Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2005

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 -- (House of Representatives - June 18, 2004)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS. VELáZQUEZ

Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Velázquez:
At the end of the bill insert the following section:

SEC. __. PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FUNDS TO ENTER INTO STATEWIDE CONTRACTS FOR SECURITY GUARD SERVICES.

None of the funds in this Act may be used by the Federal Protective Service to replace any existing contract for security
guard services with statewide contracts for security guard services.

Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, small businesses need opportunities. Repeatedly, small businesses have demonstrated that they can provide the government a superior product at an affordable cost to taxpayers.
Unfortunately, small businesses are seeing their opportunities dwindle as agencies place expediency over job creation in our local communities and what is best for the American taxpayers. The cost of this is the creation of mega contracts that are so big that only big businesses in corporate America can compete. What they are telling American small businesses is that the $285 billion Federal marketplace is not open to them.

When President Bush took office, he promised to change this and to open the Federal marketplace to small businesses. Even 2 years ago, during Small Business Week, he issued a small business agenda and made contract bundling his top priority. Since taking office, not only has he done nothing to change this, but this administration has failed to meet any of the small business goals set up by Congress. This is outrageous.

Today's legislation is a perfect example of that. This Department was created by the President and was supposedly to do things in a new way. What we are seeing here is business as usual. The most recent example is this regional security contract that currently is being done by small business securities firms across the country. Homeland Security is currently in the process of bundling this contract so large that probably three firms, one of them not even an American firm; so now, we are going to turn security over to foreign companies, and none of the small businesses will be able to provide the service. This will result in the loss of thousands of jobs in communities across the country at a time when job creation is still struggling.

My amendment will stop the Homeland Security from bundling contracts that will steal opportunities from small businesses and ensure that small businesses will continue to provide the services that they have done so well.
I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition.
This is the first time we have seen this amendment. It is brand-new to me. We have not had a chance to discuss the matter with the gentlewoman.

Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, the problem is that I was just contacted by one of the small business firms that has
provided these services who is going to go out of business, and he contacted me yesterday.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, I understand the gentlewoman, and I appreciate the predicament that she is in on this.

It also puts us in a predicament because I do not know the ramifications of the amendment. It could have some very significant national unintended consequences that I have not had time to think about. So I wish we could work with the gentlewoman. Rather than bring this to a vote, perhaps if the gentlewoman would reconsider.

Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, I am not prepared to do that at this point, because in the past, like in Homeland Security, I introduced an amendment where 23 percent of any monies spent by DOD in the reconstruction of Iraq will go to small businesses. During conference it was taken out. So time and time again, when we have an opportunity to help small businesses through the legislative process, they are being shut out.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, then I have no choice but to oppose the amendment. I want to help the gentlewoman, but if this is the attitude, then we will just have a debate here and let the vote take place, and it will be one way or the other and over with.

So I would hope that the gentlewoman would reconsider that.

But nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I do not know the ramifications of this amendment. It could be devastating around the

Nation for all I know, so I have to at the moment oppose it and oppose it vigorously.

Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, it is just simply outrageous that if these securities have been performing these types of services by small businesses, that Homeland Security, despite the goals that have been set up by Congress, and despite the fact that the President made a commitment to small businesses of making contract bundling his top priority, that now Homeland Security is going to bundle this contract, putting so many small businesses out of business.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if the gentlewoman would give me time to work
with her on this, I will be happy to do it, but this is the first I have known about it. I do not know the ramifications of the amendment the gentlewoman filed nationally. It could very well be very expensive nationally; it could cost the government a lot of money. It could set a bad precedent to predetermine the most efficient way of contracting. How does it help? How does it hurt? I do not know. So I have to oppose it until we know more about it.

So I would hope the Members would reject the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York. (Ms. Velázquez).

The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT