California State Route 91 Congestion Relief Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 283 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is a fair, structured rule that provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

It provides that in lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read.

It waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report and makes in order only those amendments printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report.

These amendments may only be offered in the order printed in the report and only by the Member designated in the report. They shall be considered as read, debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment or a demand for the division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Finally, this rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and its underlying legislation, the first ever Homeland Security authorization legislation. The rule before us today is a fair rule that will allow for consideration of 25 amendments to the legislation, 13 of which are sponsored by a Member of the minority party, 10 by Members of the majority party, and two which enjoy bipartisan sponsorship.

This bill, brought to the floor today by the leadership of my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), empowers the core mission of the Department of Homeland Security, which is, first, to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States; second, reducing America's vulnerability to terrorism; and, third, responding to and recovering from terrorist attacks if some tragedy does occur.

It accomplishes this necessary and singularly important goal by ensuring that the Department has the resources and the authority it needs to prevent and prepare for terrorist attack, and to respond to and recover from an attack if one does occur.

Through the authorization of over $34 billion in homeland security spending in 2006, this legislation will ensure that our Nation's highest funding priorities are met. It also includes a number of other legislative and oversight measures to strengthen and improve the safety of Americans here at home, including:

Deploying counterterrorism technologies within 90 days so that Federal, State, local, and private sector officials can prevent domestic terror;

Funding 2,000 additional border patrol agents;

Assessing the effectiveness of operations at the Departments of Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement so that spending on these programs is efficient and effective;

Consolidating the current background check system, so that individuals can be prescreened by checking their names and biometric identifiers against terrorist watch lists and other criminal databases;

Adopting risk-based cargo screening, and expanding the number of foreign ports where Customs and Border Patrol agents screen incoming containers from 36 to approximately 50 ports;

Improving information analysis and infrastructure protection recruiting;

Improving nuclear and biological intelligence;

Establishing a one-stop shop within the Department of Homeland Security for reliable, comprehensive, and accessible open-source intelligence information and analysis;

Providing better information to local leaders by requiring that any threats be communicated in a manner that limits confusion and operational conflicts;

Clarifying the color-based threat system so that specific information is given directly to regions, States, localities, and private sector industries;

Creating a National Terrorism Exercise program to coordinate and establish minimum standards for all Federal, State, and local terrorism drills; and

Providing for greater Federal, State, and local homeland operations collaboration that needs to take place.

By providing leadership and guidance on these issues and many others, Chairman Cox and his committee have provided this House with a product that I believe is effective in providing for the security of our homeland, which deserves the support of every single Member of this body. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that it makes me so proud to hear the gentlewoman from New York talk with glowing admiration not only about how important this Homeland Security bill is but about the hard work that went into it and how it became a part of a better product.

Yesterday, the Committee on Rules had an opportunity, virtually all day, to hear testimony from Members across the aisle talk about ideas and thoughts and suggestions that they had that would make this a better bill. The chairman, the gentleman from California, not only listened to them but he worked with the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), on perfecting this bill by adding in amendments.

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, there are a large number of amendments that were added to this, perfecting the bill, perfecting the process, but more importantly giving an opportunity for Members of this body to make sure, from their own perspective, that Homeland Security became more effective by providing the information that was needed to address their local communities.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources.

(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation.

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

We have had a number of our colleagues make observations, just as the gentleman from Oregon did, about the importance of not only the debate that takes place here in the House but also about our desire to make homeland security even better, more robust, more dynamic, aiming at the threat. We heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) talk very eloquently about the need for border control, for us to make sure that those people who might be terrorists or may be criminals entering this country.

I am sure we will hear a debate about cargo, cargo ships, thousands of containers that come to this country every day, the commerce of this country that is affected. We know that we talked yesterday in the Committee on Rules about the Canadian border and how the Canadian border needs the attention that they not only deserve but also with the flow of goods and services with the economies that are affected and products and services that are denied when the backlogs occur. Each of these has been a part of the arguments, the debates, the discussions that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has taken into account, has made sure that he has taken them to the Homeland Security Department, has spoken with the administration.

It just makes me very proud today to see our Members who are able to cogently come up with not only good answers and better decision-making processes but an abiding faith in what we are doing here today. I am proud that this debate, some 5 hours of debate that will take place today about this very important subject where Members of Congress are able to come down and really identify their specific suggestions that they have. I think this process works. I think the Committee on Rules was wise in what it did. I think the gentleman from California knew when he put together this rule with our leadership what it would look like. It is working today.

