Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to join the other co- sponsors of H. Res. 598 as we pay tribute to America's military impacted schools. It is important that we take time to honor the teachers, administrators, counselors, and other staff members of our military schools. These are the quiet professionals who report for duty each day, but carry the burden of an added mission: to provide the best possible education to students who often have much more on their minds than school work.

I extend my appreciation to Congressman Hayes for sponsoring this resolution. Too often, our military schools and the educators who fill them are taken for granted. This should never be the case. After all, the education of a military child is directly connected to the military's overall quality of life, as well as its retention and readiness.

Today, approximately 650,000 military children are served by talented and caring teachers in public schools near military bases. Another 100,500 military children attend Department of Defense Education Activity schools

here in the states and overseas. Many of these students are facing the reality that their father or mother--or both--are serving in a danger zone.

Fortunately, one thing that American troops do not have to worry about is whether their children are receiving a quality education. The educators in our military impacted schools make certain that the children of our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen have a first- class educational experience--each and every school day.

This is our opportunity to thank the exceptional teachers, administrators, and staff of America's military impacted schools. We recognize the extra efforts they are making in these challenging times, and we are grateful. Job well done.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 1375.

The United States is a government of limited powers and of Federalism. We defer to the States to make their own determinations to ensure the health, welfare, and consumer protection of their citizens.

During my legislative career, I have fought to ease the regulatory burden on our Nation's businesses, our Nation's engines for growth. I have fought against unwarranted government intrusion.

As much as I support the removal of unnecessary and onerous regulatory burdens on our Nation's businesses, I am also a strong supporter of States rights.

In America we do not take a one-size-fits-all approach to government. One reason why we enjoy the highest standard of living in the world is because we have a laboratory of our States who are given the freedom to set their own paths. Similar to completion in the private sector, we allow States to offer competing plans to protect the safety and welfare of their citizens.

H.R. 1375 has many admirable provisions to ease the regulatory environment on our Nation's financial service industry; however, the bill amends the interstate branching laws to permit de novo interstate branching, thus eliminating the State's role in ``entry-by- acquisition'' only rules that apply under Federal law today. This is an unjustified unsurpation of State regulatory authority.

Currently, de novo interstate branching may occur only if a State's law expressly permits it. Seventeen States have passed laws that permit de novo branching, while thirty-three States, like Nebraska, do not.

It is for this reason only I reluctantly cannot support H.R. 1375.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to defend a good American and a good Nebraskan, Tony Raimondo, who lives the American Dream of building a manufacturing plant in Nebraska and having several others throughout the country, employing now 1,200 people that make farm equipment, fencing, tanks, metal buildings. The Bush administration has tapped his expertise to become the new American manufacturing czar; but of course, then this has to be roiled down into Presidential politics.

The Kerry campaign, in a rather deceitful way, attacking a great American, Tony Raimondo, because out of 1,200 American jobs that he has created, they have 180 jobs in China to make farm equipment to sell in China.

This is not an issue of outsourcing jobs. This is an issue of being efficient in a global economy. This is a great American, and I stand to defend him against these unwarranted, deceitful, political, presidential-year politics and attacks.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H. Res. 462.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for his persistence on this bill. There was a time in conference when passage of this bill looked bleak, but he made sure that it passed. I want to thank the last speaker too, because I too care about energy dependence and our dependence on foreign oil, and I wish that we would have had provisions that allowed us to use more of our own domestic resources. But the people I hear from the other side that talk about energy dependence are the ones that barred us from using public lands.

But let us talk about some of the good things in here that do allow us to be more independent: more use of ethanol; fuel cell for auto technology, $2.1 billion authorized for this new innovative technology; distributive power of fuel cells where we help offset the incredibly high cost of using this new technology; Energy Star program expanded, with a $2,000 tax credit to homeowners that upgrade their windows and doors and other things for their house to become more energy efficient; electrical transmission high capacity wires are used. There is so much in here to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It is a great bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think back, somewhat romantically, to when I turned 16, got my driver's license, and my dad let me drive that 1970 rusted-out brown station wagon to Northwest High School in Omaha, Nebraska. I have a not-so-romantic memory of that 1970 station wagon, waiting in line on Fort Street in a line about two blocks long to get gas, and wondering if those who remember that second oil crisis in the late 1970s, around 1977, if you share this memory too of waiting in lines blocks long to pull up to the gas pump, wondering if when you get up there, there is not going to be that white piece of notebook paper up there saying ``out of gas.'' And gas prices doubled and tripled.

