GEDI Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 382 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 382 provides for consideration of H.R. 1684, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

The rule waives all points of order against the bill's consideration, except those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order and provides appropriate waivers for 21 amendments.

I am pleased to stand before you today with a rule to permit the Homeland Security authorization bill to come to the House floor.

First and foremost, I want to thank Chairman Thompson for his continued leadership on an issue of utmost importance for the safety and prosperity of this country and for working so closely with Ranking Member King on this bill.

This bipartisan bill authorizes $39.8 billion to the Homeland Security to carry out its many functions, from securing our borders to providing our local law enforcement with resources to prepare for and prevent terrorist attacks.

The Department of Homeland Security has a wide range of responsibilities. In recognition of this critical mission, I am pleased that the Homeland Security Committee has authorized $2.1 billion more than the President requested in his budget. This authorization bill does far more than simply authorize appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security.

This bill gets at the heart of the management problems within the Department. As we all know, the Department was created by combining the work of 22 separate agencies. This process of integration has had many, many challenges, poor communication between agencies, a lack of qualified management, unusually high turnover of senior personnel.

Congress has not made these challenges any easier, however. We could have addressed some of these problems through the legislative process by passing an authorization bill last year, but the prior majority failed to do so, and so the Department's management problems went uncorrected.

Without addressing the underlying management and operational issues, the Department cannot perform its important functions. In such an environment, how can the American people feel safe?

Thankfully, H.R. 1684 addresses these challenges. It mandates a comprehensive review of the Department at the beginning of each new administration in order to ensure that DHS is structured to meet the security needs of the American people. It sets qualifications for senior managers, increases coordination between agencies, and boosts funds for the Inspector General. And, agency by agency, it puts in place thoughtful personnel policies to attract, train and keep only the most qualified personnel.

These reforms are important, and I'm glad that the committee and the Democratic leadership have moved forward with a well-focused bill to improve the Department's management.

This bill continues the majority's strong record on homeland security. In a few short months, this Congress has passed bills to implement the 9/11 recommendations and to strengthen rail and public transportation security, each with strong bipartisan majorities. Each is a component of a comprehensive approach to protecting our constituents from potential threats.

I applaud the committee and the leadership for their consistent focus on homeland security. I understand that some Members have concerns that this bill does not address every issue, but part of the legislative process is working through these issues through the committees of jurisdiction.

It is important to keep in mind that Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King put forth a bipartisan bill during markup, and Chairman Thompson continues to work with other committees of jurisdiction in order to make sure that every aspect of our Nation's security is supported by Congress.

In particular, I applaud the chairman's record of shepherding 2 major homeland security bills through the House already. I think we should all agree that today's effort, the third homeland security bill in 4 months, makes substantial improvements to long-standing management issues within DHS. The rule and underlying bill shows a commitment of this Congress to working for a safe and secure America.

So I urge all Members to support both the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi, chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me emphasize to all Members that this bill is working its way through the legislative process. It is true that as a fair and responsible chairman, Mr. Thompson worked with several other committees of jurisdiction on this measure. As the manager's amendment clarifies, in some cases, the Homeland Security Committee proceeded with its language, and in others, it permitted other committees to lend their expertise to the issue in the coming months. This is the process of governing.

It is also true that the prior majority chose not to engage in this most basic of functions last year. They didn't bring an authorization bill to the floor, and by not engaging in this hard work, the prior majority let known problems go unresolved.

This bill brings overdue reform and accountability to the Department in its earliest Homeland Security authorization bill ever. That is responsible. That is governing.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I that consume.

Let me emphasize to Members the history on this issue. Unlike the prior majority, this majority is committed to passing a Homeland Security authorization into law.

In 2005, 2 years ago, the House passed an authorization after the appropriations bill passed. Last year, 2006, the House did not bother to bring a bill to the floor. That is irresponsible in light of the Department's many problems.

Democrats are committed to governing responsibly, and this is one step along that path.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify, this bill eliminates the cuts in vital first responders programs, like the 55 percent cuts that the administration asked for in firefighter assistance grants. It preserves the Local Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program that the administration wanted

to close. And on contracting oversight management and personnel policies, it brings overdue reform to a Department in need. This is a good bill, and all Members should support it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to once again thank Chairman Thompson for his leadership in drafting a well-focused Homeland Security authorization and for working so closely with Ranking Member King on this bill.

I would note for all Members that Chairman Thompson worked with other chairmen and ranking members. The jurisdiction issues were raised by both sides, Republican and Democrat. I would also note that the manager's amendment which deals with these changes will receive separate debate and a vote. This is an open process.

