Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the context in which we consider this amendment. Coming late to this debate, my colleague, the gentleman from California, may not know the issue's history. His amendment is similar to a bill that I and a bipartisan group introduced last October at a time when we believed the administration would not support a large Department of Homeland Security. We felt, and still do, that there needs to be one integrating strategy across the Federal Government. One person needs to be accountable for budget and coordination. One person needs to be a Cabinet-level official confirmed by the Senate. The difference between now and last October is that, under H.R. 5005, that person is the Secretary of Homeland Security, who presides over the critical homeland security functions and a large workforce. Under H.R. 5005, a statutory Homeland Security Council in the White House will coordinate government functions not contained in the new department, just as the National Security Council coordinates defense, foreign policy, and other national security functions.
Jane Harman: “Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the context in which we consider this amendment. Coming late to this debate, my…”
On the recordJuly 26, 2002
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the importance of a coordinated strategy for homeland security during a debate on an amendment.
Share
More from Jane Harman
May 7, 2018
I do think, as you said, that decertifying this deal or at least in some way pulling away from this deal is going to make it harder to negotiate with the North Koreans.
May 7, 2018
If you're Kim Jong-un and you're watching this and thinking oh, here was an international agreement led by the United States in which they promised to give up their nuclear program in exchange for certain things.
May 7, 2018
I think it should be working, as we've all said, with Europe, who are in this deal in the first place, and hopefully with China and Russia, too, to contain nuclear developments in the region.





