To establish the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment which deals with a huge issue which is going to unfold in our country over the next decade, and that is the indisputable need for our country to have a large importation of liquefied natural gas into our country. In New England, already 20 percent of our natural gas is in the form of liquefied natural gas. It comes from overseas. This is a good thing, and it is something that has to expand, not only in New England but all across our country.

The good news is that in the year 2001, there were only two LNG facilities licensed in the United States, one of them in Everett, Massachusetts, in the middle of my congressional district. This is something, however,

which is a legacy from a period that existed before 9/11. There are now 30 proposed additional LNG facilities in the United States, and nine of them have already been licensed.

The question going forward now is not do we need more LNG; the question is how will we have the importation of LNG be done consistent with homeland security principles. And here is the issue: in Boston, right here, coming in a couple of times a month, at least, comes this huge tanker right through the middle of Boston. That is East Boston High School right above it. Outside of Manhattan, this is the most densely populated part of the United States.

Now, we cannot do anything about this facility. It is there. Maybe over time we can phase it out, but it is going to be there. The issue is, going forward, what will be the role of the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard which, in this picture, is escorting this LNG tanker right into Boston Harbor, which has to shut down every time one of these tankers comes in? What should the role of the Coast Guard be?

What my amendment says is this: since we are going to have this large importation of LNG in terminals all across our country in the next generation, let us: One, require the Coast Guard to prepare a report on any measures needed to ensure public safety and security of the proposed facility and transportation routes to and from the facility; and, two, require the Coast Guard to report on any action taken by the facility owner or by appropriate Federal and State regulators in response to any findings or recommendations made by the Coast Guard with respect to the proposed facility, including what measures have been put in place to mitigate potential risks; and, third, require the Coast Guard to approve any construction or expansion of an LNG facility before it can go forward, and direct the Coast Guard to not approve any such construction or expansion if it determines that the proposed facility or the expansion of the existing facility would pose a substantial risk to public safety and security in light of the potential loss of life and damage to property that could result.

We know that if that tank was exploded, if the tanks that are on the land where the tanker is going to unload the LNG, that the event would be catastrophic in the middle of the city of Boston; but the same would be true across the whole country. The Sandia Laboratories, in studying an incident that could occur with a tanker such as this, sees a radius of upwards of 2,000 feet that would have levels of heat and fire that would burn buildings, damage steel tanks and machinery; and one can imagine what would happen to every human being inside that radius.

So, for me, to leave it to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to have exclusive jurisdiction over where one of these facilities is sited, without taking into account what the Coast Guard will have to do as a part of the Department of Homeland Security in safeguarding that shipment, is, in a post-9/11 period, reckless. In a post-New Orleans period, it is reckless.

We must give the people who live in these densely populated areas the benefit of the doubt that the Coast Guard would raise the questions about homeland security, about what would happen if there were a terrorist attack, and then suggest perhaps that the facility be built offshore, and that there be a pipeline brought in, that the facility be built in a more remote area of the State and a pipeline be built to bring it down; but it should be the Coast Guard, the agency of expertise.

I urge an ``aye'' vote to protect public safety in all communities where LNGs will be imported in the generation ahead.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me clear up some misinformation which has been disseminated out here on the House floor. We have, in fact, not debated this issue ever before in the House.

What happened in the energy bill was that the Republican majority made a determination that they were going to remove governors and mayors from the decision-making process as to where an LNG facility can be sited. Until August of 2005, mayors and governors had a say. Now they do not because of the energy bill.

Now we all know that when and if a catastrophic event occurs, people in our country have learned not to depend

upon the Federal Government. They know that the first call has to go to the local fire, the local police. That is who they are going to call, and they have good reason to after what happened in New Orleans. I do not think any city or town is going to repeat the mistake which New Orleans made in waiting for Department of Homeland Security to respond.

But let us just say for the sake of discussion that we are going to remove the mayor and we are going to remove the governor from any say on where an LNG facility can go in the most densely urban populated parts of this State. What my amendment says is, at least allow the Federal Government to have a role. At least allow the Department of Homeland Security to have a role. But the Republican majority says, no, we are only going to allow the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has no jurisdiction over homeland security, no responsibility to look at the public safety issues, they alone will look at these issues.

Well, you know, the recriminations which have taken place in the last 2 weeks all turn on one question. Why did not people listen to the Corps of Engineers? Why did not we give more protection to those people in that community? But we all know that the Corps of Engineers was ignored, that their warnings were ignored.

What the majority Republican party wants to do is to tell the Coast Guard, we do not want to have your view on where an LNG facility should be sited if you are going to tell us you disagree with the energy decision.

It should be all energy. No homeland security at all. No protection for the people who will be living in the mile or two around that facility. Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is what this debate is all about.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) and, by the way, each of them could not try harder to get more geographically far away in Nebraska and Illinois from the coastline, our experts today. Mark Twain used to say, an expert is anyone who lives more than 1,000 miles away from a problem, and we have got two experts here today telling us on the coastline what we need.

Well, what we need, ladies and gentlemen, is the Coast Guard to make a determination as to whether or not they can protect against a catastrophic event, and what they are saying is no Coast Guard, no governor, no mayor, nobody but the energy companies. That is what it is all about. It is about the energy companies.

Yes, we need a doubling, yes, we need a tripling, a quadrupling of LNG in our country.

I have the number one facility in America in my district. We need it in New England more than anyone else. But as a homeland security issue, it should have the Coast Guard making a determination as to whether or not it can be protected against a terrorist attack. And if an alternative is possible offshore or in a more remote area of that State, then they should be given the right to participate in that decision.

If you just leave it to the energy companies, which is what the Republicans want to do, this is just a continuation of their energy bill, letting the consumers get tipped upside down because the energy companies do not want to spend a few extra bucks to add into homeland security, the same way as the catastrophic events of New Orleans were just over saving a few bucks.

Well, this is your chance to do something about LNG facilities in densely populated areas, to give a say to the Coast Guard, rule out your Governor, rule out your mayor, but at least the Coast Guard, at least a part of the Federal Government should be part of this. If you want a Federal solution to the energy problem, you also have to have a Federal component to homeland security in 2005.

