Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask the members of this distinguished body to join me in remembering Virgil ``Sonny'' Daffron, an upstanding resident of the Fifth Congressional District of Kentucky. Sonny passed away on December 27, 2004, at the age of 79.

Ever since he was a boy growing up in Junction City, Kentucky, Sonny Daffron never met a stranger. Anyone who knew him would agree that he was one of the friendliest people who ever lived. His outgoing personality served as a source of joy and inspiration for all those he encountered. He took this friendly demeanor with him to Wayne County, Kentucky, where he lived with his family during his school years. It was there that he found the love of his life, Marcia Frances Kelsay.

Sonny and Marcia were a match made in heaven. Sonny would recount stories of how he'd walk past the Kelsay home numerous times each day hoping to catch a glimpse of his sweetheart. Although Sonny's brave service in the United States Navy took him away from Marcia from 1943 to 1946, his love for her did not falter. He promised himself that when he returned home, he would make Marcia his wife.

He kept that promise, and on April 6, 1947, Sonny and Marcia were married.

In addition to being a faithful husband, Sonny was a loving father to four children: Danny Moore, Annette Susan, Stephen Denton and David Scott. He was also ``PePaw'' to five granddaughters, three grandsons, two great-granddaughters and one great-grandson.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of Sonny Daffron. While he will be sorely missed, I am confident his legacy wi11 live on forever in the hearts and minds of his loving family and many friends.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the true diamonds working inside the rough and tumble granite rock of the Federal Government that will be leaving her post on January 31, 2005. The gem I'm referring to is Adair County, Kentucky, native and USDA Rural Utilities Service Administrator, Hilda Gay Legg.

I had the privilege of working closely with Hilda prior to her appointment to RUS. She served as executive director and CEO of the Center for Rural Development in Somerset, Kentucky, from 1994 until October 2001. Hilda provided true leadership by turning an upstart conference site into a world class community-oriented interactive center. In that position, she helped develop and implement a broadband telecommunications program in rural communities throughout southern and eastern Kentucky. The Center grew to manage 40 Internet centers that offer high speed, interactive video conferencing and community access to computers. Thanks to the solid foundation built by Hilda, those activities continue today.

In 2001, President George W. Bush tapped Hilda as the 15th person, and first woman, to serve as the Administrator of the Rural Electrification Administration--Rural Utilities Service. Shortly thereafter, Congress passed the landmark 2002 Farm Bill which in turn launched a number of new RUS initiatives including a broadband loan and grant program, energy efficiency grants, weather radio grants, and local television guarantees. Hilda took these new responsibilities in stride, leading the agency with professionalism and accomplishing much of our agenda.

While Administrator, Hilda approved some 5,570 loans and grants totaling nearly $20 billion. These funds will improve water quality in communities throughout America, provide access to top-level treatment in our rural health clinics, and give our schools Internet access to the world. Under her faithful and deliberate watch RUS programs increased by nearly 60 percent while loan delinquency was a mere .1 percent. Hilda's leadership also improved loan processing efficiency, set in motion an intense review of risk management, and accomplished much toward President Bush's goals in the areas of efficient and effective management, broadband deployment, energy independence, and job creation in rural America.

Hilda has never ceased to serve as an advocate for rural America and she has done so with remarkable class, spunk, and spirit. As her legacy still remains at the Center for Rural Development, I am confident it will also remain at RUS and in communities throughout the nation that have been touched by her efforts.

Mr. Speaker, although the Federal Government is losing out with Hilda's retirement, I can selfishly say I am thrilled that this precious gem is coming home to Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated advocate of academic excellence, Mr. Ron Eaglin. After serving more than 12 years as president of Morehead State University, President Eaglin is retiring and embarking on a new stage of life. I want to express my deepest gratitude for his many contributions.

President Eaglin has led a distinguished career in academia, playing a critical role in improving the lives of countless students from across my congressional district in Southern and Eastern Kentucky. Under his leadership, Morehead State University has taken great strides forward and garnered national recognition as one of the top public regional universities in the South.

During President Eaglin's tenure, the University opened two regional campuses, worked toward the creation of Kentucky's first online degree program, created the Space Science Center, and developed only the fourth space science bachelor's degree in America. MSU also achieved its highest enrollments in the school's 117-year history, peaking at 9,509 in the fall of 2003. Through his tireless efforts, the school's institutional endowment rose from $500,000 to $25 million. He's also overseen $75 million in capital construction projects, which have greatly enhanced MSU's campus. These are just a few of President Eaglin's many accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank President Ron Eaglin for the time and effort he has invested in the lives of students in Kentucky, and for his friendship throughout the years. Although his days with Morehead State University are drawing to a close, I know his contributions will live on for many years to come. I want to wish him and his family all the best for this new chapter in life.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and congratulate him on a wonderful performance on this bill, as well as the ranking member.

I wanted to take just a few seconds here to praise the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the full committee chairman, for the grueling work that he has done to bring to this floor aid for Florida but also the other States who suffered damage from the recent hurricanes.

As late as at least two o'clock this morning, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) was on the telephone, in the office, with the staff, running from room to room, to make this happen. This was a grueling experience, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was a part of that effort, as well as many others, but I just wanted to say thank you to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for caring for his people.

Now, he legislates for the Nation, and he is the chairman for the full Committee on Appropriations for the whole Nation, but his State was ravaged by these four unprecedented hurricanes, with people living in tents, without electricity and in dire straits, and he cared for his people enough to work around the clock to make this happen. I just wanted to take a second to say thank you to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider a conference report to accompany H.R. 4567; that the conference report be considered as read; and that all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration be waived.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the conference report that is being filed is precisely as it was when we left conference.

