Return of General Aviation to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Act of 2005

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, we begin today a historic debate on the floor of this House that commences the annual authorization process for the Department of Homeland Security. This annual process is designed to recognize that the function of the Department of Homeland Security is the essence of our government's national security mission, protecting the American people and our territory.

This is the same national security mission ultimately that is performed in different ways by the Pentagon and by the intelligence community. Both the Pentagon and the intelligence community for this same reason undergo an annual authorization process in the Congress. That is a collaboration between the executive and the legislative branches that is necessary to ensure that we fulfill this most vital function.

We must remember that the Department of Homeland Security in the executive branch and the Committees on Homeland Security in this House and in the other body were formed because the congressional leadership and the President recognized that neither branch of government as then constituted was properly organized to deal with the 21st century threat of terrorism directed against Americans on our own territory. On an ongoing basis, the Congress and the executive need to focus together on this vital process and the annual authorization is the means for doing so.

The Department of Homeland Security authorization bill that is before the House today reflects an impressive bipartisan effort. That is due, in large part, to the strong and able leadership of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson). The Members on both sides of the aisle have never forgotten for a single day since September 11, 2001, that the security of the American people must be placed above politics.

So as we meet today to consider the Department of Homeland Security authorization bill for fiscal year 2006, we find that we have forged agreement on many important challenges facing our country and the Department, and on ways to begin to address them. In establishing the procedures for bringing this annual authorization bill to the floor, we have been guided by the long-standing practices of the Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Those committees have always brought to the floor bills that live within the spending boundaries established in the House-passed budget. H.R. 1817, the Department of Homeland Security authorization bill also does exactly that.

To have credibility, a national security authorization bill must set the executive's priorities within the framework of its actual budgetary resources. It does little good for us to pretend that the Department of Homeland Security has infinite budget resources, and then give it mandates that it cannot carry out. So this bill funds priorities within the overall DHS budget, not on top of it.

Within that constraint, we have been able to accomplish a great deal more for the security of the American people and for this country. We fully fund the 2,000 new Border Patrol agents called for in the Intelligence Reform Act passed last year, and we increase the Department of Homeland Security's funding by nearly one-quarter of a billion dollars for this purpose.

The bill authorizes $40 million so that immigration and customs enforcement can expedite illegal alien removal. It provides $5 million in new funding to implement the Safety Act so we can more quickly deploy anti-terrorism technologies to protect the American people from terrorism. It adds $20 million for interoperable communications and technical assistance for our first responders. It increases funding for cybersecurity research and development and for cybersecurity education and training.

Within the Department of Homeland Security budget that this House has already approved, we have authorized $40 million in additional funds to support the training of State and local law enforcement personnel so they can help enforce Federal immigration laws. This provision is contained in a separate amendment that I will offer today with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) of the Committee on the Judiciary.

On these and all other funding decisions in the bill, we have had to make hard choices and set priorities. That is our responsibility. As a result, we have not funded every initiative to protect against every conceivable means by which terrorists might mount an attack. But what we have done is based our funding decisions on the best intelligence available, on terrorist capabilities and intentions, and on the actual risk of terrorist attack. The bill also advances our prime objective of preventing terrorism by improving our intelligence capability within the Department of Homeland Security.

Prevention of terrorism requires that information sharing about terrorist threats be seamless, that it be timely, and that that communication be secure. That is exactly what this bill accomplishes, both within the Department of Homeland Security and across the Federal Government and with our State, local and private sector partners. It provides the Department of Homeland Security with new tools to build a robust intelligence capability. It strengthens the partnership with these other stakeholders.

Those partnerships are essential in sustaining the counterterrorism mission into the foreseeable future, and the bill will help the Department of Homeland Security to streamline and integrate the multitude of different background checks and security screenings that are conducted for travelers, workers and other critical personnel who are required to undergo security checks by the Department.

The bill revises the color-coded homeland security advisory system to make sure that threat warnings are specific and informative, and wherever possible, that these warnings be targeted. By targeting these warnings to the areas of the country or sectors of the economy that are threatened, we can be sure that we are warning the right people and not needlessly scaring the wrong people. We also need to make sure that the Federal Government gives clear guidance and speaks with one voice when it issues such warnings. This bill will ensure this happens.

This authorization bill is shorter this year than it will ever be in future years. That is because, first, the Department itself is only 2 years old, and Congress has just recently written the entire legislative charter for the Department.

Second, we have a new homeland security Secretary who is just concluding his top to bottom 90-day review of the entire department. We want to give Secretary Chertoff the opportunity to draw his own road map, both organizationally and programatically, of where this Department should go.

We will proceed on additional authorizing legislation later this year once we have had the opportunity through hearings and oversight to evaluate the Secretary's proposals.

Mr. Chairman, I conclude by thanking the Members on both sides of the aisle and the House leadership on both sides of the aisle for their foresight in creating the Committee on Homeland Security within the House of Representatives and for allowing us to initiate this annual authorization process on the floor. This is a significant milestone on our long journey toward keeping America safe from terrorism.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers on our side, and I reserve the balance of the time for closing.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi for purposes of closing debate.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), both for his generous remarks but, more importantly, for his hard work on this piece of legislation over a period of several months and, as he pointed out, through ultimately a very long, arduous markup in the committee where members on both sides had an unlimited opportunity to offer amendments and consider a variety of topics.

As we conclude general debate and prepare to move into debate on the specific amendments on this bill, I think we can recognize one important fact, and that is that we are all agreed on the essence of the underlying bill. We have some things, each of us, that we might like to add to this bill, and I predict that in due course, over the rest of this year, we will have an opportunity again on this House floor to take up issues, including aviation security, chemical security, port security, and so on.

