Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1684) to authorize appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes.

Let me thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Thompson, and the ranking member. They know that our byline is that we are a bipartisan committee. The reason is because entrusted to the Homeland Security Committee is the security of the Nation, security of a Nation that we love, security of a people that we cherish.

Whenever we hear of a tragic truck accident in California, explosive truck accident, the viciousness of the shooting at Virginia Tech, and the bombing, or the threats of such, in the London train system, we begin to think of our security. No, maybe those are accidents, maybe those are not considered terrorist acts, Virginia Tech or the tragedy in California, but it causes America to begin to think about her own security.

That is why H.R. 1684 is a strong reflection of the importance of security to this majority leadership. I am very proud that, in the early days of our legislation or our time as the majority, we passed the 9/11 bill, certainly working with a bipartisan leadership. We have moved to ensure that for the first time that we have a strong authorization bill on homeland security.

We have not forgotten the employees, and I was glad to be able to offer a particular amendment that addressed the question of the morale and the leadership and the training of our employees. That is important, for if your employees are not fully functioning, the question of security is a question. And so I was delighted to be able to incorporate language regarding the CMOs qualifications, to ensure that the CMO possess a demonstrated ability and knowledge of treatment of illnesses caused by chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological agents.

I am also glad to have developed an amendment which strips the Department of the authority to develop a personnel system different from the traditional GS schedule Federal model. In a number of critical ways the personnel system established by the Homeland Security has been a litany of failure.

The question is, that if we don't order and put in order our homeland security function, then we cannot secure America. That is what 1684 does. And we will address the questions of security, of civil liberties, of protecting our highways, of being concerned about rail security, we will do it and continue to do it because we believe in America.

H.R. 1684 gives us the perfect road map, the perfect hand print to secure this Nation. I ask support for the bill.

Mr. Chairman, September 11, 2001, is a day that is indelibly etched in the psyche of every American and most of the world. Much like the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, September 11, is a day that will live in infamy. And as much as Pearl Harbor changed the course of world history by precipitating the global struggle between totalitarian fascism and representative democracy, the transformative impact of September 11 in the course of American and human history is indelible. September 11 was not only the beginning of the Global War on Terror, but moreover, it was the day of innocence lost for a new generation of Americans.

Just like my fellow Americans, I remember September 11 as vividly as if it was yesterday. In my mind's eye, I can still remember being mesmerized by the television as the two airliners crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, and I remember the sense of terror we experienced when we realized that this was no accident, that we had been attacked, and that the world as we know it had changed forever. The moment in which the Twin Towers collapsed and the nearly 3,000 innocent Americans died haunts me until this day.

At this moment, I decided that the protection of our homeland would be at the forefront of my legislative agenda. I knew that all of our collective efforts as Americans would all be in vain if we did not achieve our most important priority: the security of our nation. Accordingly, I became then and continue to this day to be an active and engaged Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, and Chairwoman of the Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee, who considers our national security paramount.

Our nation's collective response to the tragedy of September 11 exemplified what has been true of the American people since the inception of our Republic--in times of crisis, we come together and always persevere. Despite the depths of our anguish on the preceding day, on September 12, the American people demonstrated their compassion and solidarity for one another as we began the process of response, recovery, and rebuilding. We transcended our differences and came together to

honor the sacrifices and losses sustained by the countless victims of September 11. Let us honor their sacrifices by passing H.R. 1684, which bolsters the efficacy, accountability, and our oversight over the Department of Homeland Security.

This bipartisan bill was reported out of the Homeland Security Committee by a unanimous vote and includes many significant provisions I ensured were incorporated either into the base bill or through amendments at the Full Committee Markup aimed at strengthening and streamlining management, organizational, personnel, and procurement issues at the Department to facilitate execution of its homeland security mission.

H.R. 1684 authorizes $39.8 billion in appropriations for the activities of the Department of Homeland Security for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008--$2.1 billion over the requested amount of the President's FY 2008 budget. H.R. 1684 is an oversight and management bill that builds capacity, provides resources, and ensures accountability at what GAO still views as a high-risk endeavor--the transformation and integration of 22 entities into the Department of Homeland Security.

H.R. 1684 establishes important offices such as the Directorate for Policy, the Office of Health Affairs, and the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications. Within the Office of Health Affairs, this bill creates a Chief Medical Officer, CMO, and I worked with Chairman Thompson to incorporate language regarding the CMO's qualifications to ensure that the CMO possess a demonstrated ability and knowledge of treatment of illnesses caused by chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological agents.

Moreover, I introduced an amendment which passed during the Committee Markup of H.R. 1684 which strips the Department of the authority to develop a personnel system different from the traditional GS schedule Federal model. In a number of critical ways, the personnel system established by the Homeland Security has been a litany of failure.

The flexibility we originally granted in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 has not worked. That is why I offered an amendment repealing the DHS human resources personnel system.

The Department has abused the flexibility given by Congress. They have created a personnel system that eviscerates employee due process rights and puts in serious jeopardy the agency's ability to recruit and retain a workforce capable of accomplishing its critical missions.

We initially believed that the flexibility given the Department would allow it to respond better in times of crisis. We know now that nothing could be further from the truth. The abysmal response to Hurricane Katrina taught us that lesson.

Despite Court rulings, however, on March 7, 2007, DHS announced that it will put into effect portions of the personnel system not specifically enjoined by the Court. Just a few weeks earlier, DHS outlined plans to move slower on its controversial personnel overhaul, formerly known as MaxHR, but now called the Human Capital Operations Plan or HCOP.

