Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2200) to authorize the Transportation Security Administration's programs relating to the provision of transportation security, and for other purposes.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 2200, the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act. This legislation is a product of months of negotiations, and includes significant contribution from Republicans, industry stakeholders, labor, the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General.

I want to recognize the bipartisan efforts of my colleagues on the committee, most especially, Ms. Jackson-Lee, the chair, and Mr. Dent, the ranking member. They worked hard to produce a thorough, comprehensive, well-considered bill.

H.R. 2200 is the first measure to come to the House floor that fully authorizes the Transportation Security Administration since its establishment in 2001. Since that time, TSA has made significant strides and rolled out several important programs to address security challenges. As a result, today our transportation systems are more secure than they were on September 11, 2001. However, they are not as secure as they need to be.

With the change in administrations, TSA is at a critical crossroads in its 8-year history. H.R. 2200 steers TSA on a course to becoming an effective agency that works to enhance security in all our transportation sectors, partners with key stakeholders, and does a better job of utilizing technology to address gaps in security.

Mr. Chairman, this bill fulfills our constitutional responsibility to provide a thorough road map to TSA on where it should go the next 2 years. H.R. 2200 authorizes $15.6 billion for TSA for fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011. With these resources, the bill directs TSA, for the first time, to work to achieve greater parity between security efforts to protect aviation and surface transportation systems.

In the past few years, attacks on rail stations worldwide have underscored the vulnerabilities to these systems. In response, H.R. 2200 triples funding for surface transportation over what was provided in fiscal year 2009, and authorizes 300 more surface transportation inspectors.

Among its key provisions is the creation of a Transit Security Advisory Committee to provide greater stakeholder input and a Surface Transportation Security Inspection Office to train and manage inspectors.

The bill also strengthens security training for transportation security officers, flight attendants, all cargo pilots, surface transportation workers, and Federal flight deck officers.

I'm particularly pleased that we were able to include provisions to enhance flight attendants' training and reimbursement for pilots participating in Federal flight deck officers recurrent training.

To bolster airport security and screening, H.R. 2200 authorizes a demonstration project and plan for the implementation of a secure verification system for law enforcement officers flying while armed.

Further, it directs TSA to develop a strategic risk-based plan to enhance security of airport perimeter access controls and a demonstration program for biometric-based access control systems.

For too long we've been told that the wide-scale deployment of biometrics is too difficult and impractical. But just last week, Mr. Chairman, I saw biometrics, including readers, in use in Argentina at a port and a federal building. This bill embraces the promise of this and other 21st-century technologies to address our security challenges.

Additionally, there are a number of other noteworthy provisions that grew out of extensive committee oversight that covers such programs as Registered Traveler, Secure Flight, and the TWIC program.

For example, the bill directs DHS to work with port operators to help workers who are waiting for TWIC cards to be escorted so they can continue to work. The TWIC provision also puts in place strict timelines and flexibility on how cards are transmitted.

A key theme that runs throughout the bill is greater stakeholder participation.

The Aviation Security Advisory Committee is codified in this bill. So, too, is the Air Cargo and General Aviation Working Groups.

General aviation, in particular, gets a great deal of attention in this bill. Members from both sides of the aisle have expressed serious concern about TSA's approach when it comes to general aviation. Until recently, TSA displayed a lack of understanding of the uniqueness of the general aviation environment. H.R. 2200 takes some major steps forward, with the authorization of a strong General Aviation Working Group and the establishment of a new grant program for security improvements to general aviation airports.

Finally, H.R. 2200 makes key improvements to air cargo and checked baggage security. Specifically, H.R. 2200 eliminates the use of bag match as an alternative means of checked baggage screening.

It also directs TSA to develop a process to consider reimbursement claims by airports who invested in in-line explosive detection equipment on a promise that TSA would defray the costs.

With respect to air cargo, it requires TSA to report on the status of the Certified Cargo Screening Program.

TSA, Mr. Chairman, has testified that the 100 percent screening requirement for passenger planes will not be

achieved by 2010 because TSA has had to expend extensive resources on trying to negotiate international agreements with foreign authorities on inbound international cargo. TSA, as a domestic security agency, lacks jurisdiction or expertise to negotiate such agreements. Achievement of this requirement is, therefore, dependent upon assistance from CBP, the State Department and others, and, most specifically, foreign governments.

To ensure that TSA meets the statutory 100 percent screening requirement, section 201 of the bill gives TSA up to 2 more years to negotiate agreements on inbound international cargo. Enactment of H.R. 2200, therefore, will help TSA put needed focus on working to meet mandates for screening all cargo transported between U.S. airports on passenger planes, whether originating in the U.S. or abroad.

This provision in no way eliminates the 100 percent screening requirement. Instead, it sets TSA up for success and is responsive to the real-world challenges of implementing the mandate in jurisdictions where TSA has no jurisdiction.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to our work today, and I encourage my colleagues to pass H.R. 2200 in a swift, bipartisan fashion in order to better ensure the security of all Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record exchanges of letters on this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I rise to address concerns put forth in the Minority Views section of the Committee Report for H.R. 2200. Specifically, I want to address the Minority's assertion that the Majority rejected consideration of proposed amendments during committee consideration of the bill.

As is its custom, the Committee used a roster for amendments during both full and subcommittee consideration of the TSA Authorization bill. Each amendment submitted to be placed on the roster was considered by the Committee unless the sponsor decided to withdraw it from consideration.