But the entirety of what we do accomplish in this bill is bipartisan in nature and agreed upon by the members on both sides of the aisle, at least in the Committee on Homeland Security, and we will soon see about the House as a whole. That is because we have allocated the $32 billion, for what is now the third largest Cabinet department, in a way that demonstrably advances our number one goal of preventing terrorism in the future on American soil, directed against American citizens, protecting America's most critical infrastructure against terrorist attack, and being prepared to respond and recover should, against all our best preparations, that ever occur in the future.

In order to bring us to this point, we have had to have a great deal of bipartisan assistance, all motivated by the best interests of the country from Members on both sides.

I specifically want to mention the vice chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon); the chairmen and ranking members of our five subcommittees, and the Staff Directors on both sides, Ben Cohen on the Majority side and Calvin Humphreys on the minority side. The staffs have done extraordinary professional work, and their staffs are drawn from, in many cases, the executive branch, with experience about precisely the work and the programs that we are overseeing in this legislation. Many of them have come from the intelligence community, others come from the Coast Guard and other branches of the armed services.

We can be very proud in this House about the institutionalization of the role of homeland security oversight and authorization that has been set in motion as a result of a decision of leadership on both sides, and I want to conclude by taking this opportunity, once again, to thank the House leadership for its very wise decision to create permanent authorizing and oversight responsibility in this Congress on an institutionalized basis, and then, today, taking the next important step of institutionalizing an annual authorization process so that together the legislative branch and the executive branch will closely collaborate on what is the essence of our national security responsibility to all Americans: making sure that we are safe and secure on American territory for the American citizens.

So, Mr. Chairman, with that, I will draw this general debate to a conclusion, and I look forward to working with the body on the several amendments that have been made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I will at this time introduce into the Record a series of letters exchanged between the Committee on Homeland Security and other standing committees, including the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, concerning jurisdictional issues raised by this legislation.

Committee on Government Reform,

Washington, DC, May 18, 2005.

Hon. Christopher Cox,

Chairman, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your willingness to

consult and work with me as you guided H.R. 1817, ``the

Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2006'' from introduction, through

the Homeland Security Committee, and to the floor. As you

know, the Committee on Government Reform has been interested

in a number of provisions within H.R. 1817. The Committee has

been concerned that the expansion of the Department's

responsibilities for information sharing in Title II,

Subtitle B, Homeland Security Information Sharing and

Analysis Enhancement, not lessen the Department's

responsibility to follow government-wide policies and

procedures for the sharing of information. In addition to the

information sharing provisions of Subtitle B, the Committee

has specific jurisdictional interests in the following

provisions of your substitute: Sec. 201--Consolidated

Background Check Process; Sec. 216--Coordination of homeland

security threat analysis provided to non-Federal officials;

Sec. 217--9/11 Homeland Security Fellows Program; Sec. 221--

IAIP Personnel Recruitment; Sec. 302--Technology Development

and Transfer; Sec. 303--Review of Antiterrorism Activities;

Title III, Subtitle B--Department of Homeland Security

Cybersecurity Enhancement; Sec. 334--Protection of

Information; and Sec. 502--GAO Report to Congress.

I would like to confirm our mutual understanding with

respect to the consideration of H.R. 1817. As you know, H.R.

1817 was sequentially referred to the Committee on Government

Reform. Because of your willingness to work with us to

resolve issues of concern to the Committee and to include

those improvements to the bill in your amendment in the

nature of a substitute on the floor, the Committee on

Government Reform did not consider H.R. 1817. However, the

Committee has done so only with the understanding that this

procedural route would not prejudice the Committee on

Government Reform's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives

on this bill or similar legislation.

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of

outside conferees from the Committee on Government Reform

should this bill or a similar Senate bill be considered in

conference with the Senate. Finally, I would ask that you

include a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter in

the Congressional Record during the House debate of this

bill. If you have questions regarding this matter, please do

not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your attention to this

matter.

Sincerely,

Tom Davis,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, first I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), who is a very able and well-informed Member of the committee and serves as the ranking member on the committee on oversight, which has particular responsibilities in this area. I support his view of the importance of the Inspector General's function inside the Department of Homeland Security and of the mission of fighting waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government, and specifically in the Department of Homeland Security, because it is a critical mission.

The reason, however, that I cannot support the amendment is different than what I have just said. I agree with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) about the Inspector General's function and fighting waste, fraud, and abuse. First, I cannot support it because the authorization of $200 million, which is a tripling of the current budget, has no offset. It is therefore a budget buster.

As I stated in general debate, what has characterized our efforts on the underlying bill is that we are operating within the parameters of the House-passed budget, and specifically the allocation for the overall Department of Homeland Security of $32 billion.

When we make changes in the priorities in the bill by doing something else that is good, we have got to find somewhere to take the money from, and this amendment simply does not do it. It pulls the money from thin air.

Second, the new level of funding that this would establish, the enormous increase from $83 million at present to $200 million, would create an IG office and staff and administration virtually identical in size to that which exists in the largest Cabinet Department, the Department of Defense, even though DOD's budget and empire and responsibilities are 10 times larger than the Department of Homeland Security. So there is a problem of scale.

Third, not withstanding the testimony, correctly cited by my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), of former IGs about their experience and their need for more staff, the current IG has more staff.

The staffing level of the Office of Inspector General already has grown significantly over the last 3 years from 475 full-time employees in fiscal year 2004, to 502 in fiscal 2005, to 540 in fiscal year 2006.

And for that reason, neither the administration nor the Inspector General himself has asked for this increase that is before us in this amendment.

For all of these reasons, I regretfully oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to commend the gentleman from Florida for his leadership on oversight and investigation. I will commit to continuing to work with him on the full committee and to make sure that the IG gets the resources that he needs.

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, I rise in support of the amendment. I want to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) with whom I am offering this amendment.

Our amendment will authorize funds to reimburse States for training costs that they incur if they voluntarily participate in the training of their law enforcement agents for the purposes of enforcing our Nation's immigration laws.