Implementing these plans would further undercut the fairness of the appeals process for DHS employees by eliminating the Merit Systems Protection Board's current authority to modify agency-imposed penalties. These regulations would also provide the Secretary sole discretion to identify offenses and impose employee penalties as well as appoint a panel to decide the employee appeals the Secretary's action.

According to U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, these regulations put the thumbs of the agencies down hard on the scales of justice in [the agencies'] favor.

The Federal Appeals Court agreed with the District Court's basic conclusion regarding the lack of fairness of these planned changes in adverse action and appeal rights, but ruled that they were not yet ripe for a decision since no one has been subject to discipline under them. It is clear that another court case will be filed should DHS put these provisions into place and an employee is harmed by the new adverse actions and appeals procedures.

Some insisted that employees would be happier and more efficient if they were managed more like the private sector. We know now that nothing could be further from the truth. The Department's morale ratings have consistently been at or near the bottom of all federal agencies.

In February of this year, the Department of Homeland Security received the lowest scores of any Federal agency on a Federal survey for job satisfaction, leadership and workplace performance. Of the 36 agencies surveyed: DHS ranked 36th on job satisfaction, 35th on leadership and knowledge management, 36th on results-oriented performance culture, and 33rd on talent management.

We know that the Department too often does not listen to their employees. In fact, the National Treasury Employees Union, NTEU, sent me a letter on behalf of the 15,000 employees of DHS' Bureau of Customs and Border Protection thanking me for introducing my amendment repealing DHS' failed human resource management system, MaxHR. Despite its incredibly low morale, the Department is not changing its plans to implement MaxHR. Instead the Department is merely changing the name of an unpopular and troubled system. MaxHR will become HCOP.

With the abysmal morale and extensive recruitment and retention challenges at DHS, implementing these personnel changes now will only further undermine the agency's employees and mission. From the beginning of discussions over personnel regulations with DHS more than 4 years ago, it was clear that the only system that would work in this agency is one that is fair, credible and transparent. These regulations promulgated under the statute fail miserably to provide any of those critical elements. It is time to end this flawed personnel experiment.

So it is time for Congress to once again step in. It is time to say to the dedicated workers of the Department of Homeland Security that they deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect granted to other federal employees. Therefore, I thank my Homeland Security colleagues who supported my amendment repealing DHS' failed human resource management system because Homeland Security is too important to get it wrong again.

I also worked with Chairman Thompson to incorporate into H.R. 1684 language authorizing the Citizen Corps and the Metropolitan Medical Response System programs to strengthen emergency response and recovery efforts.

The Citizen Corps Program is a critical program within the Department of Homeland Security that engages the community to be involved in emergency preparedness through public education and outreach, training, and volunteer service.

My language ensured that funding will enable local Citizen Corps Councils to more adequately provide education and training for populations located around critical infrastructure. These populations will have an opportunity to be better prepared to respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism and other man-made disasters.

In a bipartisan fashion, I also worked with my colleague from Texas, Representative McCaul, to draft an amendment regarding CBP officers and their policies. My amendment called for the GAO to study the Border Patrol's policies on pursuit and the use of lethal and non-lethal force.

Our Border Patrol officers operate in some of the most dangerous regions in the country and are often required to use force and pursue suspects on a daily basis. An independent evaluation of these practices and policies is important so that the Border Patrol knows the parameters of its enforcement tactics and has the information necessary to assess whether it needs to adopt new policies.

My amendment also requires GAO to examine the number of incidents where force was used and when it has led to penalties against our Border Patrol officers, so we have hard data that can guide any reassessments that may be necessary.

Recognizing the problem first is essential to fixing the situation. This non-partisan report by GAO will be a major step in evaluating these vital Border Patrol policies.

H.R. 1684 also requires the Department to conduct a Comprehensive Homeland Security Review, similar to the Quadrennial Defense Review conducted by the Department of Defense. In addition, the bill requires pay parity for Customs and Border Protection employees and other border personnel enhancements and addresses critical staffing needs by tapping into the pool of experienced Federal annuitants.

In conclusion, I stand here remembering those who still suffer, whose hearts still ache over the loss of so many innocent and interrupted lives. My prayer is that for those who lost a father, a mother, a husband, a wife, a child, or a friend will in the days and years ahead take comfort in the certain knowledge that they have gone on to claim the greatest prize, a place in the Lord's loving arms. And down here on the ground, their memory will never die so long as any of the many of us who loved them lives.

Mr. Chairman, the best way to honor the memory of those lost in the inferno of 9/11, is to do all we can to ensure that it never happens again. The best way to do that is to bolster the efficacy, accountability, and our oversight over the Department of Homeland Security, which we created in the aftermath of 9/11 to protect and preserve our Nation which we all hold so dear.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. And might I indicate, because I know Members are in their offices working and committees, and deliberations on the floor are instructive to the Members and their staff, make it very clear of the cooperative and collaborative relationship that the Homeland Security Committee has had with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, along with many other committees. Let me reemphasize the very strong working relationship of the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and the chairperson of the Transportation Committee.

So this amendment is unnecessary. We have worked closely together on this bill and on many issues. I specifically remember the close relationship that we had in working on the rail security bill, where we are jointly responsible for securing the Nation's transportation system or rail transportation system.

This amendment, though possibly well-intended, unnecessarily creates a bureaucratic and burdensome process to what should be a simple study.