Correct.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4567) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 4567, and that I may include tabular material.

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

Mr. Speaker, my intention is to be brief, and I hope that the debate today is brief because of the hour and the day of the week and the day of the session.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present to the body the second-ever conference report for the Department of Homeland Security. This agreement provides $32 billion for the Department. That is $1.1 billion above the current level and $496 million over the President's request. These amounts exclude the $2 billion supplemental provided in September for Hurricanes Charlie and Francis, as well as the $6.5 billion in supplemental funding formally included in as part of this bill for Ivan and Jeanne. Including these funds, the Department will receive $38.5 billion in fiscal year 2005.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention my concerns over attempts to add extraneous matters to this bill. I appreciate the desire by some people to attach legislative riders to appropriations bills. After all, appropriations bills are must-do legislation. However, these attempts, and in particular the actions taken by the other body to add extraneous matter, have led to unnecessary delays in the consideration of this bill that funds important homeland security programs.

My colleagues might be interested to know that FEMA is running out of money. Despite the $2 billion given to FEMA just 4 weeks ago, the pot is almost empty, practically drained dry. There is an unprecedented amount of work to be done in the country because

of Hurricanes Charlie, Francis, Ivan and Jeanne, and, simply put, without some very creative accounting, FEMA would be out of money today.

I am pleased that the Military Construction conference agreement includes emergency funds to help Florida, especially, recover from the devastation of the recent hurricanes, providing an additional $5.6 billion for those efforts.

Mr. Speaker, in just one year, the Department of Homeland Security has made tremendous progress. More work obviously needs to be done, but the Department, I think, is clearly on the right track, identifying our vulnerabilities, matching them to threats and putting out guidance on ways to protect our homeland. The conference agreement builds upon the successes of the past year and includes initiatives to move us closer to our goals of prevention, preparedness and response.

In the interests of time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight just a few of the items included in the proposed agreement, items I know are of interest to all of the Members.

First, there is $4 billion in the bill for our first responders. The agreement strikes a balance between funding high-risk communities and providing support for States and localities to achieve and maintain minimum levels of preparedness.

The bill includes $1.1 billion for the basic formula grants and $1.2 billion to improve security in our urban and most populated areas.

There is $9.8 billion in the bill for border protection and related activities, including $145 million for new inspection and detection technologies. There is $340 million for the U.S. Visit Program, and there is $1.1 billion for detention and removal operations on our borders. The conferees provide $26.5 million in new funding to provide 750 additional beds for detainees, permit removal of 5,000 additional deportable aliens, and reduce the risk that such aliens will be released into our communities while they await deportation.

This funding will also advance our efforts to create smart borders that keep terrorists out without stemming the flow of free commerce or legitimate travel into and from the country.

Thirdly, the conference agreement supports security for all modes of transportation, including $5.1 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, with $673 million for our Federal air marshals program. There is $118 million in the bill for air cargo screening, which we hear so much about. This money will support the hiring of 100 new air cargo inspectors, the development of new cargo screening technology and the expansion of canine enforcement teams. The bill also requires TSA to triple the number of cargo inspections on passenger aircraft.

Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker, in case someone may have questioned what I said. This bill requires the Transportation Security Administration to triple the number of cargo inspections on passenger planes.

The agreement also funds several initiatives for rail security, including $150 million for grants to high threat rail systems, hiring and deploying rail security inspectors and canine teams to screen for explosives and furthering intelligence-related activities.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there is $1.1 billion for science and technology, targeting the research and development of technologies to detect biohazards and nuclear detection technology for cargo. We also continue to fully fund R&D for anti-missile devices aimed at commercial aircraft.

Finally, there is $894 million for the information analysis and infrastructure protection. That is a mouthful, but it is to complete an inventory of critical infrastructure in the country, enhance current communications between Federal, State and local homeland security personnel, interoperability, if you will, and to assist local communities as they put protective measures in place to protect our hometowns.

Mr. Speaker, the important work of the Department of Homeland Security cannot be emphasized enough. I believe this conference agreement builds on the progress of the past year and substantially furthers the protection of our homeland. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee will soon bid farewell to our Congressional Fellow, Lt. Ben Nicholson, who has served the Committee on Appropriations over the past three years in two different Subcommittees.

Lt. Ben Nicholson has been detailed to the Committee from the United States Coast Guard since 2001. He served initially with the Transportation Subcommittee; spent a year helping establish the new Transportation-Treasury Subcommittee; and this year came to work with the Homeland Security Subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, the Appropriations Committee had never had a detailee from the Coast Guard. Lt. Ben Nicholson was a pathbreaker for the service in that role, and he performed admirably. He did everything we asked of him, with pinpoint accuracy and usually ahead of time. I would also add that he served the Committee during interesting times, perhaps more interesting than he imagined when he accepted the job. Eight months after he began, the 9/ 11 terrorist attacks occurred. Immediately after that, the anthrax attacks occurred. He assisted the Committee in overseeing the establishment of the Transportation Security Administration, including key analysis, which demonstrated the overstaffing of screening personnel in smaller airports. He made sure that shipbuilding loans for the Maritime Administration were contingent upon management improvements in the contracting and oversight process. And he properly evaluated, and helped us provide for, critical facility repairs at MARAD's James River Reserve Fleet, which was devastated by Hurricane Isabel last year. Ben's maritime experience and background were simply invaluable to our Committee.

