Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), if he would agree to an additional 5 minutes on both sides. I will ask unanimous consent to have an additional 5 minutes on each side. I understand that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) wishes to speak. I will use our time.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes on both sides.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I sought that time in order to engage the majority leader in colloquy about section 770 of H.R. 5005.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Leader, I listened to the reading of the martial law legislation, and it said that we could consider the bankruptcy bill, the trade bill, and also the electoral reform bill. Is it the gentleman's understanding that the electoral reform bill could go to the Committee on Rules for a rule and come to the floor, and I would say this evening, but it is now this morning?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, it is my understanding that the bankruptcy conference report, trade promotion, and terrorism risk insurance are the three bills that may come to the floor tonight?

Ms. PELOSI. And there is nothing beyond that except the unanimous consent requests?

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me; and I thank him for his leadership as a ranking member on the Committee on Government Reform and for his thorough understanding of the challenge that we have before us today. I also want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for her leadership over the past year on this issue of homeland security. I want to take my lead from her when she said we must consider the context within which this amendment will be judged, because I believe the context within which this amendment will be judged is the context of a very big bill to establish a department, which we all agree we need, but the size of which and the approach to which harkens back to the 1950s, rather than into the future. It is not a department for this new century. It is old and fashioned in a very old-fashioned way. It does not utilize to the maximum extent the technologies, and instead depends on locating 170,000 people. That is the low estimate. GAO says it could be as many as 200,000 people. Mr. Chairman, there are 85,000 jurisdictions in our country, cities, towns, governments, of one kind or another, that this homeland security initiative must communicate with. Of that 85,000, only about 120 are larger than this proposed department. Cities like Salt Lake City; Providence, Rhode Island; Portsmouth, Maine; Reno, Nevada; and the list goes on and on, have fewer people than this Department of Homeland Security will have. The CBO says it will cost $4.5 billion to set this up, it is so large. We will pay any price to protect our people, but that money might be better spent protecting our people than to go down this path of big government, a bureaucratic approach. We want that secretary of a lean department to be able to use his or her thinking about how to protect the American people, rather than spend time managing a department larger than most cities and towns in our country. But the main point that I want to make is that the GAO, the Government Accounting Office, has said that it will take 5 to 10 years to have a Department of this size up and running. We simply cannot wait that long. Nothing less than the safety and security of the American people depend on us being, from day one, ready to protect them in the strongest possible way. I have supported the amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) to codify the Office of Homeland Security in the White House. I think that is a good idea. I think it is a better idea to make that department stronger, at least for the time that it takes to set up this department. That is why I support the gentleman's amendment. I commend him for tracking the President's executive order, and I hope that he will be open to some compromise so that we can get this part of the bill moving and to have it signed. I urge our colleagues to support the Waxman amendment. I support him, and I commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for her leadership.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, throughout the course of all of this we have striven to find our areas of agreement, and we have made some successes in that regard. Every now and then something will come along that just really takes your breath away. That happened last week when we had the markup of the bill when the majority tried to give an indefinite extension for the installation of detection devices for explosives in baggage and when the distinguished leader put into his mark a total immunity, a total immunity, for those who were guilty of wrongdoing and jeopardizing the safety of the American people. So here we now have today an en bloc amendment, the en bloc amendment of the chairman, which we would all love to support. The chairman has worked hard on this bill and he has some technicalities he would like to correct, and we would like to support him. Except, once again, out of the blue, comes an amendment that fatally flaws this en bloc amendment. Let us dissect that. This amendment is fatally flawed. That means it has a flaw that kills it. It is fundamentally flawed. It is flawed in a way that undermines any reason why anyone should vote for it. The Armey amendment takes a bad provision, which gives immunity to corporate wrongdoers, and makes it even worse. I am going to have more to say on this subject as we go along. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Again, I acknowledge the fine work of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and the fine work of our ranking member on the Committee on Government Reform, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). I just want to make this final point: I talked earlier about the size of this department and the number of localities in this country that are larger. There are not that many that have more people than this department will have. The main point about what we do here is about localities, localities, localities, is it not, I ask the leader, and how we communicate with them; how we do it immediately to protect from day one the American people? Those localities need a place to coordinate with that is strong and effective from day one, and not wait 5 to 10 years for the department to be established. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, as we debate matters of great seriousness today, there is some good news to report, and I think a good omen, and that is that last night Marty Meehan and his wife, Ellen, received God's blessing of Daniel Martin Meehan, 9 pounds, 10 ounces, 22 inches long, in Lawrence, Massachusetts. I know we all want to congratulate Marty and Ellen Meehan. Announcement by the Chairman pro tempore