Let us be reminded of the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission wanted to emphasize the ending of bureaucratic red tape. That is why we have the Homeland Security Department and the Homeland Security Committee.

Specifically, this amendment seeks to add the Secretary of Transportation to a study on incentives to secure critical infrastructure information for private stakeholders. Mr. Chairman, we all know what happens when we have too many cooks in the kitchen. We also know that we have a working relationship between our committees and between the Members of this Congress, and also a duty and responsibility to Homeland Security Committee to ensure the securing of this Nation

through the securing and the responsibilities of the Homeland Security Department. Adding more layers to a project like this only assures that the project will not get done in a timely manner.

The Secretary of Homeland Security is charged with working to identify and help with other agencies and protect critical infrastructure. That is a component of our committee and the subcommittee that was set up by the chairman of this committee and the subcommittee that I serve to ensure efficiency. The Secretary of Homeland Security by himself is more than capable of working to complete a study of incentives, infrastructure, stakeholders, to share information with the government.

For these reasons, I oppose this amendment. And I would simply say to my colleagues, what did the 9/11 Commission dictate or ask us to do? Thoughtfully streamline the process of securing America and make sure that we are attentive, we are efficient, and we get the job done. Lives are at stake.

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

I thank the distinguished chairman.

Let me just simply say to my good friend, nothing precludes the engaging by the Homeland Security Department of those who have a stakeholder's role. Remember, this is an assessment of critical infrastructure on the issue of security.

The rules of the House designate the Homeland Security Committee as the committee that deals with the question of security. In addition, none of us work in a vacuum; and we would expect this center of excellence to engage those necessary parties.

This amendment is opposed by the committee. This amendment will create another layer of bureaucracy. This amendment goes against the 9/ 11 Commission, which has asked us to be efficient and to be definitive on our questions of security issues. And what we are attempting to do is to allow the Homeland Security Department to do its job, which creates a center of excellence to focus on the security protection measures for critical infrastructure, a defined responsibility of the Homeland Security Department. And we simply expect that there will be a collaborative working on that such that no Department, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, will be left out, including the very important Department of Transportation. And we would look forward to collaborating with them.

And, in that regard, I rise to vigorously oppose the amendment and ask for a ``no'' vote.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. This amendment--while well-intented--unnecessarily creates a bureaucratic and burdensome process to what should be a simple study.

Specifically, this amendment seeks to add the Secretary of Transportation to a study on incentives to secure critical infrastructure information from private stakeholders.

Mr. Chairman, we all know what happens when we have too many cooks in the kitchen.

Adding more layers to a project like this only assures that the project will not get done in a timely manner.

The Secretary of Homeland Security is charged with working to identify and help, with other agencies, protect critical infrastructure.

The Secretary of Homeland Security by himself is more than capable of working with CREATE to complete a study of incentives for infrastructure stake holders to share information with the government.

For these reasons, I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for, again, his outstanding spirit of bipartisanship.

I think the importance of Mr. Cardoza's amendment is that he agrees with the Homeland Security Committee and the message and the mission of yourself and Mr. Thompson and all of the Members that, in addition to just handing out equipment, you want to make sure there's a continuing of training, professional development, understanding of the system. And it really impacts firefighters, police, other emergency responders who cannot communicate during times of emergency. We know what happened in 9/11.

Let me just finish by saying, one of the other elements of helping us work through this question of interoperability is, as your amendment suggests, focusing on local and regional interoperability communications efforts and, particularly, and I raise this point for a city like Houston, that simply says, let us use the dollars, let us directly use the dollars so that we can follow the pathway of Mr. Cardoza's amendment, which is to improve our interoperable communication efforts. Let us get the monies directly, as opposed to the layering that goes on through the State system.

But, in any event, let me thank the gentleman for his amendment.

The need for improved emergency communications is not new. Whether we are talking about the Oklahoma City bomb detonated by homegrown terrorist Timothy McVeigh, September 11, or Hurricanes Katrina and Rita--the same story emerged.

Firefighters, police, and other emergency responders cannot communicate during times of emergency.

Five and one-half years after the 9/11 attacks, and 1\1/2\ years after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Department still does not have a dedicated interoperability grant program.

Subsequently, states and localities are forced to rob Peter to pay Paul by using large chunks of homeland security grant funding--in some instances 80 percent--to purchase communications equipment instead of securing bridges, ports, buildings.

The FY 2006 Budget Reconciliation Act created a $1 billion interoperability grant program to be administered by the Department of Commerce based on the proceeds from the sales of the 700 Mhz spectrum.

While that is a good start, the 9/11 Commission has called on Congress to prioritize and improve interoperable emergency communication.

Buying equipment is not enough!

Congress must support State, local and regional interoperable communication plans that recognize all of the critical factors for a successful interoperability solution.

Those factors are part of the SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum. They are: governance, standard operating procedures, training and exercises, and usage, in addition to technology.

We cannot just throw money at interoperability--we have to develop a strategic, national plan to improve interoperable communications.

The Administration and DHS officials have testified that the cost of achieving interoperability will cost in the tens of billions to $100 billion.

More than 90 percent of the public safety communication infrastructure in the United States is owned and operated at the local and state level. Therefore, we must have improved coordination, training, and planning across many jurisdictions to achieve interoperability.

According to Project SAFECOM at DHS, interoperability directly impacts the first responder community which consists of over 61,000 public safety agencies including 960,000 Firefighters, 830,000 EMS personnel, and 710,000 Law Enforcement Officers.