In 1996, I authored section 133 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. That section is now codified as section 287(G) of the INA. It provided and continues to provide as a piece of our permanent legislation local and State law enforcement officers with the option of being trained and deputized by the Federal Government so that they can assist with the enforcement of our immigration laws in the pursuit of their normal duties of protecting citizens from crime.

Over the last 8 years, slowly but surely, we have learned how to use this facility so that the Department has entered into several memoranda of understanding, for example, with the State

of Florida in September 2002, the State of Alabama in September of 2003, and very recently the County of Los Angeles in pursuit of specific authorization by the elected officials of the County of Los Angeles in February of 2005.

So the reason that we are offering this amendment today is that inasmuch as this is a purely voluntary program, offering aid to State and local law enforcement that wants it that is asking for it and is volunteering for it, they should be reimbursed for their costs as first responders of helping us enforce Federal law and achieving the national mission of protecting our borders.

We need to capitalize on existing law enforcement resources by ensuring that State and local law enforcement have the opportunity to receive this training that will help them to protect their local communities.

In turn, those enforcement efforts will help protect the Nation from threats of terrorism. I want to emphasize just a few things. First, this amendment does not alter the fundamental voluntary nature of the participation of States and Federal Government. So no State and no subdivision of the State that does not wish in any way to be involved in the enforcement of our immigration laws will be required to do so, either under existing law or under this fund provision.

Second, the purpose of the law, of the training, and of the reimbursement is to focus on crime and on people who are not only unlawfully in this country but who are committing other crimes, in particular felonies.

Third, the training that is provided by the Federal Government specifically includes training in the areas of civil rights and the prevention of profiling.

I want to reiterate that this amendment does not change or alter any authority that already exists in law. It merely provides funding for States for their first responders who should be reimbursed for this training.

I fully support this program, and I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, this amendment is offered jointly by myself as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on this side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Chairman, first I want to offer my great appreciation of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of this committee, and of course for his collaborative efforts with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), chairman of this committee.

I think that we can go on record as one of the more collaborative committees on something that requires an American response.

I rise today to say that we have made a good first step. As all of America's eyes were looking at a little Cessna, the Committee on Homeland Security now recognizes or has recognized that we are and have to be a proactive committee. We must give an answer to the American people that they will appreciate and find comfort that we are securing the homeland, the rural hamlets, the urban areas, the suburban areas, the counties, the cities, and Homeland Security Should be in our neighborhoods.

So I am somewhat disappointed that my community preparedness amendment was not included, but I look forward to working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) so that we can emphasize an enhanced citizen corps. I am glad that we will study the question of whether or not border violence requires volunteer efforts and whether or not we are doing all that we can as a governmental entity to protect our borders. That is the role and the responsibility of America.

Then I am delighted that we have done a few things in this bill, but, Mr. Chairman, I raise a question that there is no emphasis, no work done on the aviation security issues that are still growing and still there; no further work done on port security that really is important in America with the need for new technology and the inspection of cargo, which is not done in all of America's ports; and certainly, coming from Texas, I think it is important that we understand industry such as the energy industry, but we must demand safety and, as well, there is a great need for protecting, or at least providing those kinds of requirements and oversight.

We could do more. I look forward to supporting the substitute offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), and I ask my colleagues to support my amendments regarding border violence as well as studies dealing with temporary protective status. I ask my colleagues that we work together to secure the homeland.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the overall measure we consider today, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for FY 2006, H.R. 1817. While there remain areas that have not been adequately addressed in its provisions, I recognize the importance of a bi- partisan effort to secure our homeland. We have waited three years for the crafting and consideration of an authorization measure, and now we have the chance to show America that we are responsible, prudent, and expedient.

H.R. 1817 is the first authorization measure since the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2003. The appropriators withheld over $700 million from DHS due to incomplete fulfillment of specific reporting requirements; therefore, our passage of the most comprehensive and representative measure possible would equate to having conducted ``due diligence'' on our part.

Just yesterday, we in the House passed the Appropriations Act for FY 2006, H.R. 2360, by a margin of 424-1. I joined my committee colleagues in considering this bill from its incipiency as it passed in both the Committees on Homeland Security on April 28, 2005 and Judiciary on May 12, 2005 unanimously by voice vote. Today, the Committee of the Whole will make history by passing its first Homeland Security Authorization measure, and I support an expedient but prudent completion of this endeavor.

In the markup hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary held on May 12, 2005, I offered an amendment on behalf of and in conjunction with my colleague from California, who serves on the Democratic Caucus Task Force on Homeland Security, Vice Chair of the Democratic Caucus Task Force on Immigration, and First Vice Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. As I serve as the Ranking Member of this Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, this important amendment that would require the collection of data on immigration consultants and ``notarios'' who conduct fraudulent immigration services for compensation, I was happy to offer this amendment. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the Chairman of the Committee on Judiciary and the Ranking Member from Michigan for their collaborative support of this amendment as it was accepted and incorporated as Section 506 of the Amendment in Nature of a Substitute that we consider today.

During the 13-hour Homeland Security Committee markup session that ended at 11:15 p.m. I was able to secure sincere commitments from the Majority Leadership to work with me for inclusion of some of my major initiatives: funding and more clearly defining the Citizen Corps and the Citizen Corps Councils--which will include consideration of a stand-alone bill that I will introduce shortly; and increasing capacity for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Institutions in Homeland Security procurement and in employment with the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, I was fortunate to have had my amendment, co-sponsored by the Gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren, that seeks to authorize the funding of programs for the education of minorities in the areas of cyberscience, research, and development to close the gap in achievement in those areas and to make America better equipped to fight terrorism overall. Furthermore, I achieved an agreement from the Majority Committee Leadership to collaborate on addressing the issue of border violence, an initiative that the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security showed his commitment to addressing, as evidenced by his support for an amendment that I offered yesterday during the House's consideration of the appropriations measure, H.R. 2360. Not only do I hope to see this language survive the deliberations of the Conferees, but I hope to see follow-through by the Homeland Security Committee with the bi-partisan letter and with consideration of the amendment that I plan to offer during our consideration of H.R. 1817.

Mr. Speaker, what the House has done this week and will do today will establish the breadth and efficacy of the entire Department of Homeland Security. I hope that my colleagues will keep that in mind as we work to debate the amendments that have been made in order.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi for yielding me time.

I rise to acknowledge the good intentions of the effort offered by the proponent of this amendment, but I also raise a number of red flags that are not answered by this amendment. In fact, it creates a whole new obligation for the Federal Government that does not address the Federal Government's responsibility for immigration enforcement and reform.

Frankly, I wish we were debating $40 million plus and more to fully fund the first responders bill or the first responders efforts to ensure that fire persons and police persons are fully funded for the work that they have to do to secure the homeland.

I would prefer an amendment that would fully fund the 2,000 plus every year border security protection agents that the 9/11 Commission recommended.

I would prefer this amendment to support the 800 a year ICE agents, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers who are at a measly 123 per year and do not have full complement to do their work.

All this amendment does is to set up an incentive that will not last and to get local communities dependent upon resources and place them in the line of fire to be doing the enforcement of immigration laws that the Federal Government should actually be doing. This gives them the false hope of memorandums of understanding that year after year will not be fully funded.

I am delighted that we are having this debate. At least we separate from the other body that wants to shut down the democratic process of debate by eliminating the filibuster. I will not do that today, but I think that we have an opportunity here to put forward a homeland security legislative initiative that really responds to the needs of enforcing immigration.

Authorizing funding, as I indicated, would be a deceptive encouragement to States to enter into MOUs. The history of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, however, makes it clear that such funding is unlikely. That program was established by Congress to reimburse State and local governments for costs incurred when incarcerating undocumented aliens convicted of crimes.

According to the National Association of Counties, State and local governments receive just 40 cents for every dollar they spend housing and processing such inmates. Meaning, Mr. Chairman, it has not worked.

I see the very same pathway for this limited funding. Really, what we should be doing is giving the States $100 million plus that we have now burdened them with in the unfunded mandate of the REAL ID bill. That bill, that is not funded, is going to create the greatest amount of havoc for untrained individuals dealing with this. It is not the law enforcement officers' ground. It is the Department of Public Safety that is going to have to characterize and create something we call a national ID card.

It also creates a false sense of public safety and it harms public safety. The false promise of funding would encourage some agencies to enter into MOUs, but expanded State and local enforcement of Federal immigration laws would harm public safety.

When police become immigration agents, the trust and confidence of immigrants and their communities are shaken. Word spreads like wildfire, and those very same immigrants, legal and nonlegal, if you will, will stifle, cut out the work of helping local law enforcement solve crime. We know that immigrants, documented and undocumented, are preyed upon, are victims, and they are victims and they are fearful, and they are in the midst of crimes being perpetrated against them and their neighbors. They have the answers and they will not give the answers and we will not solve crime in many of our communities because they believe that the local law enforcement is there to harm them and not there to help them.

I believe one frustration they run into is the fact that the Department of Homeland Security does not always respond to the request for assistance when people are believed to be undocumented. That is really where our problem is.

The other problem I might say is that when they arrest these individuals, we do not have the adjudicators to process them. So there is an enormous backlog. I tried on the floor of the House to offer an appropriations increase to get us 300 adjudicators, an amendment of myself and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). That did not prevail. So, in actuality, this is a false effort, giving $40 million with good intentions, but it really does nothing to help local law enforcement.

Let us fully fund them for the work they have to do, fully fund the immigration law enforcement for the work they have to do, and let us do our work as a Federal Government in securing the homeland and providing immigration enforcement.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Authorization bill would authorize Federal funding for State and local police agencies who enter into MOUs with ICe to enforce immigration laws.

Based on earlier versions of the amendment as it was proposed during committee consideration of the bill, it appears that only training costs would be reimbursed. Ongoing personnel and administrative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies that enter into MOUs would not.

This amendment is inadequate for a variety of reasons:

false incentive

Authorizing funding would be a deceptive encouragement to States to enter into MOUs. The history of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), however, makes it clear that such funding is unlikely. SCAAP was established by Congress to reimburse State and local governments for costs incurred when incarcerating undocumented aliens convicted of crimes.

According to the National Association of Counties, State and local governments received just 40 cents for every dollar they spend housing and processing such inmates. Also, President Bush has consistently attempted to eliminate the program entirely in his annual budget requests.

If Congress and the White House do not support full funding to reimburse State and

local governments for costs incurred during criminal enforcement activities, it is highly unlikely that they will appropriate the monies needed to fund State and local agencies that engage in civil immigration law enforcement.

Not only is appropriation of this money less than certain, but the money covers a very small portion of the costs incurred by State and local agencies entering into MOUs. It does not fund ongoing salary and administrative costs for police as they take on new demands related to immigration enforcement. Indeed, if the drafters did want to appropriate this money, it would make more sense for them to fund hiring and training of additional Federal agents.

Harms public safety

The false promise of funding would encourage some agencies to enter into MOUs. But expanded State and local enforcement of Federal immigration laws would harm public safety.

When police become immigration agents, the trust and confidence of immigrants and their communities are shaken. Word spreads like wildfire that any contact with police could mean deportation for themselves or their family members. Immigrants decline to report crimes or suspicious activity, and criminals see them as easy prey, making our streets less safe as a result.

Experience shows that this fear extends not only to contact with police, but also to the fire department, hospitals, and the public school system.

Not their role

State and local law enforcement's priorities are and should be stopping, investigating, and punishing criminal activity. State and local police already have all the tools they need to work with Federal agencies, including ICE, on joint operations and investigations. They can also detain criminals who are also immigration law violators and contact ICE to come pick them up. They do this every day.

One frustration they run into is the fact that DHS doesn't always respond to their requests for assistance with people believed to be undocumented. DHS also has its priorities, and has focused first on terrorists and criminals. Undocumented workers fall further down the list. This amendment does nothing to ensure that agencies entering into MOUs will actually see responses from ICE as they come across people they think could be undocumented and attempt to sort it out.

Obviously the broken immigration system and lack of consistent enforcement cannot stand. But asking State and local police agencies to fill in where the Federal Government has failed is a cheap and false ``solution.''

Not the solution

The answer is not asking State and local governments to make up for the failures of the feds. The answer is modernizing the immigration system so that well-intentioned migrants can enter to work and reunite with their families legally. When the current undocumented population is brought out of the shadows for a proper vetting and gets on a path to legal status, our enforcement resources will be better trained on the smugglers and fake document rings, the drug runners and violent criminals, and the terrorists who might manipulate our system.

As President Bush said, once immigrants have legal papers, ``Law enforcement will face fewer problems with undocumented workers, and will be better able to focus on the true threats to our Nation from criminals and terrorists. . . . Temporary workers will be able to establish their identities by obtaining the legal documents we all take for granted. And they will be able to talk openly to authorities, to report crimes when they are harmed, without the fear of being deported'' (White House policy announcement, 01/07/2003).

These reforms are the real solution.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman brings up a good point, and I think the gentleman would agree that since 9/11 we have spent most of the Transportation Security money on air flight and we have neglected, I think, rail security and port security and bus security and some of the others, trucking. However, I will be happy to work with him so that we do have moneys that are designated for these particular purposes, so that the Department does not have the capability of spending it all in one place. I think it is important that we do have, if we can get it through the authorization process, kitties destined just for rail, just for ports, just for trucks, buses, and the like.

Does the gentleman agree?

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is right on track and I think we can agree with it.

Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, it will be my pleasure to work with the gentleman and delegation on this project.

In fact, I remember not long ago, perhaps last year, helicoptering along that fence and then getting to the gap where there is no fence and seeing the results of that. So I will be happy to work with the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to work with the gentleman and all of our colleagues toward that goal.

In fact, between the supplemental bill that passed last week and this bill that is on the floor, if it is successful, we will have added some 1,500 new agents between now and next year. So we are getting closer to his goal.

Mr. Chairman, it is a priority of mine. I am delighted to hear the gentlemen who are standing with me here today all agree on this topic.

Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman from Virginia yields back, let me say that the

gentleman has brought forth a very important matter, and it is a matter that he, as chairman of his authorizing committee, has worked with us and our staff over the last several weeks very admirably, and I appreciate the willingness of the chairman to work with us in this, and we were happy to work with him.

So I am prepared to accept the amendment, with the congratulations to the chairman, and thanks for his great work in this respect.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, for his valued work in this and many, many areas. We agree on 99 percent of the things that we work on. This is one of them. That is the opening of Reagan Airport to limited general aviation aircraft, as you and I both have for the last 3 years been talking with the Department and other agencies downtown about the need to reopen that airport, at least on a limited basis to general aviation aircraft, and they keep promising a plan, a plan, a plan, and it has been 3 years. And, you know, we won World War II in 4 years, and we can't even think about reopening an airport here in these 3 years.

So it is time to do something, and so in our bill, Mr. Chairman, we direct the Department to bring a plan forward and reopen that airport in 90 days after enactment of this act. And I know that is authorizing language. But I appreciate the gentleman who has jurisdiction over this issue letting us do this at this point in time, because I think he and I share the same view.

We may not be able to pass an authorization bill during the year, so this is sort of a backup procedure. And if you pass an authorization bill dealing with the subject, we will happily stand back and take second fiddle.

I think probably what the gentleman and myself have been talking about is a plan that reopens that airport at least to charter aircraft who would undergo the same security rigmarole that commercial airliners do today: Background check of the crew and passengers, background check of the owner of the plane, searching passengers' baggage as we do commercial passengers, the same rigmarole that we go on through on commercial passengers today on commercial craft.

Is that the gentleman's understanding?

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

Mr. Chairman, we have 50,000 employees in the Transportation Security Administration, and they make it safe to fly on airlines. The United States Government is paying the bill.

We have hundreds of millions of dollars worth of x-ray machines that we have put in every airport in the country to be sure that the people flying the airlines are safe. Uncle Sam is paying the bill.

I could go on. The airlines requested that we have marshals on board airplanes so they can say it is safe to their customers for flying on airlines. Uncle Sam pays the bill.

The law says that if we put these marshals on airplanes that the airline will pay their fare or not charge the fare. It does not cost the government anything to do it because it is a service that we are providing. And who pays the salaries of the marshals? Uncle Sam.

Now, they come and say, oh, but you have got to pay a first-class fee for this air marshal, protecting your plane, to fly on your plane? Give me a break.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment, and any amendments thereto, be limited to 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

This amendment unnecessarily limits ICE's ability to efficiently manage the limited detention bed space that it has. The fluid nature of enforcement actions by ICE and changing migration patterns around the country mean that demands for detention space across the country changes from day to day, week to week, month to month, year to year.

This bill stresses efficiency and maximizing our limited resources. This amendment would prevent ICE from closing inefficient or unneeded facilities.

This bill already requires a report from the Department on its detention management strategy; and until we see the result of that report, I think this amendment is premature.

We do not like to handcuff an agency without having all of the relevant information on the issue; but I would hate to see us say to ICE, you cannot close any facility ever because it changes the migration patterns of illegal immigration changes from day to day.

So I would urge that we defeat the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has brought up a very important point, and I would be delighted to work with the gentleman. He is a valued member of our committee and, on top of that, he is a very hard worker. So I would be happy to work with the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, if this is the REAL ID with tax offset amendment, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because its proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part ``an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

This amendment changes the application of existing law, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes to be equally divided between the proponents and myself, the opponent.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, no one knows at this point in time what this is going to cost. We only passed it 2 or 3 weeks ago. No one has any idea at this point in time what it is going to cost us or States or locals or whomever. I think it is premature at this point in time to take up this amendment. At some point in time during this year before we go to conference, we are probably going to have to deal with this question. But there is just nothing there to give us any idea. Estimates run from $5 million to $100 million, depending on who is asked.

