Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2008

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, Mr. Cardoza, the gentleman from California, for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, on the opening day of this Congress, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, came to the floor and said that the new majority would, `` . . . begin to return this Chamber to its rightful place as the home of democracy and deliberation in our great Nation.'' That pledge echoed a document by Speaker Pelosi titled A New Direction For America. That document said, ``bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate.''

Now as we approach the closing hours of the 110th Congress, I think it is appropriate for us to take a look at whether the majority has actually lived up to those promises.

Let us begin with closed rules. There really can be few, if any, parliamentary procedures that are more offensive to the essential spirit of democracy, the spirit of democracy, than a closed rule. A closed rule shuts off, blocks Members from both sides of the aisle from offering any amendments to legislation that is considered on the floor. As I said, no matter what their party affiliation, if and when Congress operates under a closed rule, all Members are shut out from the legislative process on the floor.

Even though the majority promised a more open Congress, as I referred to in the beginning of my remarks, they silenced the vote of every Member and thus all of every Member's constituents a record 63 times this Congress. Sixty-three times. No other Congress in the history of the Republic has ever brought forth so many closed rules. No other Congress in the history of the Republic has brought so many pieces of legislation to the floor under that legislative framework that prohibits every Member of this House from offering amendments to the legislation.

The consistent use of closed rules by the majority constitutes an affront to the democratic spirit as well as to their own promises. But that is not the only way that they have failed to live up to their promises. They have also systematically bypassed what is known as the conference process, effectively shutting out the minority from having a say on legislation that makes its way to the President's desk.

Madam Speaker, as you know, the conference process is the process by which the House and Senate work out differences, resolve their differences and achieve a final legislative product that is exact to be passed by the House and the Senate and sent to the President.

Now the majority has also used a technique known as ``ping-pong'' to avoid that conference process. They have used that technique in order to subvert the rights of the minority to offer motions to recommit and amendments. For comparison, in the 108th Congress and 109th Congress-- those Congresses combined--that technique known as ping-ponging was used three times during the 108th Congress and 109th Congress.

But that is not all. The majority has also considered 45 bills outside the regular order. They also blocked minority substitute amendments, allowing only 10 minority substitute amendments even though they promised a procedure that, and again I remind the majority of its own words, they promised that they would ``grant the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

So here we are today with a rule that a distinguished senior member of the majority on the Rules Committee said, and I quote, is `` . . . outside the normal parameters of the way that the House should conduct its business . . . it effectively curtails our rights and responsibilities as serious legislators.''

Prior to becoming Speaker, Ms. Pelosi pledged, and I quote, ``to conduct our work with civility and bipartisanship and to act in partnership, not partisanship, with the President and the Republicans in Congress.''

Obviously, the record has been another story.

Now with regard to what the majority is doing today, the majority is bringing forth 44 bills for consideration under what is known as suspension of the rules. It's a process by which usually noncontroversial bills, as my friend described them, bills that generally have bipartisan support because they require two-thirds of the House in order to pass, under the rule being brought forth today, we will be authorizing under this rule 44 bills for consideration under suspension of the rules. At least they're telling us what the 44 bills are. That's why it took some time for the Clerk to read them, because there are 44 bills to read the titles. So at least I think the majority should be commended for telling us what the 44 bills are.

Now, unfortunately, we're informed that the Rules Committee is meeting at this time, as we speak, to pass a rule to authorize more suspensions, but not telling us what they are; in other words, a blanket authority. So, obviously everything has to be put in perspective.

Compared to what the Rules Committee is doing now for the rest of the session, this is a commendable rule because at least it is informing us and the American people what we will be considering. At least the titles have been brought forth. So that is something that, when we consider how the majority has acted procedurally in this Congress, we have to be grateful that we're being informed at least what bills are being authorized for consideration under the rule today.

Madam Speaker, as we look back at this 110th Congress that is nearing its end, I think it would be fair to say that when one considers the promises for openness and fairness and transparency made by the majority at the beginning of this Congress and in their campaign before this Congress began, when one compares that with their record of having broken all precedent in terms of the number, the number, having broken the record in terms of the number of pieces of legislation brought to this floor authorizing no amendments, in other words, closed rules, there is an extraordinary difference between the promise and the reality by our friends on the other side of the aisle.

I reserve the balance of my time.

No, I would inform my friend that we have no other speakers. So at this time I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has acted unanimously today to reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. This measure marks the fifth time that I have had the privilege of working to reauthorize this life-saving Federal grant program. I first worked with Senator Campbell 10 years ago to author the Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act of 1998, which responded to the tragic Carl Drega shootout in 1997 on the Vermont-New Hampshire border, in which two state troopers who did not have bulletproof vests were killed. The Federal officers who responded to the shooting spree were equipped with life-saving body armor, but the State and local law enforcement officers lacked protective vests because of the cost.