Al Qaeda is not taking a break. Al Qaeda is out there. Al Qaeda used the Boston LNG terminal as the route to bring in their Al Qaeda agents.

Richard Clarke in his book said on September 11, 2001 when he was asked to take over in charge of all homeland security response, his first thought was shut down the port of Boston, call the Coast Guard commandant there. That is where Abdul Meskini and the other al Qaeda agents had come in on the LNG tanker from Algeria into Boston Harbor. That is how they got here. Abdul Meskini is in prison right now for the LAX millennium bombing plot.

So let us not kid ourselves. They are coming for urban areas. They are coming for the high-impact areas. They are coming for LNG facilities. They are coming for nuclear facilities. They want to use airplanes. They want the biggest event possible. They want London. They want Madrid. They want New York. They want L.A.

They want the big urban populated areas. Let us not kid ourselves. Vote ``aye'' on the Markey amendment. Give the Coast Guard the homeland security ability to be able to make a decision to protect the citizens of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I will notify the majority that I intend on withdrawing my amendment, but I just wanted to make this commonsense suggestion at this time that perhaps we could continue to discuss and work on in the months ahead.

My amendment deals with the reality that, especially in coastal areas, that there are huge containers of very dangerous chemicals and other toxic chemicals that are stored in those coastal areas right onshore and that, in many instances, those particular toxic materials have a now more modern, substitutable chemical which could be used in order to achieve the same purposes for the industries within our country.

What my amendment says is that when the Coast Guard writes an area maritime transportation security plan, it will now be required to list facilities located within the area that could substitute safer chemicals or processes in order to reduce the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack, but the Coast Guard will also have to recommend special efforts or procedures for proposed new facilities that might be built near densely populated areas or other sensitive areas that might have important economic or national security significance so that the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack might be reduced.

When the Department of Homeland Security does its vulnerability assessment for these facilities, as required under the law, it will also have to assess whether the facility could substitute safer chemicals or processes in order to reduce the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack, and it will also have to recommend special efforts or procedures that could reduce these consequences for proposed new facilities in its national maritime transportation security plan.

Finally, if the Department of Homeland Security agrees to accept the facility's own vulnerability assessment or assessment by a third party, which it can do under the law, it will now need to ensure that the assessment adequately addresses all the elements of the assessments DHS does on its own.

Hurricane Katrina taught us a lesson. They will probably have to level a couple of hundred thousand homes in New Orleans, largely because of the toxic materials that have now infiltrated into those homes. Here we have an opportunity moving forward to make sure that we are reducing the most toxic chemicals, even as we substitute other chemicals that can be used in the very same processes to keep our American economy humming.

Mr. Chairman, the events of the past few weeks have served as a wake- up call in so many areas of our lives. We've learned just how vulnerable some of our cities are to Mother Nature, how vulnerable our oil and gas infrastructure is, and, frankly, how vulnerable we all are as we contemplate the implications of our failed response to Hurricane Katrina to future terrorist attacks that will come with no National Weather Service warnings and could be even more devastating.

While the debate over how we can ensure that we move more quickly and efficiently to respond to the next Katrina or 9/11 will wait until another day, there are aspects of the bill in front of us today that can be changed to increase the chances that the potential consequences of such a catastrophe are minimized.

We have learned, for example, that the hurricane has rendered several gulf coast refineries inoperable, and in some cases this may be the status quo for months. We have also learned that the extent to which the hurricane caused breaches in these and other facilities storing toxic chemicals is not yet clear--the very preliminary EPA tests show highly elevated levels of lead and other toxic materials in some areas of New Orleans, and EPA is really only just beginning its environmental sampling process. We may be looking at an environmental catastrophe that requires an enormous amount of money to remediate, in addition to all the other reconstruction and relief costs.

And, though the hurricane was certainly a catastrophe in and of itself, the reality is that a terrorist attack on just one facility containing toxic chemicals could have led to even more

fatalities. According to a recent Congressional Research Service report I requested, there are about 50 facilities in Louisiana at which a worst-case release could put 100,000-999,999 people at risk, as well as 2 facilities that could impact more than 1 million people. In Florida, there are more than 20 facilities at which a worst-case release could put 100,000-999,999 people at risk and 7 facilities that could impact more than 1 million people, and in Mississippi, there are 2 facilities at which a worst-case release could put 100,000-999,999 people at risk. Nationwide, more than 100 facilities pose a risk to more than 1 million people--an attack on or major natural disaster near any of these facilities could result in widespread deaths, injuries and environmental contamination.

While some of the chemicals stored in these facilities are necessary to the products or processes being undertaken there, others are not. For example, a 2003 report entitled ``Eliminating Hometown Hazards'' by Environmental Defense lists several wastewater treatment facilities in Louisiana that use chlorine in amounts that could place hundreds of thousands of people at risk, even though safer and economically competitive alternatives exist and are currently in use elsewhere. Press reports indicate that many wastewater treatment facilities in the areas impacted by Hurricane Katrina have been disabled, but it is unclear as to the status of the stores of toxic chlorine that must have been onsite. Another 2003 report entitled ``Needless Risk: Oil Refineries and Hazard Reduction'' by the U.S. PIRG Education Fund describes a cost-effective alternative to hydrofluoric acid, which is used by many refineries, including Chalmette Refining in New Orleans which reportedly has 600,000 pounds of hydrofluoric acid stored on site. According to the Energy Information Administration and press reports, the Chalmette facility spilled tens of thousands of barrels of oil into the surrounding neighborhoods and could be closed for months, but it is unclear as to the status of the stores of hydrofluoric acid that must have been onsite.

The Maritime Transportation Security Act addressed some of the security concerns associated with chemical facilities located at or near ports and waterways. As the damage assessment and remediation associated with Hurricane Katrina proceeds, I believe that we need to focus not just on cleaning up the damage, but also on trying to reduce the consequences of similar damage occurring in the future, be it due to hurricanes, earthquakes or terrorist attacks. Other legislation may address the need to strengthen the levee system surrounding New Orleans so that future hurricanes can't breach them as easily--my amendment seeks to reduce the potential environmental consequences associated with a future breach of the facilities that house toxic materials.

