4:07 PM EST

Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-TX 18th

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, let me thank the chairman and rise to support the Jackson Lee amendment with a little journey down memory lane of just a few days ago.

Just a few days ago in northern Nigeria, a heinous terrorist group by the name of Boko Haram killed 2,000 people. Pillaging and killing has been their mantra, their definition.

A few days before that, we watched in horror as three terrorists killed 17 people in the nation state of France, our ally for many, many, many years--our partner, if you will, in the virtues of liberty and democracy.

My amendment speaks to the diminishing impact that this present legislation would have on the security of our Nation. My amendment simply asks that those issues dealing with Homeland Security be exempted from this rule.

The rule itself causes there to be some 70 particulars that have to be met when rulemaking begins. Can you imagine subjecting national security to that kind of criteria?

As indicated, this bill modifies a Federal regulatory or rulemaking process by codifying many requirements included in Presidential executive orders and requiring agencies to consider numerous new criteria when issuing rules, including alternatives to any rule. We mentioned that in my earlier discussion.

My amendment would simply exempt from the bill's congressional approval requirement any rule promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security.

As a senior member of the Committee on Homeland Security, having served previously as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, I am concerned about legislation that throws a monkey wrench in the footsteps of Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol, ICE, the Coast Guard, Secret Service, and many others.

I am concerned when our Secretary of Homeland Security indicates that we live in dangerous times and, therefore, calling upon America not just to see something and say something, but to be conscious of these dangerous times.

Can you imagine the necessity of a rulemaking that then must be burdened with 70 new levels of criteria defining the budget analysis or cost benefit?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do think we have oversight responsibilities, and I do think that we should be responsible in those oversight responsibilities and fiscally conservative or fiscally responsible, but I do not think that this legislation that has come to us time and time again and obviously failed is any answer to what we are trying to do.

Let me, first of all, say that this bill does not do as the Constitution has asked, and that is the ``We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union'' in the beginning of our Constitution.

This does not adhere to that, and I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

4:10 PM EST

Tom Marino, R-PA 10th

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I respectfully rise in opposition to the amendment.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.

4:10 PM EST

Tom Marino, R-PA 10th

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, every member of this body and our constituents know that, as we speak, the Department of Homeland Security is in the midst of an unprecedented overreach to change this Nation's immigration laws through regulation and guidance, bypassing Congress and the will of the American people.

How can we support excluding that very effort from the requirements of this good bill? What is more, the amendment seeks to shield the Department of Homeland Security--a Department in need of good government reform--from all of the good government rulemaking and guidance reforms in the bill. We should not do that.

The bill does not threaten needed regulation in DHS' jurisdiction, but simply assures that DHS will avoid unnecessary and overreaching regulation and issue smarter, less-costly regulation and guidance when necessary.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

4:10 PM EST

Tom Marino, R-PA 10th

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, every member of this body and our constituents know that, as we speak, the Department of Homeland Security is in the midst of an unprecedented overreach to change this Nation's immigration laws through regulation and guidance, bypassing Congress and the will of the American people.

How can we support excluding that very effort from the requirements of this good bill? What is more, the amendment seeks to shield the Department of Homeland Security--a Department in need of good government reform--from all of the good government rulemaking and guidance reforms in the bill. We should not do that.

The bill does not threaten needed regulation in DHS' jurisdiction, but simply assures that DHS will avoid unnecessary and overreaching regulation and issue smarter, less-costly regulation and guidance when necessary.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

4:12 PM EST

John Conyers Jr., D-MI 13th

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I want to say to my colleague on Judiciary, Ms. Jackson Lee, that this amendment is very important. It exempts any rule promulgated by Homeland Security, and as a result of this amendment, current law would apply to the Department of Homeland Security.

This is a very perceptive and important part of us moving forward on a really critical consideration because H.R. 185 will stall or prevent rulemaking, and it is essential that the Department of Homeland Security not be encumbered by such burdensome requirements.

[Begin Insert]

Summary: This amendment exempts any rule promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from H.R. 185. As a result of this amendment, current law would apply to DHS.

This amendment is necessary because H.R. 185 will stall or prevent rulemaking and it is essential that the DHS not be encumbered by such burdensome requirements.

Effective rulemaking is a critical tool for DHS to be able to protect the Nation from acts of terrorism and to help communities recover from natural disasters, among many other things.

For instance, DHS has already proposed several rules to safeguard maritime security, as well as a rule proposed by the Coast Guard to revise regulations relating to the construction, design, equipment of deep-water ports that are used as terminals for importing and exporting oil and natural gas. This rule would provide for regulatory flexibility, while also preventing another environmental catastrophe like Deepwater Horizon.

DHS has also proposed a series of rules to protect against discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex. This rule guarantees the equal treatment of persons in all DHS programs under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

These proposed rules clearly demonstrate the need for this amendment, which underscores the importance of rulemaking across a wide spectrum of concerns.

[End Insert]

4:12 PM EST

John Conyers Jr., D-MI 13th

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I want to say to my colleague on Judiciary, Ms. Jackson Lee, that this amendment is very important. It exempts any rule promulgated by Homeland Security, and as a result of this amendment, current law would apply to the Department of Homeland Security.

This is a very perceptive and important part of us moving forward on a really critical consideration because H.R. 185 will stall or prevent rulemaking, and it is essential that the Department of Homeland Security not be encumbered by such burdensome requirements.

[Begin Insert]

Summary: This amendment exempts any rule promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from H.R. 185. As a result of this amendment, current law would apply to DHS.

This amendment is necessary because H.R. 185 will stall or prevent rulemaking and it is essential that the DHS not be encumbered by such burdensome requirements.

Effective rulemaking is a critical tool for DHS to be able to protect the Nation from acts of terrorism and to help communities recover from natural disasters, among many other things.

For instance, DHS has already proposed several rules to safeguard maritime security, as well as a rule proposed by the Coast Guard to revise regulations relating to the construction, design, equipment of deep-water ports that are used as terminals for importing and exporting oil and natural gas. This rule would provide for regulatory flexibility, while also preventing another environmental catastrophe like Deepwater Horizon.

DHS has also proposed a series of rules to protect against discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex. This rule guarantees the equal treatment of persons in all DHS programs under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

These proposed rules clearly demonstrate the need for this amendment, which underscores the importance of rulemaking across a wide spectrum of concerns.

[End Insert]

4:13 PM EST

Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-TX 18th

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the remaining time.

Sally Katzen, formerly of the Obama and Clinton administration, mentioned how valuable regulations can be to helping the American people.

This is an impediment. I don't want to impede a regulatory scheme to help with cybersecurity; I don't want to impede the Coast Guard if it has intelligence about an attack on the Houston port with some regulatory scheme that doesn't allow it to move forward or to be able to address that question.

What we are suggesting is there are obstacles being put in front of national security. I ask that you support this amendment by exempting the Department of Homeland Security that is entrusted with the security, domestic security of the United States of America.

I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.