Each of the twenty amendments filed prior to the Full Committee markup were placed on the roster for Committee consideration. Of the twenty amendments filed, thirteen were sponsored by Minority Members. All but two of the thirteen amendments filed for the roster by Minority Members were offered. Of the eleven amendments offered by Minority Members for committee consideration, eight were agreed to and included in the reported version of the bill.

H.R. 2200, the TSA Authorization Act, is the product of months of bi- partisan cooperation and negotiations. Provisions proposed by the Minority were included in the bill at each and every stage of its consideration. Contrary to the assertion in the Minority Views, at no point during Committee consideration did the Majority prevent the Minority from putting forth amendments for consideration.

In closing, I would remind the Chair that the Committee on Homeland Security has a strong record of working in a bi-partisan fashion to ensure sound homeland security legislation is put before the House. As Chairman, I am committed to ensuring that practice continues.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, May 15, 2009.

Hon. Bart Gordon,

Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, Washington,

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to recognize the vice chair of the full committee for 2 minutes, Ms. Sanchez, for a colloquy.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to respond.

I appreciate the gentlewoman from California's leadership on this critical issue. I share her concerns about the impact that applications backlogs has had on port workers around the Nation and appreciate the comprehensive approach she has taken to addressing the weaknesses in the program that she has identified through her oversight work on the committee and look forward to solving the problem.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Paterson, New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Let me say that I appreciate the gentleman from Alaska bringing this to my attention. This is a novel issue for us, but I believe there could be some efficiencies in making the change. I'm pleased to work with you on this issue as the bill moves to conference.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. Chairman, I recognize for 1\1/2\ minutes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for the purposes of a colloquy.

I can assure the gentleman--and I thank him for his concerns--that the committee will work with TSA in conducting appropriate and periodic reviews of prohibited items. Your graphic display of those prohibited items speaks volumes as to why this review should occur.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairwoman of the subcommittee, who also is the author of this legislation, the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

At this point, I'll take it in two phases.

There are some obvious misunderstandings of this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

If you read the legislation, it talks about those detainees from Gitmo being on the No Fly List. So I don't know what is it we can do to solve the issue other than to refer people to page 87 of House bill 2200 and you can see--and we don't have a disagreement.

But that has nothing to do with the legislation before us today.

I agree with you. If those individuals have been captured who have been released, then the procedure automatically places them on the No Fly List. There is no question.

As to how many there are, I don't know. But, again, I say to my colleague from Texas, there is no real debate on the issue of being on the No Fly List.

I would like to acknowledge and recognize the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for 1 minute to make another attempt to clarify for this body the issue around Gitmo and detainees on the No Fly List.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chair, I recognize the gentlelady from California (Ms. Richardson) for 1 minute.

Mr. Chair, I recognize the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for 1 minute.

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

In closing, I would emphasize the importance of passing the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act. This bill is the first comprehensive authorization bill for TSA since its creation in 2001. It is the product of extensive bipartisan negotiation and reflects input from GAO, DHS, IG and oversight conducted by the Committee on Homeland Security. It makes major investments in surface transportation and triples the overall funding for TSA activities.

Mr. Chairman, let me for the record say that there are 239 detainees presently housed at Gitmo. Under this legislation, all those individuals, if they were found innocent or guilty, will go on the No Fly List. So there is no question about the intent of this legislation to put those individuals on the No Fly List.

Apart from that, this is a good bill, and I urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my manager's amendment which makes a few perfecting changes to H.R. 2200, the Transportation Security Administration authorization bill. My amendment helps make the bill even more comprehensive by addressing five areas.

First, in the area of public transportation security assistance, my amendment improves the Department of Homeland Security's Transportation Security Grant Program by streamlining the award process. My amendment ensures accountability and transparency by requiring annual reports from TSA on the status of outstanding grant awards. It was developed in response to concerns expressed by public transportation agencies about when the clock should start ticking on the grant performance period. Under my amendment, it doesn't begin until grantees are actually able to access their awards. Additionally, this amendment would prohibit cost sharing for transportation security grants to ensure that grants are awarded efficiently and fairly. It also provides public transportation agencies with the tools and support they need to conduct comprehensive risk assessments in order to better secure their systems.

Second, Mr. Chair, this amendment tackles the question of whether TSA needs to be reorganized to get TSA away from behaving like the Aviation Security Administration. Specifically, it requires an honest assessment of creating two equal positions at the deputy assistant secretary level, one for surface transportation security and one for aviation security. It also articulates a sense of congress that the creation of a deputy assistant secretary for surface transportation security will provide the focused leadership and resource management necessary to secure surface transportation in a manner commensurate with aviation security.

Third, in the area of pipeline security, the amendment contains a provision offered at the markup by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis). This provision instructs the Comptroller General to study the roles and responsibilities of DHS and the Department of Transportation with respect to pipeline security in order to better secure our pipelines against intentional breaches.

Fourth, Mr. Chair, regarding workforce improvement, the amendment instructs the DHS Secretary to study the feasibility and merits of establishing a centralized advanced aviation training facility.

Finally, Mr. Chair, the amendment contains a provision to address the special needs of travelers with artificial metal implants.

The amendment contains a provision requiring TSA to establish a program to screen passengers with metal implants.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that makes key improvements to an already robust security bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, as you have heard, my amendment helps to strengthen the underlying bill and addresses the issues of interest to my colleague. I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon for the purpose of opposition debate.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for the purpose of closing.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, while not in opposition to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my colleague's amendment requiring TSA to establish expedited screening protocols for passengers with a Top Secret Security Clearance.

This amendment enhances section 234 by requiring TSA to establish special protocols for individuals in the Registered Traveler Program who possess a valid Top Secret Security Clearance issued by the Federal Government.

