Nancy Pelosi

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, now in your capacity as leader, I was seeking a clarification. Certainly we want to move this bill expeditiously, knowing its importance to the American people, even at the expense of starting the district break a few hours later, and I know you share that concern. But what I heard you say, I had a concern about, and I am seeking clarification. I was hoping that we could take up the Oberstar and Young amendments tonight, roll the votes for them to tomorrow, take up the Waxman amendment tomorrow and vote on it tomorrow, and then proceed tonight with 52 down to Shays/Watson, rolling the votes until tomorrow.

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

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the distinguished leader.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I have a question for the leader. Mr. Leader, is it my understanding that the Waxman amendment, No. 94, which you just sought unanimous consent to roll until tomorrow with the debate and the vote, would be taken up as the first amendment tomorrow when we come into the House?

Ms. PELOSI. I thank the distinguished leader. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms. PELOSI

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California knows the very high regard in which I hold him and it is with great reluctance that I oppose his amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) who has earned a great reputation for working closely with her community on this very issue.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman for her leadership on this important issue. As the chairman knows, on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where we both serve, we have a great need for ``needs and leads.'' Certainly, the Federal Government and the intelligence community and the Department of Homeland Security benefits from leads that it receives from businesses coming forward with new entrepreneurial ideas that we have not even thought of. We also have many needs that we are reaching out to businesses to fill. The Office of Inquiries within the Department of Science and Technology would act as a point of entry, as the gentlewoman suggested. It is an excellent idea to accommodate the system of ``needs and leads,'' and also contributes to maximizing the technological capabilities that exist in our country to make the Department of Homeland Security even more successful in protecting the American people. The gentlewoman from Michigan has done a great service in successfully presenting this amendment. I commend her for it, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the very distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan, (Ms. Kilpatrick), an important member of the Committee on Appropriations. (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his leadership. This combines two very important issues having to do with the Department of Homeland Security, one of which is the use of science and technology. To the extent that this new Department can maximize the technological capabilities, I believe it will be more successful. And as the distinguished majority leader quoted me as saying earlier in the debate, localities, localities, localities, that is the most important consideration that we should have when we talk about where the threat exists, where the ideas are, and where the need for resources are. Communication with those localities is where we should begin and end the development of protecting the American people. So I commend the gentleman for his leadership, for the entrepreneurial spirit of his suggestion, and I hope the body will accept it. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a very important member of our Select Committee on Homeland Security, the assistant to the minority leader, and a respected member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), a respected member of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Government Reform.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the ranking member on the Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security and a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) who has been a very active participant in making suggestions for this legislation. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) who is a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking member on the Committee on Science, a committee which has three amendments here tonight, and which passed unanimously and, of course, in bipartisan fashion from that committee.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform. (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the vice chair of our Democratic Caucus and a valued member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, not to exceed 6 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the preamble to the Constitution that the distinguished majority leader just quoted tells us that providing for the common defense is a primary role of our government, and every elected official takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Clearly our Founding Fathers knew that we could do both, defend our country and protect our liberties. I want to say at the outset, I want to commend the distinguished majority leader for his vigilance, indeed, his leadership, in protecting our civil liberties in this bill. For example, I am pleased that he rejected the so-called TIPS program, which would have Americans reporting on Americans. Throughout the debate, throughout the hearings, throughout the markup, he was, as I say, ever-vigilant and a leader in protecting civil liberties. I want to make that point of commendation and congratulations to the leader at the outset. We agreed on many things in the bill, but not everything; and I wanted to commend the gentleman for a very important value that all of us in this body share, and many Americans are concerned about at this time. Thank you, Mr. Leader. Mr. Chairman, on September 11, the American people suffered a serious blow, the intensity of which we will never forget. Out of respect for those who died and their loved ones, we have a solemn obligation to work together to make our country safer. For some of the families of victims, the sound of a plane flying overhead fills them with terror. Indeed, any warning of a possible terrorist act intensifies their grief. As the senior Democrat on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and as the distinguished chairman presiding, where he also serves, we know full well the dangers our country faces from the terrorists. We have before us today a historic opportunity to shape a Department of Homeland Security that will make the American people safer, while also honoring the principles and freedoms of our great Nation. Unfortunately, we do not have a bill before us today that measures up to the challenge of protecting the American people in the best possible way. There are serious problems with the bill in its current form. For example, out of the blue, the Republicans attempted to remove altogether the deadline for installation of devices to screen baggage for explosives. When that failed, they needlessly extended the deadline. Then, ignoring the bipartisan recommendations of the Committee on Government Reform, the Republican bill weakens good government laws and civil service protections. By doing so, it invites problems of corruption, favoritism, and low morale that were the reasons that the civil service was established in the first place. Civil service is a backbone of a democratic government. We must preserve it. The bill before us also ignores the bipartisan agreement on liability and instead inserts a provision so unprecedented in its sweep that it prompted the Reserve Officers Association of the United States to write yesterday to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), ``This is not the time to immunize those who risk the lives of innocent American troops through willful misconduct.'' As for the Department itself, it is a 1950s version of the bureaucracy. I had hoped that we could set up a Department that would be lean and agile and of the future, that would maximize the use of technology, that would capitalize on the spirit of innovation and new technologies. But, sadly, it does not. Instead, we have, as I say, this bloated 1950s bureaucratic Department which the General Accounting Office says will take between 5 and 10 years for the Department to be up and running, and, in its current form, will cost $4.5 billion, says the Congressional Budget Office, to set up. Certainly we will pay any price to protect the American people, but there appears to be an opportunity to cost $4.5 billion just on management and rearranging Departments, money better spent on truly protecting the American people. Mr. Chairman, tonight we will have bipartisan amendments to correct the problems in this bill. Unfortunately, though, the rule did not allow us to bring the DeLauro amendment to the floor. That amendment would have prevented those irresponsible businesses that choose profit over patriotism by fleeing into the Bermuda Triangle, going offshore to avoid taxes needed to pay for the war on terrorism. Instead, they are trying to cash in on that war. We had hoped we could have an amendment that would prevent that from happening. I look forward to the debate and hope that bipartisanship will prevail so that we can vote with pride in the new Department. That bipartisanship will be, as I say, in the form of amendments which have come from the standing committees, in most cases by unanimous vote, certainly bipartisan; and hopefully the House will work its will in support of bipartisanship. Mr. Chairman, as we debate the bill tonight, we are on hallowed ground, ground broken on September 11. We must do our very best in memory of those who died and as a comfort to their loved ones. In that spirit, I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.