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

Mr. Speaker, we spoke earlier about how Members provided information back and forth not only to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the Homeland Security Department but also about how we were able to have a Committee on Rules meeting yesterday with thoughtful ideas that were presented yesterday. Our next speaker was a part of

those thoughtful ideas. He not only sat through hours of testimony, quizzing Members about their questions and comments, things that would make things better, but also a few ideas himself.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman has noted, there will be 5 hours of debate today. There will be a Democrat substitute that will be included, some 200-plus pages that will allow not only full debate under these 5 hours but an opportunity for Members to come down, just as the gentleman from Massachusetts has done, to provide each Member with information about how important this bill is. And I am really proud of the time that we have. The Committee on Rules did a great job.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we have had a great debate. A few people showed up and expressed some concern about what they had, and I would like to address that so that the Members are aware. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) did come before the Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules did not put it in the bill, but it is not in the Democrat substitute either, so the Democrat leadership chose not to include that in their substitute.

We also had some discussion about air cargo. For those Members who are interested, air cargo will be in the substitute; it will be in section 519. Republicans addressed the issue. We have doubled the number of air cargo inspectors that would be at the airports to make sure that we are looking at the cargo.

Today has been a good debate, an opportunity for Members to come forth and speak about the important things about this bill. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has our admiration. He has done a great job. The Committee on Rules I believe did a fair job. I would also at this time like to thank the White House and the liaisons that the White House provided to us, Brian Conklin for his great leadership, Chris Frech for his hard work with us, and certainly their superstar at the White House, Elan Elinjg, who took time to make sure that Members were updated, not only about the position of the administration, but about how they could work closely with Members of Congress.

So I think today has been another successful opportunity for us to begin the 5 hours of debate that will take place today where every Member will have an opportunity to come down and express themselves and where we will have a Democrat substitute that will be over 200 pages where they are able to express the things which they believe are best. Members of Congress will be able to vote and a decision can be made today. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, famed writer and political commentator George Orwell once wrote that ``people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.'' That statement should have a special resonance for Americans in today's world.

We are fighting a new kind of war every day here in America. Our struggle against terror is one that requires us to focus our resources inward like no time in our history, because today the battlefields are the streets and sidewalks of this country and not some faraway land.

We have to ensure that our government is prepared to responsibly address any threat that imperils the peace and prosperity of this Nation. Only then will the American people truly sleep peaceably through the night. That is why this Homeland Security authorization bill is critically important, because it represents the blueprint of our homeland defense and our collective peace of mind for many years to come.

With such a weighty mandate, I would like to congratulate the Committee on Homeland Security in putting together their first committee authorization. But I would have wished

today for an open rule, and we are still faced with serious issues of accountability and trust in the management of the Department of Homeland Security. This is in no small part as a result of the Bush administration's unwillingness to fill critical job vacancies at the senior levels of the agency.

In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has had two Secretaries and three Deputy Secretaries in 2 years. Today, 42 percent of the high- level political positions inside the agency are vacant or staffed by people who have already announced their departures. This lack of stability at the Department has impacted the agency's ability to meet its mandate effectively.

For example, in my district, the Peace Bridge, which connects Buffalo to Canada, continues to face obstacles in moving to alleviate traffic congestion. Last December, the United States and Canadian governments agreed to move forward with a shared border management initiative which would remedy the situation. But it has been stalled by endless bureaucracy and lack of accountability at the Department of Homeland Security.

But it is not just a lack of accountability that has plagued the agency. Our country's epic struggle against terror is also a struggle against fear. We recently discovered that the infamous homeland security terror alerts, which were raised so often in the months leading up to the Presidential election, and rarely since, if ever, were repeatedly elevated over the objections of the Homeland Security Secretary and his staff. The terror alerts were raised on what Secretary Ridge himself called ``flimsy evidence'' by individuals in the administration who were really aggressive about raising it, which shows that they were used for political purposes.

I know I am not the only one who questions why in the 5\1/2\ months since election day there has not been a single terror alert. Perhaps Mr. Ridge's comments put the answer in the proper perspective. That constitutes a violation of trust with the American people, and we cannot afford that in this war on terror. We ought not to employ the tactics of fear as a means of control in our pursuit to keep the homeland secure. Such draconian measures are not in keeping with the spirit of America.

It is beneath us as a Nation to have partisan politics injected into our national security apparatus in an ugly and manipulative way. We dare not trade in a currency of fear, but rather should strive to liberate ourselves from fear through awareness of our world and an honest understanding of the challenges which lay before us.

I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree on this principle, and I am pleased that the committee has seen fit to include more specific criteria for how the terror alert is and is not to be utilized. Likewise, the appropriation bill passed yesterday by a nearly unanimous vote also included measures that promise to provide a higher degree of accountability at the agency, accountability that I am sure we all agree is sorely needed.

Despite the serious problems at DHS, which still must be addressed, there is much in this authorization bill that I believe every Member of Congress will support. As a representative from a border State, I am pleased to see that the legislation authorizes $1.9 billion, enough money to hire 2,000 additional border agents this year, agents sorely needed. This funding would mark a welcome change in the administration's approach to handling border security issues away from an economically disastrous agenda of imposing passport requirements on our citizens who want to cross our northern border and towards a more sensible policy of effective border enforcement, one which maximizes security resources and safeguards the freedoms and options our citizens and our trading partners deserve.

But that would require that the majority had the will to actually spend the border security dollars and not just authorize them. It is, after all, easy to talk tough about securing borders, but we need action. We need a true commitment from this Congress to put more agents in the field. We seem to have an ongoing problem here with leadership when it comes to this issue where reality does not measure up to rhetoric. It is my hope that this time will be different.

The House leadership's decision to include in this rule two amendments of mine suggests there may be room for common ground on the critical border issue after all. Clearly, the most effective tool we have to protect our borders is knowledge. Those of us who represent border economies understand how important the unencumbered flow of commerce across the northern border is to continued economic growth and to prosperity. The NEXUS program, we hope, will reduce the long waits at the border and allow an unprecedented level of security. It will be smart management, and I look forward to the upcoming debate on the amendment.

But there are many others, I know, we would all like to debate here on the floor today; but of 89, only 25 were ruled in order, which is less than 30 percent. And as I have said previously, I do wish this had been an open rule because we need to spend the extra time and we need to allow our colleagues to consider more ideas on how to improve the homeland security. Is that not what democracy is about, debate and deliberation? Our framers thought so, and I think so, and I think most of my colleagues and most Americans think so.

One amendment we will not consider today, which I regret, would have established a much-needed railroad security plan for America, which we do not have. And, incredibly, an amendment which would have required all cargo transported on commercial and passenger airplanes be inspected for explosives was not allowed. How could we not allow a debate on a critical homeland security issue such as this?

My colleagues, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), offered an amendment which would have upgraded security requirements associated with transporting extremely hazardous materials. But, inexplicably, it too was blocked from consideration.

But just as we cannot afford to live in fear in this age of terrorism, we also cannot fear engaging in genuine debate in consideration of those matters which may be controversial for some, but which are clearly important for the safety of all Americans. The free flow of debate and democracy are a hallmark of our American values, which this House was designed to embody. They are the core values which separate us from those who seek to destroy us and our way of life. And here in the cradle of democracy, we diminish those most American of values at our own peril.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member on the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question and, if it is defeated, I will amend the rules so that we can consider the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) rejected by the Committee on Rules last night.

Mr. Speaker, the Barrow-Markey amendment would direct the Department of Homeland Security to promulgate regulations upgrading the security associated with transporting extremely hazardous materials such as chlorine, which is toxic by inhalation, and those materials that are flammable or explosive.

Mr. Speaker, extremely hazardous materials are transported through virtually every community in the Nation. Several serious incidents have taken place that have clearly demonstrated the threat that exists whenever they are involved. I am disappointed that the Republican leadership failed to include this important amendment, an issue that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. But, unfortunately, under the rule, unless we defeat the previous question, we will not be able to.

As always, I want to emphasize that a no vote on the previous question will not prevent us from considering the Homeland Security bill, but will allow Members to vote on the Barrow-Markey amendment. However, a yes vote will prevent us from doing so.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote, and request a no vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee for his success last week on legislation to improve the first responder grant program and again today for bringing bipartisan consensus legislation to the House floor.

He has crafted a good bill that deserves our support. As good as the bill is, however, I must rise in opposition to the rule. I am troubled that my colleagues Mr. Barrow and Mr. Markey and Mr. Oberstar were blocked from offering their amendments concerning rail safety to this important legislation.

If there is one lesson we should learn from the events of 9/11, it is that our enemies are fighting an unconventional war against us.

With a few zealots and even fewer resources, terrorists can manipulate our own resources and use them against us. On 9/11 aviation fuel and four commercial aircraft were turned into missiles carrying incendiary explosives.