These individuals have access to some of the most sensitive secrets this country has. TSA should be able to figure out how to adopt a screening system to take into account that these passengers are well- known to the Federal Government, have this special status and, as added layers of security, are traveling with a biometric card that confirms their identity.

I'm pleased that Mr. Mica worked with me to fine-tune this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, while not opposed to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus). It directs TSA to craft special security screening protocols for men and women of the Armed Forces.

All of us have been in airports. We've seen our men and women returning subject to all kinds of searches. It is absolutely important that we say thank you for putting themselves in harm's way. And I support 100 percent the directive requiring TSA to set up a protocol to recognize their value to the country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, while not opposed to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, this is a classic example of a commonsense amendment. There is no reason why some airports should be reimbursed at 90 percent and others at 75 percent. This corrects that inequity. We support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman and my friend from Florida for yielding time. I speak in opposition to the rule. I want to thank Chairman Thompson, Subcommittee Chair Sheila Jackson-Lee for their bipartisan effort. In fact, this is a bipartisan bill and one that there's really no fundamental reason to vote against.

In fact, some of the amendments we're voting on today, such as people being able to retrieve their cell phones, are very nice. The one on people with hip replacements is very important to me. I have three of the four biggest orthopedic companies in the United States--in fact, in the world--in my district. And Chairman Oberstar and others who go through the machinery with hip replacements have concern on how we do that.

But, you know, it doesn't matter very much if you can find your cell phone or get through security easier if you die. And one of the problems here is I had offered an amendment before the Rules Committee that would have had added an important layer of security for the U.S. commercial aviation to the TSA Authorization Act. Unfortunately, on a party line vote my amendment was not made in order.

My amendment was very simple. In fact, I was shocked. I thought the debate in committee was going to be whether we were going to ask for just a voice vote or a recorded vote to make sure everybody was recorded. Instead, it was challenged. So I brought it to the committee.

It's very simple. It requires TSA to place any detainees held at Guantanamo Bay on the No Fly List. Now I think they ought to stay at Guantanamo, but it looks like I have lost that debate.

They may be coming in the United States. We have released some around the world. Many of them have already committed terrorist acts since then or reaffiliated.

But whether you agree with it or not, it seems so simple and fundamental that, if they're released in America, they ought to go on a No Fly List. For crying out loud, we have all kinds of people on the No Fly List. Why would we not automatically place somebody who is released in the United States on the No Fly List?

It is essential that we guarantee the security of the American people. The TSA Authorization bill is one of the first opportunities we have to take meaningful steps to ensure that any Gitmo detainee released in the United States is a threat to the American public and doesn't get on an airplane.

My amendment closes a potential terrorist loophole. Actually, it's not a loophole. It's a fly hole. It is so huge that it puts all of us at risk.

I offered this amendment during committee markup. Unfortunately, it was gutted by a second degree amendment. It wasn't compromised, it wasn't changed. Basically, it went right back to the current policy we have. It was totally gutted.

The Gitmo prisoners released in the United States may or may not be added to the No Fly List under this bill. It's an interesting thing. There's an option that they could be added to the No Fly List, but there's no guarantee under this bill. It was not a compromise amendment. It was a gutting amendment.

So the committee never had a choice of whether to vote. They voted unanimously on the majority side to not allow my amendment to be voted on and gutted it, saying it would be up in the air.

The transfer or release of any of these detainees is a matter of homeland security. We need to have a serious debate about whether it's appropriate to bring them on U.S. soil, where they will be kept, what will happen if they're released in the United States. But even the President's own administration has noted that any Gitmo detainees released in the United

States would need additional security and monitoring.

In May, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stated before the Committee on Homeland Security that DHS would take efforts ``to ensure that Americans are confident in their safety'' and recognized that the Department had a role ``to provide information on what protections are needed in the homeland should Gitmo detainees be released.''

That same day, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified before Congress that bringing Gitmo detainees into the U.S., even to maximum security prisons, poses significant security risks, including radicalization of other inmates.

All I'm asking is they be placed on a No Fly List. Why wouldn't we? Maybe my amendment should have said at least they get denied an aisle seat. I mean, I don't understand this at all.

Despite earlier confirmation by Defense Secretary Gates that the Chinese Uyghurs would be released in the U.S. as soon as the final details are complete, the Solicitor General filed a brief with the Supreme Court on Friday arguing that these individuals should not be brought into the United States since they are associated with a terrorist group. They were associated with the East Turkistan Islamic Movement and they were funded and trained by al Qaeda in Afghanistan, yet they were going to release these 11 in northern Virginia so they could get on the airplanes going out of Reagan Airport. What is wrong with this? We need a guarantee that that's not going to happen.

Despite the concerns of the public and the uncertainty within his own administration, the President is forging ahead with a plan to bring some of these detainees to the United States. Even if they are transferred from Gitmo to a U.S. prison, they could fall under constitutional protections allowing for their release. And this is a very real possibility with existing precedent. Then it will be even harder to put them on a No Fly List.

Based on a Supreme Court ruling, DHS is forced to release illegal aliens, including many dangerous ones, after 180 days.

How can we be assured that Gitmo detainees will be treated differently? The simplest way to do this is to say you will automatically be placed on a No Fly List. No debate. You're automatically on there if you are a detainee.

The detainees held at Gitmo are not low-risk, innocent people. They are they worst of the worst. Most of the Gitmo detainees are violent radicals, hardened on the battlefield and willing to die or kill for their cause.