Unlike the prior majority, we work through these issues. Again, last year when these problems were raised, the prior majority chose not to act. In contrast, we are acting despite these difficulties. We are being responsible.

H.R. 1684 will help improve the policy-making at the Department of Homeland Security, will promote long-term planning and will strengthen management. In particular, it sets qualifications for senior managers, increases coordination between agencies, and boosts funds for the Inspector General. These changes will ensure that the Department of Homeland Security can perform its important function of protecting the American people.

I am pleased that the Democratic leadership has moved swiftly and brought a Homeland Security authorization bill to the floor. This is the first time in 2 years such a bill has come to the floor.

It is also the earliest that a Department of Homeland Security authorization bill has come to the floor and the first time it has occurred before appropriators have marked up the Homeland Security appropriations bill. This is truly significant, and I thank the leadership for their commitment to protecting America.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The security of the American people, Mr. Speaker, is the primary function of the government of the United States. Since September 11, 2001, we have been working to rebuild our Nation, not only our buildings but also our sense of security. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate all domestic security activities on behalf of the American people was an important first step and has served as the foundation of our continuing efforts to protect our citizens.

Today, we consider the third authorization for the Department of Homeland Security. During consideration of this underlying legislation, Members from both sides of the aisle worked together to craft a bipartisan bill. The

bill sought to build a core capacity at the Department and bring about targeted personnel, contracting and policy changes. That bill passed the Homeland Security Committee unanimously.

But even though the bill passed out of the committee with unanimous support, the majority party is attempting to undo the bipartisan bill by coming forth with a manager's amendment that significantly alters the makeup of that bill. The manager's amendment strikes key provisions which address high-priority homeland security issues. Out of a total of 86 substantive bill provisions, 26, or almost a third, are amended by the manager's amendment and 16, 20 percent almost, are entirely struck.

Most of the provisions stricken by the manager's amendment had become part of the bill through Republican amendments in the committee process. For example, the manager's amendment strikes provisions on the Student and Exchange Visitor Program and eligible uses of interoperability grants, among others.

There are two provisions that the manager's amendment deletes that I think should be highlighted, Mr. Speaker. The first would strike post- employment lobbying restrictions. This provision being eliminated from the bill by the manager's amendment would codify the existing ban on senior Department of Homeland Security employees from one part of the Department lobbying other parts of the Department within 1 year of leaving the Department. That reform is stricken from the bill by the manager's amendment.

The second part of the bill being stricken is a sense of the Congress calling for implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendation to establish a single point of oversight of homeland security in the House of Representatives and in the Senate.

Now, that is one of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and precisely it is one that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle ran on in the elections, the promise to enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Yet here they have an opportunity to follow through on their campaign promise, but, instead, they strike the provision from the bill through the manager's amendment. And they don't even allow for the provision to be debated in the form of an amendment on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased that the Castor amendment, which helps address concerns with the dual implementation of the Florida Uniform Port Access Credential and the Transportation Workers Identification Card, was made in order. But there was another glaring missed opportunity here by the majority on the Rules Committee.

The Rules Committee had the opportunity to allow an open rule on this bill, but the suggestion that we do so, that we come forth with an open rule, was voted down by the majority on the Rules Committee. Instead, they decided to report out a restrictive rule, thereby shutting out Members who had worked diligently to prepare their amendments. They also blocked out any Member who may be watching the debate now or in the process of the developing, unfolding debate and has an idea to improve the bill. No, no, they're blocked out as well. They're shut out.

It's unfortunate that the Rules Committee missed another opportunity to open the debate on this important legislation, as they promised during the campaign that they would; and because of that and the reasons that I have brought out, Mr. Speaker, this rule should be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security, Mr. King.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished leader from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that I can amend this restrictive rule to make in order the amendment offered by Representative Hayes of North Carolina which would strike section 407 of the bill, the section requiring DHS to buy American textiles and apparel, protective gear, badges and ID cards. The amendment would instead require that DHS buy items specified in the amendment only when those items are connected to national security functions within the Department. This amendment also includes language to ensure that these provisions comply with the World Trade Organization rules.

Mr. Speaker, this thoughtful amendment submitted by Mr. Hayes was unfortunately denied yesterday at the Rules Committee. If the previous question is defeated, the Hayes amendment would be made in order and the House would be able to have a full discussion on its merits.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank my friend, Congressman Diaz-Balart, for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.

We've all heard the saying that actions speak louder than words; and, once again, the rhetoric from the other side has turned out to be just that, rhetoric. You've heard all the talk about wanting to do everything we can to protect American jobs and keeping our manufacturing base. The majority actually had a chance to put their money where their mouth is by strengthening our national security and our domestic textile manufacturing base.

