Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 934, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, under this legislation, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands will have parity with other U.S. territories by gaining jurisdiction over its submerged lands out to 3 geographic miles. The other territories were given jurisdiction over submerged lands out to 3 geographic miles in the 1974 Submerged Lands Act. It is time that the Commonwealth is given the same authority, and this legislation provides that.

And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I have one additional speaker. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman is the last speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of H.R. 762. H.R. 762 will validate an existing patent for land in addition to the associated land configurations located in Clark and Lincoln Counties in Nevada. This action best enables the recovery of the threatened desert tortoise and other species and their habitats.

I, too, would like to congratulate Mr. Heller of Nevada for bringing this issue to our attention and for moving quickly to resolve this on behalf of his constituents.

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I have no more time or people asking for time. If the gentlewoman is the last speaker on that side, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, to provide open disclosure, I am submitting the following information regarding a project that I support for inclusion in H.R. 2487, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010.

Amount: $100,000

Account:-U.S. Department of Justice

Entity receiving funds: Washington State Meth Initiative located at 510 Tacoma Avenue South, Tacoma, WA 98402.

Description: These funds will be used to implement this anti- methamphetamine initiative, which brings together law enforcement, prosecutors, and treatment professionals from across the state to work together to address all aspects of the meth epidemic.

Madam Speaker, to provide open disclosure, I am submitting the following information regarding projects that I support for inclusion in H.R. 2997, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010.

Amoung: $254,000

Account: USDA's Agriculture Research Service

Entity receiving funds: Northwest Center for Small Fruits Research located at 4845 Southwest Dresden Avenue, Corvallis, OR 97333.

Description: These funds will be used to continue research on sustainability and pathology for small fruits, including berries and wine grapes, that is critical to the Pacific Northwest small fruits industry.

Amount: $3,654,000

Account: USDA's Agriculture Research Service (ARS)--Buildings and Construction

Entity receiving funds: USDA's Agriculture Research Service's Pullman lab, located at 3003 ADBF, WSU, Pullman, WA 99164.

Description: These funds will be used to construct a new research facility in Pullman to be jointly used by Washington State University and Agriculture Research Service scientists.

Amount: $245,000

Account: Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Services (CSREES)

Entity receiving funds: Washington State University's Office of Grant and Research Development, located at 423 Neill Hall, Pullman, WA 99164.

Description: These funds will be used for the development of biomass potential of aegilops cylindricum and similar grassy weeds.

Amount: $173,000

Account: Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Services (CSREES)

Entity receiving funds: Washington State University's Office of Grant and Research Development, located at 423 Neill Hall, Pullman, WA 99164.

Description: These funds will be used to continue research to develop technologies, such as mechanized harvesters, that increase the competitiveness of the U.S. asparagus industry, which has been harmed by high levels of imported asparagus from Peru.

Amount: $469,000

Account: Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Services (CSREES)

Entity receiving funds: Washington State University's Office of Grant and Research Development, located at 423 Neill Hall, Pullman, WA 99164.

Description: These funds will be used to continue the efforts of the International Marketing Program for Agriculture Commodities and Trade (IMPACT) Center at Washington State University, which develops new export marketing opportunities for Washington agricultural products.

Amount: $235,000

Account: Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Services (CSREES)

Entity receiving funds: Washington State University's Office of Grant and Research Development, located at 423 Neill Hall, Pullman, WA 99164.

Description: These funds will be used to continue research to improve the efficiency of cool season legumes, including dry peas, fresh peas, lentils, and chickpeas, which are important rotational crops in the Northwest.

Amount: $248,000

Account: Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Services (CSREES)

Entity receiving funds: Washington State University's Office of Grant and Research Development, located at 423 Neill Hall, Pullman, WA 99164.

Description: These funds will be used to continue research on organic cropping systems, nutrient and soil management, and organic seed production.

Amount: $1,037,000

Account: Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Services (CSREES)

Entity receiving funds: Washington State University's Office of Grant and Research Development, located at 423 Neill Hall, Pullman, WA 99164.

Description: These funds will be used for the continued development and commercialization of new potato varieties.