According to DOD, 74 of the 530 transferred from Gitmo are confirmed or suspected to have returned to the battlefield since we have released them. Some have carried out attacks. This includes Abdallah Saleh al- Ajimi. Ajimi was arrested along the Pakistan-Afghan border in December 2001, fighting alongside al Qaeda. He was transferred from Gitmo to Kuwait in November 2005. In 2008, he joined several others in a suicide bombing in Iraq, killing more than a dozen people.

This is somebody who was released from Gitmo, one of the early releasees. The ones we have now, we would deem not safe enough to release. This is somebody who we released.

According to the Department of Defense, ``He was apparently living a productive life in Kuwait. It was unknown what motivated him to conduct a suicide attack.''

In this second poster, this is Said Ali al-Shihri. Shihri was captured in Pakistan in December 2001. He was transferred from Gitmo to Saudi Arabia in November 2007. He fled to Yemen, declaring himself the deputy director of al Qaeda in Yemen, and is a prime suspect in the December 2008 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Yemen.

This is one we released. This is not one of the 530 who we're still holding because they were too dangerous to release.

The security concerns and lack of a clear plan from this administration demonstrate an absolutely clear need for proactive restrictions on detainee freedom to travel within the U.S. should they be transferred here. Congress must play an active role in ensuring that any detainees released in U.S. communities do not pose a threat.

A Gallup Poll released this week found that by a ratio of 3:1, respondents oppose moving detainees to the U.S. prisons. I don't think we need a poll to find out whether they want them next to them on an airplane. In Indiana, we have an expression: You can count them on one hand and have enough fingers left to bowl.

Other than people in Congress, I can't imagine anybody who wants these people who are released on planes next to them. They make a mockery of ``Fly the Friendly Skies.'' One slogan is ``Fly with Friends.'' Another slogan is ``Lower Fares, Fewer Restrictions.''

I mean, think of the airline slogans with this. My favorite is Delta says, ``Delta Gets You There.'' They're going to need to add, ``Maybe.''

If we don't have this protection, we are vulnerable. This is a matter of national security. As important as this bill is, as important as these amendments are, our number one responsibility is guaranteed safety.

I do not understand. I simply do not understand why my friends on the majority side don't even want to have a vote to say, not keep them in prison, not keep them in Guantanamo. This is about a vote should they automatically be placed on the No Fly List.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with so many important issues in this bill, but there are none as important as the issue of whether the actual people getting on board with you are terrorists, which is the fundamental thing we should be concerned about.

My amendment said: the Assistant Secretary, in coordination with the Terrorist Screening Center, shall include on the No Fly List any individual who was a detainee housed at the Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on or after January 1, 2009. For purposes of this clause, the term ``detainee'' means an individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States as a result of armed conflict.

That is all in the bill. So what happened in committee? I sat on committee. It was not unanimous. I abstained. I supported the bill, but I could not support a bill with this kind of terrorist fly-through in it.

The words that were added were ``after a final disposition has been issued by the President.''

These people are all lawyered up. They are fighting every process to hold them. Many of them, probably, will win, partly because we don't want to go into open court, having to release the information of how we got the information of why they're there, because--guess what? People are getting beheaded. They're exposing our entire lines of tracking information, so some will get out on that basis. Some will get out on the basis that their countries won't take them back.

It also says here: ``the final disposition.'' Well, if they're released in the United States, lawyered up and on trial, I don't want people here who are involved in blowing us up and who have been fighting and killing our soldiers. These people who are still there are the ones we haven't already released. I earlier gave examples of people who were released, those who have gone back in, meaning, already, 20 or 30 percent of them have been re-involved.

Now, a final disposition can take anywhere from 2 years to a decade to forever. Then there is a final disposition by the President. Well, what if they're just plain released?

Do you think you're really going to be able to hold them if they've been released? The courts may very well rule we can't even hold them in the United States.

This amendment and anybody who goes to the legislative intent will hear the debate. The debate was not about whether or not they were all going to be placed on the No Fly List. The debate was about whether I was prejudging the people who were in Gitmo. Legislative intent will show that this amendment was meant to keep some people from being added to the No Fly List.

Any legislative intent will show that, in committee, the intent here was to say: Souder was trying to prejudge the people in Gitmo in that they shouldn't be on a No Fly List and that some of those people should be on a No Fly List. It's indisputable. It's in the Record.

So, unless we change the bill, this is a gutting amendment that does not put people on the No Fly List. It is current law which says that the President has the opportunity to put them on a No Fly List.

I will yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, I agree with the gentlewoman. If there is any logic in the world, not a single person here is not going to be on the No Fly List, but we have no assurances. We can't predict what the courts are going to do. We can't predict that.

We can't predict what any President or any Attorney General is going to do at any given moment. Even if this goes 8 to 10 years and even if the current President serves two terms, we can't predict it. The fact is that my amendment predicted it.

It says, if you are released in the United States, you are automatically on a No Fly List. There was at least enough risk.

Poor Congressman John Lewis keeps getting on these lists, and we keep trying to get him off. You can see what a mess sometimes our lists are. It ought to be, if you're in Guantanamo--this is simple. We have their names. We have their fingerprints. We know who they are. We know that they are potential risks. Why would you resist? Just put them on a No Fly List. Why take the gamble here?

I would yield to the gentlewoman.

Reclaiming my time, we do not know anything. The only way we know it is to put it into law. We are speculating and are hopeful. Logic would suggest that my amendment is not needed. But in watching what has happened in America today, guess what? The American people look at Congress; they look at the executive branch, and they don't often see common sense at times.

Furthermore, particularly as we head into an era where courts are going to go, perhaps, more on feelings rather than on law, this is a risky time period. We need to make it clear-cut--absolutely--if you're in Guantanamo.

Now, we've already released a bunch, and a whole bunch of them are coming back and are hitting us. At the very least, if we're not going to keep them in prison, if we're not going to keep them in Guantanamo, at the very least, this Congress needs to guarantee you will absolutely, certainly, 100 percent--not hopefully, not maybe, not probably--100 percent not get on an airplane out of Reagan Airport, sitting next to us, with the ability to blow up this Capitol building and the White House.

Mr. Chair, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a letter I received this week from dozens of airports across the country concerning a provision in the pending legislation (H.R. 2200) pertaining to background screening services for aviation workers. I ask unanimous consent that the letter, which is addressed to me as well as the distinguished leaders of the Homeland Security Committee and Chairman Oberstar, be included in the Record.

This is an important issue with which I have a great deal of familiarity as the former Chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee. Following the tragic events of 9/11, Congress mandated that all workers with access to secure areas of airports be given criminal history background checks. While that now seems like a necessary and reasonable requirement, gaining those checks for nearly a million workers at airports was a daunting task given the fact that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)--the entity then in charge of processing background checks for aviation workers--routinely took more than 50 days to complete the process for each worker.

Without major upgrades to the process, meeting the congressional mandate was simply not achievable without significant disruptions to the aviation system. Recognizing that fact, the Federal Aviation Administration took the initiative to create a better system to facilitate the required checks and reached out to the private sector to help accomplish that goal. The result was a unique public/private partnership with the creation of the Transportation Security Clearinghouse to process background checks for aviation workers.

The Transportation Security Clearinghouse established the first high- speed, secure connection to the federal fingerprint processing system and ensured that more than 500 airports were able to access that system and complete the necessary background checks. It is my understanding that the TSC reduced a process that took more than 50 days down to an average of four hours, with many checks occurring in a matter of minutes. I am told that error rates with transmissions were reduced to 2 percent, well below the average government error rate of 8 percent.

As a result, the initial mandate for completing background checks was completed successfully. Numerous subsequent security enhancements-- issued directly by the Transportation Security Administration, the agency now in charge of aviation security--have likewise been completed successfully. Notably, all aviation workers and many others in the airport environment undergo detailed Security Threat Assessments, a process that has been facilitated by the TSC.

Over the past seven-plus years, the TSC has processed more than 4 million record checks for aviation workers. The costs of the checks for aviation workers have been reduced twice and at $27 are dramatically lower than for workers in other modes of transportation that require similar checks, including port workers and hazardous material truckers.

I raise these points to make clear that I concur with the view outlined by numerous airports on this letter. The current process for aviation workers works well and should not be disrupted as TSA seeks to comply with this legislation. Additionally, the agency needs to ensure that there is no diminution of security by requiring that any entity that seeks to provide these services in the future is capable of facilitating all current checks and can meet any other additional requirements deemed critical by the agency.

I appreciate the work of the Homeland Security Committee on this issue and look forward to working with them as this process moves forward.

June 2, 2009.

Hon. Bennie Thompson,

Chairman, House Homeland Security Committee, Washington, DC.

Hon. Peter King,

Ranking Member, House Homeland Security Committee,

Washington, DC.

Hon. James Oberstar,

Chairman, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Mica,

Ranking Member, House Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thompson, Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member

King, and Ranking Member Mica: with the House poised to

consider important TSA authorization legislation (H.R. 2200)

in the near future, we are writing to express our strong

support for the Transportation Security Clearinghouse (TSC)

and to ask that attempts to address competition in security

background screening services legislatively do not interfere

with the critical security services that the TSC currently

facilitates.

Created in the aftermath of September 11th in partnership

with the federal government to meet a congressional mandate

for the completion of background checks for aviation workers,

the TSC has built an incredible record of success over the

past seven-plus years. To date, more than four million

records have been vetted against federal criminal and

terrorist data bases at a cost much lower than other

comparable vetting programs. A process that took weeks to

complete prior to the creation of the TSC, now takes minutes,

collectively saving airports and our industry hundreds of

millions of dollars in operational and employee time savings

that would otherwise have been spent waiting for background

checks and away from their jobs.

For the federal government, the TSC serves as an invaluable

partner in ensuring the highest level of security in the

background screening process for aviation workers. As TSA has

expanded background check requirements for aviation workers

and others in the airport environment over the years, the

Clearinghouse has repeatedly risen to the occasion--most

often at its own expense--to ensure that additional checks

are performed quickly and effectively and in a manner that

limits disruptions to airport operations. Additionally, the

TSC adheres to all federal data and privacy standards and has

passed rigorous DHS certification requirements.

For airports, the TSC has repeatedly proven its value in

keeping costs low and services high. Difficult TSA mandates

have been met with minimal disruption, and Clearinghouse fees

have been reduced twice in recent years--currently $27 per

employee and significantly below the costs of similar

programs. The TSC was established to serve a

critical need of airports, and the incentives inherent in the

TSC model ensure that it will continue to put the needs of

airports and the aviation industry at the forefront.

While competition in this area is a worthy goal, it must

not come at the expense of a process that works well and that

has served our industry and the cause of aviation security

admirably for nearly eight years. As you have the opportunity

to consider legislation aimed at enhancing competition in

security background screening services, we ask that you take

steps to ensure that the current process facilitated by the

TSC is not disrupted and that any service providers approved

to perform similar functions are able to meet the same levels

of security and service that are currently provided by the

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which is also offered by Congressman Ehlers, Congressman Graves and Congressman Petri. This amendment would tighten standards for when TSA can issue an emergency regulation or security directive.