Well, since those days in the 1970s, we were about 35 percent dependent on foreign oil; and as we stand here tonight in this Chamber, we are about 58 percent dependent on foreign oil for our energy needs in this country. When we look at those last 20 and 30 years and we see how our economy is growing and has grown, mirrored to that is our energy needs and use in this country. Our energy sector represents 300 billion, a 300 billion piece of the American economy, and it is that that powers America and powers our economy.

Now, I remembered or thought back to that oil crisis in the late 1970s, but there are a lot of people that just have to remember back to last year when oil prices reached record highs of $40 per barrel. In Omaha, Nebraska, we were seeing gas stations with $2-plus per gallon cost for gasoline.

Now, a lot of people that rely on natural gas to heat their homes in the winter saw a nearly 60 percent increase in natural gas. For electrical generation, most peaking plants and a lot of new generation plants rely on natural gas, so that 60 percent increase in natural gas is certainly passed on to the consumers.

Here is just a couple of interesting facts about what our future holds in America and how we are going to power ourselves and our economy. The U.S. energy use has increased by 33 percent over those last 30 years that I mentioned, while domestic energy production has increased 12 percent. America now imports, as I said, 58 percent, and that is expected to grow as high as 75 percent by 2010 to 2015. The Department of Energy expects that by the year 2020, the U.S. energy consumption will increase 50 percent for natural gas, 45 percent for electricity, 35 percent for petroleum, and 22 percent for coal.

Mr. Speaker, we face an incredibly important issue for this country. There is not a person listening here that does not understand the impact of energy on how we do business in America, how we work with our families in our homes, but also how it impacts foreign policy decisions. I think there is probably a lot of us in this House that would love to diminish our dependence on Saudi Arabian oil. Just our imaginations can run wild with how that may free a great deal of our foreign policy. But yet, as I stand here tonight, we have a problem in the United States Congress between two chairmen whose bickering refuses to pass out of conference an energy bill.

See, back in June and July, this House did its business and passed a very comprehensive energy bill that I thought dealt appropriately with our current needs and future demands. Likewise, the Senate had difficulty passing their bill and took up last session's bill, put it on the floor to get it to conference. And I am very disturbed that we cannot get that bill accomplished. I certainly encourage our House leadership to take control of that conference, the Senate leadership to take control of that conference and get it done. This is too important for our Nation to allow pettiness to deteriorate progress to this point so that we cannot pass a bill.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) bringing this to the floor. All of us here support our troops. To not ultimately vote for these dollars is, first of all, I think a slap in the face to all of the families who have lost a loved one in this battle for independence for Iraq, and it would do a disservice to our principles of freedom for this country. And certainly for the $70 billion for our troops, all of us, I would think, stand united in support.

But there is one fundamental question here as we strive to make Iraq an independent and strong country and we help them out. Why not make that $16 billion a loan to that country like many other countries in the past have loaned?

I would also suggest, I would like to add something to the gentleman's amendment and say, well, maybe more of this should be made a grant, based on the condition that France, Germany, Russia, Saudi Arabia, those countries that will stand first in line for repayment, that when they forgive their loans to Iraq, then this loan can be forgiven. That is what I think this is about.

Americans do not want to stand behind in line from an oil rich country while they pay off other countries while we hold the bag.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (H.R. 760/S. 3).

I am proud to support the effective compromise that has been reached on behalf of thousands of women and children in our nation. Enacting this legislation has been a long, hard road for many dedicated Members of Congress and concerned citizens across America. I commend Chairman Chabot for his tireless efforts to debate and pass this legislation, and President Bush for his commitment to sign it into law to protect human life.

The grisly facts of the partial-birth abortion procedure are well known. Suffice it to say that the life and value of a child should not hinge on 3 inches--the 3 inches before a child takes its first breath or before a child meets the abortionist's knife. Partial-birth abortion has visited untold horror upon thousands of women and children since its inception. It would be impossible to count the physical and emotional cost of this procedure for the women who have experienced it, much less the little children who are killed before they have a chance at life.