Amount: $471,000

Account: Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Services (CSREES)

Entity receiving funds: Oregon State University, located at 312 Kerr Administration Building, Corvallis, OR 97331, and Washington State University's Office of Grant and Research Development, located at 423 Neill Hall, Pullman, WA 99164.

Description: These funds will be used to continue the development of research to located and characterize genes of economic importance and use these genes in applied barley breeding.

Amount: $307,000

Account: Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Services (CSREES)

Entity receiving funds: Oregon State University, located at 312 Kerr Administration Building, Corvallis, OR 97331.

Description: These funds will be used for continued research on berry and grape crops, including plant breeding and pest management.

Amount: $444,000

Account: Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Services (CSREES)

Entity receiving funds: Washington State University's Office of Grant and Research Development, located at 423 Neill Hall, Pullman, WA 99164.

Description: These funds will be used to continue research into the development of planting systems that reduce soil erosion.

Amount: $223,000

Account: Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Services (CSREES)

Entity receiving funds: Washington State University's Office of Grant and Research Development, located at 423 Neill Hall, Pullman, WA 99164.

Description: These funds will be used to continue the development of virus-free plant material to Northwest wine grape growers to ensure the continued health of the industry.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I do admire my friend from Arizona. His persistence on this is absolutely incredible, and I share a lot of the goals that he is trying to accomplish.

I really think that the gentleman's problem is not so much with individual programs and maybe his problem is with the Ag-Research Service, and maybe the gentleman ought to introduce a bill to get rid of the Ag-Research Service, and that would probably take care of all the underlying problems.

But the point is the Ag-Research Service has been involved in research of a number of crops, including potatoes, for a number of years. This does go to the Northwest. Fifty percent of the potatoes that are grown in the United States are grown in Idaho, Washington and Oregon. There are three State universities that are involved. University of Idaho, Washington State University and Oregon State university submit funds for this research with these matching dollars.

In addition, the potato commissions in each of those respective States match those dollars. And as a result, we have developed varieties of potatoes now that are more disease resistant. I think the tonnage, for example, in the last 50 years has increased greatly in Washington State because of the new varieties, potatoes they have brought on the market. In fact, 100,000 acres are these new varieties that people may or may not like.

And, again, the issue is, okay, maybe we shouldn't have any research at all in government funded. That's another debate. And the gentleman had mentioned that only powerful Members of Congress, you know, get these earmarks. I would mention to the gentleman, before I came to Congress 15 years ago, this program was in existence and the funding this year is precisely level with last year. This is not new funding.

So I would suggest to the gentleman that in this case, with potatoes, they are not a program crop.

When potato farmers go out and plant their crops, they are probably the biggest gamblers in the world. And yet they don't mind putting some of their hard-earned cash when they make a profit into this research, because that may make them an even bigger gambler next year with one of their varieties.

So I respect the gentleman with what he is trying to do, but his issue may not be with individual crops. And this amendment goes to an individual crop in my area. Maybe his issue is with Ag-Research Service in general, that's a matter for another debate.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, this bill was written in a fantasy land where unemployment isn't reaching 10 percent, thousands haven't lost homes to foreclosure, and millions haven't witnessed half their retirement savings disappear. By imposing this national energy tax and creating a massive new bureaucracy to regulate the entire economy, this bill will drive up the cost of doing business in America, sending jobs overseas to China and India, nations that flat out refuse to reduce their own carbon emissions.

We are told America must lead by example. Are we to believe that after the government drives America's economy further into the gutter, the rest of the world will do the same?

Madam Speaker, America should not be the first lemming to jump off the cliff just because Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore are convinced that China, India and Russia and others will follow us over the ledge. Republicans have an all-of-the-above energy plan to build more nuclear power and invest in cleaner alternative energies funded by drilling oil here in America. Yet, Madam Speaker, Democrats refuse to even allow a vote on this plan.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Madam Speaker, this bill has been written in a fantasyland where unemployment isn't reaching 10 percent, thousands haven't lost their homes to foreclosure, and millions haven't witnessed half of their 401k's and retirement savings disappear.