Specifically, my amendment makes the following common-sense changes to the Maritime Transportation Security Act:

When the Coast Guard writes its Area Maritime Transportation Security Plans, it will now be required to list facilities located within the area that could substitute safer chemicals or processes in order to reduce the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack.

The Coast Guard will also have to recommend special efforts or procedures for proposed new facilities that might be built near densely populated areas or in other sensitive areas that might have important economic or national security significance, so that the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack might be reduced.

When the Department of Homeland Security does its vulnerability assessments for these facilities as required under the law, it will also have to assess whether the facility could substitute safer chemicals or processes in order to reduce the consequences of a toxic release caused by a future natural disaster or terrorist attack, and will also have to recommend special efforts or procedures that could reduce these consequences for proposed new facilities in its National Maritime Transportation Security Plan.

Finally, if the Department of Homeland Security agrees to accept a facility's own vulnerability assessment or assessment by a third party, which it can do under the law, it will now need to ensure that the assessment adequately addresses all the elements of the assessments DHS does on its own.

Hurricane Katrina taught us that we can't ignore the experts' warnings forever--sooner or later, being shortsighted will catch up to us, and as we've seen, the price we may pay may be both costly and to some extent avoidable. My amendment incorporates some of the experts' warnings on chemical facility security into existing requirements for these facilities. Let's not be short-sighted again. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin just by stating that we were briefed by the EPA yesterday and that the EPA has indicated that they have only just begun sampling and that they have, in fact, found highly elevated levels of lead, e.coli and other toxic substances. We are only at the beginning of this entire story.

If I may say to the gentleman from Alaska, I know what the gentleman is saying about making amendments on this issue to other bills. He has to understand the frustration of being in the minority in this institution.

Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman has now been able successfully, I would say, to have all of his amnesia treatments be completely accepted by his system because I do not think he can really appreciate how many times I have gone before the Committee on Rules and asked for an amendment on this subject, on the energy bill, on the homeland security bill. So it is out of frustration, and I will admit that, it is out of frustration that I attempt to make it on the Coast Guard bill.

The gentleman has some good points, but this is a point that should be raised, and it should be raised especially in the aftermath of New Orleans and the toxicity that is now rampant throughout that community. There is just the need for us to have this discussion, and it is a Coast Guard mission in

general, safety and security, although I accept the gentleman's point that the EPA would be the point on that, but it is difficult for the minority to have amendments successfully accepted on any issue that deals with the EPA out here on the House floor.

That is the reason I raise the point, and that is the reason I announced I was going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw it as well, so the point would be made that it is an important subject. It should be made in other bills. This was an aperture that I was taking advantage of to really just begin the process of political education, although I know that political activation and political implementation are much further down the line and dependent upon the goodwill of the Committee on Rules and the Republican leadership that we have an amendment like that.

Mr. Chairman, if I may reclaim my time, I appreciate the fact that it is an open rule; and, from a rules perspective, even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. So I am out here, and all of a sudden I run into an open rule; and, believe it or not, for me, it is just you have got to make hay when the sun shines, my father used to say. So this is just my opportunity to be able to make the case, knowing at the end of the day that there were other bills that were more appropriate and agencies that had more expertise to be able to do the subject, and at the end of the day knowing that the Coast Guard will be the agency that deals with the consequences of something not being done.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 439, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 437) to establish the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 437.

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

Madam Speaker, this debate that we are beginning here is about a very clear choice that is before us. Will we take the responsibility delegated to us as Members of the People's House by the framers of our Constitution to ask the hard questions, admit our mistakes and improve our Nation's government for the benefit of all? Or will we rely on proxies to do our work for us because we have judged ourselves incapable of carrying out our constitutional duty to ensure that we are providing for the general welfare, which is what the preamble of the Constitution clearly states we have a responsibility to do.

I, for one, believe as James Madison, the father of our Constitution, did, that the Constitution vests this responsibility with us. I am ready to accept the challenge as a Member of the House of Representatives. I believe that we have already started this work.

Last night, in the Committee on Rules, many of my Democratic colleagues asked excellent questions. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my friend from Rochester, asked very thoughtful and important questions that need to be raised. I noted that the gentlewoman from Sacramento, California (Ms. Matsui) similarly asked some very, very good questions that should be posed to those dealing with the preparation for and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Just yesterday the governor of my State, Pete Wilson, and I should say the former governor of my State, Pete Wilson, testified. I do know very well that we have a new governor. His name

is Arnold Schwarzenegger, I should say for the Record. But Pete Wilson testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. It was a hearing that they held on recovering from Hurricane Katrina, and he did this to share his experience and very valuable lessons that he learned from dealing with many, many very, very difficult challenges, disasters that we faced in California, earthquakes, fire, mudslides, the devastation that we faced.

I will tell Members that Pete Wilson handled every single one of those challenges in his 8 years as governor extraordinarily well, and we learned tremendously from the tragedies that we faced in those instances.

As he said, obviously while nowhere near the scale of Hurricane Katrina, and we all know that Hurricane Katrina has been described as the worst natural disaster to ever hit our country, some of the things that were faced in California, there were terrible California floods in January of 1997 that resulted in eight deaths, the evacuation of 120,000 people, relocation of 55,000 people to 107 shelters, damage or destruction of 30,000 residences and 2,000 businesses, and total damage estimates at about $2 billion. That in 1997.

I talked earlier today, during the rule considering the establishment of this committee, about the Northridge earthquake in 1994, and it resulted in 51 deaths and injured over 9,000 people, left 22,000 people homeless.

The interesting thing, as we look at these figures, is we all know that they pale in comparison to the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina. But, Madam Speaker, I will tell the Members that these were learning experiences for us. One of the things that was most impressive to me and one of the things that we have already found here to be very beneficial was the fact that the private sector has stepped forward and is in many ways doing things the government cannot do. And I think it is often joked about the fact that the private sector is there, ready to meet a need, a need that the government in no way could meet.

We know that for an emergency response like that we faced, clearly the government had to step in. When I say government, I am talking about the local government, the State government, and the Federal Government as well. The Federal Government, obviously, is not the first. It is really the last step. We know that State and local governments have the responsibility to make those recommendations to the Federal Government and then bring them in. We also know that at virtually all these levels of government, we have heard the leadership, from President Bush when it comes to the Federal Government, to Governor Blanco in Louisiana, state that things were not handled as well as they could have been; and both President Bush and Governor Blanco, Republican and Democrat, have taken responsibility for dealing with this situation.

I mentioned the fact that we learned things, and I mentioned the private sector. And one example that I like to point to, and I have got this right here, is in the 1994 Northridge earthquake, we had the Santa Monica Freeway collapse over La Cienega Boulevard. The Santa Monica Freeway is the most traversed interstate in the country. A quarter of a million vehicles a day go on the Santa Monica Freeway right over the La Cienega off-ramp. And the earthquake took place in January of 1994, and I happened to be by there, and one of the police officers let me go up, and I actually took a chunk of the Santa Monica Freeway. This has been sitting in my living room out in California for a long period of time. Most people think it is a piece of the Berlin Wall, but it is actually from the Santa Monica Freeway. We can see the rebars here, and this is obviously the freeway itself. And when it collapsed, we saw Southern California, clearly the most populous spot in the Nation, come to a standstill because of the importance of Interstate 10, the Santa Monica Freeway there.

Some projected that it would take as much as a year or 2 years to repair this freeway that had collapsed over La Cienega Boulevard. And Governor Wilson stepped up to the plate and did everything that he could to provide incentives to ensure that it got completed. He wrote a piece on this the day before yesterday in The Wall Street Journal in which he referred to the fact that people said it would take a long period of time.

They looked and established this contract with the Myers Company and they were told that they would have a $200,000 fine for every day beyond what they had contracted for if they did not complete it, but they got a $200,000 bonus, Madam Speaker, for every day that they got this completed earlier than had been projected.

As I said, some predicted it would take a year or 2 years to complete this. Madam Speaker, in 66 days the Santa Monica Freeway reopened, working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

This is the kind of incentive that we need to put in place to ensure that they deal with this circumstance. And, ironically, Interstate 10 is the exact same route that is going into New Orleans that collapsed following Hurricane Katrina and the breaking of the levees.

So I think that we have the ability to respond, to deal with this, and the United States Congress is in a position to make sure that we look at encouraging the most creative ways to address this challenge, look in a bipartisan way at these problems.

And we have set guidelines. We have got deadlines. But, obviously, if it is necessary, those can be moved if it is essential. But we have a desire to ensure that, as an institution, we come together as the elected representatives of the American people to do our job. And I am convinced that we are going to have the ability to do that, and we look forward to seeing Members of both political parties join this very important effort, and I am convinced that they will be able to look at all levels of government and the private sector and get to the bottom of that.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, before I yield time to my friend from Pasco, I would just like to say over the last 24 hours I have been hearing about this ABC/Washington Post poll to which my friend from Rochester has regularly referred, and I have actually taken the opportunity to look closely at the poll itself.

We all know that when one looks at a public opinion poll, it depends on how the question is asked. We continue to hear that 76 percent of the American people support an independent commission and they do not want Congress to take this action. Actually, I looked at the poll itself, and I would like to enlighten my friend from Rochester, if I might. Question No. 19 says: ``The Republican leaders of Congress have called for a full-scale congressional investigation of the government's hurricane preparedness and response effort. Apart from this investigation, would you support or oppose an investigation by an independent commission like the one that investigated the 9/11 attacks?'' Seventy-six percent support that. Well, of course. Who would not support that? Who would not be supportive of that notion? But we continue that somehow the American people oppose having Congress do its job and they only want this independent commission of unelected people to do their job.

Then one has to look at Question No. 18 just before that. And I hesitate to raise this, but the fact that this public opinion poll has been continually utilized as the bible when it comes to consideration of our legislative proposal here, Question No. 18 says: ``Do you think Democrats who criticize the way the Bush administration has handled the hurricane response mainly want to find out what went wrong or mainly want to use the issue for political advantage?'' And, Madam Speaker, 60 percent said that Democrats want to use this issue for political advantage rather than trying to get at what went wrong.

I would have never brought this up, Madam Speaker, had I not heard that 76 percent of the American people are opposed to having Congress do its job and instead want an independent commission.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings), subcommittee chairman from the Committee on Rules and the chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

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

Let me just respond to a couple of points. First of all, under consideration of the establishment of this select committee, we will be operating under the standard rules of the House. The standard rules of the House allow not individuals, but allow a committee to come together and determine who is subpoenaed. And I will tell my colleagues that I know with absolute certainty that the people who are providing the leadership of this committee will clearly want to be in consultation with the Democrats, with members of the minority to ensure that any witness who could help get to the bottom of this problem, to the root of this problem is called before the committee.

And I will tell my colleagues why. I do not represent Hollywood, California, by the way, I should say for the record; I represent areas around Hollywood in suburban Los Angeles, an area that has been impacted by a wide range of disasters.

I think it is absolutely reprehensible to believe that any Member of this House, Democrat or Republican, would want to do anything that would jeopardize the ability to find out exactly what happened leading up to Hurricane Katrina and exactly what happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. So I can assure my colleagues that I am convinced that everyone is determined to do that.

I should say that, as I sat down, one of my staff members reminded me that I mentioned this poll from The Washington Post and ABC that is the model, I guess, that we are following for the establishment of this committee; and even though it said that 60 percent of the American people believe that the Democrats would use this issue for political advantage rather than trying to get to the root of this problem, I do not believe it for one minute. I hesitate to say that the American people are wrong, but I will tell my colleagues this: I do not believe that the American people are right when they claim, to a number of 60 percent, that Democrats do not want to get to the root of this problem, which is what they have said in this much-hailed ABC News-Washington Post poll.

I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will say that that is exactly what exists. The rules of the House that apply for the subpoena process for other committees in the House will apply similarly for this new select committee that is charged with dealing with this circumstance.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Lafayette, Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), another individual who was victimized by Hurricane Katrina.

Madam Speaker, I have listened to these terms: ``sticking our head in the sand''; ``ignoring the problem.'' I have no idea what anyone is talking about when they say things like that. It is absolutely absurd to believe that any Member of this institution does not want to do everything possible to ensure that we find out what happened leading up to Hurricane Katrina and what has happened since Hurricane Katrina has hit.

Because we, at this moment, live with the threat of Hurricane Ophelia off the Carolinas, so we are moving as expeditiously as possible to get this bipartisan committee put together, where the committee itself will determine how someone is subpoenaed, just as is the case with every committee.

I hope very much that the gentleman from Mississippi is appointed to serve as a member of this select committee. He obviously has strong feelings. He has made it very clear that, as someone who was victimized by Hurricane Katrina, he should in fact be able to subpoena; and I can assure him, under the standing rules of the House, as a member of the committee, if the minority leader chooses to appoint him to that committee, he will be able to participate in determining who testifies before that committee.

So we are in this together, Madam Speaker, whether Members like it or not.

Again, I do not believe that Washington Post poll that the Democrats want to use this for political gain. I believe the Democrats, along with Republicans, want to find out exactly what has created this challenge at all levels of government and even in the private sector, with which we are contending at this point.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentlemen from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Madam Speaker, coming together is what this is all about. This is a bipartisan committee that has been proposed by the Speaker, and we look forward to seeing those minority Members who are going to be part of this process.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), the very distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Budget and Process Reform.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the United States of America has gone through the worst natural disaster in our Nation's history. Time and time again, we have been hearing people say that. It is unimaginable what people have gone through. I have to admit I cannot imagine the suffering. I have seen it on television, I have heard it reported by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have been victimized themselves, but it is impossible, it is impossible to imagine how horrible this has been.

We do know one thing, both President Bush, Republican, and the Democratic governor of Louisiana, Governor Blanco, said that mistakes were made

leading up to Hurricane Katrina and mistakes were made in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Everyone has acknowledged that.

We have an opportunity, we have an opportunity to come together, as we have in previous disasters, and deal with it, meet our constitutionally mandated responsibility for oversight of the executive branch to investigate and look at what happened at all levels of government, local government, State government, the Federal Government, even the private sector. We have a chance, Mr. Speaker, now to do that.

That is exactly what the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) has proposed, working with our colleagues in the other body, to come together with a committee that will allow Members of both political parties to raise any question that they want, to allow this committee to have the authority to subpoena witnesses, bring them forward. I have to say that it is very obvious to me that this is our chance to do it.

We are dealing with a hurricane right now in the Carolinas. We are dealing with other potential disasters on the horizon. I believe I have a responsibility to the people whom I represent, I have a responsibility to all the American people, just as we all do, to make sure that the problems that we faced leading up to and in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina never happen again.

Mark my words, everyone, Democrat and Republican alike, wants to ensure that we are able to address those concerns. That is exactly what the establishment of this commission will do.

I am perplexed, Mr. Speaker, with the arguments that I have heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They want to increase their level of participation, they want to be able to get to the bottom of this, and yet they are saying let us give up our responsibility under article 1, section 8 of the Constitution that charges us with this duty.

This is our responsibility. This is a very important part of the reason the American people elected us as representatives, to come here and do their bidding, to do their job, to make sure that we find the answers to these very important questions.

I hope that we will be able to have that sense of solidarity, and so I am saying on behalf of the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), I know that he looks forward to having our colleagues on the other side of the aisle appointed, along with those who he will appoint to serve on this very important committee, and with that, with our quest of trying to ensure that we never go through what we have gone through in the past several weeks, I urge support of this very important resolution.

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 439 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 439 is a closed rule providing for 1 hour of debate for consideration of H. Res. 437, a resolution establishing a select bipartisan committee to investigate the preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides one motion to recommit which may not contain instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the human suffering and physical damage wrought by Hurricane Katrina is heart-wrenching and overwhelming. We all know that very well. Lives have been lost and uprooted. Families are separated without homes and without jobs.

Our initial focus has been on restoring hope and rebuilding community on the gulf coast. With great urgency Congress came together and with virtual unanimity passed legislation to fund the very important relief efforts. Over $60 billion has been appropriated so far. Also critical has been the outpouring of support and generosity from fellow Americans and very importantly from 94 countries around the world. From small businesses to large corporations, people are pitching in.

That said, as President Bush has stated, there were aspects of the immediate response to Hurricane Katrina that were not acceptable. He said that this week, and I am sure that it will be made clear in the remarks that he gives to the Nation this evening.

Already we have seen the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency resign. Clearly, many lessons are to be learned from what has happened. As debris is removed, water recedes and homes are rebuilt, we in Congress must now assume our very serious and consequential constitutional oversight role of the executive branch and Federal agencies so that we can find out exactly what went wrong and what went right in the early response to Hurricane Katrina.

We need to get to the bottom of what happened, when it happened and why it happened.

Mr. Speaker, to fulfill our oversight responsibility, we are following precedent and honoring tradition by creating a bipartisan select committee to look at the response of the government to Hurricane Katrina. This select committee will allow us to take a sober, serious, nonpartisan look at the development, coordination and execution of relief by State, local and Federal authorities.

At the same time, we must take great care not to interfere with the ongoing Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts. Critical personnel are still on the ground and actively involved in a time-sensitive, decision-making process. Congress can help uncover a better way forward, but it should not disrupt the progress that is being made at this moment.

Mr. Speaker, this rule serves as the most practical vehicle by which to consider this critically important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the 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.

As I prepare to yield to my friend from Charleston, let me just say that the short answer to the question posed by my friend from Rochester about why it is we would not establish a commission, it is very clear. Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution states it, that we have to do our job. We have the responsibility to deal with this issue.

There are very important questions that have been raised by Democrats and Republicans and people from the outside community; and we, as the representatives of the people, have the responsibility to get to the bottom of this. That is what the establishment of this bipartisan committee is, in fact, going to do.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Charleston, West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), my very good friend and hardworking member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and as I prepare to yield to my friend from Moore, Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), I want to say to my good friend from Massachusetts that it is very clear that Members of the United States House of Representatives do have the ability to deal with a disaster and at the same time engage in a very, very important investigatory process.

It is also very important to note that this is not going to simply be Republicans asking questions of other Republicans. As I said earlier, and I know my friend from Rochester raised this when she said it was nice of me to say that Democrats would have the opportunity to ask questions, but we know that Democrats, by virtue of this being a bipartisan committee, will be able to be deeply involved and engaged in this process as well.

Once again, I think it is important to note, as my colleague and friend from West Virginia said, that we are the elected representatives of the American people and this is our constitutionally mandated responsibility which we should not pass on to someone else.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a hard-working member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a hard-working member of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we deal with this great challenge, one cannot help but think back to the days following one of the most tragic events in our Nation's history, that being, of course, the attacks on the World Trade Center, flight 93 going down in Pennsylvania and, of course, the plane hitting the Pentagon. We all know that, following that tragedy, Democrats and Republicans came together. They came together committed to ensuring that we would never see the kind of terrorist threat that happened on September 11 hit the United States or our allies or anyone in the world again. And that really embarked us upon this massive global War on Terror, and that has been the focus of the Federal Government. We know that the top priority on September 11, 2001, became this bipartisan goal of trying to deal with the global War on Terror.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the Democrats in this House who have come together in a bipartisan way to work with Republicans in our shared goal of winning the global War on Terror. It is an important struggle, and it is one which many say will last beyond our lifetimes, but I am convinced that Democrats and Republicans will continue to work together to ensure that we win that global War on Terror.

We know that 2\1/2\ weeks ago we faced another kind of disaster. It was a natural disaster that hit our fellow Americans, our fellow citizens, on the gulf coast. And we know that, as we sit here today, another hurricane, Hurricane Ophelia, continues to pose a threat in the Carolinas. And I will tell the Members, as I stand here at this moment, Mr. Speaker, I live constantly with the prospect of a massive earthquake hitting the largest, most important State in the Union, which I am proud to represent here.

We in California deal with the threat of fires on a regular basis. I represent the Angeles National Forest, and that threat is a very serious one. And in the wake of those fires following that, we, of course, have terrible mudslides which impact tremendous numbers of people.

We have gone through disasters in the past. Obviously, as President Bush has said, this is the worst natural disaster in our Nation's history, Hurricane Katrina. But we have faced many, many struggles. In California, one of the most prominent was the Northridge earthquake on January 16 of 1994. I know my friend from San Francisco, the distinguished minority leader, suffered the Loma Prieta quake.

And I will say that, having gone through all of this, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely absurd, it is absurd, to believe that any Member of this House, that any Member of this House would not want to get to the truth of exactly what happened in the case of Hurricane Katrina.

Now, earlier this week, President Bush came forward and said that he takes full responsibility for the Federal Government's problems when it came to the preparation for and the response to Hurricane Katrina. Just yesterday, Governor Blanco, the Democratic Governor of Louisiana, said that she takes responsibility for what took place in her State.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a Republican President and a Democratic Governor coming forward and saying they take responsibility for their roles in the governments that they serve, the Federal Government and the State government.

The gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) has come forward saying that it is very important for us to work in a bipartisan way. He has tried to work with the minority leader to make sure that, in appointing this select committee, we will have a chance to work in a bipartisan way. Speaker Hastert has just called for members of the Committee on Appropriations to go to the gulf coast to look at this situation and to report back to us, because the very important responsibility of oversight right now that the Committee on Appropriations has over the $60 billion-plus that we, in a bipartisan way, have appropriated to deal with this, needs to be addressed. So this notion that there is not a bipartisan commitment to get to the bottom of this is absolutely ludicrous.

I want to make sure that if my State faces an earthquake, a fire, a mudslide that we are able to have the best response possible. I will tell my colleagues that this bipartisan committee is something that I think can play a very important role in ensuring that for all of us who face the prospect of a disaster in our States that we will be able to address it in a better way.

Mr. Speaker, I am a proud institutionalist. I know that is not a popular thing to say; but I serve on the Committee on Rules, and by virtue of that, I think it makes me an institutionalist. This is my 25th year serving here, and I am proud of the role that I have been able to play in trying to address very important institutional concerns, and we have been able to address many issues in a bipartisan way.

Now, I will acknowledge that, on occasion, the Committee on Rules can be a very partisan place; but on occasion we also can be very bipartisan. We just reported out a rule that enjoyed strong bipartisan support dealing with Coast Guard reauthorization, and passage of rules like that are noncontroversial, they do not get attention, and those are things that we have worked on. In fact, I would argue that we do more things coming out of even the Committee on Rules in a bipartisan way than we do the things that we do that are very, very strident and partisan. But if you look at other committees around this place, Mr. Speaker, such as the Committee on Transportation, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Financial Services, you can go right down the line, Democrats and Republicans come together to address major public policy concerns that are out there.

Now, Mr. Speaker, everyone wants to make sure that no one suffers again as the people have along the gulf coast. I do feel for our colleague Mary Landrieu in the other body, and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor); but I also think it is important for us to note that in the other body, our colleague Trent Lott lost his home. We have seen tremendous loss from people like the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) on our side. So the point is that this is a disaster which has impacted Democrats and Republicans, and that is why I believe that it is incumbent upon us.

Because article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution makes it very clear that we have the responsibility for congressional oversight, oversight of the executive branch; and this bipartisan select committee, Mr. Speaker, will focus not just on the Federal Government. It will focus on State government, on local governments, on even private entities that have been involved in this process.

Accountability is something that an independent commission will not have anything to do with. The 9/11 Commission was not accountable at all. We are

accountable as the elected representatives of the American people to the American people. And I think that it is very clear that moving quickly is the right thing to do. The reason that I believe that it is important for us to move quickly is that, as I said, Hurricane Ophelia is at this moment posing a threat to the Carolinas, and there are other disasters on the horizon.

I believe that Democrats and Republicans should come together. The Speaker, again, has reached out to the Democratic leader and very much wants to have appointments made, and Democrats will be able to ask any question that they want; they will be able to participate in the process of bringing witnesses before the committee. Again, everyone wants to make sure that we take the steps to ensure that this never happens again.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. I urge my colleagues to support the underlying legislation which will establish this very important committee so that we can address this question and ensure that the American people will not go through what we have seen happen in the last several weeks.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, President Bush said that he took responsibility for the recent failure of the Federal Government to fulfill its ultimate duty of saving the lives of its own people within its own borders.