The REAL ID Act authorized such appropriations as necessary to help States make their driver's licenses and other documents more secure for ID purposes. But there has been no time, as I have said, to fully assess the funding required in the first year of the program. DHS is not prepared to move forward quickly. I think the $100 million is absolutely premature. The CBO estimate is only $40 million in fiscal year 2006, not $100 million. The committee has not seen any of the estimates from the Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators which probably knows more about this issue than anybody.

There already exists certain interstate driver's license databases which perhaps could be used and save money which operate on the basis of multistate compacts. These systems currently in existence should be examined to assess their potential to expand or serve as models for a nationwide database. It may be that many costs assumed in the CBO estimate can be avoided by leveraging these systems. We do not need to reinvent the wheel.

And then, Mr. Chairman, the offsets the gentleman's amendment would cut into are very undesirable. Cutting these programs would be very unwise. The IAIP agency has already been reduced $11 million for failure to submit reports to the Congress. Any further reduction could impact information sharing with State and local agencies conducting vulnerability assessments and construction and renovation of space for the directorate.

A cut to Science and Technology may have a direct linkage to the success of other programs. For instance, a cut to the Office of Interoperability and Communications can greatly impact the effectiveness of resources spent on first responder grants. In every war effort, it is easier to fund soldiers than science because what soldiers do is obvious; what science does is not. However, like the development of the tank in World War I and the development of the atomic bomb in World

War II, science can profoundly influence the outcome.

There is reason to believe that homeland security science can have a similar success on the war on terror. We cannot cut the Office of the Secretary. It is a tempting target, but it has already been hit by everybody in the room. Their office is only $133-plus million, and significant reductions will negatively affect their operations. The office is largely salaries and expenses, and cuts will result in fewer people attempting to deal with an increasing workload. Fewer people means DHS will have less time to respond to Congressional inquiries, for example.

We have been critical of the office, but it is this office that will ultimately make the changes needed to make the Department work. They are working on the new Secretary's second-stage review even as we speak. So I hope we would not accept this amendment for the reason that we do not know how much money we need to run this program this year. We will find out as time goes by during the year. We can put money in the conference at the end of the year as necessary. So let us not jump off the cliff until we get to it.

Number two, this amendment would devastate the Department's operations because it goes right to the heart of what they are doing. I urge the defeat of the amendment.

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

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

The gentleman is right in the respect at some point in time we are going to have to pay the bill. At this point in time, we have not received a bill. We have no idea what the bill is going to be. We get different estimates. Different people have different ideas, but there has been no consensus reached on how much money is needed and to whom.

I assure Members in the due course of time when that information comes to us, monies will be made available to pay for this program in due course of time without hampering the agency, as this amendment would do. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Obey amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment if we can go ahead and conclude it at this moment.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

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

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think one of the assets or structures that we have on this floor is to respect a Member's good intention; and my colleague from Texas, I want to acknowledge his good intentions. I would hope that we would have an opportunity to work through the concern expressed here.

But I rise to express my support for the U.S. air marshals and the hard work or heavy lifting that they do on the Nation's airlines every single day and in the Nation's airports. They are not supposed to be noticed, but those of us who happen to be frequent fliers are aware of their service, and they are ready and prepared on some of the more difficult flights that we have, coming to certain regions in the United States.

I would only hope that as we debate this amendment in the midst of fees and expense that I know is borne by our airlines, that we think about the service of these men and women in particular that confront dangers on our behalf on the Nation's airlines.

So I would beg to differ with the gentleman's amendment because I stand in support of the air marshals, and I would hope that there could be some response to the cost, some way of adding or eliminating the burden that our airlines face; but I could not imagine us suffering the loss of these air marshals which we determined were important to us after 9/11. Even though we have given enhanced equipment on airlines, more training to pilots, we are attempting to train our airlines or flight stewards, and we are doing a better job, though it is not a requirement. I believe airlines are doing a better job of informing and training their flight stewards and flight attendants, but I still believe that our flights are better and safer for marshals' existence.

I would hope that our colleagues would act accordingly in reference to this amendment, and I would ask that they support the air marshals in this instance because I believe their work is extremely important.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply, as stated, eliminates the opportunity for any resources to be utilized to patrol the border of the United States except as authorized by law.

I spoke earlier today on the floor of the House about the frustration Americans have with respect to the influx of illegal immigrants and immigration and, of course, I also offered to my colleagues that we must solve this problem in a bipartisan manner.

In respecting that frustration, I am respectful of those who have taken up their own causes. One group happens to be the Minutemen.

The Minuteman group has utilized their resources in Arizona and expect to move their operations to Texas, New Mexico and California. I would argue vigorously that these kinds of efforts can make a very difficult and unsuitable atmosphere for the border.

Let me cite for you one of the individuals that is responsible for the organization Minutemen speaking about the issues, for example, in Texas:

If the Minutemen were to come to Texas, there are serious logistical problems for patrols in Texas. Most of the

land along the Texas border is privately owned and some of it is urbanized, unlike the open land the group monitored in Arizona. And the same reports of drug violence that have scared some tourists away from the south Texas region have become a concern for the Minutemen. ``The Texas border is pretty dangerous right now,'' Chris Simcox said, who heads the Minutemen. ``That won't scare the Arizona-based citizen patrols away,'' he said, ``but it does mean they will be more careful in planning their operations. Security becomes a serious issue because we are going to be annoying a lot of people.''

This amendment is simple. What it says is that we have to protect the Federal officers and other law enforcement officers that are entrusted with the responsibility of immigration control in the United States of America. That protection cannot give them the extra added burden using resources to try to protect those who are acting in an unauthorized way. This specifically states that we would not allow such funds to be used in an unauthorized way.