By imposing a national energy tax, our economy will shrink in size, millions of jobs will be lost, energy costs will, to use the President's own word, ``skyrocket'', and gas prices will again reach record highs.

By creating a massive new government bureaucracy to regulate the entire economy, this bill will drive up the cost of doing business in America, sending jobs overseas to countries like China and India, nations that flat-out reject reducing their carbon emissions, and that are building coal-fired energy plants at a breakneck pace.

Democrats are trying to impose a high-priced, gourmet energy plan that restricts and dictates what specific sources of energy America should use. What our country actually needs is Republicans' all-of-the- above approach that says yes to nuclear power, yes to alternative energy, yes to wind and solar power, yes to energy from wood-waste and biomass, yes to hydro power, and, yes to opening more areas to drilling for oil and natural gas in America to reduce our vulnerability to spikes in prices at the pump because of turmoil in overseas oil nations.

America's economy can't afford this Democrat plan to cherry-pick a few high-priced energy sources. Creating green jobs makes good sense, but creating nuclear jobs, drilling jobs, green jobs and all new energy jobs is far, far better for America's economy.

America's economy is ailing, and enacting a new national energy tax is like a doctor ordering his sick patient to go stand outside in the cold rain. Our economy needs to recover, not be made sicker.

We're told America must lead by example, and then the rest of the world will follow. Are we to believe that after the federal government drives America's economy further into the gutter, the rest of world will do the same?

Yet, Democrats have refused to condition putting this national energy tax into force upon reciprocal action by China and the world's other nations.

Madam Speaker, America should not be the first lemming to jump off the cliff just because Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore are convinced that China, India, Russia and others will follow us over the ledge.

And what would this Democrat scheme do with the hundreds of billions of dollars taxed away from families and businesses? Shockingly, this bill would give away billions in foreign aid. In fact, this bill pays four times as much in foreign aid than it provides to the over two and half million Americans who will lose their jobs because of this bill. And on top of that foreign aid, it pays five times as much to countries to protect tropical trees than it does to help jobless Americans.

We don't need the biggest job-killing tax in history to reduce carbon emissions and put in place cleaner energy sources.

We can promote nuclear power that emits no carbon and we can invest in new alternative energies funded by revenues from simply getting our oil here in America rather than from volatile foreign nations.

This is the Republicans' all-of-the-above energy plan--called the American Energy Act. Yet the Democrats refuse to even allow a vote on it.

Democrats are forcing Congress to either accept or reject their national energy tax and high-priced, gourmet energy mandates. The only right choice to protect our economy and American jobs is to vote no.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I rise to enter into a brief colloquy with my friend from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

In this bill, in the underlying bill, there are monies for land acquisition, national forest land acquisition. I know that the gentleman and I have a little different view on that. I am not necessarily in favor of land acquisition for the Federal Government, and I know you have a different view on that.

But there is a provision in this bill that allows for land acquisition within my district, and I have specifically said in the past that I don't want to have any more land acquisition in my district.

My understanding, and the way the language is is that there would be some allowance for that land acquisition to happen in other Members' districts, principally in western Washington, until--at least we have an opportunity in my district. Counties are concerned about that because it takes land off the tax rolls.

So I would wonder if the ranking member would work with me on this land acquisition so that we can at least satisfy the counties' concerns should this land acquisition move forward.

With that, I would yield to my friend from Washington.

That is the land I am talking about, yes.

Yes, that's correct.

Good.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. Again, the basis of that is I have heard from my local county commissioners, smaller rural counties than what is on the other side of the mountains, and they are concerned about the loss of revenue, rightfully so. And so I want to make sure that on anything like that they are at least made whole.

And I appreciate the gentleman taking a look at that, and I look forward to working with him. And I would yield if he has more to say on that.

Good.

I thank the gentleman for taking that and for his work, and I look forward to working with him.

Madam Speaker, to provide open disclosure, I am submitting the following information regarding projects that I support for inclusion in H.R. 2892, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for 2010.

Amount: $12 million

Account: Department of Homeland Security--Science and Technology Directorate Account: Research, Development, and Operations--Laboratory Facilities.