Hardening the cockpit door, establishing new protocols to screen passengers, and a number of other measures are a prudent response to deny terrorists the use of commercial aircraft as a weapon.

I am afraid, however, that we are not being as proactive as we could or should be at preventing other commercial resources from being used as weapons that could be turned against us.

Representatives Barrow, Markey, and Oberstar have crafted thoughtful responses to a threat that has not been fully addressed: Rail security and the transportation of hazardous cargo on our rail system. It would be a national tragedy if we had to wait until another attack similar to Madrid to occur in the United States in order to commit the resources necessary to properly secure our rail and transit systems.

The measures needed to address transit security differ from aviation, but this should not be used as a justification for not providing an infusion of additional funds to address already identified high priority needs. The focus with aviation is strictly on deterrence: stopping an event from happening.

For transit and rail, deterrence is only one part of the strategy, additional resources are also needed to mitigate the impact of a potential terrorist attack and hasten the recovery after an attack. Allocating additional resources towards improving response and recovery times can save lives and lessen the economic consequences of an attack.

With the Madrid bombing, the bombs went off on multiple trains over a 10-15 minute period. Enhanced detection capabilities, communications equipment and redundancy in critical operating control functions could allow for a quicker shutdown and evacuation of a passenger rail transit system exposed to multiple attacks thereby significantly reducing the causality rate.

Transit and rail systems cannot afford to be shut down for months or even weeks following a biological attack. The economic consequences to a major metropolitan region would be devastating, not to mention the impact on the Federal Government if an attack occurred in Washington, DC. Yet, no funds have been allocated to perform a comprehensive decontamination demonstration project in a transit or rail environment.

Mr. Chairman, a 30-ton chlorine tank rail car, if ruptured, could kill thousands of people unfortunate enough to be within a few miles downwind of the attack. The railroad industry has a good safety record, but that ignores the fact that those safeguards do not assume someone is purposely trying to rupture these rail cars.

Local emergency responders in urban areas with potential targets of key infrastructure and national icons understand this threat, but are limited on what they can do to prevent an attack. Should they patrol hundreds of miles of track and rail yards or take some measures under some circumstances to reroute hazardous traffic around what we know are high probability targets?

Today, there still is no clear understanding of what hazardous material security plans have been developed. If they exist, they are not being shared or discussed with the very people, local officials and emergency response planners, who have the best information on the local geography, vulnerabilities and potential set of targets. Today, local officials are being told by the railroads and the Department of Homeland Security to ``trust us.'' I get

nervous when someone I don't know tells me to ``trust'' them.

The laws on the books today did not envision hazardous cargo as a weapon of mass destruction, and under current law interstate commerce trumps local ordinances to suspend or redirect hazardous cargo.

This presumption is now being tested in the courts. Congress should not defer to the courts on this important and weighty issue. I think we can craft a responsible resolution, but denying an important floor debate on this issue is wrong.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation.

We are about to embark on a very new experience for us. We all know that September 11 of 2001 changed our lives forever. We obviously have had to focus for the first time on our homeland security. We know that shortly

after September 11 the President of the United States stepped up to the plate and put into place this now Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security, but it obviously took a period of time for us as an institution to put together the structure that would allow for adequate oversight.

At the beginning of this Congress, we established a new permanent standing Committee on Homeland Security, and we selected my extraordinarily able colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), to serve as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security dealing with jurisdictions that fell within a wide range of other committees.

We had our committee chairmen and ranking members agree to come together on establishing this new Committee on Homeland Security. Obviously the jurisdiction is very far-reaching. It is jurisdiction which focuses on a lot of new things for us. The fact that when we refer to men and women in uniform on the front line, they are no longer just the men and women in our Armed Forces, they are now men and women who wear the uniforms of firefighters and law enforcement officers. We now have, because of the threat, a greater focus on border security. We have focused on ensuring that people who pose a terrorist threat to us are not able to get documents that have been easily fabricated in the past.

Frankly, I will say that we are continuing to work on that, and I urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring H.R. 98, which will help us produce a counterfeit-proof Social Security card so we can diminish the flow of illegal immigration with the magnet of jobs that draws people across our southern border and instead allow our Border Patrol, which is increased in this authorizing legislation, to focus their attention on criminals and those who pose a terrorist threat to the United States of America.

Now what is it that we have done with this rule and the legislation? With the rule, I am very proud of having had, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) so ably said a fair rule, and I am proud of the work he has done. He was a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security. He was unable to serve on the committee in this Congress because of the exclusivity of the Committee on Rules, but as the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) pointed out, he is serving as the Committee on Rules liaison focusing on these very important new homeland security issues.

One of the things that we can do, as we increase the Border Patrol, if we can pass H.R. 98, which will decrease by 98 percent the flow of illegal immigrants across our southern border, is letting the Border Patrol put their time and energy into trying to diminish the flow of criminals and those who pose a terrorist threat to us. I urge my colleagues to support that effort.

But I would note that the rule which has been put together allows for the consideration of 25 different amendments. We will be having a full 5 hours of debate on this issue, and I am pleased we made in order a Democratic substitute which is 221 pages long, a full substitute which frankly includes many of the amendments that have been proposed by both Republicans and Democrats. A number of those are included in the substitute.

I am also very proud of the fact that we were with the daughter, son- in-law and grandson of our distinguished ranking minority member, the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), and we were able to make in order two amendments which the gentlewoman has proposed to the committee.

I will say that of those 25 amendments, 13 of them have been offered by Democrats, made in order, 10 by Republicans, and two are bipartisan amendments with Democrats and Republicans coming together to deal with this issue.

So I will say, I believe we are moving into an extremely important area. We are going to address a wide range of concerns. Yes, there are other concerns that we hope can be addressed. But the mere passage of this legislation, the mere passage of this legislation and moving it to the President's desk will, I believe, help us address a lot of the concerns that some whose amendments were not made in order have been trying to address. I appreciate my colleagues' support in this effort.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the rule on H.R. 1817, the Homeland Security Authorization Act for FY2006. Republicans on the Rules Committee blocked the consideration of several amendments offered by me and my colleagues to this bill. This body should have the right to discuss and to consider each amendment.

One of the amendments blocked was the amendment I offered which would put passenger security fees into two funds that will guarantee that TSA will spend the authorized amounts of $650 million a year and $250 million for the installation of inline baggage screening systems and passenger checkpoint explosive detection, respectively.

We are currently collecting over $1.5 billion a year from the passenger security fee for aviation security services. Given that these security investments are financed by the existing passenger security fee, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that the increased investment does not increase the size of the deficit.

In April, the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General (DHSIG) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) both released reports that indicate that our airport screening system still needs improvement. While the traveling public is more secure today than before September 11th, 2001, airport screeners are not detecting prohibited items at the level we need. Without a significant investment and commitment by Congress and this Administration to upgrade our technology, our screening system will continue to fail. We must and can do better.

Last year, the 9/11 Commission specifically recommended that the TSA and the Congress improve the ability of screenings checkpoints to detect explosives on passengers. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458) authorized $250 million for the research and deployment of advanced passenger screening technologies, such as trace portals and backscatter x-ray systems.

To date, only about $30 million has been appropriated specifically for the passenger screener technologies. The recent DHS IG report clearly stated that the ``lack of improvements since our last audit indicates that significant improvement in performance may not be possible without greater use of technology.'' Further, the TSA concurred with the 9/11 Commission recommendation that we must ``expedite the installation of advanced (in-line) baggage screening equipment.''

In addition, in-line baggage screening systems have a much higher throughput than stand-alone systems. If we install in-line systems, more bags will be screened by explosive detection systems instead of less reliable, alternative methods.

The TSA and airport operators rely on commitments in letters of intent (LOIs) as their principal method for funding the modification of airport facilities to incorporate in-line baggage screening systems. The TSA has issued eight LOIs to cover the costs of installing systems at 9 airports for a total cost to the Federal Government of $957.1 million over 4 years. The GAO reports that TSA has estimated that in- line baggage screening systems at the 9 airports that received LOI funding could save the Federal Government $1.3 billion over 7 years.

TSA further estimated that it could recover its initial investment in the in-line systems at these airports in a little over one year. In total, the GAO reports that 86 of 130 airports surveyed are planning or are considering installing in-line baggage screening systems throughout or at a portion of their airports.

Yet, the TSA has stated that it currently does not have sufficient resources in its budget to fund any additional LOIs. While $650 million is authorized for the installation of in-line baggage screening systems, annual appropriations have not allowed for any new LOIs to be signed.

We know what needs to be done to improve screener performance, and we must take action now. We must demonstrate leadership and deploy technologies that will keep the American public secure. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote no on the rule so we can work to deploy technologies that will help our screeners do their jobs and keep the American traveling public safe.