The Federal government must show leadership on this issue if it is going to tell state and local governments that they need to enhance and improve their emergency communications capability.

Funding is only one-half the solution for the interoperability crisis. There must be leadership by all the key stakeholders to sit down and develop the plans necessary to create effective nationwide interoperable communication standards.

This amendment provides support to the local governments and regions that are developing plans and systems that will better enable multi- jurisdictions to communicate during times of emergency.

The Cardozo amendment will encourage jurisdictions to move toward a truly ``national'' emergency communications capability.

This is an excellent amendment, and we rise to support it.

I yield back to the distinguished gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize myself for as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset, let me express my deep admiration for Chairman Thompson and for the bipartisan spirit he has shown in his running of the committee, both as chairman and during the previous 2 years as ranking member.

This is one committee of the House which I believe functions very affirmatively in a bipartisan manner because, as Chairman Thompson has said, that when the terrorists come, they don't care whether you are Democrat or Republican, they want to kill all of us. That's why I commend him again for the spirit of bipartisanship.

It was that spirit of bipartisanship that resulted in H.R. 1684 being passed out of committee by a unanimous 26-0 vote. It was a bipartisan effort, there was hard work on both sides, there was compromise on both sides, innovations on both sides. We came together, I believe, with a very strong package.

I am, however, very concerned about the manager's amendment, which is going to be coming up for a vote today, because of the 86 provisions in the bill, 42, 49.8 percent, of the provisions of the bill have either been eliminated or changed dramatically.

Some of the key ones on the issue of interoperability, in our legislation, the committee legislation, we provided that $1 billion in grants for interoperability could be used for training exercise, for training as well as for the purchase of hardware. This was demanded, strongly requested by local law enforcement, local law authorities. It is essential to interoperability. Yet that has been stricken from the legislation.

On the ``sense of Congress'' language which has been so strongly recommended by the 9/11 Commission, that the Committee on Homeland Security be the focal point for oversight of the Department of Homeland Security and for being the central committee on the issue of homeland security, just the ``sense of Congress'' language was eliminated from the bill. We go down the list, as far as authorization for Secret Service, especially considering the increased amount which will be necessary in this year to protect Presidential candidates. So many other amendments, so much other language, even, for instance, on the issue of employees who leave the Department, lobbying restrictions, which quite honestly was proposed by a Democratic Congressman, Mr. DeFazio, that has been stricken out.

Now, I realize what has happened here; I went through this during the time that I was chairman, but I think we approached it a little differently. There are other committees which are objecting to the jurisdiction of Homeland Security. There are others which are defying the wish of the 9/11 Commission, which is to have power vested in the Committee on Homeland Security. And, unfortunately, it appeased it at every juncture where objection was raised; those provisions were taken out.

Now, in the last Congress, we adopted the Port Security Bill. That was a long, hard fight. We had jurisdictional battles with other committees; but we stayed with it, and the final package tremendously increased the position of the Committee on Homeland Security and resulted in very strong legislation. On the restructuring of FEMA, that also caused severe conflicts with other committees of jurisdiction. We stayed with it, and the final product enhanced the position of the Committee on Homeland Security. On the issue of chemical plants security, similarly, there were severe conflicts with other committees. We worked with the leadership at the time, Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner, and that resulted also in ultimate legislation which significantly enhanced the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security.

By acquiescing so quickly to the objections or the positions of other committees, I think we have weakened our committee. And that to me is not a turf battle or not a power struggle; the issue of life and death is too important for that. But the fact is, we did not stand firm in fighting for jurisdiction of the committee.

I know the chairman has mentioned that there was not an authorization bill passed by the House last year. I agree with that. We did pass one out of committee, there was one passed in 2005. The Senate has never passed an authorization bill.

I made the judgment last year that we had an opportunity, a window of opportunity to pass significant legislation which could be brought to the House floor, which could be brought to

the Senate floor, and which could pass, and that was port security, chemical plants and FEMA restructuring, and we did that. As far as this year now, we do have the H.R. 1, which still has not moved; it hasn't even gone to conference yet, and we have this legislation today, which was a fine product of the committee, but unfortunately, it has been dramatically weakened with, I must say, no input at all from the Republican side. And considering the extent to which Chairman Thompson does reach out at the committee level and there is such a bipartisan level of cooperation at the committee level, I would have hoped that we would have at least had something to say when it went to the Rules Committee when the manager's amendment was being constructed. Instead, this was done totally behind closed doors, totally to the exclusion of any Republican input. Again, perhaps it would be fine if we were an adversarial type committee, but we are not. This is a collegial committee. It is a bipartisan committee, and everything we do, every word of every provision both during the time when Chairman Cox was chairman, when I was chairman and certainly now under Chairman Thompson, it has been bipartisan. I regret that has not been the situation in bringing the legislation before the House today. So I will be later urging a vote against the manager's amendment.

But I again want to express my regard for Chairman Thompson, and hope that when this is over, when this is resolved today or tomorrow or whenever the final vote comes, we can go forward from there and work in a bipartisan way at the committee level the way we have done for the last 3\1/2\ years.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the majority leader for his kind words. And would just add that this was genuinely bipartisan, and it did increase spending by $2.1 billion more than the President of our party was recommending, and yet we as Republicans did that because we wanted to act in a bipartisan way, which makes the fact that we were shut out of the manager's amendment much more painful.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Chairman, to demonstrate the bipartisanship of the committee, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) for the free advice he just gave me.