Entity receiving funds: The U.S. Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) located at P.O. Box 999, Richland,

Madam Chairman, I thank my friend from Kentucky for yielding, and I rise to engage in colloquy with Chairman Price.

Mr. Chairman, as you quickly know we are quickly approaching the August 2009 deadline to screen 100 percent of the cargo transported on passenger airplanes. I commend you and Ranking Member Rogers for your work to provide adequate funding to help TSA meet the important requirements without slowing commerce.

The cargo screening requirement has already gone into effect at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in the Northwest and other major west coast airports. Cherry growers in my district, who transport half of the cherries they export on passenger aircraft, will only be able to ship their fruit in a timely manner this season because TSA has committed to bringing in resources from other parts of the country. This will not be possible once the 100 percent requirement goes into effect nationwide.

As you know, Madam Chairman, perishable items like cherries can be harmed by screening equipment and even delayed in getting to market. Canine teams have been identified as the most workable way to screen cherries and other perishable items. I was pleased to work with Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas and Mr. Rogers of Alabama to offer an amendment to the TSA authorization bill earlier this month to increase the number of canine teams used for air-cargo screening by no less than 100 teams. This amendment passed the House by a voice vote.

Now, while the TSA authorization bill has yet to be signed into law, Mr. Chairman, is it your intention that TSA utilize funds provided in this bill to train additional canine teams? And I yield.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for this clarification and again, for the ranking member, Mr. Rogers, and for your attention to this important issue. I look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure that the 100 percent air-cargo screening requirement is met 100 percent without unnecessarily harming cherry growers.

I want to thank my friend from Florida for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, there is no greater priority for the Federal Government than the defense of our Nation, and the Defense Authorization bill is a vehicle for setting military priorities for our country.

This bill also has jurisdiction over the Nation's defense nuclear waste cleanup program administered by the Department of Energy. The Environmental Management program within the Department is responsible for cleaning up the waste of our Nation's nuclear weapons production sites; production sites like Hanford, in my district, that secured our Nation's victory in World War II and in the Cold War.

As a result of that work, these sites are now contaminated with massive volumes of radioactive and hazardous waste. The Federal Government has a legal obligation to clean up these sites.

As this bill, Mr. Speaker, has moved through the process, there have been several proposals by both Democrats and Republicans to move specific military projects by reducing the authorization for nuclear waste funding. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear on what these proposals are really about. It's about setting our Nation's defense priorities and not a judgment on the merits of cleaning up our nuclear waste sites.

The nuclear cleanup program is being used as a piggy bank for these priorities since, Mr. Speaker, it's the only sizable source of funds within this bill that doesn't directly fund our troops or equipment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know why nuclear cleanup is being used by both parties as a piggy bank. I absolutely don't support those actions, and I will vote against those actions, but in doing so, I want to be clear that it is in the appropriations process where cleanup money becomes real.

Insufficient funding in the appropriations process would have real and serious consequences on cleaning up these sites. The cleanup program simply cannot sustain continued appropriation reductions without jeopardizing progress, breaking legally binding commitments to States, and increasing long-term costs to taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, for 15 years I have worked in a bipartisan way to raise awareness of the Federal Government's cleanup obligation and to remind my colleagues again that the effort at these sites helped us win both World War II and the Cold War.

I will continue to stand up for cleanup where needed. In doing so, I am determined that the effort to promote cleanup be a bipartisan effort.

With that, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, last evening, I was patiently waiting here on the House floor to offer an amendment to the Commerce-Justice-Science spending bill. The Democratic leadership suddenly moved to shut down debate and to cut off our ability to represent our constituents and to offer ideas to improve this legislation.

At 8 p.m. last night, the rules of the House allowed me to offer my amendment, but this morning, under the rewriting of the rules, I am blocked from doing so. I deeply regret this unfairness and this hostility in letting Representatives--Members of Congress--come to the House floor for just 5 minutes and offer amendments to a bill that spends $64 billion.

