Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a technical correction in the enrollment of H.R. 3058.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday, we cast a symbolic vote that got all kinds of political attention from the press having to do with the Dubai controversy. That vote had absolutely no effect on anything because the Dubai deal had already been killed. So the only thing we accomplished was letting Members of Congress get a nice vote that they could take home, stick in their pocket and show their constituents and say, ``Oh, what a good boy am I.''

Now we have got a chance to do something real about port security and about border security. Is there anybody in this House who thinks that our ports are really sufficiently secure so that we do not need to have more resources? Is there anybody in this House who is comfortable with the level of security on the Canadian border?

Over the past 3 years, we on this side of the aisle have tried nine times to get the majority to increase Homeland Security funding above the amount that you have had in your bills, and we have been turned down nine times.

This Congress is telling us, as this small chart shows, this Congress is telling the country we can afford to spend $64 billion this year to provide tax cuts to people who make $1 million or more a year. They are telling the country we can afford to spend more money on tax cuts for millionaires than we spend on the entire Homeland Security budget.

Now, does anybody really think that this country is in greater need of providing $64 billion in tax cuts to people who make a million bucks a year? Do we really think that we need to do that more than we need to shore up port security, border security and the like? With all due respect, I do not think that is very good judgment with respect to our priorities.

The Hart-Rudman report in 2002 concluded, that ``America's own ill- prepared response could hurt its people to a much greater extent than any single attack by terrorists,'' and Katrina revealed the truth of that statement. We witnessed the debacle in Katrina because communication systems went down, and the worst problem about Katrina is that no one could talk to anybody because all of the communication systems were put out of order.

Now, this supplemental only contains sufficient funds to provide an emergency communications backup capability in the gulf coast. That capability consists of trucks loaded with equipment that can be quickly moved into devastated areas to bring up cell phones and VHF, UHF and SHF radio networks to help first responders in their search-and-rescue efforts.

This capability ought to be provided nationwide. That is just one of the many examples that anybody who knows anything about homeland security understands. It is a serious challenge to the security of this country.

So I would submit that we can argue about the details, and if the majority does not like some of these items, you can easily fix them in conference because you have got the votes and we do not, but anybody who thinks it is more important to provide $64 billion in tax cuts to people who make a million bucks a year than it is to increase our homeland security capability, in my mind, has a faulty set of judgments, and I think they better think again.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, maybe I did not hear right, but I thought I heard some rather interesting things. Two speakers ago I heard the words ``we need more oversight.'' Really? This from a Congress and a majority party that has provided mighty little oversight of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, mighty little oversight on the question of contractor ripoffs in Iraq?

If you want some oversight, I will be interested to see how you vote on the amendment to provide a Truman-like committee to get into the details of contractor abuse in Iraq.

I have also heard from the gentleman from Texas express his concern about cancer patients who are being asked to pay taxes to support additional aid to the gulf. I will be interested to see whether the gentleman votes for a budget which for the third year in a row will cut the number of research grants at the National Institutes of Health.

The gentleman mentioned the number of people who die in fires. I will be interested to see whether they vote for the recommendation to eliminate fire grants. I could go on and on, but I won't in the interest of time.

So I was heartened to hear those comments by both gentlemen. I just hope that when the bills come that provide the services for the activities that they mentioned, that they will have the same attitude that they are exhibiting here today.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Chairman, what is behind this amendment is very simple. The gentleman would like to hold the low-income heating assistance funding in this bill hostage to drilling in ANWR. He cannot do that under the rules of the House; and so from his standpoint, the next best thing is to eliminate low-income heating assistance in general.

I was one of the three original authors of the low-income heating assistance program, along with Silvio Conte, Republican from Massachusetts, and Ed Muskie in the Senate. And I think I know something about this program and why this amendment is destructive.

Let me explain what happened last year. The House-passed version of the budget reconciliation bill included $1 billion for LIHEAP to be available in fiscal 2006. But just before the reconciliation conference was completed, the defense appropriations conference report was filed, and that contained an additional $2 billion for LIHEAP as part of the sweetener for ANWR oil leasing provisions.

Not wanting to duplicate the ANWR funds, the reconciliation conferees shifted their addition to fiscal 2007. Subsequent to that, however, the entire ANWR package, including the $2 billion appropriated for LIHEAP, was dropped out of the defense appropriations conference report.

The end result was no additional funds for LIHEAP in 2006, despite escalating heating oil and natural gas prices. The committee amendment simply tries to move the money back to where it was originally supposed to go, which was in this fiscal year. The problem, however, is that the language, even in the committee amendment, does not guarantee that that money will be spent this year; it only allows it to be.

Let me point out the gentleman says he does not think this is an emergency. The gentleman makes $160,000 a year. So does everybody in this Chamber. It is not an emergency to us. We do not have to worry about heating our houses. But there are an awful lot of people who do. Only 16 percent of the people who are eligible by income for low-income heating assistance last year got some help.

And the fact is that the average price for home heating oil has more than

doubled since 2001 and 2002, yet LIHEAP has increased only 20 percent since that time. Average prices for natural gas are up 31 percent. Average prices for home heating oil are up 25 percent, for propane up 18 percent, just from one winter to another.

Over 3 years' time they are much, much steeper. So I would suggest that the family that was able to get through the winter without help when home heating oil was selling for $1.16 a gallon, as it was 4 years ago, is going to have a little more trouble coping when heating oil reaches $2.40 a gallon, the average price now.

So I would suggest that to eliminate this funding is unadvisable. I am myself unhappy with the provision in the committee bill, because unlike the original Obey amendment which was offered in committee, this does not even require the funding be provided this year; but at least it allows that funding to be spent in this year or next.