In 2007, as a result of the Bulletproof Vest Grant Program, jurisdictions across the country received over $28 million in Federal funds, which were used to purchase more than 180,000 armor vests. Between 1999 and 2007, $234 million has gone to the States and has assisted in the purchase of an estimated 818,044 vests. It gives me a great sense of pride to know that the law we enacted is having a real impact in directly supporting the safety and security of American law enforcement officers.

In May, the Judiciary Committee held an important hearing and learned just how crucial this program has been to our law enforcement officers. Lieutenant Michael Macarilla with the Vermont State Police testified about how valuable this program is to small jurisdictions in Vermont, which often operate on very tight budgets. And Detective David Azur of the Baltimore Police Department testified about his experience of being shot at point-blank range and surviving because he was

wearing a bulletproof vest. His testimony left no doubt that this is an issue of life and death.

Just this week we were reminded again of the importance of bulletproof vests for law enforcement officers. A police officer in Alexandria, VA, Kyle Russell was shot in the chest during a traffic stop. According to Chief David Baker of the Alexandria Police, Officer Russell's vest saved his life. What was a very tragic situation was prevented from being made worse due to Officer Russell's bulletproof vest. This event, in a city close to the Nation's Capitol, should be another reminder to Members of Congress about why this program is so important. Where Congress can help State and local jurisdictions equip their officers, there should be no hesitation to do so.

I regret that due to objections we were not able to include with the reauthorization a waiver system for those jurisdictions that have suffered a natural disaster or severe budget shortfalls. The waiver would have given those jurisdictions a way to keep their officers protected, regardless of whether they can meet the law's matching requirement. The waiver legislation also would provide authority to the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the Justice Department to waive the grant program's matching requirement in cases of fiscal hardship. If a jurisdiction cannot meet this requirement, it is unlikely it can afford to purchase vests on its own. I hope the next Congress will be allowed to consider these important provisions. I do not wish to return to the days when law enforcement officers were required to purchase their own vests, or simply go without. With tighter budgets and a troubled economy, it makes sense to give the Bureau of Justice Assistance the authority and the flexibility to ensure that no jurisdiction is excluded from such critical assistance simply because it can't afford to meet the matching requirements.

We know that body armor saves lives, but the cost has put these vests out of the reach of many of the officers who need them. This program makes it more affordable for police departments of all sizes. Few things mean more to me than when I meet Vermont police officers and they tell me that the protective vests they wear were made possible because of this program. This is the least we should do for the officers on the front lines who put themselves in danger for us every day. I want to make sure that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest gets one.

We do not thank our Nation's law enforcement officers enough for the sacrifices they make in order to protect all of us. But the actions the Senate has taken today in passing this legislation is a strong step forward in demonstrating Congress' commitment to supporting the men and women who serve us so well. I hope the President will quickly sign this reauthorization into law.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1491 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1491.

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

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1491 authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules at any time on the legislative day of Thursday, September 25, 2008, on 44 separate measures. This rule is necessary because under clause 1(a) of rule XV, the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules only on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of each week. In order for suspensions to be considered on other days, the Rules Committee must authorize consideration of these motions.

This is not unusual. In fact, in the 109th Congress, my friends on the other side of the aisle reported at least six rules that provided for additional suspension days. This bill limits the suspension of rules only to those measures listed in the rule itself so Members on both sides of the aisle are aware of exactly what bills may be considered under this suspension of the rules.

This is standard procedure at the end of the legislative session and includes both House bills that we will send to the Senate for consideration and Senate-passed bills that are ready to become law once they pass the House.

I would remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that bills considered under suspension of the rules must receive strong bipartisan support in order to pass the House.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule which will simply help us move important, noncontroversial legislation before we adjourn that is important to our constituents and

that will receive overwhelmingly bipartisan support and that will hopefully become law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Florida if he has any additional speakers. I am the last speaker on my side.

Madam Speaker, my friend from Florida has raised several issues with regard to the procedures of the House for the last 2 years. The gentleman is correct that there have been a number of closed rules this year. But I would like to just say, in response to that, that we have had to try and manage this House with a very obstinate Republican minority in the Senate.

There has been a record number of filibusters that have been put forward this year to try and stop everything that we have tried to accomplish in this body. In fact, there has been an absolute stonewalling on the number of conference committees, breaking down the bipartisan process, breaking down the comity that engages both Houses, so that we can get something done for the American people. By refusing to go to conference, this has gummed up the arteries of this body, and it, frankly, is the Republican minority in the other body that has really made this a very difficult House and institution to manage.