But what does responsibility mean? If it means anything, it means the sincere concern for what has happened under his watch. It means stopping at nothing to find out why a Nation led by officials who claim to care about keeping Americans safe presided over a recovery effort which left behind so many innocent men, women and children as they were crying out for help. It means caring about the truth, and it means putting people before politics.

Today, this Congress has to offer the American people its own definition of responsibility. The appalling aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, which swept over citizens from Louisiana to Alabama to Mississippi, was the product of a combination of failures: failures of planning, failures of execution, failures of accountability. It is the responsibility of this body to examine why our Federal Government was behind so many of those failures.

There is only one way to do this and only one path the public will respect, only one route to producing real answers to real questions which the American people will trust. We need a 9/11-type commission for Hurricane Katrina. The 9/11 Commission was our government's response to the tragedy of September 11, 2001; and after an exhaustive study, it produced a report that was trusted by the American people and by the members of our government.

This trust was earned. The 9/11 Commission was not beholden to any interests besides those of its own integrity and the good of the country.

This honorable response to the tragedy of September 11 puts to shame what has been proposed today in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. What was perhaps our Federal Government's greatest failure to date to defend life at home is being met with a failure of leadership and openness and honesty in this Chamber today.

The Republican leadership of the House and Senate has called for the creation of an overtly partisan congressional committee to investigate the government's pre- and post-Katrina actions. They have specified that it would be a committee appointed by Republicans, with a Republican majority. They would give Republicans control of every aspect of the proceedings, and they alone would control who would be subpoenaed. They alone would control which documents could be examined, and they alone would control the scope of the investigation. They would have the power to take the investigation in any direction they chose, with no checks, no balances and no incentives to get real answers. They have nominated the fox to guard the hen house.

Mr. Speaker, I do not object to such a plan because Republicans would be in control as opposed to Democrats. I object to it because it is the Republican Party which controls the levers of government and, as such, manages FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security and every other Federal institution which must be examined.

The conflicts of interest that are present are so obvious that it is incredible anyone would deny them, but the members of the majority do not only do this, but they put forth one justification after another for their plan, each one less convincing than the one before it. They tell us that the structure of the committee is based on precedent and cite the bipartisan commission which investigated the Iran-Contra affair as evidence of this. Never mind that in that situation a Republican President was being investigated by a Democratically controlled committee, eliminating the political pressure to sweep truths under the rug.

Last night, in the Committee on Rules, they told us, rather incredibly, that nobody is better to evaluate in this body than its own Members. But the American people do not believe that. After all, accountability has not exactly been the hallmark of this Republican leadership.

This majority did not investigate those who concealed the Department of Health and Human Services' real estimate of how much the 2003 Medicare legislation that we passed would cost. It did not investigate the role of top Bush campaign contributors in writing Vice President Cheney's energy plan. It did not investigate the Valerie Plame scandal. It did not investigate what led to our dehumanizing and shameful treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and Abu Ghraib in Iraq.

Why did these investigations not take place? The majority has no answer, except promising to us that this time things will be different.

Last night, the chairman did offer his personal assurances again and again that the commission would allow the Democrats to ask questions. It probably never occurred to us that we would not have been able to do that, but this is ultimately a promise that he cannot keep.

Only allowing a hand-picked group of witnesses to be questioned prejudices the investigation before it has even begun. If a true interest in a fair, open, thorough and independent investigation runs that deep with my Republican colleagues, why not just create the independent panel?

That is the central question I have for my colleagues today. Why will you not support the creation of an independent commission? What are you afraid of? The American people clearly had faith in the 9/11 Commission model. Why do you not?

A commission controlled by the politicians of one party charged with investigating itself will face tremendous internal political pressure to eliminate embarrassing truths from the public eye, to defer blame and to hide facts. That is the fundamental truth, because we all know how politics works.

Politics, by the way, is exactly why those recent scandals I just mentioned were never investigated.

Is the creation of an independent commission an abdication of our responsibility? Absolutely not. In fact, exactly the opposite is the case. If we intentionally create a partisan, political investigation, that, Mr. Speaker, would be an abdication of our responsibilities.

The American people need answers, they need true accountability, and the only way that we can live up to our responsibility and give them answers they can trust is through an independent commission.

The public already overwhelmingly supports the creation of such an independent commission by 76 percent, and over 160 Members of this body, representing more than 100 million of our Nation's people, have already supported the creation of such a commission through a substitute resolution by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my colleague. Its findings would not just help us to prevent another terrible disaster from taking place, they would also help our government to regain its credibility in the eyes of the public.

A Newsweek poll from earlier this week found that fully 57 percent of the general population has doubts that government officials will respond well the next time a disaster strikes. Those doubts would not be reduced until people believe that a real, independent investigation of Katrina has taken place. But the findings of the congressional commission being proposed by the Republican leadership will be forever tainted by the pervasive public belief that details were overlooked or truths hidden for political reasons. We have plenty of evidence to believe that.

Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, our government missed an opportunity to rise to the occasion when it was sorely needed. The consequences were worse than we could have imagined. We cannot afford to miss another opportunity here today, and we object to the fact

that this resolution is titled ``bipartisan commission'' because, truly, there will not be one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, if an independent commission is an abdication of our authority, why did we all vote unanimously to establish the 9/11 Commission?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member on the Committee on Homeland Security.

(Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

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

I ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so I can amend the rule and allow the House, instead of H. Res. 437, to consider H.R. 3764, which creates an independent 9/11-like commission to investigate the events involving Hurricane Katrina. I offered this amendment in the Committee on Rules last night, but, sadly, it was rejected.

I want to reiterate that 76 percent of Americans in a recent ABC/ Washington Post poll preferred that a commission of outside experts, similar in nature to the 9/11 Commission, and, in fact, I wish for the same people, to investigate the devastating events surrounding Hurricane Katrina, and that is not just Democrats that were asked. Sixty-four percent of Republicans in that same poll said they, too, supported an independent commission to investigate the government's preparedness and response effort.