And I think that that is better than nothing. I think the gentleman's amendment, while I respect him and respect certainly his right to offer it, I think that the amendment itself is misguided and ought to be defeated.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, let me simply suggest that the fact is that there are many people in this country who have to choose between heating their homes and eating. I think we ought to make their life just a little bit easier.

I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.

Mr. Chairman, in the interests of redundancy, I would urge that we defeat the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, we have moved past the point in the bill where the Flake amendment was to be offered, which would have attempted to strike an earmark that was contained in last year's bill for which a correction is found in this year's bill.

I am pleased that amendment was not offered. But I would like to take just a moment to urge every Member of this House to think before they leap on the issue of giving the President the authority for what is, in effect, an item veto.

I find it mindboggling that there are some people in this Chamber who believe that the main institutional problem that we have in this Congress is that the President has insufficient power vis-a-vis the Congress of the United States.

We have a President who has taken us to war on the basis of manipulated and selected intelligence. We have an administration under whom persons have been tortured, and we are told that more than 100 persons in captivity have died. We have an administration that eavesdrops on American citizens without a court order.

And then we say that the problem is that the President has too little power? I would suggest quite the contrary. If any of you are interested in the line item veto, I would urge you to for a moment forget who is in the White House now and think what might have happened under Lyndon Johnson.

This was a President of my own party, a President who lied to this Congress about the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Gaylord Nelson, from my home State, was one of the first three people in the Senate to vote against the first appropriation for Vietnam.

Can you imagine what Lyndon Johnson would have done to Gaylord Nelson if he had had any version of the item veto at his disposal? He would have put his arm around Gaylord. He would have said, ``Gaylord, you support that war or you are not going to get your wild rivers designation. You support that war or you are not going to get this earmark for the forest service. You support that war or you are not going to get anything that you want in the budget.''

And I can imagine, I can imagine the power that Johnson would have had using that kind of device. I would also suggest I believe that many, many reforms that are adopted in politics wind up being counterintuitive. And I would suggest, for instance, that an item veto could, in fact, significantly raise the cost of doing business in government affairs because Presidents will dangle projects in front of Members if they are ``good,'' ``good'' being defined by the White House. And that could, in fact, enhance the White House's ability to pass questionable legislation by dangling goodies in front of Members and threatening to cut them if they did not.

So I think my record is clear on earmarks. This Congress provided many fewer earmarks when I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee than it has in any year since that time. But having said that, I think it is important, in whatever choices we make about earmarks, to not inadvertently in that process enhance the power of the executive branch of government so that they are even more strong than they are today, vis-a-vis the Congress of the United States.

In the last analysis, there is only one check on untrammeled executive power, and that check is the Congress of the United States. And I would urge Members of this House, regardless of party, not to weaken that check. That check is not just important to the Congress. It is important to the American people.

Not in the 36 years that I have served here, has any President ever seen any Congress change that President's spending request by more than 3 percent. And it is that 3 percent difference that makes a difference between having a President and having a king.

With all due respect, I think we ought to make certain we continue to have a democracy, not an unofficial monarchy, and I believe that an item veto would contribute to destroying that very delicate balance of power between the two branches, and give even

more power to the executive branch which in so many ways is demonstrating runaway executive power right now.

Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman rise to make his point of order?

Would the gentleman withhold temporarily?

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Arkansas says, we have hundreds of thousands of seniors who are faced with absolute confusion on this prescription drug bill. What we are trying to do is help them sort through some of the ridiculous choices they are being forced to make.

What we are trying to do is to say that we will move the sign up deadline back to the end of the year to give them more time to sort out which plan best fits their needs. In my State, for instance, there are over 40 plans being offered to seniors.

Secondly, we are saying give those seniors one opportunity to change a plan after May. Right now, if they do not make a change before May, they are stuck. Give them an opportunity to change once after May if they discover they have made the wrong choices in plans.

Why are we offering this on the appropriations bill? It is very simple, because the rules were abused egregiously in order to enable the passage of this bill in the first place. The bill contained an outrageous gap in coverage now called the ``doughnut hole.'' It also contained a provision which forbade, which forbade the government

from even negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry on price.

How did that happen? Because the majority leadership of this House held the vote open for 3 hours in order to change the verdict. The way things are supposed to work in the House, as everybody knows, is that when we vote, these machines open, our name lights up on the board, we take our voting card, we put it in, and 15 minutes later the people with the most votes are supposed to be the winners. That is not the way this bill was passed.

The way this bill was passed was that this bill was defeated at the end of 15 minutes. It was defeated at the end of a half an hour. It was defeated at the end of an hour. It was defeated after 2 hours. It was defeated after 2\1/2\ hours. But finally after 3 hours of holding the vote open the bill passed. How? Because the Republican leadership of this House broke Members' arms to vote for a bill they did not want to vote for because it contained these defects.

That is why we are trying to use the rules that were abused in that action in order to correct the abuse and give our seniors in the process a little more time to make a crucial decision in their lives.

I would urge support for the amendment, and I would urge the gentleman not to raise a point of order against the bill.