On the Homeland Subcommittee, we have benefited from the experience Lt. Nicholson gained as a Coast Guard Officer, in particular his insights into the operations of a complex military organization that is combined with a large domestic agency. He has superb analytical skills that have been critical in our review of a $32 billion budget request and in developing complex spreadsheets that synthesize funding issues into easily understood documents we have used in hearings, closed briefings, in Full Committee, and on the floor. His infectious energy, his focus, and superb analytic and technical skills have also helped keep the momentum for this bill moving forward. His high standards of professionalism and thoroughness are beyond reproach, and his contributions have been highly valued.

Through all of this, Ben maintained the decorum and professionalism that we have all come to expect from our military officer corps, and he has represented the Coast Guard with the highest integrity and competence. Lt. Nicholson has served me, this Subcommittee, the Transportation-Treasury Subcommittee, and the House well. We are sorry to see him leave, and will miss him as our colleague--but are glad to count him as a friend. Each of us on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee wish Ben all the best as he moves forward in his career, where we anticipate seeing great things of him in the coming years.

I am grateful for his contributions.

Mr. Speaker, the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee will soon bid farewell to our Congressional Fellow, Brian Dunlop, who has served the Committee on Appropriations over the past 2 years in two different Subcommittees.

Mr. Dunlop will soon be leaving to resume duties as a senior Special Agent for the U.S. Secret Service. Special Agent Dunlop came to the former Treasury-Postal Subcommittee during the summer of 2002, and has proven himself indispensable to the smooth functioning of the Committee during the intense period surrounding the planning for, and inauguration of, the new Homeland Security Department and the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. His strong understanding of organizational dynamics, of operational issues and real-world, real- time considerations for building a successful new Department contributed significantly to the success of this subcommittee. Brian brought to the appropriations process clear, thoughtful analysis and mature judgment developed in his successful career in criminal investigation and protective operations. He has clearly mastered the technical issues and folkways of the appropriations process and he undoubtedly has as good a working knowledge of the nooks and crannies of the Department of Homeland Security as anyone working there.

Special Agent Dunlop has provided insight into sensitive law enforcement and security matters involved in setting up and overseeing DHS in its capacity as the newest member of the Intelligence Community. In this capacity, he facilitated the work of this Subcommittee by developing detailed analyses, preparing classified briefings, writing easy to understand factsheets and briefing packages on extremely technical issues; and developing and implementing complicated oversight travel for the Subcommittee. Brian has also been the ``go to'' man when the Subcommittee required answers on crosscutting law enforcement issues,

such as coordinating the security efforts of multiple agencies during high threat periods; as well as developing consistency in professional standards, training, and gun use policies throughout DHS.

Brian was instrumental in evaluating the need to deploy Infrastructure Protection personnel to states and localities, whose responsibility will be to work with the public and private sector to implement security measures to protect critical infrastructure. His analysis and recommendations will have lasting effects, as protective security advisors will now be on site in every state in order to better secure our nation's infrastructure.

Throughout his service here, Brian has shown unqualified professionalism, perception, and the great combination of a keen sense of humor, a cool head, and a modesty rarely seen on Capitol Hill. Special Agent Dunlop has served me, this Subcommittee, and the House well. We are sorry to see him leave, and will miss him as our colleague--but are glad to count him as a friend. Each of us on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee wish Brian all the best as he moves forward in his career, where we anticipate seeing great things of him in the coming years.

I am grateful for his contributions.

Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09OC04.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09OC04.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09OC04.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09OC04.042

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

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

We would not be here at this point in time without the gentleman whom I yield to next. This full chairman of our committee has been marvelous in this bill in helping us through. I believe this is the last of the appropriations bills that this full committee chairman will, in effect, manage before this body; and I know that he is enormously pleased with the passage, or soon to be passed, I am sure, of the MILCON bill that includes aid for his home State.

Mr. Speaker, we all owe a great debt of gratitude to this great public servant who has put up with all sorts of devilishness during the development of this bill, among others.

So I yield such time as he may consume to the honorable gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) who is a very valuable member of our subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a very hard-working member of our subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot close this debate without thanking some people. My colleague on the other side of the aisle has been marvelous to work with. He is demanding about the facts, but he is agreeable in working with us on the bill. I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) especially for his great work on this subcommittee, as he does in other parts of the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of this House was very, very instrumental as late as the early hours of this morning in trying to remove snags that might prevent this bill from being placed on the floor, and I have to publicly compliment the Speaker and thank him for taking the personal interest that he did in helping us to move the passage of the bill to the floor. I can say the same for the majority leader.

We had a tough snag that the other body had placed in the way of this bill's coming to the floor, and as late as 2 o'clock this morning, the Speaker of the House and your majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) were up there working in their offices on the telephones to make this day possible. I have to publicly compliment them on doing a great job to help us.

Mr. Speaker, finally, let me say thanks to this great staff. We would not be here without them. They do the hard work. They are up all night doing the tedious work. My chief of staff, Michelle Mrdeza, has just been terrific in making this day possible and making the subcommittee work. As did Stephanie Gupta and Jeff Ashford and Tom McLemore and Terry Tyborowski and Kelly Wade, and Brian Dunlop and Ben Nicholson. These last two, Brian from the Secret Service, a fellow with us, and Ben Nicholson, a fellow from the Coast Guard, have been with us all this year and they will be rotating off this assignment now. I want to publicly thank them especially for their service with us on this subcommittee.

I want to thank my chief of staff, Will Smith, and Beverly Pheto of the minority staff, who has been especially helpful. We would not be here without them, Mr. Speaker, and I think we should publicly thank them for the great work they do.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Members for being understanding of the difficulties in putting this bill together. We are trying to fund some 53,000 units of local public safety, as well as all the other myriad of things that go into funding this 22-agency new department in its second year. I want to thank the Members for being understanding and supportive and helpful in making that possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dallas Chaffins, an upstanding resident of the Fifth Congressional District of Kentucky. Chaffins, a 73-year-old coal miner in Eastern Kentucky, has been working underground for 56 years without ever having a lost-time injury. This remarkable accomplishment has earned him numerous awards and commendations, and I believe he deserves our recognition as well.