Please vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can authorize an independent commission that will not be influenced by partisan politics instead of a Republican-controlled committee investigating the failings of a Republican-controlled administration. Too many people's lives were turned upside down because of the failure of governmental officials to adequately prepare for and respond to the impact of Hurricane Katrina. Let us not fail them a second time.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately prior to the 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.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), an admirer of the Coast Guard.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to square what we are doing in the Coast Guard reauthorization for background checks with what we have already done in the Transportation Security Administration with respect to felony convictions of personnel to be hired by the agency in the TSA legislation concerning governing aviation.

There is no limitation on the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security to go back beyond 7 years into the job applicant's background for convictions relating to espionage, sedition, treason, murder, conspiracy to attempt crimes; and we ought to have the same provisions in the Coast Guard security responsibilities and not prohibit the Secretary to go back beyond 7 years to look for violations that relate to espionage, sedition, treason, and crimes listed in our Homeland Security Act that relate to terrorism or State laws that are comparable.

I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

The airline provisions, yes; and the HAZMAT section as well.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with the chairman about not reaching back. We confronted this issue in aviation in the legislation implementing the recommendations of the Pan Am 103 Commission requiring 10-year criminal background checks but not going further than that and having consideration of amnesty for those who paid their dues to society. We faced that.

But what we are dealing with here, as we did in the Maritime Security Act, the Port Security Grants Act, as we know it, is to allow the Secretary to go back for espionage, for sedition, for treason, for items that are related to security matters. The law applies to felonies in which the Secretary decides the individual is a terrorism security risk.

If the chairman is saying withhold on the amendment this time and we will work to include this language with these limitations in the conference, I will take the chairman at his word.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I concur in that concern, but I do want to have uniformity of application of law in the security arena, and I think the chairman agrees with that.

I further do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that we would have intervention by the Homeland Security if we struck this language from the manager's amendment because then it would not be subject to their jurisdiction. However, the chairman is an honorable man. He and I have had many agreements on a handshake, and we have worked things out.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, for myself, and I know I speak for the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), we are happy to accommodate the gentleman's concern.

I am particularly an aficionado of lighthouses. I think they have played an extraordinary role in the navigation maritime history of America, but lighthouses also played an extraordinary and important role in the development of commercial navigation, air navigation in the United States.

In the early days of aviation, the lighthouse service set up lighthouses on land with million-candle-powered lights with an arrow pointing to the next lighthouse where the nighttime flyer could chart his course and fly safely to a destination. Lighthouses really made maritime navigation safe, but they made aviation navigation safe as well. So preserving such a piece of history is really important, and I am really glad the gentleman has brought it to the attention of the committee.

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

Under the agreement that we have in committee, we do not support amendments that one or the other side disagrees with; and I support the committee position. I do want to observe, however, that this amendment is relatively benign. Had it been drafted differently, I think it easily could have been accepted.

The Coast Guard does have largely this authority. And while the chairman of the subcommittee has expressed a concern about the Coast Guard being drawn afield from its normal mission in looking into on- land facilities, actually if the Coast Guard felt there were a problem with their existing authority they could do what the gentleman's amendment proposes to direct them to do, they could say, look, we think this is a security problem or a safety problem and inspect it. And, in fact, any contractor with an ounce of sense would invite the Coast Guard in and say look at it before we go ahead.

I do want to observe, however, there is new technology that may make such facilities unnecessary in the short term and long term.

During this storm of Katrina in the gulf, an LNG facility offloaded 3 billion cubic feet of natural gas 100 miles offshore because the tanker had on board the new regassification technology that allows it to make the conversion necessary to discharge from the ship; and with 8-foot seas, they were able to discharge 3 billion cubic feet of natural gas. With the rate at which natural gas prices are rising, I think we need more of that capability.

I certainly sympathize with my colleagues in Massachusetts along Fall River who do not want to see one of these LNG ports in their river, close to human population, with all of the potential, but this is not the appropriate place to make that fix.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the majority is going to accept the amendment. We have previously agreed on the outcome.

Voyage data recorders are as important as they are in aviation. The flight data recorder, the voice data recorder in the cockpit helps us to understand outcomes of accidents or causes of accidents in investigating the tragedies in aviation.

The Coast Guard is working with the IMO to amend the Safety of Life At Sea Convention to require voyage data recorders for ships in the international service. But doing so for newly built ships, those that are under construction is one thing. The cost can be absorbed in the construction of the vessels. But older vessels that do not have automated engine rooms, do not have automated sensors are going to result in a huge cost, as much as $300,000 I have heard from vessel owners to retro-fit vessels.

So in accepting the gentleman's amendment, we must also have language when we get through conference, in the conference report, about somehow alleviating the cost on older vessels just as we do in aviation. There are ways of phasing in newer technology in aviation, the flight data recorder that records up to 150 parameters of operations of an aircraft, for example. We give airlines time and manufacturers time to incorporated the new technology into newer general aircraft.

I just raise this as a caution because I know the chairman has great concern for the financial effects on maritime navigation of actions we take in committee.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intent and purpose of the gentlewoman's amendment and her deep conviction in offering it, her concern that the Coast Guard undertake these evaluations and which the Coast Guard does as a matter of routine. But I think this will put a spotlight on this function of the Coast Guard and give a new urgency, especially in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, in these new homeland security responsibilities to which the gentlewoman has referred, to do a more thorough and current evaluation of the Coast Guard active duty personnel strengths and impacts on their homeland security missions, as well as the traditional historic function of the Coast Guard.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman makes that request, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is proposing a very thoughtful amendment and making a very reasonable request, that the Secretary reimburse local port authorities, facility operators, State and local agencies when the security threat goes above green, if it goes to yellow, orange or red, and there are additional costs shouldered by local governments, that the Federal Government should pick up 50 percent of that cost. Is that the thrust of the amendment?

If the gentleman will further yield, that is generally what our concern is, that they should not shoulder all these additional costs. I think there should be some way that we can reach accommodation when we go to conference with the other body on accommodating the gentleman's concern.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.