Mr. Chairman, could I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. Chairman, it is ironic that the same rules that were abused in order to pass this legislation in the first place are now being hidden behind the majority in order to prevent us from correcting the flaws in that legislation. We could correct those flaws if the majority refrained from offering their point of order. Unfortunately, it appears that they are going to insist, and so they will have again selectively used the rules of this House to accomplish an end which would not have been reachable had the rules been adhered to in the first instance.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, we are here because last year on the defense appropriations bill, in the middle of the night, we were trying to finish action on that bill, and we had agreed that we would add the administration's request for $7 billion to fund a research program to develop vaccines to deal with avian flu. When the majority produced their bill, it only had $3.5 billion. We asked why the other money that was requested by the administration was not included. I was told by Senator Stevens, the chairman of the conference, that that was because the majority party had decided that they would not deal with the issue of drug company indemnification, and until they did, they were not going to put the long-term money in the bill.

So they told us in writing, as well as orally, that they were not going to add any language indemnifying the drug companies. The conference ended about eight o'clock.

Close to midnight, the majority leader of the United States Senate walked over to the Speaker's office and insisted that 40 pages of language never read or never checked out by anybody, that 40 pages of language never voted on by anybody be inserted in that conference report without a vote of the conferees, and that was jammed down our throats the next day.

That language purported to protect drug companies in case they made some faulty flu vaccine; but, in fact, the language went far beyond that. It applied to all vaccines, it applied to all drugs and all medical devices that the Secretary chose to apply it to. It provided no possibility for judicial review at all. So in other words, it said if you get sick, if you lose your health because of a faulty vaccine or a faulty device, you cannot sue the drug company; you have to collect from the government.

But guess what? They put no money in the fund that was supposed to be used to compensate victims. So it was a catch-22.

We are here today because, in my view, that action inserting that language, without a vote of the conferees, was one of the most egregious corruptions of the legislative process that I have seen in the 37 years that I have been here. And we are trying to use the rules of the House today to reverse what happened because of an egregious abuse of those rules by the leadership of this House and by the leadership of the Senate.

Of all people, of all people in the Congress, the leadership of both Houses have an obligation to protect the integrity of the institution and the integrity of the rules. When they themselves lead the charge to obliterate any opportunity to use the rules in defense of normal processes in this House, then, in my view, they have ultimately corrupted the process of legislation.

So this amendment ordinarily would not be here, but the damage was done on this bill last year, and so we are trying to use the same vehicle to undo the damage. We recognize there needs to be some indemnification language, but it needs to be reviewed by somebody other than drug company lobbyists; and until that happens, I am going to continue to be mad as hell about this and do everything I possibly can to reverse the outcome.

We are trying to preach democracy in Iraq. It would be nice if the leadership of this Congress showed some here at home in this institution.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that what the gentleman is suggesting by insisting on his point of order is that the rules of this House may be bent by the majority in order to provide special interest language in a piece of legislation, but they cannot be used by the minority to defend the public interest in that same case. I would find that a strange interpretation of the rules indeed.

Mr. Chairman, because this is the only way that we can protest this egregious corruption of the rules of the House, I respectfully appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I spent 3 years making the case against the war in Iraq, working with other Members leading a nationwide opposition to the war, developing an exit strategy once we got in, working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on plans to withdraw from Iraq, to bring our troops home, but I will vote against this resolution because it is a fraud.

What more does anyone need to know but that the sponsor himself has called for defeat of his own proposition? If his real intention is to bring the troops home right now, why would he vote against his own resolution?

Wake up, America. The American people are fed up with politicians who say one thing and do another. Everyone of conscience and intelligence knows the magnitude of withdrawing 150,000 troops requires a plan.

The American people deserve a real debate on Iraq. Where are the WMDs? Where is Osama bin Laden? What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

This Congress, which is a coequal branch of government, which has the war power, has the oversight responsibility and has a moral obligation to find out why almost everything of significance we were told about the war turned out to be false. Instead, those who raise questions have their military service or their honor impugned.

They took John Kerry on a swift boat. We are not going to let them take Jack Murtha on a swift boat, nor are the American people. We have to stand up and expose the fakery when we see it.

Analysis of Joint Resolution on Iraq by Dennis J. Kucinich

The following is an analysis of the resolution which took

America to war in Iraq.

October 2, 2002. Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war

of aggression against an illegal occupation of Kuwait, the

United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate

Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national

security of the United States and enforce United Nations

Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Key issue: In the Persian Gulf war there was an

international coalition. World support was for protecting

Kuwait. There is no world support for invading Iraq.

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq

entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement

pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other

things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical

weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them,

and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors,

United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led

to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical

weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and

that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program

that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than

intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Key issue: UN inspection teams identified and destroyed

nearly all such weapons. A lead inspector, Scott Ritter, said

that he believes that nearly all other weapons not found were

destroyed in the Gulf War. Furthermore, according to a

published report in the Washington Post, the Central

Intelligence Agency has no up to date accurate report on

Iraq's WMD capabilities.

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the

cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons

inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass

destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which

finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on

October 31, 1998;

Key issues: Iraqi deceptions always failed. The inspectors

always figured out what Iraq was doing. It was the United

States that withdrew from the inspections in 1998. And the

United States then launched a cruise missile attack against

Iraq 48 hours after the inspectors left. In advance of a

military strike, the U.S. continues to thwart (the

Administration's word) weapons inspections.

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing

weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United

States interests and international peace and security,

declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of

its international obligations'' and urged the President ``to

take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution

and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into

compliance with its international obligations'' (Public Law

105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national

security of the United States and international peace and

security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material

and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by,

among other things, continuing to possess and develop a

significant chemical and biological weapons capability,

actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting

and harboring terrorist organizations;

Key issues: There is no proof that Iraq represents an

imminent or immediate threat to the United States. A

``continuing'' threat does not constitute a sufficient cause

for war. The Administration has refused to provide the

Congress with credible intelligence that proves that Iraq is

a serious threat to the United States and is continuing to

possess and develop chemical and biological and nuclear

weapons. Furthermore there is no credible intelligence

connecting Iraq to Al Qaida and 9/11.