Born in Big Rock, Virginia, Dallas Chaffins started working in the coal mines on April 5, 1948, at the Buchanan Coal Company. Although he was only 17-years-old then, he had already been working for 6 years with his father in the timber industry. It's obvious that Dallas had a strong work ethic instilled in him from the time he was a little boy.

Throughout the next 6 decades, Dallas worked determinedly in the mines. During his career, he only took 2 years off, from October 1951 to October 1953, so he could serve his country in the United States Marine Corps.

And he's not quite ready to throw in his helmet yet.

He still rises each morning long before the sun does and heads to the mines to greet his coworkers with a handshake and a smile. You see, Dallas is known as much for his friendly disposition as he is his impeccable safety record. He attributes this characteristic to his devout faith in God. ``I believe if a person keeps his own conscience clean that he will shine on the outside,'' he recently told a reporter for a Kentucky newspaper. ``I think the Lord has blessed me with this. Yes, I give him all the credit.''

In addition to being a friend and mentor, and source of joy to countless miners throughout the years, Chaffins has reared 12 children and now enjoys spending time with 26 grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I want to congratulate Dallas Chaffins on 56 years of tireless, careful service in the mines. His hard work and integrity is an inspiration to others, both young and old, and Eastern Kentucky is a better place because of him.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the motion to instruct on the conference on H.R. 4567, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4567) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, the conference report for the fiscal year 2005 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, which we will be considering on the House floor soon, will provide $32 billion for the Department of Homeland Security. This funding level is consistent with the subcommittee's spending allocation, and it is $496 million above the amounts proposed by the President and $1.1 billion above fiscal year 2004 enacted levels.

The conference allocation will allow us to aggressively support critical homeland security missions identified in the gentleman's motion, including first responder, domestic preparedness, emergency management, firefighter assistance and disaster mitigation and relief programs.

The motion offered by the gentleman from Minnesota is consistent with my intentions to secure our Nation's homeland by providing the most robust funding possible for all aspects of homeland security: Protection, preparedness and response. But we must do this within our spending allocation.

For the 22 agencies that now make up the new department, Congress has provided more than $73 billion through fiscal 2004. With the additional $32 billion in this bill, the totals provided to the Department is more than $105 billion in fiscal years 2002 through 2005.

Tremendous progress has been made in making our Nation more secure using the right mixture of people and technology to strengthen our borders and close security gaps. Let me give some success stories:

Since its creation, the Department has inventoried the Nation's critical infrastructure to include more than 33,000 facilities and begun identifying and reducing vulnerabilities at chemical plants and facilities, nuclear power plants, national monuments, subway and light rail systems, and commercial sites, among others.

Two, the Department has streamlined the process used to get money out to first responders by setting up a new one-stop shop and eliminating choke points so that money can flow where it is needed more rapidly.

Three, we have enhanced aviation security by searching all checked bags for explosives, modifying airports to install explosive detection machines in-line, improving air cargo security through increased screening and enhancements of the known shipper program, and developing antimissile devices for commercial aircraft.

Four, we have increased the presence of the container security initiative to more than 38 foreign ports which ship us over 80 percent of our container freight, meaning that we are prescreening most high- threat cargo before it ever reaches our shore.

The next point. We have made capital improvements, investments in innovative technologies, including radiation detection for our ports and nonintrusive inspection technologies for cargo screening which are deployed at our busiest land and seaports.

And we have created standards for first responder equipment, established three Homeland Security Centers of Excellence and expanded the presence of sensors in high-risk cities for detailing biohazards.

Those are just some of the accomplishments that we can count on and be thankful for since 9/11.

Mr. Speaker, I support the highest possible funding levels for the critical functions of the Department of Homeland Security. I also believe in the responsible use of taxpayer money. As we move towards conference, my goal is to do all we can to ensure both our Homeland Security operators as well as our first responders get the tools they need to keep our hometowns safe and secure.

I certainly believe in doing all we can to make this country safe, and in that spirit, I accept the gentleman's motion as a good one.

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

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

The gentleman from Wisconsin knows that our subcommittee does a lot of closed-door briefings. They are not hearings, they are briefings. They are behind closed doors because we are dealing with classified materials and procedures and practices. Therefore, there is a lot we cannot talk about here in these surroundings. There is a lot going on that we cannot describe. And I really resent those who would take advantage of the fact that we cannot describe all that we are doing to say we are not doing enough.

I resent that. If the gentleman would attend some of those closed briefings, he would know better.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Well, if you would attend one closed Homeland Security briefing, I would appreciate it.

Reclaiming my time.

Reclaiming my time.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker.

Suffice it to say on, for example container security, there is a lot more going on than the gentleman has described, or perhaps even knows about. And I would hope that we could keep this discussion based on facts, and based on the fact that we cannot talk about publicly a lot of the classified procedures and operations that are being done and easily demagogued by those who want to buy some political insurance in case we have an unfortunate incident in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, September 28, I had prior commitments and was not present for rollcall votes Nos. 473, 474 and 475. The votes were on a Pelosi motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 4200, a motion to close portions of the conference on H.R. 4200, and S. 2363. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 473, and ``yea'' on rollcall Nos. 474 and 475.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 13, I was in Kentucky tending to official business and was not present for rollcall votes Nos. 441, 442 and 443. The votes were on House Concurrent Resolutions 363, and House Resolutions 667 and 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all measures.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the irony here is enormous.