My amendment was not allowed to come to the floor for debate today. Yes, actions speak louder than words, and the actions from yesterday prove that their talk is cheap because it's not backed up by meaningful action.

Current language in the Department of Homeland Security authorization bill regarding domestic production would require a new domestic requirement for uniforms, protective gear, badges and identification cards. While this provision is a good first step, this approach does not reflect a stronger proposal contained in the bill that I put together with the textile industry which is called the Berry Amendment Extension Act.

The legislation we put together and the amendment I offered yesterday would ensure that the sensitive uniforms worn by our agents are made in America with American-made components rather than outsourcing to China or Mexico. The problem with the bill in front of us today: The vast majority of the content of these uniforms can be imported from any country in the world, China, Pakistan, Mexico, you name it.

Mr. Speaker, that's not what the Members of this House want. On December 15, 2005, we overwhelmingly supported a measure stating that Border Patrol uniforms should be made in the United States. Has anyone changed their mind? I sure haven't.

These provisions are an extension of the Berry Amendment, which is a well-established domestic Department of Defense purchasing requirement that has been in practice for 70 years. And the amendment would ensure that we are complying with WTO. Make no mistake about it, I don't put legislation together trying to appease the WTO, but if your legislation is blatantly not compliant, which the existing DH bill appears to be, the end result will be lawsuits and countervailing duties. Put that all together, nothing gets done; and American jobs are lost.

You all know I've been a strong advocate for strengthening the Berry Amendment. The Berry Amendment seeks to guarantee the United States has a ready mobilization base of U.S. manufacturers, a critical national security requirement. While the Berry Amendment is 70 years old, Department of Homeland Security is only 5, and this new Department is now home to many functions that are critical to our national security.

I am extremely disappointed that my Democrat counterparts failed and missed a great opportunity to expand the successful requirement to include the Department of Homeland Security. It not only protects American jobs but provides the assurance that Department of Homeland Security officials who work on the front lines of national security are the only people wearing these sensitive uniforms. It is outrageous to think that our Border Patrol or airport security uniforms can be made in factories in China or Mexico where any worker could use these uniforms to impersonate U.S. agents.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment has strong support from the National Council of Textile Organizations, American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition and the American Apparel and Footwear Association. Again, while the base bill has taken a step to add a new requirement for domestic production, I think we could have done and should have done much better.

Let me briefly quote the American Apparel and Footwear Association: The

Hayes amendment ``would provide more complete coverage for domestic sources than what is currently intended by H.R. 1684. By requiring that both inputs and manufacture of uniforms originate in the U.S., the Berry Amendment works to support the U.S. supply chain that provides materials for the production of clothing and individual equipment to the military.''

There are many Members, both Democrats and Republicans, who have been very supportive of the Berry Amendment in the past. In fact, I was particularly surprised when a member of the Rules Committee, who has been a co-sponsor of the bill, voted against allowing the amendment to come to the floor today.

Folks, the U.S. textile and apparel industry is vital to the economic security and national security of our Nation. If the majority truly cared about preserving this crucial manufacturing sector, an industry that provides good-paying jobs to American citizens, then they would have supported this amendment in the Rules Committee and allowed it to come to the floor for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can allow this amendment to come to the floor for a vote. In my opinion, a vote for this rule as it stands is a vote against the U.S. textile industry, its workforce, and a vote against making our country more secure.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) for yielding. I thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Matsui) for her kind remarks. And particularly I want to thank Ranking Member Thompson, excuse me, former Ranking Member, current Chairman Thompson for the outstanding job I believe he is doing as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and certainly for the level of bipartisanship which he has demonstrated.

Having said that, I have to reluctantly but strongly urge defeat of the rule today. The reason I say that, Mr. Speaker, is that the bill which did pass through the Homeland Security Committee under Chairman Thompson's leadership, passed by a vote of 26-0, was a truly bipartisan effort. There was cooperation from all sides, and we came together to fashion what I believe was a very constructive and significant piece of legislation in an area which obviously is of vital importance to our Nation.

The Department of Homeland Security has been in existence now only several years. It is in its fourth year. We are talking about 22 different Departments and agencies, 180,000 employees. And it is making progress, but much more has to be done. And to address it, we have to do it in a bipartisan way.

Unfortunately, the bill that comes to the floor today has been either stripped or dramatically modified up to 50 percent of the original provisions. And some of these are very significant provisions, probably none more significant than just the sense of Congress, which was so strongly recommended by the 9/11 Commission, saying that the Committee on Homeland Security should be the focal point of legislative activity regarding the Department of Homeland Security, rather than having offices and officials of the Department having to testify before 84 or 86 or 88 various committees and subcommittees of the House.

