Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution because we should not be echoing the lies we have been fed to justify this cruel and deceitful war. We should not continue pretending that by fighting the war in Iraq we are advancing the war on terrorism.

Our intelligence tells us that only 7 to 8 percent of those we are fighting in Iraq are Islamic terrorists. The other 92 to 93 percent are fighting a war for power between contending religious groups.

There is no compelling reason to send our young people to die to determine how to divide the spoils between the Sunnis and the Shiites. We should be redeploying our resources to fight the real war on terrorism, going after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, fighting jihadist ideas all over the Muslim world, getting the loose nuclear material out of the former Soviet Union before it is smuggled to al Qaeda to make nuclear weapons, screening all of the shipping containers before they enter our ports, and protecting our chemical and nuclear plants against sabotage that could kill tens of thousands of Americans.

But the Bush administration and this Congress will not vote the funds to fight the real war against terrorism. And every reason we were given for invading Iraq has been shown to be false. Weapons of mass destruction. Not there. Saddam Hussein working hand in glove with al Qaeda. Not true. And the more information that leaks out, the more apparent it becomes that these were not mistakes, but deliberate lies.

But does this Congress get to the bottom of this? Not this Republican Congress. This Republican Congress sees no evil, hears no evil, and speaks no evil when it comes to a war that has already killed 2,500 of our young men and women and promises to kill thousands more.

This Republican Congress asks no questions about what we can possibly achieve that can justify the continuing slaughter.

I ask you, if the President had gone to the American people and said, we must invade a country that poses no imminent threat to us, we must sacrifice thousands of lives in order to create a democratic government in Iraq, would we have agreed? I think not.

As the President now says to us that we should continue indefinitely to expend American blood and treasure to support one side in a sectarian civil war, a side, moreover, that is increasingly cozying up to the mullahs in Iran who do pose a threat to us, should Congress continue to consent? I think not. This Congress should agree with the Out of Iraq Caucus. We should say enough already. Enough with the lies and the deceit and the evasions. Enough with the useless bloodshed. We should ensure the Iraqi people that we desire no U.S. military bases in Iraq.

This Congress should adopt the Murtha resolution. We should adopt a swift timetable to redeploy our troops out of Iraq and bring them home and let the Iraqi oligarchs know they cannot depend on the United States forever.

It is our crucial moment in American history to concentrate our resources on the real threats that face us around the world and at home and put an end to this bloody, senseless and diversionary war.

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

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, the explanation of this amendment that we just heard is exactly upside down. Exactly wrong and backwards.

The fact is that our amendment would ensure that the level of housing assistance is maintained at the same level as previously; that it is not automatically reduced when public housing buildings are demolished or sold. It continues the same number of affordable housing units as previously.

Every year we demolish several thousand units. Until January of this year, the policy always was if you demolish 100 units, there are 100 section 8 vouchers issued, so the number of affordable units in the community does not go down.

In January, HUD put out a new regulation which said that we will replace the units under lease with new vouchers so that if 100 units are demolished but 10 of them were not occupied at that moment because people were moving in and out, they would only replace 90 vouchers. In other words, the number of affordable units would go down.

The policy we have always had which this amendment seeks to continue, not to change, is that when you demolish public housing, you maintain the same number of units by issuing the same number of vouchers, not less, not more. Contrary to what the distinguished chairman said, this would not increase the number of vouchers issued, this would maintain it at the same level as we always have had; one-for-one replacement for all of the low-income housing demolished.

The administration seeks to change that policy, first by HUD regulation last January that said we will only replace those actually occupied at that moment. So if 5 percent of the units are under repair or 5 percent of the units have people moving in and out, there is always some churning, we won't replace those. So the number will go down every time we do this. That is pernicious. It means, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, that if you want to demolish an overconcentrated housing or you want to privatize an existing section 8 building, what will replace it will be fewer units of subsidized housing.

In the bill before us, the distinguished committee violated the rules of the House because they seek to take this policy initiated by HUD by regulation in January and by adding the words ``under lease'' to the bill, they would say in a broader perspective, in a broader universe than covered by the regulation, we would only replace occupied units.

The Rules Committee said points of order against the bill are waived so we could not raise a point of order against legislating on an appropriations bill. An amendment to take out those words would itself be legislating on an appropriation bill, so it's a one-way racket. The committee can get away with it but we can't unlegislate from the floor.

So this amendment is narrower. It, unfortunately, doesn't prevent the committee from doing what it is doing, which changes the number of units we are replacing to a fraction of those being demolished in some of the housing; but for the public housing at least, which the bill doesn't do but the regulation did, where the regulation said from now on we will only replace occupied units, not the total number of units, this amendment says no funds appropriated shall be used to enforce that regulation. That we can do.

So the CBO scores this amendment as costing zero dollars. All it says is we can't use funds to implement that regulation. It doesn't change the amount of money appropriated for section 8 by a nickel.

What it does say is we will not countenance a change by the department so that the previous policy, which we want to maintain, is if you demolish public housing, you demolish 100 units, you have to have 100 units to replace it, so the total amount of low-income housing in the community is not going down.

They want to replace that by saying they will only replace the units occupied at that moment. So the normal churning effect, people moving in, people moving out, would demolish the number of units replaced.

So this amendment would keep the existing system, the system that has existed for the last few decades, one-for-one replacement, and it is scored by CBO as costing nothing. I would urge the House to adopt this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, spurious statistics don't help us get anywhere. The fact is, yes, section 8 is a higher percentage of the HUD budget because this Congress has cut down other programs. We have cut down CDBG by $500 million. So what does that prove?

And the fact is that all this amendment seeks to do is to say not that more people should get more section 8 vouchers; I wish we could do that, and not that more people should get affordable housing, but simply to maintain our previous policy, that if you are demolishing low income housing you replace it with the same number of units. QED. And if the administration is so incompetent that we are wasting a lot of money because we are not administering the program properly, there is money slipping through its fingers because they are not administering the section 8 program properly, let them clean up their act. But the fact is the number of units should remain the same or go up.

This amendment says, and the gentlewoman says we are all in agreement, that as many people as possible should be helped. Well, if as many people as possible should be helped, at least let's agree, and this amendment is the only way to do that, not to cut down the number of section 8 units, not to cut down the number of units available whenever we demolish existing housing. That is all this amendment does. Nothing else. And anybody who says that this amendment increases the availability of housing above the policy of one for one is not telling the truth.

I reserve the balance of my time.

No. The other cosponsor had to go back to the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I must correct the gentleman. That is not what it does at all. There are always, in any housing stock, there are always some vacant units because someone moves out on Monday, it takes a month to prepare the apartment for someone else to move in. It has always been the policy that you replace the number of units that you are tearing down. If you are tearing down 1,000 units, you get 1,000 section 8 vouchers. If you change the policy, such as HUD is now seeking to do, such as the bill is seeking to do and which this amendment opposes doing, then you are saying that if 10 percent are vacant because someone has moved out and someone else hasn't moved in yet, they are cleaning it up, that you replace 90 percent instead of the 100 percent.

All this says is continue the policy we have always had of replacing units, not units occupied, because units occupied is always 80, 90 percent of total units because there are always people moving in and out. Someone died last week and so forth. There is no housing stock on earth 100 percent occupied 100 percent of the time. And if you look at 5 percent or 10 percent that are unoccupied now because three people died and five people moved and no one has moved in again, you are reducing the number of units. And all we are saying is don't do that. If you tear down low income housing, replace it one for one on the basis of the number of units. That has always been our policy. That has always been the law and all this amendment seeks to do is to keep it that way and not change it as the bill would do.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase funding for Section 8 housing vouchers by $70 million to enable an additional 10,000 low- income families to afford safe, decent housing.

To offset this increase, the amendment cuts the Working Capital Fund for a poorly managed computer upgrade program. Even with the reduction, the bill would still provide $94 million in working capital funds for IT projects in eight accounts scattered around the bill other than the Working Capital Fund itself.

We have a choice, Mr. Chairman. Do we want to help thousands of families obtain affordable housing, or do we think it is more important to have a somewhat faster computer upgrade in HUD? If we support American families, we should support this amendment.

We all understand the budget is extremely tight and that many programs are facing cuts. Our amendment, therefore, does not seek to restore the amount to the amount that the President recommended, which is $144 million more than the committee recommends, it seeks merely to restore $70 million, or about half of what the difference is to what the President recommended.

This is less than the bare minimum of what is needed. We have hundreds of thousands of families on waiting lists, waiting 8, 9, 10 years for decent housing for Section 8 vouchers.

This amendment will enable us to provide vouchers to about 10,000 of those families. That is our choice. The Section 8 housing voucher program provides safe, affordable housing to approximately 2 million American families in urban and rural communities in our country.

Those vouchers are often the only resource for low-income families confronted by our Nation's affordable housing crisis.

Mr. Chairman, many Republicans support this amendment. We passed a similar amendment last year with Republican support. 141 Members have signed a letter in support of fully funding the President's request, which would be twice the size of this amendment. 225 Members, including 30 Republicans, voted for an essentially similar amendment last year.

I urge everyone on both sides of the aisle to vote for this amendment.

Finally, let me say that we may be told that the offset would leave no funds in the computer account. The fact is the committee has been very ingenious in squirreling away money in different accounts.

Mr. Chairman, I have here a list of all of the places in the bill where money is squirreled away for these computers. There is a total of $194 million. With this amendment it would still leave $94 million for this purpose.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. I urge everyone to vote for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would offer this chart for the Record. I am pleased to announce also that the amendment has gained the support of the AARP and the National League of Cities. Once again, the choice is, will we provide 10,000 families with safe, decent housing, at the price of slightly slowing down a computerization program for the bureaucrats at

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

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

Mr. Chairman, the fact is we have waiting lists in many of our cities of 8, 9, and 10 years for Section 8 vouchers.

We could do much, much more than this amendment would do and shorten these waiting lists to 5 and 6 years.

Mr. Chairman, it is wrong for low-income Americans to have to wait 8, 9 and 10 years for decent, safe housing. This amendment will go a little ways toward supplying that need.

The chairman says that the committee's proposal funds all of the Section 8 vouchers. It funds enough Section 8 vouchers to continue a waiting list of 8, 9, and 10 years.

Now, it is true the offset takes some money away from a computerization account at HUD, but it leaves $94 million for that purpose. The computerization at HUD can go a little more slowly, and 10,000 additional families will have decent housing.

That is the choice. HUD can do, and do very well, with $94 million for this computerization program squirreled away in different sections of the bill as I have here outlined.

But 10,000 families might not have to wait 9, 10 years for decent housing. Mr. Chairman, that is the choice in the amendment. That is why I urge everyone to vote for the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase the appropriation for the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS program, or HOPWA, by $10 million.

Frankly, this is a very modest amount. Earlier this year, more than 100 Members joined me and Representatives Ros-Lehtinen and Crowley in asking the Appropriations Committee for $424 million in HOPWA funding for fiscal year 2007.

I am relieved that the President finally asked for a $14 million increase over last year in HOPWA funding, and I am very grateful to Chairman Knollenberg and Ranking Member Olver for meeting his request and funding the program at this level.

But the sad truth is that this year's HOPWA level barely keeps up with inflation. Three years ago in 2004, HOPWA was funded at $295 million. That the program will see an increase in 2004 to 2007 of $5 million in 3 years is not enough even to meet inflation.

Housing needs have grown faster than inflation. Adequately meeting the housing needs of all those living with HIV and AIDS would take over $2 billion. Nationwide, thousands of people are now on waiting lists for HOPWA-funded housing, and with 91 percent of HOPWA recipients having family incomes of less than $1,000 per month, program recipients simply cannot afford the shortfall.

The costs associated with new AIDS treatments often force people to choose between essential medications to enable them to survive and the necessities such as housing. Without adequate HOPWA funding, AIDS patients will continue to flood our emergency rooms and our Medicaid rolls and will be forced to live on the streets.

This HOPWA funding does not simply get people with HIV and AIDS off of the streets. Recent studies have shown that housing in many cases equates directly to HIV prevention because people with housing are much more likely to know their HIV status and, therefore, less likely to transmit the disease to others. Improvements in housing status also lead to lower rates of high-risk behavior, such as intravenous drug use, which can lead to the spread of the disease.

HOPWA is an extremely fiscally sound program. It is locally controlled and provides maximum flexibility to States and communities to design approaches that best respond to local housing needs. In fiscal year 2006 alone, HOPWA funds will support the delivery of services to roughly 71,500 households in all 50 States.

I realize that, given the record deficits that we have, funding HOPWA at the $2 billion level it should have is not realistic. The financial constraints that we face put us in an unfortunate bind. There is much room for improvement.

I, again, thank the chairman and ranking member for the increase that they proposed, but given the scarce resources of this bill, a $10 million increase beyond that, which means we will have an increase by $5 million in 3 years, is I think more than warranted, and that is what this amendment is.

I am grateful for HOPWA's increase this year, but I urge a further increase of $10 million, so it is a net increase of $5 million in 3 years.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the amendment if necessary.

I regret to hear that, but I will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, while House Republicans plan to use the next couple of months trying to distract the attention of the American people away

from their failures, House Democrats are focused on the American people's priorities.

While Washington Republicans have allowed our dependence on foreign oil to increase over the last 5 years, House Democrats are committed to achieving energy independence in the next 10 years. We would do this by doubling the percentage of renewable fuels sold in America in 6 years, increasing the percentage of flex-fuel vehicles that run on ethanol or gasoline, and investing in biofuel research.

While Republicans attempt to run from their fiscal record of turning a $5.6 trillion surplus into a $4 trillion deficit, Democrats continue to propose fiscally sound budgets that incorporate the pay-as-you-go policies that led to the record surpluses of the 1990s.

The Democratic budget for the upcoming year would have balanced the budget by 2012, something the Republicans neglect to do in theirs. Democrats have solutions to the problems Republicans ignore.

If House Republicans were really interested in solving our Nation's problems, they would stop the attempts to distract and would instead offer some new ideas.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to ensure the rapid deployment of the ``next generation'' Radiation Portal Monitors at our Nation's ports. This bill prohibits the agency from spending funds on this critical port security program. My amendment would strike that prohibition.

Earlier this month the House passed the SAFE Port Act to enhance security at United States ports. During consideration of that bill, I tried to offer an amendment to require that every single container be scanned for radiation and density before it is loaded onto a ship bound for the United States. The Republican leadership opposed that effort. One of the main claims made by my friends on the other side of the aisle was that the technology did not exist to adequately scan containers and that current radiation portal monitors create too many false alarms.

Imagine my surprise to discover that the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office at the Department of Homeland Security has, in fact, already developed the ``next generation'' Radiation Portal Monitors. These new Advanced Spectroscopic Portal, ASP, monitors use sodium-iodide crystals to detect the unique signature of materials inside a container. They give us more accurate information about what is in the box. They can tell us exactly what is causing the radiation alarm to go off, whether it is a false alarm or not. Port security officials can know if radiation is coming from kitty litter or from construction material or from a real threat, and they will not have to shut down the entire port of New York or Long Beach whenever an alarm goes off.

But there is a catch. Only one company, a French company, currently produces sodium-iodide crystals. So DHS plans to spend about $20 million to encourage more companies to increase domestic production of these crystals. This makes perfects sense. DHS needs to do this to assure that full-scale production of ASP monitors can begin next year and to get them installed at our ports as quickly as possible, and we should not be beholden in any event to one foreign company for a product that is so critical to our national security.

Shockingly, however, this bill contains language prohibiting DHS from taking steps to increase the domestic production of sodium-iodide crystals until the agency can prove that ASP monitors meet certain criteria, certain extraneous criteria. This delay makes no sense.

The Republicans in particular should love these ASP monitors. They were developed by the Bush administration. They reduce false alarms. And if they are really concerned about the cost of these scanners, they should support increasing domestic production of sodium-iodide crystals so that the one French company that makes this material cannot control the cost.

We are, after all, at war with the terrorists. We have serious loopholes in our port security system, and we know that terrorists could use shipping containers to bring nuclear bombs into American cities. We must act with urgency to get better container scanning equipment in place, and we must stop creating roadblocks to scanning the containers.

Democrats have consistently supported scanning every container to make sure that terrorists do not use them to bring nuclear bombs into American cities. We have tried on several occasions to force the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress to scan every container. The Republicans claim the technology didn't exist. That is untrue. DHS now says they have the technology. This provision that my amendment would eliminate would stop DHS from deploying the best container scanning equipment to port security officials around the country.

We must not tolerate and we must not create any delays in protecting the American people from a terrorist attack. So I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment that would permit the spending of the money to deploy the sodium-iodide crystals and the scanning equipment so that we can get this container scanning equipment to our ports as fast as possible.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not require DHS to deploy this equipment. If it is not better, I wonder why we spend half a billion dollars developing it. This lets the DHS make the decision. If they decide this equipment is better, they can deploy it. If they decide it is not better, they do not have to.

All this says is that we are not going to put language in the bill that will prevent DHS from using its own judgment to deploy it until they can demonstrate that it would significantly speed commerce and do various other things. If this will significantly improve the protection of our people, we ought to deploy it, but my amendment would leave that decision to the Bush administration.

Do they not trust the Bush administration to make the best decision on this? Why should we tie their hands? That is what this amendment says.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, as of today, this House has been in session only 36 days this year. We are scheduled to meet a total of 93 days. That is 15 days less than the do-nothing Congress of 1948. How are we supposed to address the issues most important to all of our fellow countrymen if we are hardly ever in session?

This weekend, millions of Americans will take Memorial Day vacations. They will be forced to pay hundreds of dollars more in travel bills, thanks to high prices at the pump.

For weeks now, House Republicans have ignored this very serious economic issue. That is, until this week, when the House Republicans plan to offer their second solution. Their first solution a couple years ago was to throw billions of dollars at the oil companies. The second solution is drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Despite the environment havoc this would cause, it will do nothing to lower gas prices today. When Republicans tout this as a solution, they ignore the fact that drilling in ANWR would not be possible for another decade and would provide only 6 months of oil, in any event, for the American consumer.

Once again this week, the House Republicans plan to do nothing to address high prices at the pump. They simply refuse to offer any real solutions to our energy problems. It is time for a change in leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment to increase funding for the NEA by $5 million and the NEH by $5 million. Frankly, this is a modest amendment; I wish this amendment asked for an even greater increase in arts funding. It's astounding that this year the President will spend $60 billion in Cold War-era defense programs, such as a missile defense system that doesn't defend against missiles, and yet each year we have to come to the floor to defend this minimal amount of spending. The amount we are asking for is little more than a fraction of one percent of the Federal budget.

This is not controversial funding. The NEA and the NEH are two of the best investments this Nation makes. The NEA distributes grants in all 50 states. These grants fund theatres, orchestras, dance companies, and visual artists that move us, challenge the way we think, foster dialogue, and help us to understand one another. The NEH is the largest single funder of humanities programs in the country. NEH grants help museums, archives, libraries, universities, scholars and documentary filmmakers allow us to understand our rich history and cultural heritage.

The cost-benefit ratio of this funding is tremendous. Each year, the arts generate $134 billion in economic activity; arts organizations employ 4.85 million Americans; they generate $89.4 billion in household income; and lead to $24.4 billion in total tax revenues.

Not only do the arts and humanities have a positive economic impact, but they strengthen and build communities. They help revitalize our nation's cities, and provide venues for people from disparate communities to come together and share a common experience. Students who are exposed to the arts have higher test scores--in math and sciences as well as liberal arts--and have better attendance at schools and increased self-discipline. At-risk teens who participate in arts programs are half as likely to repeat their crimes.

Mr. Speaker, every year, my friends from the other side of the aisle try to slash funding for the arts. I just don't understand their thinking. This modest amendment is the very least we should do today. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and to vote against any attempts to slash funding from the arts that may be offered in other amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very tepid support of this bill. It is a very nice bill. It has some nice provisions. None of it matters very much if we do not at least electronically scan every container before it is put on a ship bound for the United States. All it would take is one atomic bomb, one radiological bomb, to make 9/11 look like a fire cracker, to kill hundreds of thousands of people, to cost hundreds of billions of dollars, to bring commerce to a total halt for weeks or months while every ship, every container is not scanned, but searched, inspected by hand before they are allowed to proceed into this country, because that is what will happen if there is, God forbid, a disaster in this country.

We have no protection against that now. Even with this bill, we depend on risk-based analysis, on paper as Mr. Markey said, to defend us. What the motion to recommit does is to say that no container can be put on a ship bound for the United States until it is scanned for radiation and for density, until the result of that scan is transmitted electronically in real-time to American inspectors in the United States, and until a tamper-proof seal that will tell us whether that container has been tampered with after it is scanned is put on that container.

We are told this is not feasible. Mr. King says the technology does not exist. But it is done in Hong Kong today. It is done in Hong Kong today. The two biggest terminals in Hong Kong have this. Of course, nobody bothers reading the scans because the Department of Homeland Security cannot be bothered. They are on a hard drive in Hong Kong.

It is relatively cheap, $6.50 per container, 10 seconds per container, no delay. But the DHS has no urgency. Mr. Gingrey, a Republican of Georgia at the Rules Committee, said that he had a company in his district that makes those tamper-proof seals that can talk to the global positioning satellite; but he cannot get DHS to talk to them, they are not interested.

The motion to recommit we are told is irresponsible and partisan. It is, in fact, word for word identical as the amendment that was agreed to by the chairman of the Transportation Committee and adopted unanimously by a bipartisan vote in the Transportation Committee. But suddenly when it comes to the floor, it is a partisan amendment.

The Republicans on the Transportation Committee understood the necessity for protecting our homeland. The Republicans on the Homeland Security Committee apparently do not, nor does the Republican leadership, because they will not agree to this obvious thing to do that everyone, bipartisan, on the Transportation Committee agreed to do.

Mr. Chairman, the main risk comes from the so-called low-risk containers, not the high-risk containers. Wal-Mart ships a shipment of sneakers from a factory in Indonesia. And on the truck on the way to the port, the truck driver goes to lunch. And while he is at lunch, someone takes out a package of sneakers and puts in an atomic bomb. The bill of lading is fine. It is a reliable company. It is low-risk, and there is an atomic bomb on that container, and no one sees it because that container is not scanned.

Maybe it is scanned under this bill in Boston or in Los Angeles. It is too late to look at it in Los Angeles if there is an atomic bomb on board.

Mr. Chairman, this motion to recommit, which I hope Members will vote for on the merits, not vote party line against it because it is a procedural motion or some such nonsense, makes this a worthy bill, and makes this a bill that will really protect Americans.

Without the motion to recommit, despite what Mr. King says, this bill does a number of things that are nice, but does nothing really to protect the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion to recommit with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and I thank him for his efforts on this issue.

This is a reasonable bill, but none of it matters much if we don't at least electronically scan every shipping container. All it takes is one atomic or radiological bomb to make 9/11 look like a firecracker, to kill hundreds of thousands of people, to cost hundreds of billions of dollars, to bring commerce to a total halt for weeks or months while every ship is searched by hand because we don't have in place the means to scan every container.

That is what this motion is about. If we really want to make this country safer, we must demand that before any container is put on a ship bound for the United States it must be scanned electronically in the foreign port. It is too late if we find a nuclear bomb in Los Angeles or New York.

The container must then be sealed with a seal that will tell us if it is tampered with after it is scanned, and the results of the scan must be transmitted electronically to people in the United States for examination.

This motion is identical to an amendment that was unanimously agreed to by Chairman Young and the entire Transportation Committee a month ago. This is not a partisan issue, unless you choose to make it so by voting ``no.''

They say the technology doesn't exist. The technology most certainly does exist. It is installed right now in Hong Kong. The technology is installed in Hong Kong now, except that the results of those scans are stored on disks because no one at the Department of Homeland Security can be bothered to read them.

The people who say we can't do this are the same people that told us 2 years ago that we couldn't get a bill of lading for every container 24 hours in advance, the same people who told us that if we searched every passenger, the airports would be gridlocked, the planes would never take off. Scanning every container is feasible, it is relatively cheap, and it will not delay global commerce.

If we continue to rely solely on so-called risk-based strategy, the terrorists will simply put the atomic bomb in a low-risk container from Wal-Mart. The real risk is that a good company will have a container with sneakers on a truck in Indonesia. On the way to a port, the driver will stop for lunch; and while he is at lunch terrorists will take out some sneakers and put in a bomb. And the bill of lading will be fine.

The question on this motion is, do we or do we not want to risk American cities and American lives on the chairman's confidence in Wal- Mart's paperwork?

Mr. Speaker, I yield now to a leader on this issue, Mr. Markey.

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

Mr. Speaker, today President Bush is expected to announce his appointment of Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff to lead the administration's efforts to combat a potential avian flu epidemic.

Didn't the President learn anything from Hurricane Katrina? Michael Chertoff is the same man responsible for the incompetent, inept and tragically unacceptable response to Hurricane Katrina. If Secretary Chertoff couldn't properly oversee the administration's response to a hurricane along the gulf coast that we knew about days in advance, how is he supposed to lead the response to a flu pandemic that could hit at any time?

The Bush administration is already woefully unprepared to fight an avian flu pandemic. The President's own administration has warned that a worst-case scenario here in the U.S. would entail an 18-month-long crisis in which as many as 1.9 million Americans could be killed.

An avian flu crisis needs a serious and competent administrator to oversee our response. The Bush administration is once again showing it will take a crony over a competent administrator every time. It is time for the administration to show that it actually can lead. It is time they turn away from the cronies and find someone competent for a change so the avian flu pandemic doesn't surprise us the way the expected Hurricane Katrina overwhelmed us.

Mr. Speaker, this rule does not make in order an amendment that was defeated 18-16 on a practically party-line vote and is the key difference, and it is why this rule ought to be defeated.

The gentleman from New York says a risk-based strategy. Why should we risk the lives of millions of people by assuming that we know which container will contain the atomic bomb or the radiological bomb? We don't know that. We can't know that.

The only safety we can have is to inspect 100 percent of the containers, not in New York but in Hong Kong, before they are put on a ship bound for the United States. That is the essence of the amendment, the Nadler-Markey amendment that the Republicans won't accept and won't permit us to debate on the floor.

They say the technology doesn't exist. The technology most certainly exists. It is done in Hong Kong today. Mr. Gingrey spoke about a company in his district that wants to sell the tamper-proof seals that will tell us if the container, once scanned, is tampered with. But the Department of Homeland Security is not interested.

This bill contains a study, an amendment by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite that the Department of Homeland Security should study whether it is feasible to have 100 percent scanning. We passed that amendment on this floor 2 years ago. It was the Nadler amendment. It is in the law. It said they should report back in 90 days, 90 days from 2 years ago. They haven't bothered reporting back, because they are not interested in this. This is another waste of time.

The fact is, a risk-based strategy, they will simply put the atomic bomb or the radiological bomb in a low-risk container from Wal-Mart. The greatest risk we face is that a good company will have a container with sneakers in Indonesia on the way to the port, and the driver will stop for lunch, and while he is stopping for lunch, some terrorist will take out the sneakers and put in a bomb and the bill of lading will be fine.

The people who say we can't do this are the same people who told us 2 years ago we couldn't get a bill of lading for every container 24 hours in advance, and they told us we couldn't get every person searched before he got on an airplane.

If we really want to make this country safer, we must debate on this floor this amendment, the Nadler-Markey amendment, to say, before any container gets put on a ship bound for the United States, it must be scanned electronically to see what is in it; it should be sealed with a tamper-proof seal that will tell us if it has been tampered with; and the results of the scan should be transmitted electronically to people in the United States who will look at that seal.

It is being done now in Hong Kong, except that because no one in the Department of Homeland Security is interested, the results of those scans are on tapes that are stored there because no one in this country has time to read those tapes.

For shame.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 75th anniversary of the opening of the Empire State Building, one of New York City's most recognizable landmarks and an iconic fixture of the City's skyline. This landmark building, located in my district, stands as a testament to the indomitable spirit of New York and the capacity of mankind to achieve the extraordinary.

The Empire State Building, designed by the architectural firm Shreve, Lamb and Harmon, officially opened on May 1, 1931. Construction required 60,000 tons of steel and more than seven million man-hours, providing thousands of jobs in the midst of the Great Depression. Renowned pictures of the workers dangling above the city remain among the most striking photos of the era. Upon its completion, the Empire State Building became the tallest building in the world, measuring a staggering 1,454 feet.

Although taller buildings have since stripped it of its title, the 102-story structure continues to delight and amaze, and following the attacks of September 11, it is once again the tallest building in New York City. The Empire State Building has also become ingrained in the popular culture by its presence in such movies as King Kong, and An Affair to Remember. Last year, 3.7 million people flocked to the observation decks for their breathtaking views of New York.

True to its gritty roots, the Empire State Building remains a working building: Every day, more than 20,000 people report to work there, passing through the Art Deco lobby that portrays the Empire State Building as the eighth wonder of the world and the center of the universe. At dusk, the world famous tower lights come on to commemorate national holidays and special events of importance to New Yorkers.

The heart and soul of New York City is embodied in the Empire State Building. From those who fell in love there to those who have returned with their children and grandchildren, everyone recognizes the Empire State Building as an unparalleled emblem of the American spirit. I am proud to honor the Empire State Building on the occasion of its 75th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Linda Rosenthal on the occasion of her election to the New York State Assembly. After a lifetime on the Upper West Side, more than 2 decades of community activism, and 13 years as my Manhattan District Director and Director of Special Projects, on February 28th, 2006, Linda was elected to represent the 67th Assembly District. Assemblywoman Rosenthal's dedication to her constituents continues the West Side's legacy of progressive politics and independent representation in Albany.

Linda first got involved in politics after a dispute with her landlord more than 20 years ago. This experience led her to become a staunch advocate of tenants' rights. Throughout her career, Linda has worked with both individuals and with community groups to secure funding and legislation to help low- and middle-income residents.

As Manhattan Director and Director of Special Projects for the 8th Congressional District, Linda was instrumental in enacting several initiatives to enhance the quality of life for the residents of my District. Linda has been a relentless advocate of such community improvement projects as the Hudson River Park, the 72nd Street subway renovation, various senior and community centers, local parks, playgrounds, and green spaces.

Perhaps Linda's most significant contribution followed the notorious attacks on the World Trade Center in my district on September 11, 2001. Following the attacks, Linda passionately fought the Environmental Protection Agency to provide adequate clean-up efforts to improve the air quality for those who live and work in lower Manhattan. The fight is ongoing, but her dedication to the cause may well save countless lives. Linda also worked strenuously to compel the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to free up more Federal grant money to aid in the economic recovery of small businesses in the area.

In Albany, Assemblywoman Rosenthal has hit the ground running. Since taking office, she has already introduced significant legislation, sponsored over 40 bills, testified before State agencies, and met with community leaders and constituents about the issues facing our neighborhood. She has also been named to the Committees on Housing; Corporations, Authorities and Commissions; Agriculture; Alcoholism and Drug Abuse; and Energy.

Linda Rosenthal is the kind of public servant every Member of Congress wants to work with. Her selfless dedication to her job, her fierce protection of my office and my reputation, and her genuine interest in helping the greater good, are all a testament to her character. I am saddened to see her leave my office after 13 years, but I am also deeply proud of her. I can't think of anyone who deserves to hold public office more than Linda.

For her commitment to her neighborhood, her city, her State, and her Nation, it is my privilege to congratulate Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal on her record of distinguished service, and on her recent election, and to join the rest of her constituents in high expectations of her future public service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this important legislation, H.R. 3127, strengthening sanctions on individuals and governments seen as responsible for the atrocities in the Darfur region of Sudan, and authorizing additional funds for peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts in the region.

After more than 3 years of conflict, between 300,000 and 400,000 innocent and impoverished civilians have died from government-sponsored violence, disease and starvation because of war, and more than 2 million people have fled their homes to internal camps and neighboring Chad.

Despite international condemnation of the Sudanese government, genocide and ethnic cleansing continue unabated.

What is keeping the United States and the international community from intervening meaningfully to stop this humanitarian crisis? What is keeping President Bush from acting with moral clarity and compassion?

While this Congress continues to slowly legislate on the Darfur genocide, the threat of sanctions has done little to end the atrocities. This dire crisis requires a much more robust response.

Our commitment to end the Darfur genocide must be judged by only one test: What are we doing that serves to end the killings and the suffering?

The aim should be to end the genocide, disarm the Arab militias, guarantee humanitarian assistance, protect civilians, secure the refugee camps, and provide safety to families returning to their villages.

Military experts have estimated that these tasks will require 40,000 to 50,000 well-trained and equipped troops. We also have new and innovative technologies that could protect civilians. If we are serious about dealing with this most pressing human rights catastrophe, then we must pressure the Bush Administration and the international community to do all that is needed to stop the genocide in Darfur.

I call for less political maneuvering, and more real action.

Over three years have passed. Out of an estimated pre-conflict population of 7 million in Darfur, somewhere between 300,000 and 400,000 innocent civilians have died.

What are we waiting for? For the Sudanese government and the Arab militias to finish what they have started?

I I support this bill, yet I urge my colleagues to support an international peacekeeping mission authorized to use force to protect civilians and disarm the Janjaweed--one with an adequate mandate, and well-trained and equipped soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the most respected private institutions of higher learning in my district, Pace University, as it celebrates a major milestone, the 100th anniversary of its founding in 1906. This great school has grown from humble beginnings as a School of Accountancy to become a vibrant and dynamic Liberal Arts University offering more than 100 majors.

Over the last century, the school has lived up to its motto, Opportunitas, by offering its students the opportunity to discover and fulfill their potential, and affording its distinguished faculty and outstanding staff the opportunity to achieve excellence. As part of its 15-month centennial celebration, Pace University will be hosting lectures, symposia, service activities, and other special events that reflect on its long history of opportunity and innovation.

With its six schools and colleges and two main campuses, Pace is consistently ranked among the top quarter of 4-year colleges and universities in the country. Pace's School of Law is nationally recognized for the excellence of its Environmental Law Program and its Lienhard School of Nursing has been an acknowledged leader in nursing education, research, and practice for more than 35 years.

Ultimately, Pace University's greatest strength has been its people-- its faculty, staff, students, and alumni--and its most profound achievement can be seen in the countless lives that have been transformed by the Pace experience. I offer my sincere congratulations to all those that have helped the school prosper and grow over the past 100 years.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Democrats in the House, the Senate and our Governors unveiled the Democratic plan for real security. This plan reveals the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans and the Bush administration in protecting our country.

Among the differences, the greatest danger we face is that al Qaeda gets nuclear weapons. The problem with getting nuclear weapons is how to find fissionable material. There is enough fissionable material lying around not properly guarded in the former Soviet Union for thousands of bombs. The Bush administration wants to get it out of there--in 30 years. Democrats say, Get it now, all of it, by 2010 before it is smuggled to al Qaeda to make nuclear weapons to use against American citizens.

We are rightly concerned about the Dubai Ports deal, who controls our ports, but more important is what comes into our ports. Eleven million shipping containers a year, 40-foot boxes, come into American ports. The Republicans, the Bush administration, inspects 5 percent of them. Democrats say, no shipping container, not one, should be put on a ship bound to an American port till it is electronically scanned and inspected by the United States in the foreign port so that no atomic bomb gets put in there and we know about it before it gets on the ship, not after.

If we want to make our country safe, we better elect some Democrats.