The amendment that I am blocked from offering, frankly, is very simple. It would restore the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund that has received strong bipartisan support for years and is an existing program but which this bill has explicitly eliminated. The Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund is a successful grants-to-States program used to help recover and to conserve endangered, threatened, at-risk, and important tribal salmon runs on the Pacific coast.

In April, President Obama proposed in his budget to eliminate this fund and to transfer the funds to another fund. From the Northwest, the reaction was bipartisan and very swift. The success of this long- standing program was so compelling that the Obama administration reversed its course, to their credit, and sent a letter to Congress, seeking to restore the funds to this recovery plan. My amendment, which I am now blocked from offering on this floor, would simply adopt the Obama administration's position.

So, Mr. Speaker, I regret this unprecedented rule restricting House debate, and this successful endangered salmon recovery program will suffer for it. The House action to eliminate this plan, frankly, will make it much more difficult for the Senate to deal with in the other body.

This amendment is very simple. It would restore the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund that is eliminated in the bill and Committee report.

The Recovery Fund is a long-standing, successful grants-to-states program used to help recover and conserve endangered, threatened, at- risk and important tribal salmon runs on the Pacific Coast, or for the conservation of Pacific coastal salmon and steelhead habitat.

The Fund delivers grants directly to states to be administered.

For years, it has received strong bipartisan support.

However, in April, President Obama submitted in his budget request to Congress, a proposal that eliminated the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, and transferred a reduced amount of funding to a much broader nationwide species recovery grant program.

From the Pacific Northwest, the reaction and opposition to this proposed elimination was swift, bipartisan, loud and clear.

The success of this decade-long grant program was so compelling, and the efforts of the Northwest congressional delegation were so persuasive, that the Obama Administration actually reversed course.

On May 21st, President Obama sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi amending his April submission to specifically request that ``$50 million shall be transferred to `Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery'.''

Credit is due to the Obama Administration for abandoning their elimination proposal and clearly expressing their support for this program. I thank them and the people of the Pacific Northwest thank them.

Yet, the annual appropriations bill currently before the House proposes to actually follow through with eliminating the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund.

As this bill and Committee report are written, the Fund is specifically and explicitly eliminated and money is moved to a vague, broad, nationwide recovery program. Monies in this vague, new program will go to ``salmon projects''.

Gone is the Fund, its direct grants to states, its requirement of matching funds, its emphasis on endangered salmon and runs important to Northwest tribes.

In its place, this bill provides less money, dilutes it to any project of any sort for salmon anywhere in the country, and lets NOAA rather than states decide how it is spent.

My amendment would restore the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund as it has long existed and direct funds to the traditionally funded states.

The text of my amendment copies the language of the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations bill that passed in March of this year. Just three months ago, this House and this Congress approved this same text.

My amendment would keep funding at the same level singled out for ``salmon projects'' in the bill, $50 million, but it makes certain the funds are administered through the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, which is the official position and request of the Obama Administration.

To object to this amendment would be to insist on the first Obama budget's vague, diluted salmon funding proposal that has been so loudly, soundly, and rightly rejected.

Amendment to H.R. 2847, as Reported Offered by Mr. Hastings of

Washington

Page 14, line 3, after the colon insert the following:

``Provided further, For necessary expenses associated with

the restoration of Pacific salmon populations, $50,000,000 to

remain available until September 30, 2010: Provided further,

That of the funds provided herein the Secretary of Commerce

may issue grants to the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho,

California, and Alaska and Federally-recognized tribes of the

Columbia River and Pacific Coast for projects necessary for

restoration of salmon and steelhead populations that are

listed as threatened or endangered, or identified by a State

as at-risk to be so-listed, for maintaining populations

necessary for exercise of tribal treaty fishing rights or

native subsistence fishing, or for conservation of Pacific

coastal salmon and steelhead habitat, based on guidelines to

be developed by the Secretary of Commerce: Provided further,

That funds disbursed to States shall be subject to a matching

requirement of funds or documented in-kind contributions of

at least 33 percent of the Federal funds:''.

Madam Speaker, to provide open disclosure, I am submitting the following information regarding projects that I support for inclusion in H.R. 2487, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010.