With that, I recognize the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown- Waite) for 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to recognize for 4 minutes the gentleman from Florida who has done such an outstanding job in a brief time on the committee, Mr. Bilirakis.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) who did such an outstanding job as chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee in the previous conference.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from Texas, the ranking member of the Emerging Threat Subcommittee, Mr. McCaul, for 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as we leave general debate and begin to debate the amendments, I would again say I commend the gentleman from Mississippi, the chairman, for the bill that was put forth in the committee which came out of the committee.

I am, again, disappointed by the product that came here today. I understand the realities of politics and the realities of governing, but I just wish we could have made more of an effort to move the committee product further along, rather than make the concessions that were made. There are just so many important matters that were either dramatically revised or eliminated, which weakens the thrust of where we're going.

We will be debating amendments for the next several hours. The debate will be in good faith, just as our efforts on the committee are in good faith, but I just wish the leadership of the House would do more to improve and to enhance and to further the position of the Homeland Security Committee so we can do the job that we have been chartered to do and we can do the job the 9/11 Commission wants us to do, to do the job that the 9/11 families want us to do, and do the job that the memory of those who were murdered on 9/11 really command that we do.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the upcoming debate. I am disappointed in the product that is before us. Having said that, I remain enthusiastic about the job that we as a committee can do under the chairmanship of Chairman Thompson and with the strong cooperation from the minority on the committee.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the manager's amendment.

I recognize myself for as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the chairman's dilemma. The bottom line is we did pass a very strong bill out of committee. And let's just again delineate some of those provisions which were unanimously agreed to and have been agreed to: Language on maritime alien smuggling; language which would have monitored the activities of foreign students and visitors; biometric identification of illegal aliens; expanding the use of interoperability grants, which is so much needed by our local law enforcement and first responders; authorizing the Secret Service and its functions; increasing the authorizations of the Secret Service to provide security to Presidential candidates; prohibiting grants to universities which bar Coast Guard recruiters. It eliminated a report on Secret Service training facilities. And, as Mr. McCaul said before, it eliminated the provision providing for a National Bio and Agro Defense facility.

Also, more significantly, if we go to the heart of the 9/11 Commission, it eliminated the language calling for a sense of Congress that the homeland security be in fact the focal point and the central point when it comes to legislation on homeland security and also when it comes to overseeing the Department of Homeland Security.

Now the chairman has gone back in history to talk about what happened in the past. The fact is, this is a growing committee, and we all have to make decisions. We have to make value-based decisions. We have to make prudent decisions.

I was the chairman last year; and I did not go for an authorization bill

early on in the year because I thought it was important, in establishing the jurisdiction of the committee, that we go forward and adopt the most far-reaching port security bill ever enacted and, in doing so, confronting jurisdictional impediments thrown at us by other committees.

We did that. It was a long, hard fight. It began early spring and wasn't concluded until September, but we did conclude it. And not only did we enact solid legislation, but, as importantly, we were able to establish our jurisdiction at the expense of competing committees. And I say that not as part of a turf battle, but if we are going to have real homeland security, we have to have a real Homeland Security Committee.

Similarly, when it came to restructuring FEMA, which was a mammoth fight here in the Congress last year, we stood strong through May and June and July and into September; and when the final product came out, it again enhanced the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security Committee.

Also, on the issue of chemical plant security, we fought hard on that. We fought hard for our language, and we got it in. It was part of the omnibus appropriation, and that language again established the Committee on Homeland Security as the primary committee on that issue.

So these were all solid steps forward made by the committee.

Now, I understand the chairman's dilemma. I am not here to take cheap shots. I realize how tough this can be. But my point is, when we had such a solid vote, a unanimous vote coming out of committee, I think more should have been done in resisting the efforts of the other chairmen and of the Democratic leadership to strip so many of the provisions. Almost half of the provisions have been stripped out altogether or dramatically modified. So I do see this, unfortunately, as a step backwards. Certainly not a step forward.

I realize the significance of getting the authorization bill done. I am not trying to minimize that. But the fact is, considering the progress we made last year in such significant areas as port security, chemical plant security and the restructuring of FEMA, we could have done better on this authorization bill this year.

Again, I will have to urge a ``no'' vote on this manager's amendment because of the damage which I believe it does to the Committee on Homeland Security. And also, Mr. Chairman, to send a signal, not to Chairman Thompson but to the leadership of the House, that we did come forward on our side. We were willing to stand up to the administration and increase spending by over $2 billion more than the administration requests and wants. We did that unanimously on the Republican side. We also again worked with Chairman Thompson on the language that he wanted. He worked with us. So we did make that effort at the committee level.

I just wish the same level of bipartisan cooperation was shown at the leadership level of the House of Representatives rather than having the minority excluded altogether, which was never done at the committee level, either under myself or now under Chairman Thompson.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I will rest on the eloquence of my previous remarks and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Castle, and all of the others in the House who support this amendment. Because 9/11 changed our lives in many ways, but one of the most dramatic ways is that it made our first responders and our volunteer firefighters front-line warriors in the war against Islamic terrorism. That is why it is essential that they receive the same protections as our warriors fighting overseas. They are at the front line and deserve our support. I am proud to support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume, and I would say at the outset that my understanding is that this is already factored in by the Department of Homeland Security, the whole issue of tourism. Also, similar language is included in H.R. 1 and S. 4 which currently are ready to go to conference.