Also, a number of significant provisions in addition to that that were taken out, for instance, an increase in funding for the Secret Service; prohibiting grants to universities that bar Coast Guard recruiters; and, as Mr. Diaz-Balart pointed out, a very significant legislation which, by the way, came from Congressman DeFazio, which would codify the existing lobbying ban on Department of Homeland Security officials to ensure accountability. And we can go down the list of so many, I believe, significant provisions that were taken out.

Now, the reason for this, I understand where Chairman Thompson is coming from. There was resistance from other committees. But I believe we should have withstood that resistance.

For instance, in the prior Congress when we did pass port security legislation, when we did pass legislation restructuring FEMA, when we did pass legislation involving chemical plant security, we met that same resistance from other committees.

But we stood up to it, and we were largely successful. And we did it by working through the leadership to not just back away from these confrontations, but I believe that when we do it so quickly and we do back away, we really weaken the status of the committee. Not that we are looking to build turf, not that it is a power grab, but, again, following the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, if there is one committee which should have primary jurisdiction on homeland security matters, it is the Committee on Homeland Security.

Also, there were amendments proposed that were rejected by the Rules Committee: Congressman Dent's amendment on the Automated Targeting System, which was strongly supported by the 9/11 Commission; Congressman Shays' proposed amendment involving cooperation with Interpol, very important, that was also disallowed; Congressman Dave Davis, his amendment to expand the 287(g) program, which would provide funding for local law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws; and Congressman Poe's amendment regarding appropriate procedures for Customs and Border Protection agents.

So these are a number of very solid amendments that were disallowed. We come here today with a bill which is really barely half of what it was when it left the committee. So I am strongly urging a ``no'' vote on the rule.

In no way is this a reflection on my good friend Chairman Thompson. And after we go through today and maybe even tomorrow, I pledge to him we will continue to work in a bipartisan way. But I really hope that the leadership of the other side would realize the significance of the Committee on Homeland Security and not just give in to various barons throughout the House who are trying to just hold on to their own turf and their own power.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 1684. This bill in its current form would eliminate the critical Federal 287(g) program, which serves as a force multiplier for immigration enforcement across our Nation.

The 287(g) program is a highly effective, voluntary partnership that provides the legal authority and training for States and local enforcement to investigate, detain and arrest illegal aliens on civil and criminal charges and grounds in the course of their regular duties.

Unfortunately, an amendment offered in the Rules Committee to reauthorize this important program was not made in order, jeopardizing the future of this popular program with local and State law enforcement agencies across our Nation and in my district.

Illegal immigration is a serious problem in eastern Oklahoma, and securing a 287(g) designation is a top priority of mine. I am working diligently to see that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officials and the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office partner in this program; 287(g) would provide them with the resources they need to deal with the ever-growing criminal alien population in Tulsa. I am pleased with the progress we have made and recently learned from ICE officials that we are in the final stages of making 287(g) a reality in northeastern Oklahoma.

The 287(g) program is working to stop the catch-and-release practice that allows dangerous criminal illegal aliens to remain free in communities across our Nation. It would be foolish for the House not to reauthorize this critical program.

I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-considered rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 1684. This bill, in its current form would prohibit state and local governments from receiving reimbursement for training expenses associated with participating in the 287(g) program. 287(g) serves as a force multiplier for immigration enforcement across our Nation.

The 287(g) program is a highly effective, voluntary partnership that provides the legal authority and training for state and local law enforcement officers to investigate, detain, and arrest illegal aliens on civil and criminal grounds in the course of their regular duties.

Unfortunately, an amendment offered in the Rules Committee to enhance this important program was not made in order, jeopardizing the ability of state and local law enforcement agencies to join the program.

Illegal immigration is a serious problem in Eastern Oklahoma and securing a 287(g) designation is a top priority of mine. I am working diligently to see ICE officials and the Tulsa County Sherriff's office partnered in this program. 287(g) would provide them with the resources they need to deal with the ever growing criminal alien population in Tulsa. I am pleased with the progress we have made, and recently learned from ICE officials that we are in the final stages of making 287(g) a reality for Eastern Oklahoma.

The 287(g) program is working to stop the catch and release practice that allows dangerous criminal illegal aliens to remain free in

communities across our Nation. It would be foolish for the House not to allow for reimbursement of 287(g) training related expenses.

I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-considered rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in

order as though printed as the last amendment in the report

of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Hayes

of North Carolina or a designee. That amendment shall be

debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by

the proponent and an opponent.

Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as

follows:

Strike section 407 and insert the following: