainly those in the plain in Pennsylvania and those at the Pentagon, in every venue the spirit of the families who suffered the loss and the spirit of the communities that were involved has lifted up our country. This has been quite a day for our country, all over America, and I know in my district in San Francisco all day. We started at 5 o'clock this morning because it is three hours earlier, to be ready to commemorate at the exact moment the sad tragedy that our country experienced last year. But for some of us, we were in the National Cathedral at that precise time when the great bell of the cathedral rang to observe again that sad time and for all of us to join in mourning. It is a day of mourning and memories, and it is a day to pay tribute and give thanks certainly to the New York delegation for the wonderful venue they provided for us to mourn, commiserate, and they provided us a great memory for which we are all grateful. With the resolution that we approved today in the Congress, we expressed our utmost appreciation to those brave and courageous young men and women in uniform who are fighting the battle to route out terrorism wherever it exists. Today we remember the victims of September 11. We also remember and pay tribute to Johnny Micheal Spann, the CIA officer who in November became the first American killed in combat. We honored him earlier in this Congress with his family in the gallery. His name and the names of thousands of other Americans, too many Americans, are now etched as permanently in our history as they are in the minds of their families. As the poet laureate of the United States said in New York, too many names for even the walls of our hearts to contain. For some of the families of the victims, the sound of a plane flying overhead fills them with fear. Indeed, the warning of any possible terrorist act intensifies their grief, and for them and for all Americans we must do everything in our power to reduce risk to the American people. Yet as we continue to grieve, we take pride in knowing that the unspeakable events of September 11 have brought Americans closer together than ever. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) referenced that, as did the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). We have joined together as a community, we rush to give blood, money, and volunteer time to become more patriotic, to appreciate our freedom. Today's resolution honored all of those affected by September 11 from whom we have learned what it means to be a member of the American family. From our first responders, our firefighters, and police officers, we have learned to be an American is to be selfless, to put honor above personal safety and the lives of strangers above your own. From cell phone calls made from crumbling buildings, we learned that to be an American is to love family with a power and a force that transcends even death. From a group of passengers in a hijacked plane over Pennsylvania, we learned that to be an American is to be brave in the face of hopelessness and to do good for others while evil is being done to oneself. And from workers at the Pentagon who went to work that day and every day, we learned that to be an American is to love freedom and to show that love every day by serving our great country. This morning we also went to the Pentagon, shared some sympathies with the families of those who lost their loved ones. One young man showed me the flag that was given to him in memory and honor of his father who perished that day. We also honored the hardhats who rebuilt the Pentagon so that here today on that 1-year anniversary we could visit a Pentagon that was restored, a sign of confidence and pride in our country. With these lessons in mind, we can rest assured that the assault in our heart, the heart of our Nation, will only make it beat more strongly. That strength will allow us to triumph over terror militarily, and that strength will allow us to triumph over terror in spirit. We will cherish our freedoms now more than ever and recognize, as was said at the National Cathedral this morning, that there is a high cost to freedom. We will draw our loved ones closer and reach out further toward peace with our adversaries. With that, I would like to once again express gratitude to all who have helped us all grieve. I hope it is a comfort to those who lost their loved ones that so many people throughout the world, and indeed, intensely in our own country, share their grief and are praying for them at this sad time. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and our leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), for making it possible for us to travel to New York, because it was a place we had to visit. We went to the heart, to where our country began, to renew ourselves and to be ready for this very, very sad day, but in a spirit of renewal and pride in our great country. God bless America.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Robert Barnes, one of San Francisco's premier political consultants who died on August 9, 2002 at the age of 42. A fifth generation San Franciscan, his leadership and tenacity greatly influenced the political landscape of San Francisco for the past 20 years. Robert Barnes was a passionate advocate for his candidates and causes. He was responsible for electing more gay and lesbian candidates to office than any other political consultant in California. He also co-managed the first domestic partners initiative in San Francisco. Barnes served as consultant and advisor to dozens of elected officials, including Mayor Willie Brown, City Attorney Dennis Herrera, Supervisor Mark Leno, and Assemblywoman Carole Migden. He was a consultant for many important civic institutions and their bond campaigns, including San Francisco City College, San Francisco Unified School District, Laguna Honda Hospital, California Academy of Sciences, the De Young Museum, and the San Francisco Public Library. Robert Barnes' commitment to gay rights, social change, and political involvement began early. He founded one of the nation's first teenage gay clubs at San Francisco's Lowell High School. At the encouragement of the late Supervisor Harvey Milk, the 18 year old worked as the youth coordinator for the No on Proposition 6 campaign to defeat the anti-gay ``Briggs'' initiative. Barnes held numerous leadership positions in Democratic and LGBT community organizations. He was Chair of the Lesbian and Gay Caucus of the State Democratic Party and was elected to the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee. As president of the Alice B. Toklas Lesbian and Gay Democratic Club, he transformed the organization into one of the most influential local gay political organizations in the country. Robert loved San Francisco and was grateful for its tolerant climate that encouraged his success. San Francisco was well served by his passionate convictions and advocacy. To his partner and middle-school classmate Carlos Molina, his father Bob, and his sister Mauri Barnes Luna, I extend my deepest sympathy. I hope it is a comfort to his family that so many people share their loss at this sad time.

Mr. PELOSI

Mr. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, It is with great personal sadness that I rise to pay tribute to my friend John Jacobs, a great friend to San Francisco's business and conservation communities. John worked passionately to keep San Francisco's economy vital and its environment sound. The former head of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, he passed away on July 15th at 76 years of age. A native of Philadelphia, John served as a paratrooper in the 101st Airborne Division during the Battle of the Bulge during World War II. Following the war, he worked for NATO in England and France. He attended New Mexico State University on the GI Bill and received his BS in Business. His college roommate, John Hirten, urged him to come to San Francisco to lead SPUR, which he did for the next twenty years. John was one of the most influential figures in San Francisco's planning and economic development since the 1960's. Under his leadership, SPUR played a key role in the creation of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area by developing a network of more than 65 conservation and civic-minded organizations. He served as deputy director of SPUR from 1960 to 1968 and as executive director from 1968 to 1981. He then served as executive director of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce from 1981 to 1988, when he became president of the organization for a year. He played a leading role in resolving the downtown business community's battles with City Hall and neighborhood groups and helped draft guidelines for the treatment of HIV-positive employees. John was also an avid sailor and expert yachtsman and named champion in several sailboat racing classes. His love for the San Francisco Bay Area was demonstrated by his service on the boards of the Fine Arts Museum, KQED, Point Reyes Bird Observatory, and the San Francisco State University Foundation. John's service to San Francisco and the Bay Area was a gift to us all. His insistence that the business and conservation communities communicate with and support each other made San Francisco a model for other cities. He was a hero, always vigilant, always willing and able to do battle. To John's lovely wife Shirley, I extend my deepest sympathy and my gratitude to her for sharing her magnificent husband with us.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep appreciation for the work of Mr. John Reynolds, regional director for the western region of the National Park Service, Region IX. With John's retirement on August 3, the national parks will lose a dedicated, innovative leader. John Reynolds has devoted his entire career to our national parks, joining the park service while still a student in 1961 and rising through the ranks to become director of the Pacific West Region in 1997. In this position, he held responsibility for 56 national parks in Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and the islands of the outer Pacific. These parks include many of our country's greatest natural and cultural treasures--majestic redwood groves, active volcanoes, historic ships and forts, sweeping seashores, and mountains and valleys of stunning beauty. John's contributions to the national parks, and especially the western region, have been myriad. He has actively promoted new and innovative ideas, and has fostered unique and creative problem-solving in the parks under his jurisdiction. He has done so much to bring the national parks to the people, especially in urban areas. He has served as a calming and effective presence in dealing with controversies over park stewardship. He has always worked to achieve balance among the many purposes and uses of national parks, while first and foremost remaining dedicated to preserving the parks for future generations. I wish to give John heartfelt thanks, on behalf of my constituents in San Francisco, for his oversight of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, his support for the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park and the historic ships, and his crucial role in establishing the Presidio as a new national park. In its spectacular location at the Golden Gate, the Presidio is one of America's great natural and historic sites. As general manager of the Presidio from November 1996 to May 1997, John stepped up to the plate at the beginning of its transition from Army base to national park. Subsequently, as regional director, he provided steady support and guidance for the Presidio as it continued to develop in its unique role as the only national park required to become fully self- supporting. John was born in Yosemite National Park, so perhaps it was inevitable that he should dedicate his life to protecting and promoting national parks. We will miss him greatly, and we wish him and his family all the best for the future.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Ambassador F. Hayden Williams, a great American whose distinguished service and leadership has been instrumental in the creation of a World War II memorial on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Ambassador Williams has devoted a lifetime to public service. Through his time in the Navy Reserve during World War II, his work in the Kennedy and Eisenhower administrations, and his tenure as an Ambassador to Micronesia, Ambassador Williams has made important contributions to our government over more than fifty years. He has served with distinction on numerous boards and committees and in advisory capacities on defense and international affairs. Ambassador Williams' connection to San Francisco and the Bay Area began as an undergraduate at the University of California at Berkeley, where he studied Political Science and History. He has since given much to the Bay Area, as an exemplary citizen, as a Trustee of U.C., Berkeley, and as a Commissioner of the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco. Ambassador Williams' effort to build a World War II memorial is his most recent contribution to public life. He served as a Commissioner of the American Battle Monuments Commission from 1994 until 2001 and was named Chairman of the National World War II Memorial Committee. He directed the selection of the Memorial's site on the Mall and coordinated all aspects of the Memorial's design. He worked closely with Representative Marcy Kaptur and others in the United States Congress to garner legislative support for the Memorial. Ambassador Williams helped shape the purpose of the Memorial. He wanted it to honor and express the Nation's enduring gratitude to all American men and women who served in the United States Armed Forces during WWII, those who gave their lives in battle, those missing in action, and those who survived. He made sure that the Memorial would convey a sense of remembrance and national pride in the fortitude, valor, and sacrifice of our armed forces. He envisioned a Memorial that would acknowledge and honor the nation at large, the vigorous, spirited commitment of the American people to the war effort, and the vital contribution of the home front to America's victory in WWII. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Ambassador F. Hayden Williams. I join with his family and friends in recognizing his service and dedication to ensuring that the country honors those who fought so valiantly in World War II.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey). This section would prohibit the Government from putting in place the Bush administration's TIPS program, the Terrorist Information and Prevention System. Is it the majority leader's intent that section 770 ban both the program called ``TIPS'' and any other successor program that might be considered that would have the same or similar characteristics as TIPS? In other words, would section 770 bar the Government both from putting in place the same program under a different name or a program under a different name with similar characteristics to the proposed TIPS program?

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the leader.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the majority leader. Further, I would like to engage the majority leader in a colloquy about Section 815 of H.R. 5005. This section makes it crystal clear that nothing in this legislation authorizes the development a national identification system or card. Since September 11 there have been several proposals to institute a national identification system or national I.D., and all have been met with a great deal of controversy. Direct passage of a national I.D. card, however, is only one possible path to such a system. There have also been proposals to establish a national I.D. through the back door of the State driver's license. For example, in a recent report, the nonpartisan National Research Council called the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators' standardization proposal a ``nationwide identity system.'' Does the majority leader agree that recent proposals to standardize State driver's licenses would be a back door route to a national I.D. and therefore prohibited under this provision?

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the leader.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, for her kind words, but most of all for her leadership. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that this amendment is being considered on the floor today. I commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for their work on this over the long term. This bill passed the floor 412-2. It had been our hope to include it in the base bill that would come to the floor, but it was rejected by a 5-4 vote in the Select Committee. I am pleased that we have another chance for Congress to work its will on this important issue on the floor this evening. As I have quoted previously real estate, the three most important words are location, location, location. When it comes to homeland security, the three most important words are localities, localities, localities. Our work on homeland security should begin and end in the localities. That is largely where the threat is. That is where the ideas are, and that is where the needs are. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) have traveled the country having hearings on this subject. We hear from our experts that information sharing is absolutely essential. They have pled with us to make this part of any homeland security. I want to praise them for the response they have received thus far from Congress, and hope that result will even be better today. In any event, the need for information is essential for us to reduce risk to protect the American people better, and that is why this is so essential. I hope that we can do it in a department of homeland defense that is technologically maximizing the capabilities of the new technologies, and it will further enable information to be shared to protect the American people.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak to inquire of the distinguished majority leader how he would like to proceed.

Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that we do not see the respect for the civil service that I think that this Homeland Security Department legislation should contain. There is a serious reason why we have a civil service. It came into existence to eliminate corruption and favoritism, and, here, we have here a diminishing of the rights of our workforce, rather than enhancement of our civil service. We sing the praises of our first responders, of our public employees who stand as the first line of defense, physically and intellectually, in protecting America, and yet in this new Department we want to diminish their rights. I am also concerned about the safety issues. It took my breath away in committee when the chairman's mark had in it the elimination of a deadline for putting detection devices in place to detect explosives in baggage. We end up in this bill with an extension. But I hope that that will not be an endless extension, but I fear that it may be. I do not think that is the way to protect the American people best. I am very concerned about the liability provisions, the total immunity given to businesses, even those guilty of fraud and wrongdoing. Unlimited immunity. We had a nice alternative, a good alternative that the business community agreed to offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) which lost by one vote on the floor. I hope that we can revisit that issue. So I put it to my colleagues. Is it your judgment that a bloated bureaucracy that undermines the civil service, that gives unlimited immunity even to wrongdoers is the best way to protect the American people? As my colleagues know, our tragedy started at the airports, Mr. Chairman, and in this legislation, there is protection for the very kinds of security companies that were a part of the problem to begin with. Not only are we not trying to improve the situation, we are protecting the wrongdoers very specifically. So as my colleagues can see, I have some concerns about the bill. It does not mean I have some concerns about the idea; we all know that we want a Department of Homeland Security. We all hope that in working together through the rest of the