Having said that, no harm, no foul. I have no objection to the language. I think it is unnecessary, but having said that, I will not oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Florida. I support his amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I recognize myself for as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan for this amendment and for bringing his law enforcement expertise to the Congress in so many ways for so many years. I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding. I commend him for this amendment, and I strongly urge its adoption

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, can you tell us the current status of the Committee of the Whole, what is being considered at this time?

Mr. Chairman, can you just tell me what amendments have gone by and what amendments are coming up now?

Mr. Chairman, I will ask to be the designee of Mr. Mica.

Mr. Chairman, I am introducing the Mica amendment as his designee.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds the Secretary of Transportation to a study to increase incentives for the sharing of critical infrastructure information with the Department of Homeland Security.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 included the Critical Infrastructure Act in title II. All agencies will benefit from this study. I know that Congressman Mica has put effort into it. It has, my understanding, bipartisan support.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the author of the amendment, Mr. Mica.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

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

I don't intend to oppose the amendment. My only concern is, as I understand it, this is an amendment expressing the sense of Congress. The language, which is actually my language in the bill which passed the full committee, actually would have called for the implementation and not just the sense of Congress; and this, to me, is another deficiency in the bill and that we are taking, at best, a half step forward. We could have taken the full step.

Having said that, I certainly agree in spirit with the amendment. Certainly this is better than nothing. And with that, I will urge the adoption of the amendment.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time from the gentlelady from Texas, I always admire her eloquence and her kind words.

And, as I said, I appreciate what the gentleman is doing. I support it. I just wish we could have had the stronger language that was in the initial legislation.

But, having said that, I commend the gentleman from California and urge the adoption of his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I also yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, today we are considering H.R. 1684. This bill takes important steps to build capacity, provide resources, and ensure accountability at the Department of Homeland Security.

H.R. 1684 authorizes $39.8 billion in appropriations for the Department. This is $2.1 billion more than the President requested in his budget earlier this year. This bill sends a message to the President, America's security cannot be done on the cheap. Congress will not stand by as he cuts programs that help our hometown heroes protect our communities.

In this bill, we reinstate critical funding for first responder programs like the State Homeland Security grant program and FIRE Act grants.

In addition to authorizing funds, H.R. 1684 addresses issues that some of the committee's oversight efforts have exposed. For example, it has become obvious to us that the Department has no long-term vision. We created a Directorate of Policy to do just that. This office will also focus on private-sector partnerships, tribal security, and school security.

As another tool to help the Department get its house in order, we created a Comprehensive Homeland Security Review. This legislation also strengthens interagency coordination and supports integrating DHS at a single headquarters.

The Inspector General, GAO and the committee have all observed that DHS is spending a lot of money with little accountability. In the past few years, we have seen ice trucks take the scenic routes to disasters, trailers rotting in Arkansas, and border cameras packed away in warehouses. All of this waste was on the taxpayers' dime. No more. H.R. 1684 gives the Inspector General sharper teeth to investigate disaster response and border security programs.

The bill strengthens the integrity in the agency's contracting practices and promotes small business opportunities. This bill makes sure our Homeland Security agency is buying its uniforms and equipment here at home from U.S. sources. H.R. 1684 covers numerous other areas, including biosecurity, intelligence and cyber security.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is part of the real deal. It's the sixth Homeland Security bill that Democrats have brought to the floor since January. Only two bills made it to the floor last year in a Republican- led House. This Congress, we passed a 9/11 bill; and staff discussions have begun in preparation for a Member conference. We also passed bills on rail security, Homeland Security technology, international cooperation, and employee morale.

Winston Churchill once said, ``The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees opportunity in every difficulty. ``

In H.R. 1684, we have an opportunity to protect our homeland. We can be naysayers and complain about bureaucratic bungling, or we can tackle head on the difficult issues of Homeland Security.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill that puts DHS on the path to becoming the agency that Congress envisioned and the American people deserve.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, our majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Chairman, I now recognize the gentlelady from California for 2 minutes, Ms. Harman.

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I wish to help the gentlelady from Florida. If you will check, the data sharing and the child predator requirements are left in the bill. They're not taken out. I just want to make sure that you have the latest version of the bill in that respect.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I now recognize the chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, Ms. Jackson-Lee, for 2\1/ 2\ minutes.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to a former member of the committee, who is still very much interested in homeland security, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from south Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Kirk as well as Mr. Lipinski for bringing this to the committee's attention. I agree with the gentleman that the issue of airport security badges must be examined in closer detail.

I share your commitment to securing our airports and look forward to working with you on this issue in the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of a colloquy, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) for his willingness to work with the committee. I know very well how important border security is to his constituents and how hard he has worked since returning to Congress to keep his community safe and bring the necessary resources to Federal, State and local law enforcement on the border. I certainly appreciate his expertise on border security issues. I look forward to working with him to ensure that our brave law enforcement men and women receive the assistance they need to keep border communities in our Nation safe and secure.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I will insert into the Record letters from the American Federation of Government Employees and The National Treasury Employees Union in support of this legislation.

American Federation of

Government Employees, AFL-CIO,

Washington, DC, May 7, 2007.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Federation

of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents 26,000

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) workers, I strongly

urge you to vote in support of passage of H.R. 1684, the

Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2008. The legislation responds to many issues AFGE has

raised on behalf of the Border Patrol Agents, Customs and

Border Protection Officers, Transportation Security Officers,

Federal Protective Service Officers and other workers

important to the agency's mission of keeping our country

safe.

H.R. 1684 supports DHS workers by repealing the portion of

MAXHR (the agency's flawed attempt to re-make civil service

rules and protections) relating to employee appeal rights and

performance management goals. The repeal of these provisions

is of great importance because DHS has stated its intention

to implement MAXHR regulations on employee appeal rights and

performance management goals despite the likelihood that they

will be overturned in federal court. The legislation also

restores statutory authority for collective bargaining rights

for DHS workers because the DHS regulations establishing a

new collective bargaining system have been overturned by the

courts. The reinstatement of fairness in DHS workplace rules

and procedures is vitally important to keeping the expertise

of highly trained, committed homeland security professionals

at the agency.

H.R. 1684 recognizes the legitimate law enforcement

responsibilities of Customs and Border Patrol Officers by

including them in the federal Law Enforcement Retirement

System, and strengthens Border Patrol Officer recruitment and

retention measures, which will ensure that there are adequate

personnel available to patrol our borders. The legislation

also includes provisions that will prevent Immigration and

Customs Enforcement from implementing its unsound plan to

eliminate police officers and special agents at the Federal

Protective Service. H.R. 1684 recognizes that worker security

in the DHS workplace facilitates greater homeland security

for us all.

The workers at DHS have performed above and beyond the call

of duty, even with bad workplace rules and policies. H.R.

1684 recognizes the contribution of the men and women on the

front lines of security and provides them with the resources

necessary to ensure

that they continue to provide the best security in the world

today. AFGE again strongly urges you to vote in support of

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time for closing.

First of all, let me pay tribute to my colleague from New York, Ranking Member King. We have worked very well on this bill. This is the first time that we have done an authorization bill before an appropriation bill. We are trying to establish jurisdiction for this committee going forward. This is the first Democratic effort in that direction.

Some of us would have preferred a broader bill, but my colleague understands that, given the nature of Congress and the nature of how we do business, sometimes that's not practical.

What I did was brought, through this manager's amendment, which you will see after this debate, a bill that we all have agreement on, even the chairmen of the various communities of jurisdiction. So I am committed, just like the ranking member and most Members in Congress, to support the Department of Homeland Security, to make sure that we defend ourselves against terrorists abroad as well as terrorists at home, to make sure that we respond to disasters regardless of what nature they come in. But in order to do that, we need a robust organization. We need someone with accountability. This bill, H.R. 1684, builds on that.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on H.R. 1684.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, my manager's amendment strengthens H.R. 1684 by adding some things and taking out some others. Ninety-two percent of the provisions that I am seeking to have removed were items offered for the first time in the committee's mark-up. They were good ideas, but we haven't had the benefit of giving these novel ideas the full consideration they deserve.

After the mark-up, I had the opportunity to speak with a number of chairs who had a shared interest in these items. Collaboration is a wonderful thing, Mr. Chairman. In some cases, they offered suggestions to make the bill better. Those changes are contained in this amendment. In other cases, they offered to work together on these issues and other legislative vehicles. So, as a testament to the collaborative spirit of this majority, I offer this amendment.

I am well aware that some of my Republican colleagues are complaining about what my amendment does. I am reminded of what LBJ once told an audience: ``Perhaps you can help. Don't just complain, develop a better doctrine.'' This Congress, we're developing a better doctrine.

It is important to look at this milestone in context. Let me provide a little lesson on the Committee of Homeland Security's history.

In 2003, the year the committee was created, then Chairman Chris Cox failed to put forth an authorization bill.

In 2004, Chairman Cox scheduled his first markup of an authorization bill but barely got half the committee Republicans to show up. Outnumbered by Democrats, the markup was cancelled after opening statements. Even if the markup had proceeded, it was still 2 months late, as the appropriations bill had passed a month earlier.

In 2005, Mr. Cox was still a day late and a dollar short in getting the bill passed through the House. The appropriation bill still came first.

In 2006, the committee took two steps back. My colleague from New York didn't even mark up an authorization bill until late July, a month and a half after the appropriation bill passed the House. His bill never even went to the floor for a vote. Come on, now. We've all learned Legislation 101, that Congress first authorizes, then appropriates.

Today, under Democratic leadership, we are considering a timely, thorough and thoughtful authorization bill that has the input of numerous committees.

This is the earliest a Homeland Security authorization bill has ever appeared on the floor. It also bears mention that it is on the floor before the appropriations bill. America is not interested in congressional infighting but in getting the job done. We are doing just that.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my manager's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I insert for the Record a letter from the chairman and ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee in support of our legislation but reserving, under rule X, the jurisdiction of their committee.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, May 1, 2007.

Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,

Chairman,

Hon. Peter T. King,

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Homeland Security,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Thompson and Mr. King: We are writing regarding

the bill H.R. 1684, the ``Department of Homeland Security

authorization act for Fiscal Year 2008.'' We understand that

the Committee on Homeland Security intends to report this

bill in the next few days, and that it may come to the House

floor as early as next week.

H.R. 1684 is an ambitious bill that contains a number of

provisions that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the

Committee on the Judiciary rather than the Committee on

Homeland Security. Our Committee was not furnished the text

of the bill as it will be reported until almost a month after

your Committee approved it, and was not consulted regarding

any of the provisions in question. As there is not adequate

time now for our Committee to take a referral of this bill

and appropriately consider these provisions, we would request

that they be removed from the bill before its consideration

on the floor.

The provisions in question include: section 305; section

507; section 901; section 904; section 906; section 1104; new

subsection (d)(2) of 6 U.S.C. 455 as it would be added by

section 1109; section 1110; section 1111; section 1120;

section 1121; and all of title XII.