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the

United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in

brutal repression of its civilian population thereby

threatening international peace and security in the region,

by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi

citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American

serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully

seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Key issues: This language is so broad that it would allow

the President to order an attack against Iraq even when there

is no material threat to the United States. Since this

resolution authorizes the use of force for all Iraq related

violations of the UN Security Council directives, and since

the resolution cites Iraq's imprisonment of non-Iraqi

prisoners, this resolution would authorize the President to

attack Iraq in order to liberate Kuwaiti citizens who may or

may not be in Iraqi prisons, even if Iraq met compliance with

all requests to destroy any weapons of

mass destruction. Though in 2002 at the Arab Summit, Iraq and

Kuwait agreed to bilateral negotiations to work out all

claims relating to stolen property and prisoners of war.

This use-of-force resolution enables the President to

commit U.S. troops to recover Kuwaiti property.

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its

capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction

against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its

continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the

United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate

former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of

occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged

in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security

Council;

Key issue: The Iraqi regime has never attacked nor does it

have the capability to attack the United States. The ``no

fly'' zone was not the result of a UN Security Council

directive. It was illegally imposed by the United States,

Great Britain and France and is not specifically sanctioned

by any Security Council resolution.

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing

responsibility for attacks on the United States, its

citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred

on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Key issue: There is no credible intelligence that connects

Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to participation in those

events by assisting Al Qaida.

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other

international terrorist organizations, including

organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American

citizens;

Key issue: Any connection between Iraq support of terrorist

groups in Middle East, is an argument for focusing great

resources on resolving the conflict between Israel and the

Palestinians. It is not sufficient reason for the U.S. to

launch a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq.

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11,

2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the

acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international

terrorist organizations;

Key issue: There is no connection between Iraq and the

events of 9/11.

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to

use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current

Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a

surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces

or provide them to international terrorists who would do so,

and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the

United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine

to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Key issue: There is no credible evidence that Iraq

possesses weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq has

successfully concealed the production of such weapons since

1998, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has the

capability to reach the United States with such weapons. In

the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had a demonstrated capability of

biological and chemical weapons, but did not have the

willingness to use them against the United States Armed

Forces. Congress has not been provided with any credible

information, which proves that Iraq has provided

international terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678

authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United

Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent

relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain

activities that threaten international peace and security,

including the development of weapons of mass destruction and

refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections

in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution

687, repression of its civilian population in violation of

United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and

threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in

Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council

Resolution 949;

Key issue: The UN Charter forbids all member nations,

including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN

resolutions.

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military

Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has

authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces

pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678

(1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council

Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674,

and 677'';

Key issue: The UN Charter forbids all member nations,

including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN

resolutions with military force.

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that

it ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the

goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as

being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military

Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), `` that

Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United

Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a

continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of

the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, ``supports the

use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United

Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Key issue: This clause demonstrates the proper chronology

of the international process, and contrasts the current march

to war. In 1991, the UN Security Council passed a resolution

asking for enforcement of its resolution. Member countries

authorized their troops to participate in a UN-led coalition

to enforce the UN resolutions. Now the President is asking

Congress to authorize a unilateral first strike before the UN

Security Council has asked its member states to enforce UN

resolutions.

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338)

expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy

of the United States to support efforts to remove from power

the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a

democratic government to replace that regime;

Key issue: This ``Sense of Congress'' resolution was not

binding. Furthermore, while Congress supported democratic

means of removing Saddam Hussein it clearly did not endorse

the use of force contemplated in this resolution, nor did it

endorse assassination as a policy.

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the

United States to ``work with the United Nations Security

Council to meet our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to

``work for the necessary resolutions,'' while also making

clear that ``the Security Council resolutions will be

enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be

met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the

war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international

terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of

mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under

the 1991 ceasefire and other United Nations Security Council

resolutions make clear that it is in the national security

interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war

on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security

Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of

force if necessary;

Key issue: Unilateral action against Iraq will cost the

United States the support of the world community, adversely

affecting the war on terrorism. No credible intelligence

exists which connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to those

terrorists who perpetrated 9/11. Under international law, the

United States does not have the authority to unilaterally

order military action to enforce UN Security Council

resolutions.

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the

war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and

funding requested by the President to take the necessary

actions against international terrorists and terrorist

organizations, including those nations, organizations or

persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the

terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or

harbored such persons or organizations;

Key issue: The Administration has not provided Congress

with any proof that Iraq is in any way connected to the

events of 9/11.

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to

continue to take all appropriate actions against

international terrorists and terrorist organizations,

including those nations, organizations or persons who

planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks

that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons

or organizations;

Key issue: The Administration has not provided Congress

with any proof that Iraq is in any way connected to the

events of 9/11. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence

that Iraq has harbored those who were responsible for

planning, authorizing or committing the attacks of 9/11.

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution

to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of

international terrorism against the United States, as

Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization

for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Key issue: This resolution was specific to 9/11. It was

limited to a response to 9/11.

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States

to restore international peace and security to the Persian

Gulf region;

Key issue: If by the ``national security interests'' of the

United States, the Administration means oil, it ought to

communicate such to the Congress. A unilateral attack on Iraq

by the United States will cause instability and chaos in the

region and sow the seeds of future conflicts all other the

world.

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled,

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in the days and weeks after first Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, it became very clear that the lack of communications was one of the biggest obstacles to a rapid recovery and a rapid rescue effort in the face of these awful disasters.