Today we are hearing from anti-tobacco advocates who: want to keep the federal government in the tobacco business; want farm families to stay hog-tied to the tobacco industry; are pushing for the continuation of the tobacco program, not the ending of the tobacco program.

This Amendment seeks to prevent USDA from eliminating the federal tobacco program.

Every day, the Gentleman from Arizona comes down here to the well of the Floor to complain about the size of the federal government; the number of federal programs; and the fact that government bureaucracy is handicapping U.S. enterprise.

On these principles, I agree with him. However, I find it ironic that my colleague is now offering an amendment that will do the very thing he claims to vehemently oppose.

The bipartisan House-passed tobacco provisions will: Permanently eliminate a depression-era federal program; Get the Government out of the tobacco growing business; Allow U.S. growers to compete on the free and open market; Stop market share loses to Zimbabwe, Brazil, and China.

The tobacco provision will not: Bankrupt the federal government, as it is entirely offset through the extension of customs fees; Dramatically increase teen smoking.

There's absolutely no correlation between smoking and the buyout.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and support family farms and ending the federal tobacco system.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. It makes great strides in protecting our Nation. First off, it fully funds the FBI, $5.2 billion, which is a significant increase over current year, some $687 million more than this year. And especially important to me is the language in the bill that encourages the FBI to work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to complete an interoperable system as soon as possible, to help us check people coming across our borders against the FBI's criminal watch list.

That is terribly important because we have had some unfortunate experiences on the border of murderers making it across the border after having been stopped; but the inability to check against the criminal records of the FBI needs to be remedied forthwith, and this bill has language encouraging that.

And then, as the gentleman from Tennessee just said, this bill fully funds the President's Prescription Drug Abuse Program. And for those of us in the parts of the country where prescription drug abuse, like the overuse and abuse of Oxycontin, it is terribly important that we tackle this problem head on, and that is what this bill does. In my district, we have started an organization called UNITE, which stands for Unlawful Narcotics Investigations, Treatment and Education. There are literally thousands of people now involved with the support of this subcommittee in a three-pronged attack against methamphetamine and prescription drug abuse: investigations and the law enforcement part of getting rid of the pushers; treatment for those who are addicted and need treatment; and, of course, education to try to encourage young people, especially, to stay away from the abuse of these drugs. And this bill supports that program, and I thank the chairman for that especially.

The bill fully funds the DEA, $70 million above the current level. It has $10 million for the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program, which allows States to receive grants to establish a program to prevent people from double-filling prescription drugs and using the excess for sale as pushers. It includes $50 million for drug courts, which I believe in very strongly. We are seeing that work in my district, among others, where the power of the law is used for the good of people who are arrested and have no other crime except the use of drugs. And the drug courts work, and they rehabilitate people back into society in a good way. And then there is $60 million in the bill for methamphetamine hot spots, a problem that is particularly important in the rural parts of America.

And then the bill reinforces the presence of the U.S. abroad. There is $1.5 billion for Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance, which is $148 million over current levels. And, most importantly, I think, it continues the efforts to right-size the staffing at the embassies, saving us money and improving efficiency at all the places where Americans serve abroad in our embassies and consulates. Those are some of the more important features of the bill as far as I am concerned.

I want to compliment the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), ranking member. I had the pleasure of working as chairman of this subcommittee for 6 years, working with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), who was ranking at the time; and I found him to be especially helpful in constructing a good bill. And certainly the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) has just done a great job, in my judgment, a very challenging bill this year because of lack of funds. So I compliment the chairman and the ranking member for bringing to us a very worthy bill, and I urge 100 percent support of it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely correct. In my rural district in Kentucky, it is an epidemic of the abuse of Oxycontin, particularly, but methamphetamines as well. And we have had dozens of young people die from the overabuse of these very addictive drugs, and it truly is an epidemic, and it strikes rich and poor, urban and rural. It does not matter. Wonderful families are broken up by this. People dying, families ruined, no place to go for treatment, no hope involved.

And I want to compliment the gentleman for further drawing attention to this real epidemic that is sweeping the whole country, not just the cities, but I think probably especially now the rural areas. And I compliment him for bringing this up again, but also the chairman and him for including funds to help us fight it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

I think we all share the zeal to reform the budget process. It is broken.

But in that zeal, I want us to be sure we do not step on the Constitution. One of the hallmarks of that great Constitution that has sustained us so far is the separation of powers between the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. It is the Congress, by the Constitution, that has the prerogative and, in fact, the duty to allocate the spending for the executive branch.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow the executive to tell the Congress how the money should be spent, how much money should be spent. The Congress enacts appropriation bills, spending bills, and the executive executes those bills.

The budget resolution that is before us calls for statutory spending limits. Now, I understand the motivation behind that is to try to get something that will cap spending. We all want that. But the President would have to sign such a budget resolution. That brings the executive branch, OMB, into the process of negotiating a figure, a cap, for those years. To me, that violates the separation of powers.

We would not be able to enact a budget resolution, a statutory cap, independent of the White House because the President must sign the bill; and, therefore, he will exact his impressions on that.

So I would hope that the chairman of my committee will follow through on his promise just now to work on a process of bringing spending under control. In the meantime, let us do not step on the U.S. Constitution by requiring a statutory Presidentially signed spending cap.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the further consideration of H.R. 4567, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is simple. It takes $20 million out of a very important program that cannot afford it and gives it to a program that does not need it. The $20 million the gentlewoman would put in the Citizen Corps comes from the Flood Map Modernization Fund, a program that is critical to our communities and our individuals. These moneys are for a 5-year, $1 billion program to update and modernize the 100,000 aging flood maps nationwide which affects hundreds of thousands of people. It is already underfunded. So we cannot afford to take money out of that.