Amount: $500,000.

Account: U.S. Department of Justice--Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Entity receiving funds: City of Yakima located at 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901.

Description: These funds will be used to continue development of a system that allows all the public safety agencies in Yakima County to integrate their data communications and records systems. This system will provide comprehensive data to all local law enforcement officials, as well as federal and state agencies.

Amount: $400,000.

Account: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Entity receiving funds: Yakima County located at 128 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901.

Description: Funds will be used to develop and implement a county- wide comprehensive response to the serious and worsening youth gang problem in the region, including prevention, intervention, and suppression programs.

Offered By: Mr. Hastings of Washington

Amendment No. 20: Page 14, line 3, after the colon insert

the following: ``Provided further, For necessary expenses

associated with the restoration of Pacific salmon

populations, $50,000,000 to remain available until September

30, 2010: Provided further, That of the funds provided herein

the Secretary of Commerce may issue grants to the States of

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, and Alaska and

Federally-recognized tribes of the Columbia River and Pacific

Coast for projects necessary for restoration of salmon and

steelhead populations that are listed as threatened or

endangered, or identified by a State as at-risk to be so-

listed, for maintaining populations necessary for exercise of

tribal treaty fishing rights or native subsistence fishing,

or for conservation of Pacific coastal salmon and steelhead

habitat, based on guidelines to be developed by the Secretary

of Commerce: Provided further, That funds disbursed to States

shall be subject to a matching requirement of funds or

documented in-kind contributions of at least 33 percent of

the Federal funds:''.

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

Mr. Speaker, I join with Chairman Rahall to support this resolution to condemn the tragic shooting at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum yesterday. Our prayers go out to the family of Security Officer Steven Tyrone Johns, an innocent victim of this outrage.

Mr. Speaker, that this violent act and needless death occurred at a memorial erected to peace and tolerance by reminding the world of the deaths and horrors of the Holocaust is, to me, simply unspeakable.

So, Mr. Speaker, I simply urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Republican Caucus Chair, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time is on both sides?

My understanding is my friend from West Virginia has more requests for time than I do, and I'd be more than happy to yield him 9 of those 10 minutes to dispense with as he sees fit, with the understanding, if I do get some Members, I can reclaim some of that time. And I ask unanimous consent that he control that 9 minutes.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good resolution, and it is responsive to what happened yesterday at a place where something like this should never happen. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for the resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas and Mr. Rogers of Alabama, for cosponsoring this very important amendment.

Mr. Chairman, highly trained K-9 teams have been successfully employed in the United States to screen airports and cargo since 1973. Dogs are extremely reliable and their mobility makes them invaluable in screening all types of cargo quickly and effectively.

As we approach the August 2010 deadline to screen 100 percent of cargo transported on passenger airplanes, it is critical that the TSA is able to deal with all types of cargo without necessarily slowing down exports. Within my district, cherry growers transport half of the cherries they export on passenger aircraft, and K-9s are by far the most workable screening method for these highly perishable products.

My amendment would increase the number of K-9 teams specifically dedicated to air cargo by a minimum of 100 dogs. The need for additional K-9s to screen air cargo is clear. For example, the Seattle- Tacoma International Airport began screening all of its cargo earlier this year. In order to meet the needs of all exporters, TSA will bring K-9 teams to the Pacific Northwest and other parts of the country during the cherry harvest to ensure that all cherries are screened in a timely manner. Once a 100 percent screening requirement goes into effect next year, the burden on all existing K-9 teams will only increase.

At a time when our economy is struggling, we should not be adding new roadblocks for American farmers and businesses. I strongly urge my colleagues to support keeping our skies secure without interrupting commerce and vote ``yes'' on the Hastings/Jackson-Lee/Rogers amendment.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to thank my friend from Texas for her thoughtful remarks and for working on this issue. Agri-business is big in our area, and cherry season is a very tight time frame. It is important that nothing slows down the process of getting these cherries to market. So with that, I want to thank my friend from Guam for also endorsing this amendment, and with that, I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

I yield back my time.