Madam Speaker, I would also say that the gentleman mentioned that this is--well, first of all, he acknowledged that we are telling everyone today the 44 bills that we are, in fact, bringing forward in this rule. Six times the gentleman's party, in the last Congress, did not tell us what they were bringing forward in a rule. And I can cite the dates. We have the information.

The reality is that this is not an uncommon practice at the end of the session. We would like to, as we are doing in this rule, do it every time, but sometimes it's possible at the end of the session we're simply running out of time.

So, Madam Speaker, as I said, this is a standard procedure at the end of the legislative session that will simply

help us move important, noncontroversial legislation before we adjourn that will receive overwhelming bipartisan support.

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

I appreciate the chairman yielding very much.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6045, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2008. I am a very proud sponsor of this legislation.

At the outset, I want to express my heartfelt gratification and thanks to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) for his lead in cosponsorship of H.R. 6045. Mr. LoBiondo and I have been partners in this endeavor since 1997.

I would also like to thank the Committee on the Judiciary chairman, Mr. Conyers, as well as Mr. Cannon, Ranking Member Lamar Smith, chairman of the subcommittee Bobby Scott, and subcommittee Ranking Member Louie Gohmert for their strong support and efforts on behalf of this important legislation.

Finally, I would like to thank the 170 bipartisan cosponsors of this measure and the law enforcement organizations that have expressed their strong support.

If I could take a step back, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act was introduced in November 1997 after meeting with Northwest Indiana chiefs of police and hearing that many gang members and drug dealers had the protection of bulletproof vests, while many police officers did not. I was even more troubled to learn the reason why so many officers do not have access to bulletproof vests. It was because they are prohibitively expensive. A good vest can cost in excess of $500. Many small departments, as well as larger ones, simply cannot afford to purchase vests for all of their officers, a fact that sometimes forces officers to purchase their own.

Our original legislation was signed into law by President Clinton in June of 1998, and as you know, the purpose of the act is to protect the lives of law enforcement officers by helping State and local government equip them with bulletproof vests. Bulletproof vests and body armor have saved thousands of lives since the introduction of the modern material; however, they cannot protect the lives of those who do not have access to them.

The Fraternal Order of Police have stated that ``body armor is one of the most important pieces of equipment an officer can have and often mean the difference between life and death.''

The grant program has directly benefited every State and territory of the United States, and this critical program provides State and local and tribal law enforcement officers with needed protection by aiding the purchase of protective equipment.

In closing, I again want to thank my good friend Mr. LoBiondo for his strong leadership and work on this measure over the years and the police officers who risk their lives for us every day, all of us. They are the mothers and fathers, and they are the sons and daughters. It is our obligation to the officers and their families to give them access to the equipment that will safeguard their life.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues for their strong support of this measure.

Madam Speaker, to my colleague Mr. Cannon, thank you very much.

I would also like to particularly thank Mr. Visclosky. In 1997 when we first started talking about this, there was a dramatic and very sad incident that took place in my district, the Second Congressional District of New Jersey, and I believe that Mr. Visclosky had a similar situation in his district.

Through the 1990s, a variety of groups had been sort of cobbling together the ability to buy vests for officers by selling doughnuts and for cake sales and a number of different ways because they understood the need, but there wasn't a resource to be able to do this. Unfortunately, in 1996, at a State prison in my district, Officer Fred Baker, a corrections officer who was on duty, who was not wearing a vest, was stabbed in the back by an inmate and that stab was fatal.

We can only speculate what the fate would have been of Officer Baker if he had a vest on. I happen to believe that he would be alive today. And when I got back from that break at home, I got together with Mr. Visclosky, and we embarked upon this road to convince our colleagues of the importance of this program.

You've heard the statistics, 40,000 jurisdictions, 1.5 million vests, and people ask, Well, why is it important to keep doing this? Once you've done a vest, why isn't that enough? Well, they have a shelf life. When you put a vest to an officer, it doesn't last forever. The technology increases and they wear out.

This is a critically important program. At a time when all of America wonders whether what's happening in Washington really works on Main Street and in the real world, this is a program that we can point to with absolute certainty that has conclusive, positive benefit. It saves the lives of our police officers.

This is something that works. This is something that Main Street understands. This is something that law enforcement understands, and this is one of those programs where we can do the right thing and continue it.

When an officer is sworn in and receives their badge and their gun, they should be receiving a vest. All across America people get up every morning and don't expect to have a problem, but if that problem occurs and they need that thin blue line, they expect our law enforcement to respond as quickly as they can, and part of that response for law enforcement ought to be the protection that a vest provides. It's the least that we can do.

I strongly support this bill. I thank Mr. Visclosky, I thank Mr. Conyers, I thank Mr. Smith of Texas, and all those who are responsible for having this move to the floor today.