legislative process, we can come closer to a department that will do the job. What we have now is the department that the Government Accounting Office says will take 5 to 10 years to be up and running, and that will cost $4.5 billion to set up. We will spend any amount of money to protect the American people, but is that $4.5 billion spent in the best way to protect the American people? After all is said and done, Mr. Chairman, it comes back to the families. I have had them say to me that a plane flying overhead is a source of terror to them. We owe it to them to reduce risk, to bring life as close to normal as possible for them. The goal of terrorists is to instill fear. We cannot let them have that victory. We must work together to again, protect the American people best, and to do so in a way that is not only a comfort to the families, but removes sources of terror for them. Again, though, I want to commend all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the respect and dignity for those families they have brought to this debate. I know we all have a common goal; we have different ways of reaching it. But those of us who have certain beliefs about how government should look in the future, and have experience that speaks to the possibilities of technology being the source of coordination and communication, rather than having cohabitation in a building for 170,000 people, believe that we can reach that goal. In closing, I want to compliment the majority leader. He is never listening, so my colleagues will have to tell him what I say, and that is that he, throughout the process, has been a champion for protecting our civil liberties every step of the way. Not only has he been vigilant, he has taken leadership, and for that I want to commend him. We did not have many other areas of agreement, but I hope the American people know that we are all of good intent when it comes to their welfare. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I may further inquire of the distinguished majority leader, would it then be the intention that we would move to the votes and any other business before we move to final passage?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman like to shed any light on the schedule for the remainder of the evening?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for the information, and look forward to making further inquiries into the night as may be required.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and all of those who have presided over this debate in the last 2 days on an issue of very, very immediate importance to the American people, the safety of our country and their personal safety. I wish to commend all of the Members of Congress, of this House, on both sides of the aisle for their enthusiastic embrace of the issues involved in this legislation. I particularly want to commend the staff, the bipartisan staff of the standing committee, as well as of the committees of jurisdiction, who worked very, very hard over the past few weeks. Personally I want to commend on my own staff Carolyn Bartholomew, George Crawford and Nathan Barr for their good work; Kristi Walseth of the staff of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost); Pedro Pablo Permuy of the staff of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez); and Becky Salay of the staff of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and as I say, all of the staff of the standing committee. Mr. Chairman, we are gathered here today to honor a compact that our government has with the American people, and that compact is to provide for the common defense. It is embodied in our preamble to the Constitution, wherein our civil liberties are enshrined. Our Founding Fathers knew that we could do both, protect and defend our country and protect and defend our Constitution and our civil liberties, and that is what we set upon to do in this legislation. On September 11, our country was attacked in a way that was unimaginable up until that time, and is unforgettable from then on. Anyone who has visited Ground Zero in New York, the Pentagon or the crash site in Pennsylvania knows that they have walked on hallowed ground. Indeed, in our work here today and in the past few weeks, we, too, are on hallowed ground. We have a solemn obligation to those heroes who died as martyrs to freedom and to their families to respond in a way that reflects the greatness of our country. That greatness, again, calls for protecting our country and our civil liberties in the best possible way, to reduce risk, to protect the American people in the best possible way. Mr. Chairman, I am sad to report that I do not think that the legislation before us meets that standard. We have tried to find our common ground, and where we found agreement, we resolved differences. But on some issues that are fundamental to us on both sides, we could not find agreement. We are in a stage of the legislative process, and it is my hope that, as we go forward, we will be able to resolve some of these differences further, so that at the end of the day we will have bipartisan agreement on the Department of Homeland Security, which we all agree we need, but have some disagreement over what form it should take. I myself had hoped that we could present to the American people a Department of Homeland Security that was lean and of the future, not a monstrous bureaucracy of the '50s that would have been obsolete even then. I had hoped that this new lean department would, instead of bulk, capitalize on the technological revolution in order to increase communication and coordination. I had hoped that the Secretary of Homeland Security would be able to coordinate functions, rather than have to manage and administer staff. Indeed, the very size of this Department is alarming. It will have, by low estimate, 170,000 employees, and the Government Accounting Office says it may even have 200,000 employees. Mr. Chairman, there are 85,000 jurisdictions in the United States, cities, towns, municipalities, governments, and only 120 of them, of the cities in our country, have a larger population than the Department of Homeland Security. Salt Lake City, Utah, Providence, Rhode Island, Portsmouth, Maine, Reno, Nevada, to name a few, are all smaller in their population than the Department of Homeland Security will be. I am sad that in the bloated bureaucratic approach we are taking that we are looking backward rather than forward in protecting the American people. But hopefully we can resolve some of that as we go forward. That speaks to the need for a strong Office of Homeland Security in the White House.