After 9/11, Congress wanted to ensure the TSA could act quickly to respond to terrorist threats. I was instrumental in crafting some of that legislation, and we wanted to give TSA the ability to waive the Administrative Procedures Act and issue a security directive any time they believed there was an ``immediate threat to transportation security.''

Now we come some 8 years after 9/11 and we see the TSA issuing security directives when the ``immediate threat'' they are seeking to address is sometimes unclear. And also there are some problems with use of this authority.

First, we have security directives that change from week to week. TSA is also issuing many directives that are unfunded mandates without an opportunity to comment; others are ``published'' and then remain open for months. And then we have seen examples of even security directives that have been revised seven or eight times.

TSA's use of the security directive makes us ask the question: What immediate threat is TSA addressing with these security directives in the manner they are proceeding?

This amendment would ensure that the waiver of the Administrative Procedures Act occurs only when there is an ``imminent threat of finite duration.'' TSA would still have the ability to quickly respond to such threats, but if the directive is in place for longer than 6 months, it would be required to conduct a regular rulemaking process.

This amendment would refine TSA's security directive issuance process to make it truly responsive to imminent threats and not just the whim of the agency. That is not what we intended. So I ask my colleagues to join other colleagues here in trying to strengthen and clarify this law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Might I inquire as to the balance of our time?

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), also a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, do we have 1 minute left on our side?

To close for our side, I would like to yield the balance of my time to another distinguished leader of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment with the modification which I have provided at the desk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I do want to express my sincere gratitude to Chairman Thompson, to the majority staff, and to the staff on our side of the aisle and Members from the minority. They worked together, I think, in the best interest of trying to bring forward the best possible Transportation Security Administration authorization and legislation they could, and also worked very closely to modify an amendment that I originally proposed.

My colleagues, Congress has repeatedly directed the Transportation Security Administration to use biometric identifier technology for identification cards, travel documents and access control programs.

In fact, Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, these are the times, and I was one of the original authors of the TSA legislation, in which we included a similar directive back immediately after 9/11. But these are the times I have passed, or Congress has passed, into law directives, law after law, directive after directive to TSA to use biometric. And I'd like to submit a list of those for the Record.

Congressional Mandates for the Utilization of Biometric Identifier

Technology for Identification Cards, Travel Documents, and Access

Control Programs * * *

USA PATRIOT Act of 2001

Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001

Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002

Maritime and Transportation Security Act of 2002

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for

I only have a short period of time, but I would like to yield it to Mr. Dent.

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the amendment, the way it is crafted. I thank the gentlelady from Florida. My colleague has very good intentions, but let's look at the results here.

First of all, this isn't going to eliminate the duplication that was referred to. Florida can still issue an identity card, its own identity card. And it would be better to have just one identity card, but they can still issue one identity card.

What this amendment does is it says that the State is prohibited from conducting a separate background check. So what this becomes is a protection and cover for basically thugs and criminals who are at our ports. You cannot do a criminal background check. This actually prohibits that. That's why I'm opposed to it.

The reason we're concerned in Florida about having criminal background checks--this is the Camber Report. I was in Congress when this was conducted in 2000. One of our ports had over 60 percent of those working at the port with criminal backgrounds.

Here's part of the security assessment. I will name this port; Jacksonville. It has a large physical layout of its facilities, three noncontiguous terminals. The port represents a lucrative target to would-be smugglers and terrorists.

So this amendment, by the way it is crafted--and it should be revised--would prohibit Florida from, even if they want to, and still can with this amendment, they can issue their own card, but they can't conduct a criminal background check. That's wrong. That's wrong.

We can't provide cover for thugs and criminals. And you hear from this report that it does pose both a criminal and terrorist threat, and that needs to be addressed.

This amendment, the way it's crafted, does not do that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Georgia (Mr. Broun).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to Dr. Broun.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining on this side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Beavercreek, Ohio (Mr. Austria).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Macomb County, Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished naval aviator from Sugar Land, Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time we have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have Mr. McCaul control the balance of my time for our side.

I would like to reserve the balance of my time at this time.

I would just like at this time to thank Chairman Bennie Thompson, Chairwoman Sheila Jackson-Lee, Pete King, everybody else for their collaboration on this important piece of legislation. It is a good bill. I won't get into some of the deficiencies here right now except to say that we need to deal with the Large Aircraft Security Program. I know the Chair has agreed to holding a committee hearing on that very important issue. It's important that we address that issue.

But there are a few things about this bill that are very, very important. It does prohibit tipping off TSA employees of covert testing efforts. I think that's important. This legislation also requires a secure biometrically enhanced system to verify the status of law enforcement officers traveling armed on commercial passenger aircraft. It also authorizes demonstration projects to test technology design to mitigate a terrorist attack against underwater tunnels or open rail lines. It also prohibits the TSA's outsourcing of the terrorist watch list, No Fly List and selectee list verifications to non-governmental entities.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses a number of concerns raised by transit agencies and the GAO in an upcoming report. One of the biggest concerns of stakeholders was that TSA and FEMA were taking too long in distributing grant funding. This amendment requires that applications for grants be made available within 30 days of passage of an appropriations act. It then requires the transit agency to submit an application within 45 days and the Secretary to act within 60 days of receipt. These are the same deadlines that are usually required in any appropriations bills.

This amendment also codifies current practice prohibiting cost sharing required for grants. Previously, public transit agencies were required to share up to 25 percent of the cost of a project. Many agencies found this requirement prohibitive, given that they are largely funded by State and local taxpayers and that the costs associated with improving open architecture public transportation systems were considered too expensive.