One such experience merits recounting because of its undeniable message for the protection of human life. In 1993, a nurse practitioner named Brenda Pratt Shafer was working in an abortion clinic. She was a pro-choice nurse who quit her job the day after she witnessed a partial-birth abortion. She told Members of Congress that ``what I saw is branded

forever on my mind . . . the woman wanted to see her baby [after the procedure], so they cleaned up the baby and put it in a blanket and handed the baby to her. She cried the whole time, and she kept saying, `I'm so sorry, please forgive me!' I was crying too. I couldn't take it. The baby boy had the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen.'' Her testimony stands as a powerful witness for every Member of Congress to vote to ban this procedure in our nation.

Another significant testimony comes from a doctor who was asked to care for a baby who had undergone a partial-birth abortion and was still breathing. Dr. Hanes Swingle wrote his eyewitness account for the Washington Times: ``I admitted this slightly premature infant [to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit]. His head was collapsed in on itself . . . I did my exam (no other anomalies were noted) . . . then pronounced the baby dead about an hour later. Normally, when a child is about to die and the parents are not present, one of the staff holds the child. No one held this baby, a fact that I regret to this day. His mother's life was never at risk.'' Dr. Hanes concluded that partial-birth abortions must be banned ``simply because it is the right thing to do.''

Three years ago, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that my home state of Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion was unconstitutional. Justice Scalia wrote in his dissent that ``the notion that the Constitution prohibits the States from simply banning this visibly brutal means of eliminating our half-born posterity is quite simply absurd.'' Passage of the conference report today will clearly show that the Congress stands with Justice Scalia and the many other Americans who respect the sanctity of human life.

It amazes me that in the year 2003, the United States still permits this procedure--this act of death. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, reported this year that the number of partial-birth abortions performed in our nation tripled between the years 1996 and 2000. Estimates were that about 650 such abortions were performed in 1996, and now 2,200 are performed annually.

Former President Clinton shamed our nation and broke faith with women and children by twice vetoing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. I am proud that President Bush will reverse this record and uphold the promise of human life and dignity in America. I urge all of my colleagues to join him in this goal by voting for the conference report on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today with great sadness. Two weeks ago in Omaha, a brave, dedicated police officer, Sgt. Jason Pratt, was gunned down by a violent criminal following a routine traffic stop. He died of severe head injuries last Friday. I attended his funeral 2 days ago.

I want to extend my sincere condolences not only to the family and friends of this heroic man, but to the entire community for the loss of such a brave officer. But while I rise today to mourn the death of Officer Jason ``Tye'' Pratt, I also want to celebrate his life, a life built upon optimism, bravery, compassion and dedication.

Those who were lucky enough to know him will tell you what an honorable husband, father, son, brother, friend, coworker and citizen he was. A 1992 honors student graduate of Burke High School, dubbed as having the ``prettiest smile,'' he married his wife, Stacy, in 1995 and began his work serving the Omaha community as a rookie police officer in 1996. Upon completing training in 1997, he joined the SWAT unit, the emergency response unit.

Jason and Stacy were the parents of two young daughters, Madison and Jordyn. Officer Pratt bragged about his wife and her work at the Immanuel Medical Center and his daughters constantly at work.

He was known for his tremendous discipline, work ethic and commitment. He balanced an irresistible sense of humor with full- throttled intensity in whatever role he undertook. This is a man who truly loved what he did, and never hesitated to help somebody in need.

Police officers are everyday heroes. They put their lives on the line day in and day out to ensure our safety and protect our community.

For a week, Officer Jason ``Tye'' Pratt hung on to his life in the hospital, receiving an outpouring of prayers. He is a true hero. Officer Pratt was a hero to his wife, daughters, family and fellow officers, and he will remain a hero to all of us.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, September 23, 2003, I missed four votes due to a funeral for Omaha Police Sergeant Jason Pratt, who was killed in the line of duty. Had I been present, I would have voted NO on: Roll Call Vote #509--The Motion to Instruct on H.R. 1308 and Roll Call Vote #510--The Motion to Instruct on H.R. 1.

I would have voted YES on: Roll Call Vote #511--The Motion to Instruct on H.R. 1588 and Roll Call Vote #512--H.R. 1409--To provide for a Federal land exchange for the environmental, educational, and cultural benefit of the American public and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7, the Charitable Giving Act of 2003. I commend Whip Blunt and Chairman Thomas for their diligent efforts on this important legislation.

As a cosponsor, I have supported this bill for several reasons.

The American people are the most generous people in the world. It is estimated Americans gave more than 183 billion dollars last year to charitable organizations. Foundations, bequests, and corporations brought charitable giving up to 241 billion dollars.

These donations advanced noble causes in religion, health, science, the environment. To alleviate pain and suffering. To promote culture and world understanding.

For example, in my own district, The Durham Research Center at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, a $77 million, 10-level facility, was completed without tax dollars. It will enable UNMC to enhance its research in a number of areas including cancer, cardiovascular diseases, neurosciences, transplantation biology, genetics and eye research.

Charities and institutions often serve purposes that exceed government efforts to promote the health, safety, and well-being of its citizens, and often with lower costs.

The purpose behind this act is simple. We must ensure the best policies to encourage people to donate to charities. Whether the goal is collecting food for the hungry, shelter for the indigent, or treatment for the addicted, this bill strengthens the existing tax code to encourage charitable donations.

For example, this bill:

Provides 86 million Americans who do not itemize the opportunity to deduct a portion of their charitable contributions--representing more than two-thirds of tax returns filed.

Provides incentives for individuals to give tax-free contributions from their Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) for charitable purposes, which will help a wide range of charities.

Raises the cap on corporate charitable contributions from 10% to 20% over 10 years.

Extends current incentives for food donations to apply to even more farmers, restaurants, and corporations to help those in need.

Anne Frank once wrote: ``No one has ever become poor by giving.'' We recognize this sentiment with H.R. 7 and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Charitable Giving Act.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act.

Last year, President Bush proposed strengthening Head Start to help the program produce more kindergarten-ready children. Research shows that early learning skills such as letter, number, shape and color recognition are crucial to a child's future success in school. In fact, technological advances have made it possible to predict how well a child will read in the 10th grade based on his or her knowledge of the alphabet in kindergarten. Unfortunately, Head Start graduates consistently score in the lowest 25 percent in key early knowledge areas.

More than 1,000 children attend Head Start in Douglas County, NE. Last November, the Child and Family Development Corporation that runs the program failed its Federal review. Government inspectors cited mismanagement, health and safety concerns, and a lack of program goals. This situation is a perfect example of why we need greater accountability in Head Start programs. The children who graduated from this failed program entered school at a disadvantage. We must demand better for these children. We must give them the skills they need to overcome poverty and low expectations.

The Omaha Public School District and a charitable foundation tried to partner Head Start with a successful, private preschool program last year. Almost a hundred additional low-income children could have been helped. Unfortunately, Head Start backed out at the last minute. Construction had already begun on the new $6 million preschool building. From conversations with involved parties, I am convinced this decision was made in the interest of self-preservation rather than concern for disadvantaged children. Head Start pulled out to hide the failures of their program from parents, educators, and government officials. At least one member of the Head Start parents advisory board resigned in protest over this debacle.

H.R. 2210 is necessary to put the future of our children before the small-mindedness of entrenched bureaucrats. Partnerships between public schools, private foundations and Head Start programs are essential. Chicago and Atlanta have successfully implemented this model to benefit children, and another partnership is being created in Milwaukee. The Federal Government should not be allowed to stand in the way of such caring community partnerships to rescue disadvantaged children from hopeless futures. This is a travesty and an immeasurable disservice to the next generation.

It is crucial that school districts be involved in preparing low- income children for academic success. These children already face tremendous obstacles. Research conducted by D.E. Caspar highlights the differences between environments in which children from poor, middle- class and affluent families grow up. For example, affluent children are exposed to 45 million words before kindergarten; working-class children 26 million; and children in poverty only 13 million words.

These conditions affect a child's language development and word comprehension, skills necessary for learning to read. President Bush has called reading ``the new civil right.'' We now know that children who are reading at grade-level by the third grade have a greater chance for success throughout their school years.

The disparity between low-income and affluent children is even more obvious in the amount of positive reinforcement they receive. Children from affluent families are given 32 positive affirmations an hour; working class children 12 per hour, and poor children only 5. Without assistance from caring educators in the community, disadvantaged children will not have the social, emotional or academic skills to succeed in school and life. We must allow States and local school districts the chance to partner with Head Start and provide these children with quality early education programs.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 2210 to give disadvantaged children a real head start in life.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the King-Terry amendment. The long-term effects of reduced water flows on the Missouri River are very serious. In particular, power plants along the river rely on an adequate supply of water to operate, mostly for cooling purposes.

