Floor Statements

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

First, let me congratulate the gentlewoman from Michigan in joining our committee, the Committee on House Administration. She is quite an addition to the committee and we congratulate her.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 841 in its current form. While the bill number has changed since last year, the core problems in this legislation remain the same as in last year's bill, H.R. 2844. H.R. 841 is unworkable, unfair and undemocratic. It restricts the franchise and inhibits public participation in the expedited special elections it would create, an especially unfortunate development following so closely after the serious problems revealed in the aftermath of the 2004 elections.

This bill is part of a series of actions by the majority over the last 2 years as advertised in addressing problems of congressional continuity. The stated objective of the legislation is to override State laws in order to hold expedited special elections within 45 days of a catastrophe which may leave more than 100 vacancies in the Chamber. While this goal is laudable, the bill defines a problem, creates an unfunded mandate, but then provides no solution. This legislation dumps the problem onto the States to produce something called an ``election'' within 45 days, but without the political and democratic substance we associate with campaigns for the House of Representatives.

I want to stress that H.R. 841 has no partisan content. It is simply inadequate to the task of reconstituting the House in a truly democratic fashion. Members on our side of the aisle were split almost down the middle last

April in the vote on this legislation because they felt pressured to do something. But the majority voted for it virtually lockstep when not even its principal sponsors could explain how the bill was actually supposed to work. The Senate, not surprisingly, never acted on it. So here we go again.

H.R. 841 contains a wish list of provisions which would set impractical deadlines, ignore the rights of candidates to run and of voters to participate in elections, and create confusion in the aftermath of a national catastrophe when the country needs the stability of established constitutional processes and the legitimacy of the rule of law.

Let us look at some of the specifics of this bill. Among the principal flaws of this legislation are the time frame is much too short for the conducting of special elections in many States. Even States whose present laws contemplate 45 days may not cope in the aftermath of an unknown future crisis which could affect our infrastructure and communications systems nationwide. The House last year rejected a proposal for 75 days in which to conduct these elections. This year, I will offer a compromise amendment proposing 60 days, which is not a magic solution, either, but which at least provides valuable additional flexibility to the States.

The bill represents an unfunded mandate. While States could conduct special elections to fill vacancies even without this bill, it eliminates their flexibility in the scheduling of elections, in the format of the elections and in the costs of elections.

There is insufficient time for voter registration for those wishing to participate in an unscheduled, sudden election for the House. New voters would be blocked out of the system. Why should we prevent full public participation when a Congress, seeking to renew itself, needs the legitimacy which an open democratic system provides?

The bill provides no mechanism for candidates to qualify for the ballot in States which require petition gathering or other potentially time-consuming measures intended to assess the public support and credibility of potential candidates. States are expected to develop some faster method to accomplish these central goals of qualifying candidates to run very early before the bill's trigger is pulled or risk missing the deadline. So which should it be?

This bill assumes that there are instant candidates out there who, upon learning of a vacancy, will decide to run without full consultation with family and friends, or with their potential parties and relevant interest groups and who can instantly arrange financing and instantly have an infrastructure in place to negotiate the campaign finance laws. These steps are extraordinarily difficult even in normal circumstances. Are candidates who can make instant decisions to run and instantly finance their campaigns representative of the full range of political talent of America? More importantly, are they the people we want to give a head start in gaining seats in the House? I do not think we want that, Mr. Chairman.

This bill also allows insufficient time to conduct primary elections in the many States which allow them for special elections. Last year's bill originally banned primaries entirely, but the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) improved this bill during our committee markup by removing the prohibition on primaries. Nevertheless, the 45-day scheme would still effectively block them in many States.

This bill still allows insufficient time to send, receive and count absentee ballots, even in those States which will not use primaries. Those most likely to face exclusion include Americans abroad and our military personnel stationed and fighting overseas.

Mr. Chairman, this bill contains no mechanism to activate its own provisions in the event the entire House membership is wiped out. If so, what happens next?

H.R. 841 deals with a practical catastrophe and a partial one, but becomes useless in the event of a total catastrophe. It was suggested on the House floor last year that in the circumstances that the entire House was wiped out, it would be up to the people to come together and make the determination as to the rebuilding process and how it begins. Really? Then how? Is it not the responsibility of Congress to anticipate and find solutions to problems when it enacts laws and not to rely on some vague national town meeting if the bill fails to work? Should we not be settling this issue right now right here in the legislation before us?

The 45-day provision in the bill allows insufficient time to assemble the infrastructure of elections necessary to manage elections competently and fairly. Even in elections, under the best of circumstances, there are inevitably problems with voter registration lists, voting with provisional ballots, transmitting, receiving, and counting absentee ballots, reserving polling places and staffing the polls with voting machines and election workers.

After a catastrophe we can add a potential breakdown in communication systems and other infrastructure, including transportation, along with the potential inability to order voting machines and ballots. Forty- five days is simply not enough time in many States to conduct special elections, especially after a national catastrophe.

Mr. Chairman, this bill represents the wrong choices of values in a democracy. It creates an artificial election timetable aimed at simply creating a result, and that is just Members of the House. The American people deserve real choices, emergency or not.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

To respond to the gentleman's comments about California, it does show that we do need beyond 45 days to hold a special election, such as in the case of our late friend, Representative Bob Matsui. And also I refer to the committees that were convened to preserve our institution, and it aligns many States where the vacancy days for holding elections were not fewer than 74 days. So those are the number of days that are important that we need to adhere to.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

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

Mr. Chairman, this bill is not a bill that will work. You have heard it from several Members. This bill is unfair and is undemocratic. It has also been shown it is too short a time to conduct special elections in many States. It is insufficient time for voter registration and for those who want to participate in this unscheduled election. New voters will be blocked out of the system entirely. Is this what we want, given the last election of 2004? I think not.

This bill simply represents the wrong choices of values in a democracy. This bill should be voted down.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in lieu of amendment No. 1.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this compromise amendment would change the overall deadline to conduct expedited special elections under extraordinary circumstances to 60 days instead of the 49 which we just voted on.

I urge Members to support 60 days because it is a more practical and realistic deadline, places less burden on the States, and still accomplishes the bill's goals to expedite special elections in a large number of States.

A 60-day deadline would allow more time for States to attempt to implement the election law restructuring, whatever that might be, and require to comply with the bill's goals.

It would also allow some States more options if they wish to preserve their primary elections which at the insistence of the minority are no longer explicitly prohibited by this version of the legislation. But while primaries may no longer be barred, 49 days to hold both a primary and a special election is still a high bar to meet.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to read from a letter that was presented by Kevin Kennedy, the executive director to the State Elections Board of Wisconsin, the State which the author of the bill comes from. And he states in portions of the letter: ``62 days is the minimum time necessary to ensure proper mechanical operation of an expedited special election, consistent with democratic integrity, and offering of all voters the opportunity of a meaningful opportunity to vote.''

This is what I am speaking about in my amendment. The principle 49 days is really not enough time; and so, therefore, the bill is really flawed because it decrees that the elections will occur 49 days after the Speaker's announcement. But having said that, what would happen next?

How States which would have to reduce their preexisting time frame for special elections could actually accomplish this is the great unknown. Would it require States' enactments, States' constitutional amendments, popular referenda in some States?

I do not know the answers and the bill's sponsors surely do not know the answers. But 60 days at least provides some additional flexibility in the hands of the decision-makers who must grapple with the jig-saw puzzle of demands the bill places upon them. Sixty days is not a magic bullet any more than 49 days is; but experience as well as decades spent as candidates running for public office teaches us to err on the side of flexibility, especially at a time of potential national crisis.

This amendment is an effort to find common ground after the House rejected a 75-day time frame offered last year by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson). My 60-day amendment also conforms to the recommendations of the Election Center, which represents the Nation's voting registration and election officials and administrators at the city, township, county and State levels. Proponents seeking a truncated time frame for this legislation have often, misleadingly, cited Doug Williams, Executive Director of the Election Center, which, once again, represents the Nation's voting registration and election officials and administrators at the city, township, and State levels, but he has not endorsed this bill, and he has said that 45 days is still too short and that a time frame closer to 60 days would provide States a greater assurance of success. State and local election officials at election process forums over the last 2 years have raised questions about the time frame as well.

In testimony prepared before the Committee on House Administration on September 19, 2003, Mr. Lewis framed the debate as follows: ``What is an election? Is it a date-certain event so that voters can vote? Or is it more than that? Is an election in American democracy really a process that includes time for the identification of candidates, the ability of candidates to mount a campaign, to raise funds, to attract supporters, to inform the voters of what their choices are between the individual contestants, and then going to the polls to make that choice? The point is this: If it is only an event, then we can structure an event in a short time frame and carry out the event as flawlessly as possible. If, however, you define it in the broadest possible terms, then you have to allow the process time to work.''

Mr. Chairman, I agree that elections are a process which implement democracy.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a former Secretary of State.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), who is also a former Secretary of State.

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

In this book we have, the first ``Report of the Continuity of Government Commission,'' in that it outlined an election in Michigan, Michigan's Third Congressional District where the vacancy occurred in 1993, and the time that was allotted for that election was 178 days, which brought us the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) who is part of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, in returning to the testimony of Mr. Doug Lewis, executive director of Election Center, after polling election officials from around the country, he summarized the results: ``While the responses indicated a variety of dates ranging from the shortest time period of 35 days after determination of who the candidates will be to a period of 4 months, it appears that election administrators feel that they can conduct an election with as few as 45 days. However, the election officials would be far more confident

that the interest of democracy would be best served by having up to 60 days to get the elections organized and held. Each additional day beyond the 45 day minimum time frame creates greater confidence in the process.''

Mr. Chairman, I prefer to come down on the side of the interest of democracy, and my instincts after campaigns for local, State, and Federal office tell me 49 days is simply too short.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Jackson-Lee amendment. A portion of the gentlewoman's amendment seeks to provide an expedited appeals process to the United States District Court for matters arising out of the special election process. We have been talking about this 44, 45, 49-day deadline for special State elections, and it already places significant constraints on the electoral process and on the citizens represented due to its brevity.

Taking away the right of an appeal to United States District Court would excessively curtail the procedural due process rights enjoyed by citizens. I support the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on H.R. 841, I asked for a recorded vote. I was seeking recognition but the mike was not on.

Mr. Speaker, I stood when the board was being cleared on the last vote which was a motion to recommit. Now I am told that I cannot ask for a recorded vote on H.R. 841, and I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with the Chair. I was standing at the time. My mike was not on. I kept yelling to the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise ask for unanimous consent to address the House for five minutes.

Last Sunday, January 30, it was my pleasure to join with Los Angeles Mayor Jim Hahn, Council members Janice Hahn and Tom LaBong, State Senator Alan Lowenthal, the widow and family of the late California Assemblyman Vincent Thomas and the citizens of Los Angeles for the Inaugural Lighting of the Official Welcoming Monument for the City of Los Angeles--the Vincent Thomas Bridge.

In this time of inaugurations, it is fitting to recognize the bridge that is an integral link to one of this Nation's most active ports and that will serve as a guiding light for economic growth to our city, our State and our country.

Los Angeles is a world-class city and it is the primary point of entry into the United States for people and commerce throughout the Pacific Rim. In fact, many consider Los Angeles to be the capital of the Pacific Rim.

The Vincent Thomas Bridge represents the Gateway into the United States and I can think of no greater monument to our world-class city and to the great people of Los Angeles and the southern California region.

Sunday's event was the culmination of the collective efforts of a broad section of Los Angelinos over the last 16 years. This monument will serve as a beacon for California, the Nation and the World as to all that is good and great about Los Angeles.

I want to take this time to congratulate the members of the Vincent Thomas Bridge Lighting Committee of San Pedro and their President, Louis Dominguez for the hard work they have done to help make today happen.

Their efforts in raising the $1,002,657 necessary to realize this project are to be commended. I would also like to thank the Port of Los Angeles and the Department of Water and Power for their major funding of this project.

Nestled in the San Pedro and Wilmington communities, the 41-year-old Vincent Thomas Bridge is named for the late State assemblyman who 50 years ago led the fight in the California legislature to build the bridge. Today it is a vital transportation link for the Port of Los Angeles.

But the Vincent Thomas Bridge also brings regional economic forces that have a profound impact on our regional and national economies.

As the southern California region continues to grow, so does the significance of the Vincent Thomas Bridge.

The Vincent Thomas Bridge connects the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, creating the largest port complex in the country and third largest in the world. Together, these ports are responsible for upwards of 45 percent of the containerized cargo that enter our country. In addition, approximately 80 percent of the goods that come into this country from the Pacific Rim come through these two ports.

These ports are true economic engines.

In 2002, the annual value of the trade handled by Southern California's two ports was $172 billion. It is estimated that in 2010 that number will grow to $253 billion a year.

In 2002, trade through southern California ports supported over 3.7 million jobs nationwide.

As a Senior Member on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in Washington, I can tell you that I too have fought to make sure that the Nation knows the importance of our bridges, highways and ports in Los Angeles County to the economic well being of our country.

The goods that move through the southern California ports impact us all, some States more than others.

For example, annually $16 billion worth of goods move through our ports to New York, that is $7.8 billion a month. Illinois receives $12 billion a year and $1 billion a month in goods from southern California. And Texas receives $11.8 billion a year or $983 million a month.

I could go on, but instead would like to extend a standing invitation to my colleagues to visit this bridge and to visit our ports here in Los Angeles and Long Beach so that they too can get a first hand look at one of the major economic engines that helps drive our national economy.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the United States Seaport Multiyear Security Enhancement Act, and I am asking all of my colleagues to support it.

Seaport security continues to be an ongoing national concern that Congress cannot afford to ignore any longer. The United States Seaport Multiyear Security Enhancement Act is much-needed legislation that seeks to provide a steady, predictable stream of funding for port security projects. In short, this legislation creates a Port Security Grant program within the Homeland Security Department.

Our Nation's 361 seaports are considered a major terrorist target. It is known that al Qaeda has strong ties to the shipping industry and that one of the aims of this target network is to weaken the economic security of our country.

Our Nation's coastline is our longest border, which is a 95,000-mile coast that includes Great Lakes and inland waterways. Protecting America's seaports is critical to the Nation's economic growth, vitality, and security. Seaports handle 95 percent of our Nation's overseas trade by volume, support the mobilization and deployment of U.S. armed services, and serve as transit points for millions of crews and ferry passengers. Maritime industries contribute $742 billion per year to the U.S. Gross National Product.

The United States Coast Guard has issued final regulations that call for an

immediate and long-term investment in securing our seaports. According to the United States Coast Guard, implementing these regulations that directly address our Seaport security needs will cost $1.1 billion in the first year and $5.5 billion over 10 years.

To date, security funding to our seaports has been woefully underfunded. Last year, the administration requested $46 million for Port Security funding. We can and we must do better, Mr. Speaker.

Given our Nation's economic dependence on our seaports and our ongoing national security concerns, seaport security funding and the need for Federal support for our Nation's security should be ongoing.

Given the enormity of these seaport capital infrastructure projects, my legislation seeks to do the following: Establish a multi-year seaport grant program that resembles the Letter of Intent measures established in the aviation security program; call for multi-year grants and $800 million per year for Port Security Grant Funding. The program would be authorized for 5 years.

This legislation is much needed. We should recognize the continuing security and economic needs that face our Nation and our seaports, and implementing the U.S. Seaport Multiyear Security Enhancement Act is an important step in doing so. I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today it is with a respect of my past ancestors that I rise to list my name with my fellow colleagues, who have come to address the disenfranchisement of many voters who were unable to cast their votes in the most fundamental exercise of democracy--voting for the President of the United States.

As the sole member of the Congressional Black Caucus and the only woman to serve on the Committee on House Administration, I have received numerous letters from constituents and citizens whose outcry is of faulty equipment and irregularities in this last Presidential election.

Mr. Speaker, the breadth and depth of what occurred in Ohio surrounding this past Presidential election is astounding and naturally calls into question the validity of our electoral process.

However, the larger picture requires that we must engage a debate of our voting process as it represents the bedrock of our democratic society.

The Judiciary Committee, under the request of Congressman John Conyers, found that voter registration applications were incorrectly rejected; registered voters were wrongfully purged from the rolls; inadequate numbers of voting machines were used resulting in voters waiting hours to vote; and voter intimidation and misinformation was insidious at voting sites. This caused the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I represent the voices of my constituents in the 37th district of California who are calling on this Congress to fully fund the Help American Vote Act. I have also called on the President to fully fund HAVA to remedy the ill-fated processes and procedures that currently exist.

Our country cannot be seen as the example of democracy in the world when there are lines of voters wrapped around the corner unable to vote and exercise this fundamental right.

We must do everything in our power as a representational body to make sure that every voter votes and that every vote is counted. We must reform our election process so that the outcome of future elections will not bring us again to this same place.

I will continue to call for further hearings that will help alleviate the irregularities in voting, and put into action the implementation of voting best practices.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of this Congress, legislation that I am reintroducing today.

The Fairness to All Vietnam Veterans Act directs the Secretary of Defense to find an appropriate way to recognize and honor Vietnam Veterans who died in service to our nation but whose names are not listed on the wall of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

A family in my district, Mary and Tom Manley of Long Beach California, brought the need for this legislation to my attention.

Tom Manley is a survivor of the U.S.S. Frank E. Evans.

The Evans sailed from the Port of Long Beach for the last time in the spring of 1969.

After seeing serious combat off the coast of Vietnam, the U.S.S. Evans was sent to a brief training exercise called ``Operation Sea Spirit.'' This training exercise involved ships of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization.

In the early morning hours of June 3, 1969, the crew of the U.S.S. Frank E. Evans awoke to the sounds of an Australian carrier splitting their vessel in half. The forward half, where all 74 deaths took place, sank in three minutes. There were 198 survivors.

Although the Evans was in the South China Sea, these sailors' names are not listed on the Vietnam Memorial wall because the U.S.S Evans was just outside the designated combat zone, which determines inclusion on the wall.

Unfortunately, the case of the U.S.S. Frank E. Evans does not stand- alone.

There are many families across the United States, like the Manleys in Long Beach, who have loved ones and friends that have been excluded from proper recognition--maybe even in your district.

It is time for the Department of Defense to examine current policies for placement on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall.

This legislation also calls on the organizations and government agencies that originally constructed the Vietnam Veterans Memorial to examine the feasibility of inscribing additional names.

Should there be no practical way to add these names, the bill seeks appropriate alternatives for recognizing these veterans.

I ask Members to join me in properly honoring those Veterans who have given their lives for their country.

With the ongoing conflict in Iraq we are all acutely aware of the sacrifices our men and women in the military have recently made to ensure our nation's safety, security and our freedom.

A Nation is judged on how well they treat their Veterans. Let us not forget those of a past generation who fought for the freedom that we all cherish today.

Join me and support The Fairness to All Vietnam Veterans Act.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of this Congress, legislation that I have introduced today--The Secure Domestic Container Partnership Act of 2005.

This legislation directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a pilot program that encourages shipping handlers to seal empty shipping containers after they have unpacked them.

Under this pilot program, the Secretary may authorize a shipper, cargo carrier, freight forwarder, terminal operator, port authority, or labor organization that is a qualified container handler to secure under a seal approved by the Secretary, a shipping container that is emptied by the person.

It is my strong belief that this program, when fully implemented, will do so much for securing our supply chain, reducing congestion around our ports and intermodal centers while offering our shippers the opportunity to actively participate in securing our home front, our economic supply chain, our transportation infrastructure and most importantly our communities.

Last year, in response to the 9/11 Commission Report the Maritime and Coast Guard subcommittee took testimony from panelists responding to the Commission's findings and directives.

A scenario, presented to our Committee that characterized ``cargo containers as a poor man's missile,'' struck me as all too real. In Southern California, the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles imported 68,000 containers a week in 2003. Combine exports and imports for 2003 and you have 125,000 containers that come in, out and through the most populous region in the country with seventeen million residents and growing--and with many high risk targets. Our streets, our communities, our rail infrastructure at any time are supporting full and empty containers.

Containers are as common in Southern California as lawyers are in Washington, DC. Look around you and you will know what I mean.

Now, if a container were to be compromised, empty or full, it would call into question the integrity of all containers on our highways and railways that travel along our entire transportation infrastructure and throughout our communities.

Placing a seal on an empty container is a cost effective common sense solution that further strengthens the partnership between the shipping community and the Department of Homeland Security against the ongoing war on terrorism.

Specifically, I would recommend that the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism or C-TPAT administer this program.

This initiative, under the Customs and Border Protection Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security, has a proven track record of doing great things with securing our supply line.

Through the C-TPAT initiative, Customs has been working in partnership with companies and carriers involved in importing goods into the United States.

Companies are asked to assess the vulnerabilities of their supply chains and to work with Customs to address any vulnerability.

In short, the C-TPAT initiative is the equivalent to the trusted traveler program for goods that the FAA is currently implementing for passengers.

The C-TPAT initiative would be an excellent partner and I would encourage the Secretary to take my recommendation.

Like the C-TPAT initiative, the pilot program created by enactment of The Secure Domestic Container Partnership Act of 2005 would be purely voluntary on the part of shippers.

This is a win/win for businesses, our transportation system and our communities.

I ask my colleagues to strongly support the ``The Secure Domestic Container Partnership Act of 2005.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his support on this.

Mr. Speaker, today it is my pleasure to bring to the Congress this resolution congratulating the Aero Squad Program at Tomorrow's Aeronautical Museum located in my district of Compton, California. It is this program that provides young persons who want to learn how to fly the opportunity to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, a young constituent of mine, Kenny Roy, as a part of his school program, traveled to Canada. Upon entering Canada, Kenny passed the written, medical, and flying portions of the pilot exam to become the youngest African American pilot in the world. It is these types of opportunities that are given to these young folks as well as women that we applaud today.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that I was able to submit this and that the Congress is supporting this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, today it is my pleasure to bring before Congress a resolution congratulating the Aero Squad Program at Tomorrow's Aeronautical Museum, located at the Compton, California Airport in my district, for providing new and innovative teaching programs that expose young minorities and women to aeronautics.

On September 23, 2004, Mr. Speaker, a young constituent of mine, Kenny Roy, as part of the after-school program, traveled to Canada. Upon entering Canada, Kenny passed the written, medical, and flying portions of the pilot exam to become the youngest African American pilot in the world.

This opportunity was made available to Kenny through an innovative after-school program in Compton, California. This program, located in my district, combines two of my passions, after-school programs for our Nation's youth and providing opportunities for minorities and women in transportation.

This program, the Aero Squad after-school program, provides opportunities for our children that would otherwise not have this opportunity unless they enlisted in the armed services. This ``learn- while-you-earn-program'' was created by Mr. Robin Petgrave, who is a licensed pilot. Mr. Petgrave dedicates his time and resources as a commercial pilot so that these children are exposed to civil aviation at its finest.

As a former school teacher and administrator, I am well aware that innovative approaches to teaching our children are few and far between. It is programs like these that embolden the youth of America to reach for the skies.

These children in Compton are able to earn ``credits'' by performing community service. Credits can then be traded in toward flight lessons.

It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that we can continue to provide these opportunities that encourage young minorities and women to consider careers in transportation. I am inspired by the creativity and innovation that the Aero Squad Program embodies. I look forward in the 109th Congress to help support programs such as this, which combine innovative teaching approaches with cutting-edge opportunities.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the House unanimously pass this measure.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern on the course our Congress has taken.

We had a clear choice before us to have passed the Menendez substitute, a bipartisan approach that followed the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission--a Commission that for three years studied the vulnerabilities of our national intelligence community and homeland security and then provided thoughtful, nonpartisan recommendations.

Or pass a partisan House Republican bill that was slapped together in a matter of months to address immediate political measures.

Unfortunately, this Republican led Congress chose the quick fix.

It is important to note that the Senate took these same nonpartisan recommendations to heart and passed a bipartisan bill overwhelmingly 96-2.

As legislators and as leaders of this country, our job is incomplete. We will be revisiting these measures again--and again--until we get it right.

Because, Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to get this wrong. At stake is the safety and security of the American people and the future of our children.

H.R. 10 implements only eleven of the forty-one 9/11 Commission recommendations. However, included in this legislation are more than fifty extraneous provisions not recommended by the 9/11 Commission.

As a senior member on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I am appalled that this legislation has not done more to protect our ports, our national transit systems and our overall transportation infrastructure.

These are obvious vulnerabilities that are not being addressed! Think about the not so obvious vulnerabilities that are being overlooked!

It was our transportation vulnerabilities that the 9/11 terrorists used to attack us on that fateful day and it is likely that it will be transportation that these terrorists will target again.

Aside from the Aviation Subcommittee, our Full Committee was not consulted on the drafting of this bill and I believe that some of the aviation provisions do not go far enough.

For example, H.R. 10 simply states that priority be given to improved explosive detection. This is disingenuous. As the Menendez substitute clearly states all high-risk passengers must be screened for explosives until the explosive detection technology is improved. We must be clear and we must be direct when we address the security of the American people.

On that note, I would like to commend one provision that is in this bill. H.R. 10 took the Commission's recommendation on blast resistant containers and language that I recently introduced to create a blast resistant container pilot program that integrates this technology with our aviation system. This is an important step and one that is long over due.

Since 9/11, the Transportation and Infrastructure has embraced a bipartisan approach in reviewing and addressing the transportation vulnerabilities that face our Nation.

We have accomplished much.

Last week our Committee unanimously reported a bipartisan transit security bill last week that would provide critically needed funding for security improvements for our public transit systems.

Unfortunately, these measures will not be included or addressed in

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California who is controlling this piece of legislation for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the United Negro College Fund on its 60th anniversary. I would like to thank my colleague from California (Mr. George Miller) for sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, ``A mind is a terrible thing to waste.'' These words have long been associated with the strength and commitment of the UNCF. In providing financial assistance to students, raising operating funds for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and increasing access to technology at these schools, the UNCF has assured that a student with a dedicated mind will not be wasted. From its formation in 1944, UNCF has grown to become the Nation's oldest and most successful African American higher education assistance organization.

Currently, Mr. Speaker, of the 65,000 students UNCF supports at 1,000 colleges and universities, 60 percent are the first in their families to attend college and 62 percent have annual family incomes of less than $25,000. So it is evident that without this vital assistance, these students would be left out of sharing in the American Dream.

In administering over 450 scholarships and fellowships supporting students at the undergraduate, graduate and doctoral level, the United Negro College Fund makes lasting contributions to our Nation. The funding provided to students builds successful careers in the many areas that are essential to increasing the competitiveness of the United States in the world community.

It is with the greatest honor that I list some of the alumni whom UNCF has trained to become some of our esteemed leaders:

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.;

The Honorable L. Douglas Wilder, the first African American Governor to be elected;

Dr. David Satcher, former U.S. Surgeon General and former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;

The Honorable Alexis Herman, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, along with some of our distinguished Members of this House: the distinguished gentlemen from Georgia, Congressman Sanford Bishop and Congressman John Lewis; the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Congressman Alcee Hastings; the distinguished gentleman from New York, Congressman Major Owens; and the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi, Congressman Bennie Thompson.

Congratulations to the United Negro College Fund on 60 years of excellence in leading the way for providing financial assistance and training to African Americans enabling them to obtain higher education and to find their role on the world stage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask for unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes.

I want to bring to the attention of this Congress, legislation that I have introduced today--The Secure Domestic Container Partnership Act of 2004.

This legislation directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a pilot program that encourages shipping handlers to seal empty shipping containers after they have unpacked them.

Under this pilot program, the Secretary may authorize a shipper, cargo carrier, freight forwarder, terminal operator, port authority, or labor organization that is a qualified container handler to secure under a seal approved by the Secretary, a shipping container that is emptied by the person.

It is my strong belief that this program, when fully implemented, will do so much for securing our supply chain, reducing congestion around our ports and intermodal centers while offering our shippers the opportunity to actively participate in securing our home front, our economic supply chain, our transportation infrastructure, and most importantly our communities.

Last month in response to the 9/11 Commission Report, the Maritime and Coast Guard Subcommittee took testimony from panelists responding to the Commission's findings and directives.

A scenario, presented to our committee that characterized ``cargo containers as a poor man's missile,'' struck me as all too real. In southern California, the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles imported 68,000 containers a week in 2003. Combine exports and imports for 2003 and you have 125,000 containers that come in, out and through the most populous region in the country with 17 million residents and growing-- and with many high risk targets. Our streets, our communities, our rail infrastructure at any time are supporting full and empty containers.

Containers are as common in southern California as lawyers are in Washington, DC. Look around you and you will know what I mean.

Now, if a container were to be compromised, empty or full, it would call into question the integrity of all containers on our highways and railways that travel along our entire transportation infrastructure and throughout our communities.

Placing a seal on an empty container is a cost effective commonsense solution that further strengthens the partnership between the shipping community and the Department of Homeland Security against the on-going war on terrorism.

Specifically, I would recommend that the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism or C-TPAT administer this program.

This initiative, under the Customs and Border Protection Doctorate at the Department of Homeland Security, has a proven track record of doing great things with securing our supply line.

Through the C-TPAT initiative, Customs has been working in partnership with companies and carriers involved in importing goods into the United States.

Companies are asked to assess the vulnerabilities of their supply chains and to work with Customs to address any vulnerability.

In short, the C-TPAT initiative is the equivalent to the trusted traveler program for goods that the FAA is currently implementing for passengers.

The C-TPAT initiative would be an excellent partner and I would encourage the Secretary to take my recommendation.

Like the C-TPAT initiative, the pilot program created by enactment of The Secure Domestic Container Partnership Act of 2004 would be purely voluntary on the part of shippers.

This is a win/win for business, our transportation system, and our communities.

I ask my colleagues to strongly support the ``The Secure Domestic Container Partnership Act of 2004.''

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the Transportation

Appropriation Subcommittee for including in this years Transportation Appropriation bill, $9 million for the hiring and training for the next generation of air-traffic controllers.

As a senior member on the Aviation Subcommittee, we are well aware that air traffic controllers are retiring at a quicker pace than they are being hired.

Over 50 percent of the air traffic controller workforce will retire within the next 10 years.

Industry believes that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must hire 1000 air traffic controllers a year for the next three years to provide the necessary staffing levels and prepare for the wave of air traffic controller retirements.

Authorizers and appropriators may disagree on a quite a bit, especially on this bill, but the safety and security of the flying public is an issue we can all agree on.

This $9 million is a good first step. However, aside from funding we must also strive to train and hire the next generation of air traffic controllers that more accurately represents American society and the flying public.

By that I mean, in 2003 the following is a break down of the percentage of the air-traffic controller hirings: 18 percent women; 1 percent African American; 1 percent Hispanics; 1 percent Asians; and 0 percent Native Americans.

Unfortunately, these hiring percentages are following an all to familiar pattern that has already been established at the FAA.

For example, in 2003 the following is a breakdown of the air traffic controller workforce made up of the following percentages of women and minorities: 18 percent women; 1 percent African American women; 1 percent Hispanic women; 0 percent Asian women; and 0 percent Native American women.

We have a historic opportunity before us. We are facing a time when we must make unprecedented investments into our air traffic controller workforce.

I ask this Congress--and this Administration, to make the effort to reach out to women and minorities so that we may revamp our workforce to be a replica of our society as a whole.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you and the Ranking Member on this very important issue as this bill moves to conference with the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 465, H.R. 5025-- Transportation/Treasury Appropriation bill, I was on legislative business and arrived after the vote. Had I been here I would have voted in the affirmative.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to congratulate bd Systems and its President/Chief Executive Officer Clarisa F. Howard of Torrance, California on being named the United States Small Business Administration's National 8(a) Graduate of the Year.

I am very proud that this prestigious award, which is presented annually to companies who have demonstrated excellence in business since graduating from the SBA's 8(a) minority business development program, was awarded to a business located in the heart of the 37th District of California.

Clarisa Howard built bd Systems from a three-person operation in 1981, to a thriving company of more than 346 employees today. bd Systems has operations in twenty locations, including right here in the District of Columbia.

bd Systems has been recognized for over 20 years as a world-class provider of technology solutions, providing proven engineering and IT performance, design, analysis, and support. Under Clarisa's leadership, the firm has earned a positive reputation as a key subcontractor to several large defense contractors, including Boeing, which operates a facility in the Long Beach area of my District.

Mr. Speaker, this week is National Minority Enterprise Development Week, and minority business owners from all over the country are participating in a weeklong conference being held at the Omni Shoreham Hotel here in Washington, DC.

The theme for this year's conference, which is the largest federally sponsored activity held on behalf of minority business enterprises, is ``Forward to the Future, Minority Business Enterprise: The National Priority''.

The conference is an important conduit in providing critical information to both the minority business community, and to corporate America at large. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the number of minority owned small businesses are growing nationwide and are an emerging economic force.

In closing, I'd like to salute Clarisa Howard and all of the employees of bd Systems for their tremendous achievement, and I am sure that they will continue to be a success for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House for five minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we are in a crisis situation in America--and here in Congress. On Monday the assault weapon ban bill expired at midnight and to date there has been no indication from this Republican controlled Congress that this important legislation will be reauthorized, let alone addressed, during this session.

This is unacceptable. It is unfathomable to me that Congress and this administration would let this landmark legislation merely expire.

In 1994, Congress came together with the leadership of then President Clinton to pass the Assault Weapons Ban legislation that banned the possession, transfer, or further domestic manufacture of semiautomatic assault weapons for ten years.

The legislation has had documented success.

The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that since 1994 the annual amount of gun related violence has declined by 70%. Unfortunately, tonight, we are on the cusp of taking a major step backwards with regard to protecting our citizens.

Prior to 1994, gun violence, especially among our children was off the charts. The number of homicides committed annually with a firearm by persons in the 14- to 24-year-old age group increased by 173% from 1985 to 1993.

Physicians, school teachers, police officers, mothers, fathers, Republicans and Democrats alike have all called my office this past week, and I'm sure many of my colleagues, and asked why the Republican controlled Congress has not done their job in protecting the American people, our children, our schools and our communities?

Nationally, 70% of the American people have spoken and their message is loud and clear--we need to extend the Assault Weapons Ban.

The National Association of Police Organizations, the National Coalition of Public Safety Officers both support reauthorizing this legislation. My chief of police in Los Angeles strongly supports reauthorizing this legislation.

Now is not the time to make it easier for criminals and terrorists to get their hands on assault weapons. We live in a different world, a more violent world. Much has changed since 1994.

We have been attacked as a country and as a people. Now more than ever we must make it more difficult for those who want to harm us to get their hands on weapons that have the potential for mass killing.

On Saturday, our country recognized the third anniversary of the horrific September 11th terrorist attacks.

Since that tragic day our Nation has waged an on-going war on terrorism, invaded Iraq with the intent of disarming Saddam Hussein, yet tonight we do not even blink in allowing weapons capable of mass killing back on our streets and in our communities.

We have created a Department of Homeland Security to protect the home front, our communities and our citizens.

At the same time, we are asking more from our community's police forces, while making huge cuts to the COPS program.

Our brave men and women who protect our communities are doing more with less. They are now our first responders, our last defense against a terrorist attack, all while they continue to do their job of protecting our communities. Our community's law enforcement have their hands full. We do not need to tie an arm behind their backs as they lead the fight on terror on the home front and continue to keep our communities safe.

This Administration, the Department of Homeland Security along with the Department of Justice has gone to great lengths to create avenues in which to alert the American people that they are in danger.

The Department of Homeland Security has created an elaborate color alert system . . . red, orange, yellow, blue and green . . . to alert our citizens that they are in danger.

There has been much debate on how the administration chooses to use this new alert system or what is the criteria that causes the threat level to rise to red--well, tonight we are witnessing an example of an elevated threat level and it is coming from within our communities.

Our local law enforcement officials will now be on constant high alert because of this administration's inability to reauthorize the assault weapon ban bill. We cannot have inaction from the Bush Administration--we must have action to protect our citizens and our families.