This amendment also establishes a technical assistance pilot program that gives grants to transit agencies to conduct comprehensive risk assessments using approved third parties. The Office of Domestic Preparedness previously provided grants for such assessments, but these ended when ODP was combined with FEMA and Preparedness. Many State and local agencies do not necessarily have the in-house expertise to conduct comprehensive risk assessments and require outside assistance.

This amendment requires the GAO to examine the roles of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation with respect to pipeline security. During a recent release of anhydrous ammonium from a pipeline in Florida, local response personnel were given differing opinions of which Federal agency regulated the security of pipelines. The GAO would examine if current responsibilities for protection against and responding to intentional pipeline breaches are adequately identified in interagency MOUs. The time to identify a lead Federal agency for pipeline security is never after an intentional breach.

So, again, I would just like to say I support this manager's amendment. I think it is a good revision to this legislation of which the underlying bill, of course, is a strong bill too. I support it.

At this time, I would yield back the balance of my time.

Real quickly, I just want to say that individuals with Top Secret Security Clearance go through an extensive background check and investigation every 5 years and friends, family members, coworkers and even neighbors are interviewed during this process.

This amendment recognizes the expansive nature of the top secret investigation and the reduced risk individuals with these clearances pose. For these reasons, I strongly support this amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment by Mr. Bachus. It's a good amendment. Expedited screening services are provided to frequent flier travelers and registered travelers at our Nation's commercial airports all the time. And yet our servicemen and women, many with metal items such as combat boots, medals and badges, often need additional screening when they set off the magnetometer.

Our brave servicemen and women are on the front lines in the fight against terrorism. Surely some kind of expedited treatment at an airport checkpoint is the least our country can do for them.

Currently there is no formal TSA requirement or process in place to screen our servicemen and women in any expedited fashion. At some airports, Transportation Security Officers may escort members of the Armed Forces to the front of the checkpoint, but at other airports no such special treatment is given.

So Mr. Bachus' amendment is an excellent one. It's just common sense that a formal checkpoint screening process should be established for servicemen and women who sacrifice so much for their country.

And finally, these men and women place themselves in harm's way to the benefit of our American way of life. The very least we can do is make the airport checkpoint experience as smooth and as pleasurable as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I'm not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires the TSA to report on the number of claims it receives for lost and damaged property, as well as the value of that property and an estimation on the time and resources necessary to resolve such claims.

The men and women of the TSA work hard every day to protect the property entrusted into their care. While the underlying premise is faulty, in that it assumes TSA personnel are to blame for loss or damage associated with baggage, the information gleaned from this report might prove useful in allocating additional resources to manage these claims.

The TSA has instituted a process in which a tag is placed inside every bag they open and inspect. This includes bags that are sealed and require a forcible entry.

Unfortunately, the traveling public is sometimes quick to blame the TSA for any loss or damage associated with their luggage, as opposed to the air carriers, baggage handlers, or simple errors in bar code scanning.

This report may prove useful in identifying any possible improvements to the TSA notification and claims process.

So, as I said, I support the amendment.

At this time, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

While the Transportation Worker Identification Credential, TWIC, card was intended to be the one security credential required of port workers nationwide, some State governments could not wait for the Federal Government to establish its programs, and they moved forward with their own.

Currently, as has been stated, Florida is one State requiring a separate and, some argue, duplicative security background check and card for workers entering port facilities. While it's unfortunate that Florida port employees are required to pay for background checks twice, TSA cannot share the results of its background checks with Florida.

Florida State law allows for individuals to be disqualified even if they were found qualified by the TSA due to differences in disqualifying crimes. Perhaps a better amendment would have been to allow TSA to share the results of its TWIC background checks with Florida. I would suggest that as a better amendment than the one currently before us.

As written, this amendment would preempt Florida from continuing their security background check program, a program that the Florida State Legislature strongly supports. Additionally, some workers in port facilities receive criminal background checks, drug and alcohol testing, and credit checks as part of their screening process.

Many have distinguished this type of employment screening from the security-focused screening of the TWIC program. It is unclear if DHS would see the Waterfront Commission's background check as being preempted under this amendment because it is an employment-safety criminal background check, not a security background check.

While the amendment does allow a State to demonstrate a ``compelling homeland security reason'' that a separate background check is warranted, this places an extraordinary burden on a State legislature. State legislatures should have the right to determine what offenses qualify as disqualifying offenses in their ports, and this amendment would preempt that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Speaker, first I'd like to thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) for the time. And I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, Mr. Speaker, if I may, I'd like to remember and ask the House to recall that today is June 4. Twenty years ago a massacre occurred in Beijing. Thousands of students and other pro-democracy activists were murdered. Subsequently, they were rounded up, those who had not been murdered, who had been in the square, and thrown in dungeons and tortured. And so it's been 20 years, but we cannot forget.

The regime is still in power there. They haven't had much reason to regret their murders and their systematic oppression of the people. But over you, in something that distinguishes this Congress, we read the words ``In God We Trust.'' And I do. I trust that justice will be done, and that those who committed the murders at Tiananmen Square in June of 1989 will be brought to justice. We can never forget, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to the rule being brought forth today, bringing forth important legislation to the floor today, in order to protect our transportation systems after the cowardly attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law on November 19, 2001, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. That legislation created the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, improving

aviation security and restoring public confidence in air travel.

The underlying legislation that's being brought forth today for consideration by the Congress, by this rule, authorizes $7.6 billion in appropriations for the TSA during the fiscal year 2010, and provides a 6 percent across-the-board increase for fiscal year 2011.