Thank you for your attention to our request.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.

Chairman.

Lamar Smith,

Ranking Minority Member.

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. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act.

In 4 years Congress has not been able to successfully pass an authorization measure into law. That all changes today, and I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership in bringing the bill to the floor today.

Today, the Democratic majority is changing paths by making homeland security and appropriate oversight a priority for Congress, and under the leadership of Chairman Thompson, we will pass the bill this year. This bill provides us that opportunity while authorizing an additional $2.1 billion for the Department. This is truly an historic moment. While I applaud many provisions of this bill, I particularly would like to focus on a few key elements that will significantly improve America's security.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology, I am particularly pleased that this bill incorporates legislation I introduced to improve the material threat assessment process under Project BioShield. This language requires the Secretary to effectively group similar threats together in order to move towards a ``one drug, many bugs'' approach to biosecurity that will allow us to combat multiple threats simultaneously.

H.R. 1684 also establishes a National Biosurveillance Integration Center based on a measure that I introduced. Biointelligence and biosurveillance provide the early warning systems necessary to detect the spread of disease, whether natural or intentional. This center will integrate data from biosurveillance systems with other intelligence to provide a comprehensive and timely picture of existing biological threats.

Lastly, this bill recognizes the importance of investing more in cybersecurity, a critical need at this juncture. We authorize an additional $50 million for cybersecurity research and development activities at DHS, critical resources to address one of our most pressing and underfunded needs. We cannot overestimate the importance of biosecurity.

Again, I want to stress the importance of cybersecurity, and we need to do more in this area. And I look forward to working with the chairman on this and other priorities.

I want to thank Chairman Thompson for including these and many other critical provisions. I am proud that we are well on our way to seeing the first ever DHS authorization bill signed into law. And I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

Thank you, Chairman Thompson, for your leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act. In 4 years, Congress has not been able to successfully pass an authorization measure into law. Today the Democratic majority is changing paths by making homeland security and appropriate oversight a priority for Congress, and under the leadership of Chairman Thompson, we will pass a bill this year. This bill provides us that opportunity, while authorizing an additional $2.1 billion for the Department. While I applaud many provisions of this bill, I would like to focus on a few key elements that will significantly improve America's security.

As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity and Science and Technology, I am pleased that this bill incorporates legislation I introduced to improve the material threat assessment process under Project BioShield. This language requires the Secretary to effectively group similar threats together in order to move towards a ``one drug, many bugs'' approach to biosecurity that will allow us to combat multiple threats simultaneously.

H.R. 1684 also establishes a National Biosurveillance Integration Center based on a measure I introduced. Biointelligence and biosurveillance provide the early warning systems necessary to detect the spread of disease, whether natural or intentional. This Center will integrate data from biosurveillance systems with other intelligence to provide a comprehensive and timely picture of existing biological threats.

This legislation also incorporates the SAFETY Reform Act of 2007, a measure I introduced to help ensure that safe and effective anti- terrorism technologies are being deployed by the Department of Homeland Security. The provision will increase personnel trained to apply economic, legal and risk analyses involved in the review of anti- terrorism technologies, which will streamline the application process and encourage participation in this program across all levels of government and the private sector.

Lastly, this bill recognizes the importance of investing more in cybersecurity. We authorize an additional $50 million for cybersecurity research and development activities at DHS, critical resources to address one of our most pressing and under-funded needs.

I thank Chairman Thompson for including these and many other critical provisions. I am proud that we are well on our way to seeing the first- ever DHS Authorization bill signed into law, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am certainly grateful for the opportunity to offer this amendment, which would simply direct officials at the Department of Homeland Security to work with the National Organization on Disability on their Emergency Preparedness Initiative.

We all know that people with disabilities face unique challenges in their daily lives. They range from mobility

impairment to communications barriers, and they can become substantial obstacles in an emergency.

As we take steps to make our Nation a safer place, it is critical to keep in mind that if we neglect issues of accessibility and inclusion in our planning, the problems that surface later will be more complicated, more expensive and, in some cases, could cost people their lives.

After September 11, the National Organization on Disability, or NOD, as it is known, showed tremendous leadership by launching the Emergency Preparedness Initiative, or EPI, to ensure that emergency managers address disability concerns and that people with disabilities are included at all levels of emergency preparedness, planning, response and recovery. Indeed, this time of planning serves all those with special needs, not just individuals with disabilities but also the elderly and other vulnerable populations.

Now, with support from Congress and many in the disability community, EPI has become firmly established within the emergency management industry and among disability advocate organizations.

In my capacity as cochair of the Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus, I have worked closely with representatives from EPI to highlight these issues here on Capitol Hill and throughout the Nation. The work they are doing is a critical component to our national security, and I am proud to support their efforts.

As we work to keep all Americans safe and secure, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for his sensitivity and his foresight.

Again, I urge my colleagues to look seriously at this amendment. Again, it is vital that we think ahead of time at what people with special needs may need in an emergency situation. So many people who lost their lives, both on 9/11 and as a result of Hurricane Katrina, were people with disabilities in particular. The tragic loss of life across the board was incredibly sad.

We want to make sure where we can prevent loss of life we do so and made sure that those with special needs are not forgotten and their needs are a forethought rather than an afterthought. That is what EPI is all about. I commend them for their hard work in putting together their emergency preparedness plans and working with emergency management officials to include the needs of people with disabilities. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Having no further speakers, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.