Nebraska's two largest providers of electric power, Omaha Public Power and Nebraska Public Power districts, are strongly opposed to any flow changes to the Corps' 2003 operating plan, and for good reason. Last year, a total of 99 percent of the public power supplied in my district was dependent upon two plants that are dependent upon the Missouri River waters. Reduced flows could cost Nebraska and Iowa power plants tens of millions of dollars and cost the constituents in my district who would have to absorb these costs. Furthermore, drastically reduced river flows could make it nearly impossible for power producers along the river to comply with Federal water laws. Adequate river flows are also necessary for other essential services along the river.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a cosponsor of the King-Terry amendment. We offer this legislation to bring some clarity to a confusing legal situation regarding regulation of the Missouri River. This is an important issue for Nebraska and other Missouri River Basin states. Unfortunately, it is also an issue that has pitted region against region, state against state, interest against interest.

Last weekend, a U.S. District Court judge here in Washington, D.C., ordered the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to reduce the flow of the Missouri River in order to protect three endangered species--the least tern, piping plover and pallid sturgeon. When the Justice department asked the judge for a two-week delay on the order, so that barges could be moved off the river, the request was denied.

Since then, the Corps has determined that the D.C. district court decision is in direct conflict with a June ruling by the Eight Circuit

Court of Appeals, which ordered the Corps to maintain sufficient Missouri River flows for navigation and power generation. The Corps has also stated that its 2003 management plan is based on sound scientific and legal grounds, and has not resulted in any loss of least tern or piping plover this year. As a result, the Corps will not reduce the river's flow.

Corps officials say that reduced flows would have stranded at least 10 barges, including one near Omaha filled with 1,300 tons of fertilizer. Stranded barges pose a serious safety concern, since they could drift downstream, destroying piers, bridge supports and other infrastructure. Worse, they could spill their contents into the river.

The long-term effects of reduced flows are just as serious. In particular, power plants along the river rely on an adequate supply of water to operate--mostly for cooling purposes. Nebraska's two largest providers of electric power--Omaha Public Power and Nebraska Public Power districts--are strongly opposed to any flow changes to the Corps' 2003 Operating Plan. And for good reason. Last year, a total of 99 percent of Omaha Public Power District's generation came from Missouri River-based facilities. Nebraskans depend on these plants for reliable, low-cost electricity.

Reduced flows could cost Nebraska and Iowa power plants tens of millions of dollars. These costs would be directly passed to consumers, as downstream states would be forced to buy out-of-state electricity. Furthermore, drastically reduced river flows could make it nearly impossible for power producers along the river to comply with federal water laws.

Adequate river flows are also necessary for other essential services for river communities--including clean drinking water, proper sewage treatment, and industrial uses. I want to note that my hometown of Omaha has committed millions of dollars to new development on its riverfront. Reduced flows would dry up marinas and leave recreational boaters grounded. A vibrant, flowing river is vital for cities like Omaha and Council Bluffs, as well as every other community along the river.

The Bush Administration has announced that the Corps and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will begin formal consultation next week, as they work on a new Biological Assessment under the Endangered Species Act. In the meantime, constituents in my district, and those of many of my colleagues up and down the Missouri River, need some assurances. The amendment that Mr. King and I together have offered is a temporary provision to ensure the consideration of all interests--including electrical generation, agriculture, water quality, transportation, recreation, and the environment. The legislation would also remove the legal uncertainty created by conflicting court orders, while the Corps and the Fish & Wildlife Service address the important issues.

The Administration has decided to commit an additional $42 million to help restore the Missouri River's ecosystem. I urge the House and our appropriators to work with the Administration, to ensure adequate resources are provided for this priority.

I support the basic objectives of the Endangered Species Act. But it was never intended to overshadow each and every human interest. A balanced approach to managing the Missouri River can be achieved. Rushing to satisfy special interests--without considering all the economic and public safety consequences--is neither responsible nor fair to the taxpayers or those whose livelihoods depend on the river.

Mr. Chairman, the river can be managed in a way that protects wildlife while also promoting the economy of the Midwest and the Plains states. That is the point of our amendment.