Mr. Chairman, this proposal seeks to prevent the funding of increased liability for the Federal Government, to prevent the incidental injuring or killing of aliens, citizens, or volunteers, to prevent the creation of a sad precedent of shirked Federal responsibility. The purpose of the Jackson-Lee amendment is to control these issues before they become problems. Last Sunday, May 15, 2005, I put the people of the Eighteenth Congressional District and of the State of Texas on notice that the ``Minuteman Project'' has proposed to enter our borders in order to monitor for illegal border crossings.

I was joined on Sunday by Ms. Mabel Rogers, who is the President of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFGE, Local No. 3332 for coming out to share her expertise in the area of border security and the issues that can arise if groups such as the Minutemen attempt to enforce immigration law.

In addition, I was joined by Ms. Adriana Fernandez, who leads the Association for Residency and Citizenship of America, ARCA, right here in the Eighteenth Congressional District of Houston, Texas for her time, efforts, and more so for the passion that she exhibited in bringing her colleagues to share their concerns in this matter.

The Minuteman Project has good intentions, but we object to the potential negative social, legal, and economic impact that it can have on the Texas borders.

The problem of porousness of the borders is a Federal Government problem. It is a Department of Homeland Security, DHS, problem. DHS has legal jurisdiction over the borders; therefore, it is DHS that must address our border security needs.

An unofficial, untrained, and uncontrolled militia is the wrong answer for a problem that is within the Federal Government's responsibility. If the job is not being done sufficiently, we must look to Congress and the executive branch to exercise oversight and to improve performance.

The Minuteman Project is headed for the Texas borders, and their presence will be the recipe for danger, conflict, and increased legal enforcement costs for the Federal Government. The Houston Chronicle reported on May 12 that the controversial group that began as a month- long engagement along the Arizona border plans to enter Texas to operate its hunt for illegal border crossings.

Other media and eyewitnesses have suggested that many of the participants in the Minuteman Project have carried firearms, incited retaliatory measures by gang members, incited more groups to organize in a similar fashion along other American borders, and created a situation that suggests potential constraints on the individual civil rights of undocumented persons.

The arrival of this group to Texas is an example of what I feared during its initial engagement during the month of April--propagation in other borders. Empowerment of unofficial, untrained militia to carry out the functions of the Federal Government instead of simply improving the staffing situation at the Customs and Border Patrol and the Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement Agencies is a dereliction of duty and a condoning of potential vigilantism. I urge the Governor of Texas to disinvite the Minuteman Project to the U.S.-Mexico border of Texas.

Several differences between the U.S.-Mexico border of Arizona and Texas make it potentially injurious for the arrival of the Minutemen. The traffic growth in Texas would dramatically increase the probability of injury or death of aliens or other innocent civilians.

In 2001, U.S. Customs inspectors logged 3,133,619 cargo trucks as they entered Texas border towns from Brownsville to El Paso, up from 1,897,888 commercial vehicles in fiscal year 1995, the year NAFTA took effect. Furthermore, the topography at the Texas borders is more dense and provides more places for people involved in violent disputes to hide. In addition, even as the leader of the Minuteman Project stated to the Houston Chronicle, `there are serious logistical problems for patrols in Texas. Most of the land along the Texas border is privately owned, and some of it is urbanized, unlike the open land the group monitored in Arizona.'

What we need instead of a situation of potential violence, violation of civil rights, and costs associated with restoring peace and security at the borders is a comprehensive immigration plan like I proposed with the introduction of my legislation, the `Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act, H.R. 2092.'

As a member of the House Committees on the Judiciary and on Homeland Security, I had the opportunity to actively participate in a markup hearing for the ``Homeland Security Authorization Act for FY 2006, H.R. 1817.''

In the context of an amendment that I offered that called for studies and analysis of the issue of border violence, I was able to obtain a commitment from the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee to join me and the ranking member in a bipartisan letter to the Department of Homeland Security to direct it to gather information and to identify the problems surrounding the contention reported at the locations patrolled by volunteers.

Effective, efficient, and safe border security requires properly trained personnel. We need to improve our Customs and Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agencies rather than empower militias to do their job. The enforcement job requires accountability, training in the area of human rights, language skills, non-violent restraint techniques, and weapons handling.

The legal accountability principles such as respondeat superior and vicarious liability do not clearly apply to the Minutemen for injuries or damage that may be sustained by the private properties that abut the Texas borders; the heavy stream of commerce constantly traversing the border; or innocent bystanders who may be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Mr. Chairman, the Jackson-Lee amendment seeks to prevent liability ``powder kegs'' from propagating nationally. I ask that my colleagues support the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

I thank the distinguished chairman. I am willing to accept the chairman's acceptance.

Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment speaks to the whole question of protecting our borders in an authorized manner. There seems to be an effort to do it in an unauthorized manner, and I desire to protect those who need protecting. I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment and, as well, I do want to acknowledge that the work that we have done with staff, I want to appreciate it and I hope the Members will consult with their staff on amendments when Members do consult with the Members' staff and that their amendments are in order.

With that, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to raise a point of order against the paragraph.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to raise a point of order against page 17 beginning with the colon on line 2 through ``intent'' on line 11.

This proviso violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I commend the chairman and ranking member on a very difficult task. I regret that on this particular language, as you may know, the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure want to fund even more than the 75 percent that was proposed in this particular provision of in-line systems.

Again, it was necessary to raise a point of order here. I just want to comment briefly, though, about what we are doing here and what we are not doing here. This section appropriates about $4.6 billion to continue the passenger screening and checked baggage screening system that we have. This, unfortunately, is funded through a passenger tax. It is now $2.50 and $5 maximum for a one-way ticket. It is a fee to pay the security fee.

Members and the public should be aware that right now we are running about a $2 billion shortfall. We assumed this responsibility from the airlines. In addition, the airlines had promised and testified before us that they were paying about a billion dollars and would pay a billion dollars each year if we assumed this responsibility. They have reneged in that responsibility; and last year they paid us $315 million, short some $700 million.