We include in the bill $20 million for the Citizen Corps. However, Mr. Chairman, they have got $51 million laying around unused which is way more than they need. There is $51 million in the pipeline all the way back to 2003 that has not been used, and so there is plenty of money there, and we do not want to take the money from the Flood Map Modernization Fund that is critical to so many people in this country.

I oppose the amendment and urge Members to oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. We have not seen the amendment. We have no idea what this is.

I do, Mr. Chairman.

I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI which states, in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law by imposing additional duties.''

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Regular order, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment. This amendment earmarks $10 million within the Science

and Technology account for specific institutions of higher learning.

Mr. Chairman, we have studiously and steadfastly avoided all earmarks in this bill. There are none. This would be an earmark. For that reason, I have to oppose it. The University Centers of Excellence awards are made on a competitive basis and should stay that way.

All universities and colleges in the United States can apply, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic- serving institutions and community colleges. Universities and colleges can apply singly or together as part of a consortium, pooling the talents of several higher-learning institutions. The recent Center of Excellence award on agroterrorism to the University of Minnesota includes Tuskegee University, a Historically Black University, as one of its partners.

The S&T university program has been proactive in reaching out to minorities. S&T encourages the Center of Excellence competitors to partner with minority institutions. They are setting up a program for partnering university minority faculty with national labs for fellowships and internships. A new Center of Excellence award on emergency preparedness and response will be targeted to the urban community, with the intent of reaching more institutions with minority populations. This center will focus on training for emergency preparedness.

The competition element, Mr. Chairman, is critical to bring together the Nation's best experts and focus its most talented researchers on science and technology solutions to combat terrorist threats against this Nation from wherever they come.

It is absolutely critical to the security of the country that the Department of Homeland Security is able to utilize the best science that the Nation has to offer, be it private sector technology, national labs, or our great universities and colleges. The best way to identify that talent is through open competition, not earmarks, which this amendment would do. For that reason, I urge Members to reject the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will only make a brief statement in regards to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), who serves on our subcommittee, who has been so active on this issue. He has been a leader in the whole Congress on Buy-America issues through diligent efforts on his part to make sure that companies that manufacture goods and supplies must comply with the Buy-America Act.

I regret that this provision is being probably stricken from the bill, but the work of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) on this issue must go as noted, because it certainly has been a labor of love on his part, and a very effective one.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman may be referring to another section of the bill. This is about port security, not container or cargo security. It is about the security of the port itself.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, we can talk about container security if Members want, but this amendment is about port security. We have a great container security program. Every high-risk container is searched offshore. We are going to be in 47 foreign ports doing that.

But please, can we talk about port security? If we want to talk about container security, we can do that, but not on this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, port security obviously is terribly important, and that is why we have provided in this bill $125 million, which is $79 million more than was requested and more than the 2004 level. So we are putting heavy emphasis on port security in the country.

Is that enough money? Of course not. There is not enough money in the world to perfectly protect everything in America, but we think we have on balance provided plenty of money in the bill for port security.

Number two, I have to oppose this amendment for a second reason, and that is probably the most important one. And that is that this would dangerously deplete the disaster relief fund, which concerns me greatly, and we are just now getting into the heavy part of the disaster season. So if there were another offset, this might be more attractive to me, but to take the money out of disaster relief is just a dangerous thing.

So I oppose the amendment. I would hope the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) would consider withdrawing the amendment, and we will address this issue, I guarantee in the conference with the Senate, the other body, as we go along during the year. But I appreciate very much the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), and those who have been speaking with her, in bringing up this very, very important issue, and I assure them it is on my mind and on the mind of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I did not say every container. I said every high-risk container.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I agree with the gentlewoman from California, who by the way is a very hardworking member of our subcommittee and a very valued member. I agree with her that CIS should meet the highest standards in evaluating petitions for naturalization or immigration benefits, but I do not believe her proposal is justified.

CIS is in the midst of a critical effort to reduce its very large case backlog, while ensuring that it screens applicants for the privilege of living here or acquiring citizenship. Our bill demands a high degree of accountability from this agency, and we will exercise significant oversight into how it achieves the elimination of its backlog.

In the meantime, I believe that the Department deserves some latitude to explore new ways of getting this job done and the backlog reduced, to include privatizing some functions that may be just as easily performed outside of the government, and allows the agency to concentrate internally on its core government functions.

The argument that the positions up for competition are ``governmental'' begs the question: Immigrants need information and help getting through this system, but such service is not inherently governmental; and, two, the requirement to have specialized subject matter expertise also does not uniquely limit the work to government officials.

So I think the amendment is not necessary. I believe the Department should have some leeway in getting this backlog reduced, and so I, therefore, ask my colleagues to support us in rejecting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in the interest of attempting to save time and to get us out of here today on this bill, I want to engage my ranking member and ask his and others unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes, the time to be equally divided between myself and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).

I so amend my request.

Mr. Chairman, I would point out there is a growing list of Members who want to get out of here tonight.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the unanimous consent request.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes, that the time be equally divided between myself and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, could we not have agreement on the limitation? I think it is agreed to by the ranking member and all parties on the subcommittee of which the gentleman is a member. Could we not have a unanimous consent to limit the debate time?

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

If there are no further speakers on the amendment, I will agree to it. If there are further speakers, I will oppose it.

I think it is a wonderful amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 24 minutes and that the time be equally divided between me and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. Chairman, if I could speak on the point of order, as I read the amendment, it says no funds may be used to violate the law, and I am prepared to accept that.

Mr. Chairman, it says Federal funds cannot be used to violate the law. I agree with that. Does the gentleman not?