In their report to Congress, the 9/11 Commission criticized the existing process for allocation of Federal homeland security grants. The report recommended that, ``Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities,'' and that the distribution of the grants ``should not remain a program for general revenue sharing.'' I have long worked to make certain that homeland security assistance follows the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and that funds are distributed through risk-based assessments. As such, I am pleased that this legislation requires TSA to update Congress on its implementation of a risk-based system for allocating security resources.

The underlying legislation would establish an Aviation Security Advisory Committee to assist and make recommendations to the Secretary with issues pertaining to aviation security. It also establishes an Air Cargo Working Group to provide recommendations for the implementation of the cargo screening initiatives proposed by the TSA to meet the 100 percent air cargo screening mandates set forth in the ``Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act.''

I am pleased there is a provision that provides for the reimbursement of airports that took the initiative and used their own funding to install explosive detection systems after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Those airports installed the systems after receiving assurances from the Federal Government that they would be reimbursed for these expensive yet very important protection systems. Unfortunately, after all these years, we're still waiting for the Federal Government to provide the promised reimbursement. I congratulate our colleague, Mr. Bilirakis, for having this important provision included in the legislation.

While I plan to support the underlying legislation, Mr. Speaker, I must express concerns that the legislation was really rushed to the floor by the majority. On such an important issue as the safety of our transportation systems, one would think the majority would want the input of the very agency affected by the legislation. And yet it decided it was more important to move forward than to wait until the administration, the new administration, had selected a TSA administrator who could provide Congress the necessary input and new ideas on how Congress can improve the agency. So the majority, it can be said, used excessive haste to rush the bill to the floor.

On Thursday, May 14, the majority announced that the House would consider the Transportation Security Administration reauthorization bill the week of May 18. However, at the time of the announcement, the legislative language of the bill was nowhere to be found.

The majority kept the text, as you know upon which amendments are based or can be based, hidden under lock and key until late on Monday, May 18. And just as they released the text, they set a hard and fast deadline of 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 20, for Members to submit their amendments. What this did was give Members, in effect, one business day to read the legislation that reauthorizes the TSA and draft and submit amendments. The majority justified their short amendment deadline by saying that the Rules Committee was going to meet the next day, Thursday, to report a rule for amendments, with the idea that the bill would be on the floor on Friday, May 22.

But the House decided to leave for the Memorial Day district work period on Thursday evening, without considering the TSA bill, and rather than allowing Members more time to review the bill, the majority pushed ahead, eliminating the opportunity for Members to further review the legislation and propose amendments to improve it.

I bring this up, Mr. Speaker, because it is not an anomaly on the majority's part, but it's business as usual. Since the majority took power in Congress in January 2007, Members have been given an average of one business day or less to submit amendments than we did when we were in the majority.

And that's important because it's important for people here representing their constituents to have time to read legislation before having to introduce amendments to try to improve the legislation.

I am pleased that the majority agreed to allow an amendment that I introduced in the Rules Committee for consideration. However, there were other amendments from Members on both sides of the aisle that were blocked.

For example, the majority blocked an amendment by Representative Souder that would require the TSA to place all of the detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility on the no-fly list, an amendment that I'm sure would have overwhelming support on the floor.

So I would simply urge the majority to allow an open process, as it promised in its campaign, and not just on noncontroversial legislation such as this one. This is legislation, in terms of the merits of the legislation, it was brought forth in a bipartisan manner within the committee. The chairman, Mr. Thompson, is known to work in a very respectful and bipartisan manner with all of the members of his committee, and I think all of us are grateful for that and commend him for it.

So I would urge, though, that not only on noncontroversial legislation but also on upcoming, for example, health care and climate change legislation, that openness be allowed in the House. It's important. It's, I think, required by the spirit of the democratic process. So both of these upcoming pieces of legislation, energy, health care, they will obviously have far-reaching consequences for our constituents and for the economy, and so I would hope that on such important issues the majority does not block the opportunity for Members of the House to bring forth their amendments seeking to improve the legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to a distinguished colleague who works ceaselessly for the security of the American people. Unfortunately, a very important amendment that he came to the Rules Committee on to be made in order, was denied on a party line vote by the majority, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

I yield 3 additional minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield again 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), who is extremely concerned about this issue, and rightfully so.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend if he has any other speakers.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to thank everybody who has participated in this debate. I think it's been very fruitful, and I think it's been important.

I mentioned before that when I first spoke on this legislation that process is important because it affects fairness, obviously, but it also affects legislation. We are dealing today--we are bringing to the floor legislation that I am sure will pass by an overwhelming majority on a bipartisan basis. It's important legislation. It's been drafted through the committee process in a bipartisan fashion, and that's commendable.

I mentioned that on legislation like this--and quite frankly, also, on legislation that's coming to the floor soon that's more controversial--openness, as much as possible, is advisable. We saw an amendment described by Mr. Souder that is important because it basically, as it was explained by Mr. Souder, his interventions would take out of the hands of the President the ultimate determination of whether somebody currently held at the detention center in Guantanamo could be placed or not on the No Fly List, and it would say that automatically those people would be on the No Fly List. And that's important. It's an example of why process is important because being denied--Mr. Souder is being denied the opportunity to present the amendment. I think that's unfortunate.

Anyway, as I say, the underlying legislation is one that I'm certain will pass with great bipartisan support. And again, I reiterate my gratitude to all colleagues who have debated on the rule, and, obviously, I look forward to the debate on the underlying legislation.

Having said that, I yield back my time.

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