The administration proposed increasing this fee by $3. I proposed increasing it by $2.50 and change this system from a heavy personnel system, in fact, some 45,000 people, an army of TSA personnel which according to the Inspector General and according to the GAO do not perform very well because they do not have the technology.

I propose to impose this fee for a 3-year period and at that point to eliminate the tax and also assist the airlines in the meantime with some of their security finance responsibilities. Right now that has been rejected, both the fee to pay for this by the administration and my proposal. What it does is it leaves us at risk. We have a huge army doing a very poor job because they do not have a high-tech system. That is going to cost money, that money is not in the bill, and I am sad that we are going to pass this legislation.

I raise this because I still want this to be a conferenceable item because we must protect the people of this country and the flying public, and we are not doing so with this provision, and we are not financing it adequately with this provision.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), chairman of the authorizing Committee on Homeland Security; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, for working out what I consider to be a good agreement to leave in this bill the $110 million that the administration has requested for continuing both the development and deployment of MANPADs, shoulder-launched missile defense system for our commercial aircraft.

I know border protection is a very popular agenda item on the populace front, but I think folks send us to Congress not only to protect our borders and deal with the populace issues in putting resources where public opinion and popular opinion would have those dollars, but also to look at the risks and the threat. Today, we face the threat of someone walking through 1950 metal detector technology at our airports which we see across the country, metal detectors, and strapping explosives to their body and not being able to detect explosives. That is our number one threat right now is suicide bombers. In my opinion, the second greatest threat is a shoulder-launched missile.

Now, folks, we have been very fortunate to date in Kenya and Saudi Arabia and Iraq that we have not had a commercial airline with passengers taken down. I think our luck is about to run out, and it is important that we move forward.

Sometimes the administration, that is my administration, has not done everything right, but this is one of the few programs I may say in homeland security that was well thought-out, well-developed, and now the next part is deploying that technology. If, in fact, there is money left over and it is not expended in the program, and that would be my hope, I would support every additional dollar to go towards those priorities this subcommittee has developed for securing our borders.

But I do want to thank everyone for reaching this agreement; hopefully, moving forward in the conference committee, and making certain that we have the resources to protect us, again, against what I consider is our second greatest danger, and that is the danger of a shoulder-launched missile taking down a commercial aircraft. We have to have a system available to protect our aircraft.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, again, I want to express my gratitude to the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), who has done such a great job on this H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006.

As you know, I had planned to raise a point of order on section 524, which directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement a security plan to permit general aviation at Ronald Reagan National Airport as legislating on an appropriations bill. However, I did not do that because I think we share the same intent.

And the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) has put a provision here in section 524 that does require a plan. However, I think the chairman is aware and realizes that the committee bill passed; that is, the Committee on Transportation bill. In our Subcommittee on Aviation's work done on it, H.R. 1496 has even tougher language directing the opening of Ronald Reagan National Airport. That is our intent, and working with the appropriators, I believe that it will be your intent to also include a strong provision and directive provision in conference, or as this bill proceeds.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

I thank the gentleman, and in spite of the incident that we had last week, and that was not a planned scheduled arrival, it was a departure from what we are talking about and properly opening National Airport to general aviation, I think, again working together, that we can find a plan that will work and not let the terrorists intimidate us in operating our Nation's capital airport.

Thank you.

Except for too much rigmarole, I think that we are on the same page. Again I thank you for your cooperation and your leadership, and together I think we will have a chance to open with a sensible, safe, secure plan to general aviation our Nation's capital airport.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Poe

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

The gentleman from Texas, I am sure, has an excellent intention and is interested in helping the airlines. Some of them are struggling, and we do need to help the airlines; but sometimes the airlines do not even help themselves.

I would rise in strong opposition to this amendment. There is probably no economic activity that we support in this country more than our commercial airlines. The chairman has correctly pointed out, 4.5, almost $6 billion in this legislation is for passenger screening, of which we only collect less than half of that. We have a $2 billion-plus shortage that the general taxpayer is paying.

If this amendment was crafted so that we charged the airlines for putting the air marshal on, I might agree with my colleague because we have a shortfall.

I also stated earlier, the airlines came before the Subcommittee on Aviation when we crafted the TSA bill and pledged to pay it $1 billion. That is what they said they would pay if we took away from the airlines, who had that responsibility, the responsibility for passenger screening. Do my colleagues know what they paid last year? Let me repeat it again, $315 million, a shortfall of almost $700 million. So I will be darned if I am going to stand here and support an amendment that would in any way reimburse them for the great expenses.

Look at the event of last week. Not only do we have the apparent expenses; we spent some $20 billion on passenger screening on a system that I have great questions about, but we have also spent billions of dollars in training the pilots to be armed. I supported that program, I promoted that program; but most of those pilots do not go at airline expense. They go at their own expense, spend a week of their time. They are not reimbursed; and now we will have more pilots armed on our aircraft this year than we will have air marshals. They are not getting a darn penny for reimbursement.

So, again, I think we have gone over backwards. We spent $5 billion we appropriated for reimbursements for damages directly related to the events of September 11 to our major airlines. We gave them another $3 billion. Some of that they deserve; some of that they did not deserve in reimbursement. Then we set up a $10 billion loan guarantee fund, of which they only used about $2 billion; but we have done everything, and now they refuse to do anything to help us.

They cannot even collect an additional fee. They are collecting $2.50. I said if we put in a high-tech system, that would double the security fee but get rid of half of the screeners in 3 years, and allow them to keep all $300 million they are now paying and up to a half a billion dollars. They cannot even do the math to keep that money. So I will be darned if I will get up and support giving them one more penny when they will not pay their own fair share.

So I think the amendment is well intended. I salute the gentleman for trying to help the aviation industry. I will join with him, but this is not the vehicle; and it is not the reimbursement that we should be providing in this appropriations measure.