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his outstanding leadership on protecting the civil service. We have a civil service for a reason. It has served our country, indeed, it serves democracy well. We are an example to the world. As we go forward to reduce risk and to protect the American people, we should not do so at the expense of a democratic institution like civil service. One of the previous speakers said that we are competing with the private sector so we need this flexibility. We are competing with the private sector, and that is precisely why we need to respect our workers and give them the civil service protection that President Bush did in the mark that the President sent to this body. Support the President's bill. Support the Waxman amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the en bloc amendment and request the time in opposition.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a distinguished member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, we will be looking forward to the distinguished leader's remarks, and then I will close.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, in his closing remarks, our distinguished leader explained how many elements there were to this en bloc amendment and said that we were finding fault with a small part of it. The fact is that we would like to find no fault with an en bloc amendment. There are many provisions in it. I dare say most of us have not the faintest idea what they are, but we trust the Chairman on those technicalities and recommendations from the committee. This is usually a noncontroversial measure that most Members would expect to support. That is why it is so disappointing that this en bloc amendment is being used to put a very controversial amendment in. To use the engine of an en bloc on technicalities for a substantive change in the bill that is controversial is unusual, and that is why we oppose it, because of the substance of the provisions. It has been said that this is about protecting the American people. Let us keep our standard before us. How do we protect the American people best? In the bill, and another amendment will come up later, the Turner amendment to strike it, but in the bill, under section 753 of the bill, corporations can submit designs for antiterrorism products to the Homeland Security Department if those designs are approved by the Secretary. Those corporations get total immunity from product liability lawsuits under the government contractor defense of any kind, even if there is wrongdoing, including willful and malicious corporate misconduct. Imagine that this bill to protect the American people has that provision in it the day after we pass the corporate accountability bill, but this amendment, this en bloc amendment, even does that one worse. This amendment goes further to protect corporate wrongdoers. It extends total immunity to all kinds of lawsuits. Even if a product does not work, they cannot sue for breach of contract, et cetera, but this would give it immunity for willful wrongdoing to corporations that provide services and software. I have heard people say that this is important so that we can get people to bid. The Turner amendment addresses that next with a wise amendment that addresses the concerns of the private sector in a responsible way. In this bill, the Armey amendment immunizes airport screening companies whose negligence may have contributed to the September 11 attacks, and I have heard people say here, of course, a person can sue under this bill. Let me just read from the en bloc amendment. It talks about the presumption and it says, The presumption shall only be overcome, in other words the presumption of innocence, that this presumption shall only be overcome by evidence showing that the seller acted fraudulently or with willful misconduct in submitting information to the Secretary. Only in submitting information to the Secretary. Not in how the person manufactured the product or spelled out how it should be used. So this, the standard that is set in this bill, is how a person makes their case to the Secretary. Not about how they deliver on the promise to protect the American people. We all know that in a time leading up to September 11, there were many causes for the tragedy coming our way, and one of them was the fact that the airport screening companies played Russian Roulette with the safety of the American people. Sooner or later there was going to be a tragedy because of their lax approach to safety in the security and the screening process. This bill that we have before us, on a day when we are discussing how to make the country safer in the best possible way, says that we will make matters worse by passing this en bloc amendment. I would urge my colleagues to do the responsible thing and reject this en bloc amendment.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay final tribute to my friend Doris Thomas, who died peacefully on July 8 in San Francisco. Doris was a long-time community organizer and political activist who worked tirelessly to empower local communities through political involvement. Doris was a leader in our City, and I join so many other San Franciscans in mourning her passing. Born in Laurel, Mississippi, to the Reverend Simon S. Thomas and Rosa Henry, Doris was one of five children. After earning a B.A. from Hampton University and a law degree from Howard University in Washington D.C., Doris moved to San Francisco. From 1963 until 1983 she served as District Director for the great Congressman Philip Burton. She was a patient, savvy problem solver who specialized in immigration issues. After Congressman Burton's death she worked for his wife, Congresswoman Sala Burton. Doris also worked for Mayors Frank Jordan and Willie Brown as a program manager for the Mayor's Office of Community Development. Doris was a tireless champion of the African-American Community and a member of the Black Leadership Forum. Her public service transcended any particular organization, however, and she was active in the Chinese- American Democratic Club, the Democratic Women's Political Forum, and other groups. She contributed her political expertise to many campaigns, including those of Philip Burton, Sala Burton, Frank Jordan, Jesse Jackson, and my own. After retiring from Congressional work in 1987, Doris turned her focus to government and political consulting, specializing in immigration law. In addition to helping countless individuals earn citizenship, she dedicated herself to voter education. Among her influential efforts for political mobilization was her role as founder of the Bayview-Hunters Point Democratic Club. Doris Thomas was a devoted mother, sister and friend. To her daughter, Tandi, and her sisters, Naomi Gray and Ruth Long, I extend my deepest sympathies. To all those who loved Doris, thank you for sharing her with us.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. That is agreeable to the minority, Mr. Leader. So that would mean that there would be no more votes tonight and we would take up the Waxman amendment tomorrow and vote on it tomorrow?