Mr. Chairman, that amendment last year was altogether different. As I read this amendment, it is fairly simple. It has been modified, obviously, and now just says no funds may be used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Act, and I find it to be innocuous, frankly.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the sponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment seeks to cap the number of high-threat, high-density urban area grants and rail and transit security grants to the 80 presently awarded in 2004.

Mr. Chairman, the whole concept of giving monies on top of the regular distribution of funds across the country, to give extra money to certain cities in the country, the whole concept was we need to protect those cities that we know are targets from the threat information we receive from time to time, because they have extra needs.

And so that was the very concept of the urban area grant program which was added on top of all of the other grant programs. But threats change.

Anyone who is privy to intelligence knows that yesterday it is Columbus, Ohio. It is New York. It is Washington. It is LA. It is Chicago. But then it is Albuquerque, and who knows where. And the Secretary needs to have wide latitude. We do not need to use this pot of money as pork. This needs to go where the needs are. We do not know where the needs are until we hear the intelligence of the moment. And that is why we leave great discretion in this bill with this pot of money as with most of the others with the Secretary and the intelligence community to make these grants based on real intelligence. Not what I think or what some Member of this body thinks, but what are the real facts, what information do we have that we need to respond to. And that is why it needs to be a flexible fund.

Next year there may be 20 cities that are in that list, or it may be 10, or it may be 60. I do not know. But the funds are there for that purpose, to protect the large urban centers of high-density, high- threat urban areas. To restrict this amount, to restrict the number of cities, to say that these are these and no more, we will protect these cities and the rest of you can fend on your own, that is not right, is it?

Are we to say to a certain segment of America, you do not matter. You do not count. I do not think so. I think this Congress should say these monies are to protect Americans wherever the threat is and wherever the risk is. And we should not be monkeying around with this type of thing.

Please do not try to earmark in this bill, and this is an earmark in reverse. I oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, with respect to my colleague, I have to oppose the amendment. The bill provides $2,270,000 for the Office of Privacy in 2005, which is $1.5 million above the level enacted for the current year. And the Department of Homeland Security continues to be slow in hiring. The current vacancy rate in the Office of the Secretary, which includes the Office of Privacy, the vacancy rate is over 30 percent. A lot of that is due to the slow process of clearing people for these jobs. And we do address that in the bill in another section.

So we hope to allow them to hire people and get them on the job quicker. However, the money in the bill already allows the Office of Privacy to hire eight new staff, and I do not think they can get that many hired anyway. This amendment would increase funding even more, and it is just not needed.

So I would hope that the Members would reject this amendment. It is not needed. We have got more money there than we can use.

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

This directly amends existing law.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I really hate to disappoint the ranking member, but I do raise a point of order against the amendment under clause 2 of rule XXI.

The provision designates an amount as emergency spending for purposes of the concurrent resolution on the budget. As stated in the House Rules and Manual, such a designation is ``fundamentally legislative in character.''

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the amendment under clause 2 of rule XXI. The provision designates an amount as emergency spending for purposes of the concurrent resolution on the budget. As stated in the House rules and manual, such a designation is fundamentally legislative in character.

Mr. Chairman, I would reserve raising the point of order and yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) to explain.

I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes and that the time be equally divided between myself and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, we agree that 100 percent of all cargo on passenger planes should be screened. We are together on the goal. It is just that we do not have the capability now. We cannot do it this year. It is going to take a little bit longer. The machinery does not exist, contrary to what the gentleman from Massachusetts says. That big box is too big for the machines that we check our bags through that x-rays packages. The machinery does not exist at this time. We have effective means in place at the moment to reduce the risk to acceptable levels without shutting down air cargo and bankrupting airlines, as this amendment would surely do.

We are aggressively tackling this problem of cargo on passenger planes. This bill that we have before you requires at a minimum that the TSA double the percentage of air cargo screened, actually screened. We appropriate $118.5 million for air cargo security, which is $33.5 million above what we put in the bill last year for this and as requested by the President, including $75 million for developing screening technologies, the R&D to develop the machines that would accommodate palletized cargo on airlines and the larger packages; $10.5 million to hire an additional 100 air cargo inspectors; $20 million to make further enhancements to the known-shipper program and implement a new cargo rule; and $3 million to expand the canine teams deployed to inspect air cargo.

We are getting there, and we are a long way there. We cannot get there 100 percent at the moment. However, with this funding, TSA will continue an aggressive R&D program to examine technologies, to improve the capability to screen the high-risk cargo, including new technologies for screening palletized cargo and containerized cargo for explosives. A number of vendors have been tentatively selected for laboratory evaluation of these kinds of products. TSA is enhancing the known-shipper program.

What is the known-shipper program? It means that you cannot ship cargo on a passenger plane unless you have been certified by the Federal Government; and they look at you very, very carefully. You have got to be a certified known shipper before your cargo can be placed on a passenger plane. If you are not a known shipper, you have got to put it on a truck or on an all-cargo plane or what have you, but not a passenger plane. We do not allow it. So you have got to be a known shipper, and you have got to be certified by the Federal Government before you can become a known shipper. Known shippers go through a very rigorous and thorough process to obtain their status: verification of their legitimacy by way of a comprehensive database, random inspections, recertifications on a yearly basis.

This bill includes language requiring at a minimum to double the percentage of air cargo that is currently screened. That is an incremental approach. We are headed toward 100 percent when we can get there, but we simply cannot get there at this minute.

Screening technologies to inspect air cargo are not ready yet, in spite of what anyone says. The latest information that we have is that there is no machine at this moment in time able to see explosives. You can x-ray a package looking for drugs or contraband, but you cannot see explosives with that kind of a machine. That is the distinction the gentleman from Massachusetts fails to see. We are looking for explosives in passenger planes, not contraband; and the x-ray machines, of course, are designed for contraband.