I thank the Gentleman from Iowa for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, when will it end? I am saddened by the arguments from the left that fail to recognize that there are more people in America that want to have choices. They do not want just the offering of a government program one size fits all. Not everyone thinks that the government is the answer to everything. So I am proud to support bills that allow the market to provide opportunities and choices, and that is what tonight is about. I am wondering sitting here listening to the debate what some of our Founding Fathers would think of today's debate. Think about the people that started this country that left their countries to set sail on a venture unknown to come to a new land for what? Freedom. Trying to escape the government powers that were controlling their lives. And now 200 or 300 years later from those first people that landed on our shores, our debate is how far government is going to control their health and their lives. Not everybody wants bureaucrats running their health care. So I am proud to stand in favor of the HSAs.

Mr. Speaker, in today's world us baby boomers, and, yes, I am on the tail-end, there are a few others that are nearing their entry into Medicare, but we are facing a crisis too. Our parents need help in today's world. At the same time that we worry about our parents' health and their futures and what our role is as their children will be in helping them in their golden years, we are also raising our children, trying to save for their college and their future. This is one pro- family tax item. It allows me, as the child of a father who had a stroke last October, to help my parents with their health care costs. So this is one great pro-family tax measure, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple in the sense that what it does is it provides 20 million additional dollars for our first responders, and it takes it from a flush, although well-improved, Transportation Security Agency.

I want to start off by complimenting the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the subcommittee. Most of the time when an amendment is offered, it is because that person has disagreed philosophically with the direction of that particular appropriation. I am here to compliment the chairman and say that I agree with his priorities, Mr. Chairman, and two of those priorities that he has provided are an extra $1 billion of funding for our first responders above the President's request. He has also decreased to bring down the number of TSA agents in our airports, and I greatly appreciate both of those.

My goal here today is to improve on what the gentleman has already done, Mr. Chairman. I would like us to take an even bigger step in helping our first responders.

When we look at our homeland security today, we rely a great deal on our fire, police and emergency services; and while we talk about a new Homeland Security Department and funding that Department, most of the people receive a vision of a top-down system that comes from Washington, D.C., down to the local levels. But the reality is when an emergency occurs, when a terrorist attack occurs, whether it is in Oklahoma City or Omaha or New York City or Washington, D.C., the first people on the scene, to take control of the scene, to rescue those that have been injured or killed in the security area are our first responders.

I do not think we can do enough to provide them the proper training and the proper equipment. I have talked to our police officers, who call themselves blue canaries, because they know that when an emergency occurs, when they run into those buildings to secure the areas, they say they know it is biological or chemical or deadly when they keel over. Well, I think when we have a national security policy, a homeland security policy that relies on them, I would like to provide them additional dollars.

Now, why the TSA? I think most of us that go through airports can tell of personal examples with what appears

to be a very flush budget in the respect of seeing the number of white shirts with patches standing around. In fact, at my airport in Eppley, just a few months ago, there was an extremely long line, as there was on Monday morning, but they only had one of the stations open. And I asked the person why there was only one security station open when there were as many as 10 twelve white shirts standing around, and I was told, quote-unquote, they are on break. I called our new security administrator for Eppley and he told me it was broken down. Now, the people on the scene had a different opinion. But that is just one example.

Unfortunately, over the last few months what we have also seen is not only the vast number of employees standing around but the vast number of passengers standing in extremely long passenger lines. Last week, at Reagan National, it literally went out the door. It literally went out the door, yet there were many employees there working. How does that happen, when there is more employees than there were before and the lines are two or three times longer? We are having record numbers of people standing in lines and a number of complaints coming into our office about our own airport.

Now, I go through a lot of airports, and I have talked, Mr. Chairman, to several people in charge of these airports. I get really extremely harsh critique of TSA from airport administrators. In fact, one told me that he wanted to find out the background of the security administrator appointed to their airport to see if this person had any experience with civil airports. TSA denied the request, so a Freedom of Information Act was filed and that was denied on PATRIOT Act grounds. So we do not even know if the people being appointed have any experience in providing security.

At least in Omaha, Nebraska, I know there were two or three people that would have been grade-A-plus in security, yet they were denied for someone we do not even know the background of. And how many of us have similar experiences to tell?

So, Mr. Chairman, I understand your position and I respect it, but I stand by my amendment to help our first responders.