The purpose of the amendment that I offer today is to use $2 million for the Department of Defense's Technical Support Working Group to deploy in hurricane-affected States existing technology that provides wireless, interoperable, mobile, encrypted broadband communications for first responders, National Guard, Federal response personnel in the case of future disasters or in the case of the temporary absence of communications.

FEMA has already been tasked with identifying and providing existing commercially available capabilities in time to provide responders with this capability before the next hurricane season begins. The capability exists and needs to be rapidly deployed.

The purpose for my amendment is to use $2 million for the working group to deploy in these areas existing technology.

Federal, State, and local law enforcement and first responder agencies were limited in their ability to respond to Hurricane Katrina because they couldn't communicate. The House Select Committee on Katrina identified this as a key failure at all levels. The Select Committee's recommendation states in part that the Department of Homeland Security should establish and maintain a deployable communications capability to quickly gain and retain situational awareness when responding to catastrophic incidents.

My amendment takes a step in the right direction and, importantly, does so before the next hurricane season, which starts June 1. We must provide responders with the capability to talk across agencies, within their agency when customary communications systems like phones are disrupted or destroyed.

This is not, obviously, a cure-all approach to solve our Nation's interoperable problems; but it is one solution that provides a stopgap system that allows responders to talk to each other using their existing hardware from mobile or fixed locations when existing systems aren't available.

FEMA has already been tasked with this responsibility before the next hurricane season. The capability exists and needs to be rapidly deployed.

This amendment does not require additional Federal dollars. It simply provides $2 million and directs the Department of Defense and its technical support working group to work with FEMA using funds Congress has already planned to provide FEMA to identify and deploy the capability.

From a personal perspective, I can state, being on the ground in the days and weeks after Katrina and Rita, this was one of the biggest gaps in our Federal, State and local response, the inability to have interoperable communications.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

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

Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer and withdraw this amendment.

The purpose of my amendment is to restore the administration's request to rebuild New Orleans' VA Medical Center. I do intend to withdraw this amendment pursuant to a colloquy with my colleagues. I want to, first of all, state the rationale for my amendment in the first place.

The VA Medical Center suffered significant damage after the hurricane. It is a 354-bed acute care facility. It provides health care to more than 220,000 veterans who live in a 23-parish region served by this medical center. It is absolutely critical to get this hospital rebuilt as quickly as possible to continue serving these thousands of veterans, our men and women who have served us so proudly in uniform.

Ironically, it was not the hurricane that did the majority of damage to the VA center. Instead, the facility actually initially weathered the hurricane with minimal damage. However, the breach of the levees days later flooded the entire area around the medical center. Let me correct myself, I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.

It was the breach of the levees, not days later, it was the breach of the levees caused by the failure of design and construction. It was the breach of the levees that flooded the entire area around the medical center, the facility's first floor basement and sub-basement. Those floors housed the facility's major electrical, mechanical and dietetics equipment. Of the 1,819 VA employees in New Orleans, 40 percent lost their homes.

Despite this destruction, despite the obstacles, the VA was one of the few bright lights to shine through the devastation that hit the region. Advanced planning, a well-known electronic medical system helped to ensure that VA could coordinate and move thousands of staff and patients to facilities across the United States without a single loss

of life attributed to the lack of medical attention.

In addition, VA staff members volunteered thousands of hours of their time to assist veterans and other citizens in the affected communities to ensure that the aftermath of this storm and the response could go as smoothly as possible.

Right now, the current situation is that thousands of veterans are being forced to drive a long distance or do without the health care they need. The President initially requested over $600 million to rebuild the medical center in addition to the previous $75 million that was included in the December supplemental for planning and land acquisition.

This is an important facility for the VA. I also want to commend the VA for working together with LSU, which operates the city's Charity Hospital. They have announced an intent to try to work together to construct a shared facility, so the new hospital would have the economies of scale, for example, sharing potentially laundries and other facilities with the State hospital that will also need to be rehabilitated, maybe even rebuilt before it reopens. It is crucial to restore this funding; it is crucial that we get this hospital open as quickly as possible.

I do intend to yield to one of my colleagues. It is my understanding in working with the committee, that they will work with me to ensure that the VA does have the funds they need to reopen this facility in its entirety. I think there was some discussion about the adequacy of the funds, and there was some analysis of how much funds would actually be needed to reopen this facility.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I want to thank my colleague and thank the committee. With this agreement, I am willing to withdraw this amendment.

My understanding was there was some confusion in the initial estimates about the actual cost of constructing a parking garage that might have caused an inflated estimate.

I do thank my colleagues for being willing to work with me to make sure this facility is reconstructed as quickly as possible so the veterans can get the health care they deserve. I thank my colleagues. I thank the Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I again intend to offer and then withdraw this amendment pursuant to a colloquy with my colleagues.

The purpose of this amendment, but before I do that, I want to explain the rationale and importance of this amendment. I have offered an amendment to provide funding requested in the amount of $142 million to allow the reconstruction of the National Guard facilities in New Orleans, Louisiana. Replacement of these facilities are absolutely critical for the function of the Louisiana Army National Guard.

Hurricane Katrina severely damaged these facilities, so that they must be replaced. These units are now currently in temporary interim facilities and have less than half the required training area and storage facilities. These makeshift facilities are overcrowded and disjointed in terms of the capacities they offer. Proper facilities need to be constructed immediately to prevent further deterioration of the equipment.

On August 29, 2005, the Jackson Barracks, in particular, suffered massive flooding from Hurricane Katrina. Several weeks later, after the floodwaters had subsided from the hurricane, the readiness centers were again flooded from Hurricane Rita. Together these two hurricanes caused extreme catastrophic damage to the readiness centers that housed the Joint Force Headquarters and the 1/141 Field Artillery Battalion. Portions of each facility were completely destroyed, suffering from building collapses, collapses as a result of the storm's wind, rains and floodwaters.

The damage inflicted upon the readiness center and all other facilities on the Jackson Barracks has rendered them completely useless. The 512 soldiers of the Field Artillery Battalion and the 216 soldiers of the Joint Forces Headquarters are now operating out of small corner spaces in numerous buildings spread across the State of Louisiana until interim facilities can be provided for these units affected by these hurricanes.

These interim facilities should be ready for use in a few short months. However, they will be nothing close to what is authorized or required to provide for mission ready combat units of the United States Army. The Field Artillery Battalion will have less than a quarter of its authorized square feet required for unit training assemblies and a readiness center for a unit of its size. This is the space needed to provide the facilities needed for the unit to meet its wartime training requirements.

The unit will share this space with another unit as well. Not only will it have a quarter of the space, it will be sharing the space with another unit. This heavily cramped facility, though, we are grateful for this in the aftermath of the storm, will hardly satisfy the long- term mission capability for the two units.

Over time, readiness levels to meet training requirements, retention and recruiting will all suffer greatly. Moreover space required to store unit equipment is insufficient. These same issues have also plagued the Joint Force Headquarters.

The post-hurricane plan for the Joint Force Headquarters has resulted in splitting the headquarters into several locations. This strategy is important for recovery of the State. However, facilities for the operation of the headquarters are not available to consolidate the organization at each location. These long-term operations will not be acceptable as this will result in critical management issues for the Joint Headquarters mission providing command and control to the Louisiana National Guard. This will result in poor oversight provided by the headquarters which could significantly affect the readiness for the National Guard.

My amendment seeks to restore the administration's request to rebuild these facilities in New Orleans. Replacement of these facilities should be provided to sustain the readiness posture of the Louisiana Army National Guard. Hurricane Katrina has severely damaged the facilities and these facilities must be replaced, and certainly, we need to send a signal to the Guard that we want to help them increase their readiness even before next hurricane season.

Many of my colleagues have done me the honor and privilege of coming to my state on CODELs to see the damage. Many of you have landed at Jackson Barracks and been accompanied by Louisiana Army National Guard members on your tours. Many of you have seen the heroic footage of what they did in the aftermath of the storm to rescue people out of the water. Many of you are very aware of their extreme sacrifice serving us overseas in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I want to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues. My understanding is the committee will work

with me once information is provided from the Louisiana Army National Guard to make sure that these facilities are indeed rebuilt and repaired.

I want to thank the gentleman and my colleagues. Based on their commitment to work with me to make sure we do provide the funding to rebuild the facilities, my understanding is there are some questions that need to be answered and some additional information that needs to be obtained, but once that information is obtained, that we are confident we can do that before conference.

Based on that, I will seek unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. Before I do that, I want to thank my colleagues on the committee for working with me on each of my three amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment, well-intentioned as it is, is absolute overkill. In total, this amendment would add $1.225 billion for a variety of programs in the Department of Homeland Security, which is nearly 5 percent of the annual appropriations. I may agree with him on some of the needs, but most of what he is asking for should be dealt with in regular order, not in an emergency supplemental bill.

I recognize the importance of many of the appropriations contained in the amendment, but we have already substantially increased funding, Mr. Chairman, for Customs and Border Protection, Coast Guard, and FEMA over the last 3 years.

This supplemental is about the Global War on Terror and Gulf Coast recovery, not about the regular budgets of these Departments, of these agencies, which we are dealing with right now as we appropriate for 2007.

Now, in Customs and Border Protection, in this bill already we increase funding by $17.7 million. We have aggressively supported radiation detection and cargo inspection technology, appropriating some $700 million over the last three years. An additional $400 million in this amendment, well-intended, is completely arbitrary and unneeded. There is no rationale for this number. The new Domestic Nuclear Detection Office is developing new technologies, even as I speak, and a framework for their deployment.

The gentleman also increases Customs and Border protection, international port security programs, the Container Security Initiative, and the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism by $300 million. Since 2004, these programs have received, at the hands of the Congress, over $430 million. This has fully funded the Container Security Initiative which will expand in 58 foreign ports by the end of fiscal 2007. Through those 58 ports come 90 percent of the containers that come to this country and C-TPAT has expanded to 5,636 certified trade partners that send us container vessels every day.

Mr. Chairman, we simply cannot grow these programs any faster. Money is not the problem. An expansion of this program is more about obtaining diplomatic clearances than money. These countries simply will not take more of our personnel until we negotiate diplomatically with them.

As for the Coast Guard operating expenses, in this bill the Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Lewis, has already included an additional $14.3 million. The gentleman's amendment would add another $125 million. Mr. Chairman, over the last 5 years, we have doubled funding for the Coast Guard's operating expenses, doubled, from $2.8 billion in fiscal 2001 to $5.5 billion in the current year, and while we have increased their responsibilities, they have funding in their base and in this supplemental for operating expenses sufficient to carry out their duties for the remainder of the year, including overhauling equipment, additional fuel, port security, inspections and the like. So the Coast Guard is taken care of. In fact, they have roughly half of their operating expenses for this fiscal year laying there waiting to be spent. So they do not need the extra funds.

Now then, on FEMA, we include in this bill already increases to FEMA of $70 million in the supplemental emergency bill. The gentleman would increase their funding for administrative and regional operations by $300 million, but it is unclear how that $300 million

figure is derived. The President requested $70 million for emergency communications, primarily for Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, although some of the funds are also targeted to Texas and Florida.

The Sabo amendment adds $300 million for ``three other locations.'' We do not know where those locations are or why it is an emergency that they be equipped, and there is a huge difference in the cost estimates. Seventy million will take care of the three principal States of Katrina, but he is asking $300 million for these three other locations. Wherever they are, I do not know, and what they need the money for we still do not know.

The $70 million that Chairman Lewis included in the bill that is before us fully prepares the Gulf Coast for the upcoming hurricane season, putting in place the necessary communications infrastructure for warning and communicating with the public during these natural disasters. It may be appropriate to position the technology in other locations, but there is no reason to consider an expansion of this effort as part of this emergency appropriations bill. These are decisions that can and will be considered as part of the regular appropriations cycle, which we are having hearings on right now.

The gentleman seeks to add $100 million for preparedness activities at FEMA. We also increase in preparedness this bill by $10 million. The gentleman states we are not spending enough on simulation exercises; but in fiscal 2006, the National Exercise Program is funded at $52 million. That supports local, State, and national exercises.

The gentleman also seeks to restart a program called Project Impact, funded in the previous administration to simulate predisaster mitigation efforts. That program has not been funded for 5 years. Nothing is known about it, we do not know that it works, and yet we are asked to plop down another big chunk of money. Who will administer it? what will it do? and so on--we do not know.

So, Mr. Chairman, it is not a matter of more money. It is a matter of spending the money that we already have stashed away in these programs wisely, based on a sound strategy and a rationale to improve our homeland security. While the gentleman's amendment is well-intended, it is overkill.

This supplemental is focused on immediate needs, not budgetary items for next year. Many of the areas being addressed in this amendment are funded in this supplemental, not just to the arbitrary levels being proposed by the gentleman's amendment. Throwing huge sums of money at these programs is not a responsible way to conduct our Nation's business.

I urge a defeat of this amendment.

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

May I inquire of the time remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. First, this amendment throws money at a problem where money is not the problem. There are literally billions of dollars that we have appropriated in the pipeline for the various grant programs in the Department of Homeland Security, including grant monies for port security. In fact, the Department, in the next couple of weeks will be releasing port security applications for various ports around the country to apply for funding. Money is in the pipeline waiting to be spent.

As I have said before, the Department will be in 58 foreign ports the end of the fiscal year 2007. Ninety percent, nine out of 10 of the containers coming into the country come through those 58 ports around the world. We are there x-raying the containers, manually searching containers, classifying and targeting containers, finding those that are susceptible to suspicion and then searching them.

It is not perfect, obviously. But money is not the problem. We simply cannot send more agents into those countries than they will take, unless we can diplomatically make arrangements. But that is a job of the State Department, not DHS.

Second, this is an emergency supplemental bill. We can deal with most of the problems that the gentleman outlines in his amendment in the regular process. And in the regular process, I will probably support a number of the proposals that he is bringing forth in this emergency bill. But this is not the time or the place.

So I would urge a ``no'' vote. These dollars are emergency spending. They are not offset. And the gentleman is asking us to add another $1.225 billion of nonoffset spending. I would hope the body would recognize that, reject this amendment, and let us deal with these issues in the regular process of the 2007 bill.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I know the motivation of the offerer of the amendment, and I sympathize with his general premise. However, I am obligated to speak against the amendment because the amendment would eliminate the money for FEMA. Under this proposal, FEMA would run out of money in May. The $9.55 billion in the bill for the operations in the Gulf Coast would be eliminated. Housing assistance would stop; debris removal would stop. There would be no emergency communications in place for the upcoming hurricane season, which is only two months away. And $13.5 million for the Inspector General would be cut, almost ensuring fraud, waste and abuse of the $35 billion in supplemental funds we have appropriated so far for the Gulf Coast.

So I would urge a ``no'' vote. Although I understand the gentleman's motivation to try to separate out the disaster funding from the military funding, that would ruin the disaster assistance for the Gulf Coast. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is just not necessary. FEMA has money and the authorization to go ahead and buy election equipment already, and they are already doing it. This amendment would actually earmark Disaster Relief Funds, which we have never done before. We don't earmark. This is not an account out of which you earmark monies for things you like. These are Disaster Relief Funds that are administered by the government where it is needed.

Now, the Stafford Act authorizes the use of Federal money to repair or replace damaged public infrastructure. That is what it is for, including election equipment. FEMA has already spent over $1.7 million on election equipment in Louisiana and Mississippi. Specifically, Louisiana has received $1,200,100 from FEMA to replace polling booths, computers, voting machines, office supplies, and storage facilities. Mississippi has received $724,000 from FEMA for voting machines, equipment, and election commission furniture. So FEMA is already doing it. I don't know why we need to earmark monies, which I oppose in general; but it is unnecessary here because it is already being done.

There is plenty of money in FEMA's account to replace the election equipment. They are already doing it. So I don't see the need for us to pass this sort of an amendment and set a precedent, Mr. Chairman, for earmarking out of the Disaster Relief Fund for somebody's whim on the floor. We have passed the Stafford Act. That is what governs how FEMA monies are being spent. This would be a violation, in my judgment, of the principle of the Stafford Act.

FEMA is in the process of helping remove debris from the Gulf Coast. Roads are still closed in the area. As has been described innumerable times, it is an absolute mess down there. And while election equipment is important, it is just simply, in my judgment, premature to purchase this equipment, first of all, when there are no structures in place to house the equipment and no roads open to deliver it. When the time is right, FEMA has both the authority and the money to assist with the upcoming election and the equipment requirements. There is simply no need for this amendment and no need to earmark out of disaster funds.

Including the funds in this bill, we will have given $44.5 billion to the Disaster Relief Fund in supplemental appropriations during 2005 and 2006. That is a huge sum. But it reflects the commitment of this body to helping rebuild the devastated Gulf Coast region.

Now is the time for sound management of this money. Arbitrarily carving out specific amounts from the disaster fund would open a floodgate seemingly without end for many, many needs.

We recognize and support the need to repair election facilities. It is critical that we allow those affected by Hurricane Katrina to participate in the most important civic duty, and that is voting. With this bill, the disaster relief monies involved in the bill are in place to do just that and are being spent for that purpose already. So I would urge a rejection of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and 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, we hear a lot about the importance of identifying risk as we make security investments. And who could disagree? However, the President and Congress tend to stumble in putting a coherent risk-based philosophy into our budgets and policies.

I ask the Members to consider this amendment in the context of President

Bush's national security budget priorities for the coming year. The President requests $10.4 billion for missile defense next year, an increase of $1.7 billion.

By comparison, the discretionary budget request for the whole Department of Homeland Security is only $400 million above this year, almost four times as large an increase simply for missile defense versus the whole Department of Homeland Security. I have a hard time seeing how the risk of an intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile attack is greater than the risk of a nuclear weapon in a cargo container coming into our country by ship. Therefore, this emergency bill is the time to address our most critical port security gaps.

I understand the Senate Budget Committee chairman also believes that critical security gaps should be addressed in this bill. Protecting our seaports is a lot like protecting our airports. We need multiple security layers. With international traffic, the first security check should be overseas.

The container security in this initiative, by which containers judged to be high risk are opened and inspected and all container manifests are reviewed, is operating today in only 43 of the 140 foreign ports that ship directly to the U.S.

Since 2002, former Customs Commissioner Robert Bonner has been talking about the value of CSI and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has endorsed it. However, the Bush administration and the Republican Congress have been slow to fund and implement the program. This amendment would expand CSI to all overseas ports that ship directly to the U.S. and allow U.S. custom agents to review 100 percent of all container manifests.

Some may argue that we should settle for CSI in 50 foreign ports by the end of 2007. What about the other 90 foreign ports that ship directly to us? You can be sure those who want to do us harm will know which foreign ports are covered by CSI and which foreign ports are not.

The next critical step is to improve port security inside the U.S. The Coast Guard estimates that $7 billion is needed to bring U.S. port facilities into compliance with our maritime security law and regulations.

Let me tell you where we are today. Since 9/11, Congress has provided $910 million to harden our seaports. President Bush has never requested funding directly and specifically for this purpose.

Mr. Chairman, with this amendment, we could install radiation portal monitors at every U.S. land and seaport of entry. Today, less than half of these radiation detectors have been installed. Without this amendment, the Bush administration would have Americans wait until 2011 to complete this crucial security measure.

Customs and Border Protection also need to do a better job in targeting cargo containers that should be opened, and in auditing trusted shippers. The General Accounting Office identified both of these issues, and this amendment would help us get these tasks done.

The third critical port security step is to ensure that the people charged to protect our ports are well trained, equipped, and prepared to respond to disaster.

The Coast Guard enforces port and vessel compliance with maritime security regulations. Last fall, the Coast Guard reported that its maritime security exercise revealed the need for a stronger chain of command, better guidance, and more training. The Coast Guard has also told us it has not completed its review of vessel security and has not reviewed all foreign ports that ship directly to us. This agency, which performed so well in response to Hurricane Katrina, can handle the tough jobs. Congress and the President should give the Coast Guard the right resources to do them.

Mr. Chairman, as the saying goes, practice makes perfect. We may need more simulation exercises for emergency responders at every level of government in order to identify the flaws in our preparedness plans.

Mr. Chairman, everyone knows that we have a dangerous gap in our emergency communications capability across the Nation. The bill provides a back-up communication package for the gulf coast, which includes trucks loaded with equipment that can be quickly moved into a disaster area and to bring up cell phones and public safety radio networks to help first responders in search and rescue efforts. We need this emergency communication equipment in other regions of the country as well. And this amendment would provide it.

Mr. Chairman, the American people expect us to do more than talk about inadequate port security and disaster preparedness. They demand that we back up our talk with action.

I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I understand the majority has the right to close.

Mr. Chairman, let me just make a few comments. First, let me be clear. I have great appreciation for the work of the chairman of our committee, Mr. Rogers, and what he has done in this subcommittee. The work of his subcommittee has significantly improved the recommendations of the President over the last several years as relates to homeland security. The bills that have passed Congress have been significantly better than what we got from the administration.

But I also agree with him that this bill today is about the war on terrorism. And one of the most important parts in dealing with the war on terrorism is dealing with port security and the security of containers coming into this country. I disagree with those who say that who owns and how terminals are operated is irrelevant to security. Who operates them and how they operate them is very relevant, as we have dealt with in this bill in committee.

However, how we provide the other security dwarfs the importance of who and how terminals are operated. How we deal with containers coming into this country, both at our ports and our other ports of entry in this country is tremendously important. We have made some progress, but anyone who suggests that we are there in terms of port security in this country today I think is badly misinformed. We have a long ways to go, and it has been over 4 years since 9/11.

We are not simply throwing money at a problem here. These are important questions, important problems that need more resources; and, frankly, in some cases, they need more vigorous action by the administration to make sure that foreign countries cooperate with us. This is an amendment that significantly improves port security and I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.