If this amendment passes and airlines are not allowed to accept air cargo, it means that they will go bankrupt. That is it. You shut off air cargo; you close down the airlines. I am not going to vote for that. The TSA tells me that it would take 9,000 screeners at a cost of over $700 million next year to inspect every cargo at the top 135 airports that handle about 95 percent of all cargo on passenger craft.

The economy of this country relies on just-in-time delivery by airplanes, whether it is fresh produce and meats for grocery stores, mechanical parts for manufacturers, medical supplies for hospitals and clinics and the like. Cargo transported on passenger aircraft typically arrives about 30 minutes before flight time. If you shut off

air cargo, you are shutting off just-in-time delivery in this very sensitive area in this country in manufacturing.

In this bill, Mr. Chairman, we are going all out to develop the technology to screen all cargo. We have in place the known-shipper program, canine searches, and other practices; and we will double the percentage of personal inspections in this bill. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on Markey.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the simple fact is if this amendment passes, there will not be any planes for them to get on in the first place.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), a very important member of our subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Let me inquire of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), is the gentleman the last speaker?

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

Mr. Chairman, our gentleman friend from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) I thought needs an answer to the question he raised. What are we doing about cargo on passenger planes? What are we doing about it, and where are we?

Well, at the moment we physically inspect a certain percent of all cargo

on passenger planes. That percentage is a law enforcement-sensitive number, and we cannot talk about it publicly, but it is a percentage that we actually physically inspect.

The rest cannot be put on a plane unless it has been certified by the government to come from somebody we know, a FedEx or UPS or some other known shipper, a Toyota, GM, where we have gone to that shipper and put them through a rigorous examination so that we know whether or not they are reliable and their chain of supply, their security of supply has been checked.

We are developing machinery, however, to be able to take the place of all of that. The machinery is just simply not there yet. It is being developed, and in the bill we appropriate $118.5 million for air cargo security. It is an enormous figure. That is $33.5 million more than we spent this year or that the President requested. We topped everybody in that respect. And $75 million of that is going to develop new technologies.

One of these days we will have machines that will do for cargo on passenger planes what we do for baggage on passenger planes. We simply do not have it yet. We are working on it and working on it very quickly.

But in this bill in the meantime we say, okay, we want to double the number or the percentage of air cargo that is physically checked, double it this year. We provide additional cargo inspectors for that purpose. We provide canine teams to help with the inspection of air cargo, and we provide $20 million more to make further enhancements to the known-shipper program and implement a new cargo rule.

Now, if this amendment passes, I am sad to say I do not think the airlines will make it. If we prohibit all passenger cargo, as the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) has said, we are taking away $3.5 billion in income to the airlines that are barely hanging on now. 27,000 jobs are involved here. We do away with the capability of the Nation's economy to have just-in-time delivery, upon which the country, in fact the world, runs.

So I urge Members to be careful if we want to vote for this amendment. That is the safe thing to do, of course; but the responsible thing is to vote ``no.'' We are doing all we physically can do at the moment, and it will not help any if we shut down the airlines.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Markey amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition.

This is the first time we have seen this amendment. It is brand-new to me. We have not had a chance to discuss the matter with the gentlewoman.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Well, I understand the gentlewoman, and I appreciate the predicament that she is in on this.

It also puts us in a predicament because I do not know the ramifications of the amendment. It could have some very significant national unintended consequences that I have not had time to think about. So I wish we could work with the gentlewoman. Rather than bring this to a vote, perhaps if the gentlewoman would reconsider.

Well, Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, then I have no choice but to oppose the amendment. I want to help the gentlewoman, but if this is the attitude, then we will just have a debate here and let the vote take place, and it will be one way or the other and over with.

So I would hope that the gentlewoman would reconsider that.

But nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I do not know the ramifications of this amendment. It could be devastating around the Nation for all I know, so I have to at the moment oppose it and oppose it vigorously.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if the gentlewoman would give me time to work

with her on this, I will be happy to do it, but this is the first I have known about it. I do not know the ramifications of the amendment the gentlewoman filed nationally. It could very well be very expensive nationally; it could cost the government a lot of money. It could set a bad precedent to predetermine the most efficient way of contracting. How does it help? How does it hurt? I do not know. So I have to oppose it until we know more about it.

So I would hope the Members would reject the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do that because I think we have reached the end of the amendment process here and are about ready to call for the votes on the amendments that have been rolled over. But before we finish, I wanted to take a moment to say some things.

It is a pleasure working with my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo). He works hard. He is smart. He has a good level head. He is a reasonable person, and he is a joy to be around and a great help in constructing this bill. It truly has been a partnership as we built the bill. I want to give him a lot of credit for the work that has been done. Of course, the members of our subcommittee. We have a super bunch of people. All of them contribute. All of them participate in the public hearings and, of course, the closed briefings that are classified.

They keep those secrets secret. So we have got a wonderful subcommittee to work with. And I could not be more pleased to be a part of this team, as I will call it.

Then a big part of that team too is this staff. They are just wonderful. Michelle and all of the crew and the minority staff work closely together; and they work long, long hours on extremely complicated matters building a brand-new Department, breaking ground on entirely new concepts that we are dealing with in this whole country.

This is the second bill for the whole Department of Homeland Security, a new concept in Americans dealing with themselves and their country and the world. So we are plowing new ground. And this staff has just been wonderful in helping us all understand what it is we are dealing with and trying to come out with a proper result.

I appreciate so very much this staff on both sides of the aisle who have made this day possible.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for presiding over these proceedings as you have. We appreciate it very, very much.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole