Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to commend Augsburg College on its ninth NCAA Division III national title in school history this weekend at the NCAA Division III National Wrestling Championships.

Augsburg was ranked number one nationally all season long, qualified wrestlers in all 10 weight classes, had five top-seeded wrestlers and finished with a national-record-tying 10 All-Americans.

Augsburg's Division III program is one of only four remaining in the state. Its legacy of championships may perhaps be one of the reasons why the NCAA Division Championships were hosted this year in Minnesota for the first time.

The team's winning point total is the most ever for Augsburg at the national championship tournament. It is also the second-highest point total for any championship team in Division III history, accumulating 162.0 points, outdistancing second-place Wartburg (Iowa) with 104.5 points and breaking Wartburg's two-year hold on the national crown.

Coach Jeff Swenson is in his 23rd season at Augsburg. When asked about the program's success, he says the key is keeping it simple: getting rest, training hard and doing everything right. I believe this approach speaks volumes about the program and about the college as well.

Mr. Speaker, Coach Jeff Swenson and the Augsburg student athletes are to be lauded for their pursuit of excellence. I'm certain that their commitment and discipline has reaped rewards of many kinds--one being the title victory.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to take part in the celebration of Black History Month by recognizing distinguished civil and human rights leaders from the state of Minnesota: Virginia and Samuel Richardson.

Samuel Richardson was born in Longview, Texas where he lived until he enrolled in Morehouse College. He moved to Minnesota in 1950 and immediately joined the local branch of the NAACP.

Wanting to see his children grow up in a place that valued equality, Samuel Richardson fought for it in numerous ways, such as by picketing the F.W. Woolworth's in St. Paul to advocate for equal access and jobs for African Americans there. He advocated for fair housing. He marched with Martin Luther King in Washington in 1963. He joined numerous organizations and served as their leader.

Virginia Bardwell Richardson was born in Huntington, Tennessee. She attended the University of Minnesota, became a mother, and has always been passionate about education. She joined local activist organizations and served in leadership positions throughout her entire adult life.

When Samuel was hired by Supermarket giant Applebaum's in a prominent marketing position, he was one of the only black advertising directors west of Chicago. After a long career with Applebaum's, he became the Minnesota State Commissioner of Human Rights. There, he focused on new laws to address discrimination of all kinds, and to promote protections for people with disabilities. He then worked for the State of Minnesota's Department of Education, where he remained from 1971 until 1997.

While raising four children, Virginia was a critical part of volunteer organizations, including Assistant Chair of the Minneapolis Democratic-Farmer-Labor party, Minneapolis Public Schools' quality committee and the Minnesota Epilepsy Board. Almost 25 years ago, she went to work full-time at the PACER Center (Parent Advocacy Coalition for Educational Rights). Today, she serves as its manager of Parent Training.

Samuel and Virginia are founders of the Bryant Village Initiative. This neighborhood-based organization works to make residents' voices heard about the effectiveness of city and county programs. It also provides critical input to the police department and welfare programs to help make their work more successful.

The Richardsons are heavily involved in the Oakland Methodist Church. Both were active in their children's school Parent Teacher Associations. They have also been active politically, including work on the campaign to help the first black woman Mayor of Minneapolis get her start in politics.

``Most people are simply sitting and waiting to be led. All you have to do is step up and do it,'' Samuel Richardson said. ``You want to see change and you want to see people enjoy all the things the Constitution offers.''

Mr. Speaker, this generous activist couple is one example of the critical leadership required for the change that makes our nation a better place. Samuel and Virginia Richardson have advocated for positive change in our country on behalf of African Americans, women, the disabled, and the poor. I can only hope that today we are developing leaders for the future who have the Richardsons' same high level of dedication to public service.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Same Day Voter Registration Act of 2005. This legislation is simple and straightforward: it would allow every eligible citizen to register and vote on Election Day for Federal elections.

The right to vote is the most fundamental of American democratic values. Yet, last November we again heard disturbing reports of voter intimidation, disenfranchisement, machine error, and fraud. If we truly value the right to vote, we must do more to restore public trust in the integrity of our election process.

We should also remove cumbersome voter preregistration requirements. My home State of Minnesota has allowed same day voter registration since 1974. The result: Minnesota is a national leader in voter participation. In 2004, 77.7 percent of eligible Minnesotans voted. Over 20 percent of those voters registered on Election Day.

Same-day voter registration has greatly contributed to consistently high voter turnout in Minnesota. I believe this law has also encouraged new voters, especially young people, to turn out in higher numbers.

Many of the States with low voter turnout also have preregistration requirements of up to 30 days. It is unknown how many Americans have been prevented from exercising their constitutional right to vote only because they were unaware of cumbersome preregistration requirements. My bill will ensure that everyone with the legal right can vote, even those who become engaged in the closing days of an election.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in making Same Day Voter Registration the law of the land.

Mr. Speaker, the right to vote is the most fundamental of American democratic values. However, for the second Presidential election in a row, there were disturbing reports in 2004 of voter intimidation, disenfranchisement, machine error, and fraud. If we truly value the right to vote, we must do more to restore public trust in the integrity of our election process.

We must eliminate cumbersome pre-registration requirements. The State of Minnesota has allowed same-day voter registration since 1974, and is a national leader in voter participation. In 2004, 77.7 percent of eligible Minnesotans voted; 20.6 percent (581,904) of those voters registered on Election Day.

Clearly, same day voter registration has greatly contributed to consistently high voter turnout in Minnesota. I believe this law has also encouraged new voters, especially young people, to turn out in higher numbers.

Unfortunately, many states have pre-registration requirements of up to 30 days. It is unknown how many Americans have been prevented from exercising their Constitutional right to vote because of these cumbersome requirements.

As in the 108th Congress, I will soon introduce simple, straightforward legislation to ensure that every eligible citizen may register and vote in federal elections on Election Day. I hope my colleagues will join me in advancing this legislation.

We must also require a voter-verified paper record of every vote cast. Despite clear warning signs that electronic voting machines are unreliable, no action was taken by the last Congress on legislation to require a paper trail for all ballots. Public trust in the integrity of our ballots is crucial to restoring confidence in the entire system. We must take action on these issues during the 109th Congress.

The free and fair election of our nation's leaders is the hallmark of our democracy, and it is an international symbol of freedom to which other nations aspire. We must promote participation and establish voting safeguards so that future elections in our great country are above reproach. There is much work to do.

Mr. Speaker, my family and I would like to convey our heartfelt sympathy to the Matsui family upon the death of Congressman Robert Matsui on Saturday, January 1.

Bob's passing is a tragic loss to all who knew him. It is also a loss to all Americans who didn't know him personally but whose lives were enhanced by the legislation and the leadership he provided. Bob was one of the smartest and most principled people in Congress, a dedicated public servant, and a friend. He will be greatly missed in Congress, especially by me.

First elected 26 years ago, Congressman Matsui and I entered the U.S. House of Representatives in the same incoming class. We were colleagues and friends throughout these years; our families each moved to the Washington area and our wives Sylvia and Doris also became good friends. One of my fond memories together was attending Brian and Amy's wedding in California a few years ago. Brian also gave me my first official tour of the U.S. Supreme Court facilities where he clerked recently. His parents were so proud.

Sylvia and I are shocked and deeply saddened by Bob's passing, and we offer Doris and the Matsui family our most sincere condolences.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, might I inquire of the gentleman from Kentucky if the conference report we have today as it relates to Homeland Security, his word was, 2 days ago, titles I through V absent VI, I guess we were talking about, is it identical as to what our agreement was of several days ago?

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

So, Mr. Speaker, there have been no changes or additions or deletions?

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Mr. Speaker, first let me congratulate the chairman on his work in presenting this bill to us and thank all the staff, both on the minority and majority, for their work in putting this bill together. This is a complicated bill and involved lots of hard work and many, many hours. I and all the Members appreciate the work they do for us.

I will vote for this bill, but not with a great deal of excitement. One thing one can say for this bill is that it represents a very significant improvement on the President's budget. I find it rare that any of the budgets that come from the President that relate to homeland security reflect much of what I hear in the popular media and in the popular discussion by the President and other members of the administration. Their proposals rarely reflect a point of view that homeland security is one of the highest priorities of our country.

Clearly, we made some improvements, and we have spent billions of dollars. My own judgment, however, is that the Department is much better on press releases than they are on accomplishments. Maybe they have an impossible task in terms of putting 22 different agencies into one agency in this period of time, but I still find that agency loaded with confusion, loaded with management problems, spending an incredible amount of time putting the basics together, shuffling boxes, trying to find out where money is, where money is not, all-of-a-sudden hiring freezes because somebody did not keep track of money. The basics are not there. So I think they have lots of work yet to do to focus their attention really on solving what is a significant problem in this country.

I have expressed at various times some of my specific concerns where I think they are significantly underfunding homeland security in the country, and I will not repeat those today. Let me just, however, raise one concern.

We clearly are moving backwards in funding first responders in this country.

Our total funding for first responders in this bill is less than it was last year. That simply does not make sense. There are some very specific programs that are being cut. One that I find very important is the Metropolitan Medical Response System, a program that predated the Department of Homeland Security, and it is being cut by around $20 million, close to a 40 percent cut. That simply does not make sense.

But for all the Members, I think they should be particularly concerned over what is happening with the formula-based grants program in this bill, and then further complicated by the Intelligence bill that we passed yesterday in the House and the bill that passed the Senate. Currently, the formula-based grants which flow to the States on the basis of population and for which they made plans on how they should be expended is $1.690 billion. That program is being reduced by close to $600 million in this bill, to $1.1 billion, a deep cut in formula funds that flow to the States, who it is going to hurt; and at the same time, we are upping the Urban Area Security Initiative by close to $200 million. But we are fundamentally taking money away from smaller States and from rural areas to fund the increase in the Urban Area Initiative Grant program.

Then, that is further complicated by the bill that passed the House yesterday; and it is my understanding the bill that passed the Senate. They would further reduce the formula grant back to only a basic guarantee to the States, a minimal amount, and leave everything else at the discretion of the Secretary. How the Secretary intends to distribute that fund, we do not know. We have asked and they have no answers.

So I would just suggest to all, to all of my colleagues who come from more rural areas, come from smaller-sized States, they are facing a disproportionate cut in local first responder funding in this bill in either the House or Senate Intelligence bills passed, and they will face an even deeper cut in the funding for local first responders, and I just simply think that is wrong.

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

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

Let me just say as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I think there is no one on that committee that

all of the Members have greater respect for than the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). He amazes me to the degree that he keeps his calm and cool. While all of us scurry about with great excitement and angst, the person who stands there calmly and cooly and keeps our committee functioning is the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). I have just incredible respect and admiration for the work that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has done these last 6 years as Chair of the committee. All of us have disagreements on policies and issues, but the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has made it a pleasant committee to serve on, and I think all Members just thank the gentleman from Florida, deeply.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the House Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

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

Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct House conferees is straightforward. It is a motion to insist on the highest possible level of funding for each homeland security first responder, domestic preparedness, flood map and disaster mitigation program in the bill.

In the conference on the fiscal 2005 Homeland Security appropriations bill, we have the opportunity to provide additional homeland security resources to close known security gaps and to strengthen our first responders.

Going to the higher funding levels for each of these programs means that we would provide $945 million more than the House-passed bill. We should instruct our conferees to do just that.

We all know that first responders, our local police, firefighters, the emergency response personnel, will be the first at the scene of a terrorist attack. We know only too well how many of them lost their lives on 9/11.

Yet, the Senate bill provides $400 million less for the Office of Domestic Preparedness grant programs than the House bill does. This motion would direct conferees to include the highest level for each of the programs funded under ODP.

The conferees should insist on the $1.25 billion provided by the House for the formula-based preparedness grants to all States.

The conferees should insist on $500 million provided by the House for law enforcement preparedness grants to all States.

The conferees should insist on the $1.3 billion provided by the Senate for urban area security grants.

The conferees should insist on the $50 million provided by the House for metropolitan medical response system grants.

We should insist on the $236 million the Senate provided for emergency management performance grants. These grants directly support the States' emergency management programs.

The conferees should also insist on the additional $100 million provided by the Senate for fire grant programs, which would still only fund our fire departments at this year's level.

A year ago, the Council on Foreign Relations released a report entitled, First Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared. The report stated that billions of dollars, $98 billion specifically, are needed to properly equip first responders. Yet, the Bush administration and the Congress continues to cut this funding, not increase it.

Another recent survey shows that fire department needs are immense and are not being met. Is this where we should be 3 years after 9/11?

The motion also addresses funding for our border patrol and immigration investigation operations. A recent Time magazine cover story entitled, ``Who left the door open?'' exposes the weaknesses in our land border security efforts. These are troubling homeland security gaps that we must fix.

While these problems cannot be solved by money alone, additional funding is critical to help harden our security barriers, increase our deportation efforts, and expand our border patrols. We should provide these resources.

House conferees should be instructed to insist on the additional $211 million that the Senate provided for northern border air surveillance operations. We have not yet done what we need to do to protect our northern border.

House conferees should be instructed to insist on the $136 million the Senate provided for increased alien detention efforts, including additional bed space and detention alternatives.

As the 9/11 Commission noted, we have an immigration system that is ``not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism.''

The Air Marshal program is also critical to enhancing our aviation security. The Bush administration has allowed the number of air marshals to fall below the levels they recommended after 9/11. The Senate bill contains an additional $50 million to increase the number of air marshals. House conferees should be instructed to insist on this higher funding.

At the current rate, it will take over 10 years to install checked baggage explosive detection systems in airports with the most critical problems. While TSA is trying to replace unwieldy temporary systems with permanent explosive screening solutions, our progress in this effort is directly related to resources. The Senate bill contains $96 million more than the House. Conferees should be instructed to insist on the higher funding level.

The recent hurricane and flooding reminded us how important it is for communities to have accurately mapped flood areas and funding to mitigate disasters so they do not recur. The Senate bill provides $100 million more than the House for these efforts. Our conferees should be instructed to insist on this higher funding.

All of these programs are needed to close homeland security gaps and better prepare our Nation. The motion to instruct directs the House conferees to agree to the highest funding levels possible for homeland security, first responder, domestic preparedness, flood map and disaster mitigation programs.

We should be doing all we can to close known security gaps today so that we are not sorry tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this motion to instruct.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, before I yield to the gentleman from Texas, to make just a couple of comments.

I am not sure we get anyplace by talking about who has been at meetings or who has not. I have been at lots of meetings with the ranking member as it relates to Homeland Security. I also have been at lots of meetings that do not relate to Homeland Security but relate to another subcommittee I am on in which Mr. Obey has been at. Frankly, it is interesting to hear intelligence from two different perspectives. It is helpful at times. Other times, they still leave you wishing you knew more.

But let me just make this observation. It is true we have limited dollars. It is also true we have an immense new challenge. I hear all this rhetoric that we are in a war on terrorism and that we are and have potential targets in

this country. It only strikes me from open and closed hearings that I have been at that we are pretty casual about the threat we face in this country.

Clearly, we have spent billions, and some progress has been made. But the gaps are there, and they are large and they are substantial. It is always impossible to deal with every potential gap that someone can think of. That is impossible in a free society. On the other hand, we know that there are large targets in this country that, frankly, we have not done enough about. We also know that there are significant gaps in the funding of our first responders, and we know that in the last couple of years, rather than going forward, we are going backwards in the funding of first responders in this country.

This committee and this House have been better than the administration. The administration has regularly cut funding in their budgets for first responders. We have added, but have not been able to add back everything they are cutting. And we are into this same pattern again. The bills that we have will be significantly better than what the administration requested. But what the administration requests as it relates to first responders in this country is simply tragic.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the ranking Democrat on the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, on March 28, 2004, the State of Hockey made history once

again. The University of Minnesota Golden Gopher women's ice hockey team defeated Harvard 6-2 to win the NCAA women's ice hockey championship. This marks the first NCAA championship for any women's sport at the University of Minnesota and was a true Minnesota effort as 12 of the 20 women on the roster are Minnesotans.

Winning the national championship was the crown jewel on an already spectacular season. The Golden Gophers defeated Dartmouth in the national semifinal 5-1 and former national champions the University of Minnesota-Duluth for the Western Collegiate Hockey Association championship. The Golden Gophers' final record for 2003-2004 was a stunning 30 wins, 4 losses and 2 ties.

The Gophers' championship season also yielded a number of individual honors. Coach Laura Halldorson was named the American Hockey Coaches Association's Division I Women's Coach of the Year. Sophomore Krissy Wendell was named tournament MVP. Five Golden Gophers were named to the NCAA all-tournament team: Krissy Wendell, Natalie Darwitz, Allie Sanchez, Jody Horak, and Kelly Stephens. This represents the most national all-tournament honors awarded to any Golden Gophers team in history.

Mr. Speaker, Minnesota is, and will always remain, the State of Hockey. I congratulate the players, coaches, staff, and fans for this wonderful achievement. And with most of the team back next year, we hope to be back here celebrating again.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise in opposition to the amendment. The amendment is well-intentioned. However, one of the problems we have in this bill constantly is that while we call it homeland security, it incorporates many pre-existing programs that provide very crucial and important services in this country. One of the things that we have been involved with for a long, long time through FEMA is dealing with floods. The mapping program is already reduced from last year's level, and this would be another $20 million reduction in that very important program. I think while the amendment is well-intentioned, where the money comes from does not make sense to me.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides $5 million for the Department of Homeland Security to analyze whether critical infrastructure facilities should be required to provide information about their security vulnerabilities to the Department.

These resources are needed because the Bush administration is not working aggressively enough with the owners of critical infrastructure such as chemical plants to identify and address security issues. This modest amount of money to focus the analysis on vulnerable facilities could save us countless lives and resources in the future.

The Department currently lacks meaningful security information on these facilities and is in no hurry to collect it or require it to be provided. Under its current plan, the Department will take years to gather information for all of the 30,000 entities classified as critical infrastructure. In fact, this year DHS only plans again to gather information on 4,000 such entities.

For one sector of the U.S. critical infrastructure, chemical facilities, the General Accounting Office found that no comprehensive information exists on the industry's security vulnerabilities, and many facilities have neither assessed their vulnerabilities nor improved their security.

This is the state we are in today, despite years of warnings from experts and the FBI having identified chemical facilities as clear terrorist targets. According to GAO, there are 709 chemical facilities in the U.S. where a ``worst case'' release would affect 100,000 or more Americans.

Members may want to take a close look at this map to see where these facilities are located in their States. There are about 2,300 more facilities where a ``worst case'' chemical release could affect over 10,000 people and about 15,000 chemical facilities that use or store at least one of 140 hazardous chemicals.

In an appropriations hearing this spring, the Under Secretary responsible for infrastructure protection described what the Department has been doing to address security concerns. He said: ``When we visited in the first round, we were first about helping them assess the situation . . . we have returned in personal visits or in a conference call and attempted to start to develop plans, what I call operational plans, to truly improve the security of the facility.''

Conference calls to develop security plans? Are we really serious? More than 2\1/2\ years after 9/11 the Bush administration still thinks that improved chemical facility and critical infrastructure security can be controlled.

I think that the Department should be reviewing vulnerability assessment, not conducting them. That is the heart of what we are saying here. The Department should be reviewing vulnerability assessments done by the plants, not conducting them. They should be reviewing security plans, not making them. They should be checking on facilities to make sure that the security improvements identified in the plans are made.

Is this something unique, something new? No. The fact is the Federal Government already requires such security measures for ports, water utilities, and, believe it or not, chemical facilities that have water access. So if their chemical plant has water access, the requirements to do vulnerability assessments exists; if they are not on a waterway, then it does not exist. For some reason unknown to me, we do not require them for these other critical infrastructures.

While I prefer to offer an amendment that requires such assessments and security plans to be provided for Department review, it would not be in order. However, at a minimum the Department should seriously evaluate the path it takes in gathering this critical infrastructure information. I urge the Members to support this crucial amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a provision that fundamentally continues what is existing law that is applied for this. I think it is unfortunate that the point of order is raised. I think this amendment deals with some of the most sensitive privacy issues that are involved with the Department of Homeland Security. On the other hand, I understand that this is legislation in the bill, and, unfortunately, it is being struck.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that 20 minutes would be controlled by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and 20 minutes by someone else on the other side.

Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with that, with the exception that the time on our side should be controlled by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), who is authoring the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I think that has been done.

Mr. Chairman, we have a growing list of Members who want to give speeches, and I ask the gentleman to withdraw the request for 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, continuing to reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to find out whether I should pursue the point of order or not, and I get different interpretations of the gentleman's amendment and what it is intended to do. If it does not do much or anything, then I think the amendment is in order. On the other hand, the rules say we cannot legislate on an appropriation bill, and if it does something, then it seems to me it may not be in order.

Mr. Chairman, so the gentleman's judgment is the amendment does not do anything?

Mr. Chairman, I know we have Members' concerned and who want to discuss this issue. But the amendment has left me confused. But I do recall a year ago I was confused by an amendment and after some discussion, the House voted the amendment down. And so I am still trying to sort out if it does something or does not do something.

Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Colorado agree?

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order and reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time, which I think is 30 seconds, to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this was an amendment that I was not planning to offer unless the language we had in the bill relating to CAPPS2 was stricken. And, unfortunately, there was a point of order raised on the CAPPS2 language and some very important language relating to privacy was stricken from the bill.

This is a rather simple amendment. The fact is the Department's privacy office has huge responsibilities and a limited budget. The amendment increases funding for the Department's privacy office by $2 million. The charge of the Department's privacy office has grown far beyond what was originally envisioned in the Department's budget projection.

The Secretary delegated Freedom of Information Act oversight to this office in addition to its privacy duties. The privacy issues at the Department are huge, particularly with the TSA, CAPPS2, and transportation worker identification cards programs, and MATRIX. The privacy office will also be the last point of passenger appeals.

Because we eliminated the Capps language which required GAO to do a review of the Department's efforts to put CAPPS2 in place, and because there are new requirements being issued by the Department and how they are going to put their CAPPS2 list together, again we have a requirement in the Capps amendments that GAO review that process. That was deleted from this bill. Because of this vacuum by what we did because of a point of order, there is increased sensitivity and responsibility for this office to deal with some of what I think are the most crucial privacy issues that are involved in the Department of Transportation security.

So I think they are going to have significant additional, they were going to have significant increase in work load before the elimination of the TSA language. That simply increases their job responsibilities and some sensitivity of what they have to do.

I urge adoption of this amendment. The $2 million comes from aviation security which is a fund of over $4 billion. This clearly is a very important expenditure for aviation security, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have some Members that have amendments and they are on their way. I know the ranking member of the full committee has an important amendment, and I know there are a couple of others, but we are getting close.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

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

Mr. Chairman, one issue that is partially dealt with in this bill, but not to the degree that I think it should be, is the whole question of the screening of cargo on passenger aircraft.

Last year, the House passed by an overwhelming margin a provision requiring all cargo on passenger planes to be screened. Then that did not survive conference. We continued to do some work in that area. A very limited amount of cargo is being screened. This bill says it should be doubled, but doubling a small number still leaves us very little cargo being screened. I think it is one of the most vulnerable parts of airline security. I think most of the people in this country have no sense that most of the cargo going into the passenger plane that they are flying is not screened. We clearly have the potential and the capability to do more. At times we have gone to heightened security alert in this country, and the screening has gone up substantially. It is an area where we should be moving aggressively and increasing the screening.

I offered a committee amendment that would have called for a fivefold increase in the amount of cargo to be screened. I thought it was doable. Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated.

So I just want to express my concern that this is one area which clearly has been a target of terrorists for a long time, the aviation industry, where we remain very, very vulnerable; and I just think it is urgent that the agency and the Congress pay much more attention to the question of cargo screening on passenger planes than we have done and an area where we need much more aggressive action in the future.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his kind comments. Let me say he is a pleasure to work with. He is a very knowledgeable, hardworking chairman, and he does an exceptional job as he has in heading two other subcommittees in this House. He is a long-experienced chairman. We do have good subcommittee members and a great staff on both sides of the aisle. It is a pleasure working with the gentleman and the staff and the other members of this subcommittee.

We have our differences, but I think we also have a good product. I thank the gentleman.

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

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and his staff for their hard work in producing the legislation we have today. President Bush's 2005 homeland security budget request fell far short; and while this bill is an improvement, and that it is, I am concerned that it does not go far enough to close troubling homeland security gaps.

The committee followed a logical plan in distributing the $32 billion allocation. However, this measure does not provide the resources needed to significantly improve our ability to detect terrorist activities or to respond to an attack. The committee was forced to make trade-offs among programs to improve disaster preparedness and response, immigration services, and programs to stop terrorists. As a result, we have some worrisome gaps.

The first responder funding cuts, this funding cut for local fire, police, and emergency personnel, is one of my biggest concerns. With cuts in fire grants and deep cuts in formula funds to most States, overall the bill provides $327 million less for first responders than was enacted in 2004. While funding to certain high-threat urban areas is increased, the fact is that this increase comes at the expense of the rest of the country. If these cuts hold, next year most States and localities will end up with less homeland security funding than they have today.

This bill comes just weeks after the American people saw live television coverage of the Attorney General and the FBI Director giving us alarming warnings of imminent terrorist attacks. At their press conference, Mr. Ashcroft said that our own intelligence and al Qaeda public statements indicated that it is almost ready to attack the United States and that they intend to hit us hard. This week an alleged al Qaeda operative was indicted for plotting to blow up a shopping mall in Ohio.

If terrorists attack us again, our local police, firefighters, and emergency workers will be the first on the scene. It frustrates me that there is little sense of urgency to ensure that these first responders have the tools that they need to do their jobs. This legislation also fails to address other critical homeland security issues.

Two of my chief concerns are the inadequate inspection of cargo carried on passenger planes and the lax Federal oversight of chemical plant security practices. Unlike passenger baggage, the cargo on passenger aircraft is not rigorously inspected, even though it is carried in the same hold. Furthermore, cargo carried on all cargo aircraft is not inspected at all. I am also troubled that the administration continues to have inadequate chemical plant security policies. For the most part, vulnerability assessments and security plans are left to the plant owners' consciences.

Last, I would like to point out a bill provision concerning the CAPPS2 air passenger prescreening system that TSA is developing and may be testing later this year. This provision updates last year's bill by requiring the Secretary to certify, and the General Accounting Office to review, the certification that all eight security and privacy criteria are met before the passenger profiling system can be deployed. In its first review in February, the GAO found that TSA had met only one of the eight criteria.

The new language also specifically mandates that GAO review the CAPPS2 methodology that is intended to predict whether a passenger could be a terrorist. This element is the most sensitive aspect of CAPPS2 with broad implications for Americans' privacy and civil liberties.

In closing, I am concerned that this bill continues, does not do more to close the troubling homeland security gaps. The American people demand our best efforts to protect the country from those who would do us harm, and the Congress should be more aggressive in challenging the administration where it falls short.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), a distinguished member of our committee, and friend.

(Mr. Price of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to my friend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Let me say to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), I think I know a little bit about budgets, having spent some time doing that, at a time when we passed budgets that reduced the deficit and we had some tough requirements on spending, and raised revenues to make the deficits go down.

The reality is that the most important decision in a budget resolution is the total amount set for discretionary spending. That then governs the decisions we have to make on this bill and the other 12 bills that we have before the Congress. If that budget resolution has an unrealistic number for the total discretionary spending, it limits every option we have.

I think I and others have been clear that this bill represents an improvement over what the President asked for, that it has reasonable choices within the dollar allotment that this committee has given. I think the chairman has done an excellent job. I would not share his enthusiasm for how good the Department is going, but he is also tough on them at many times.

But there is also one other thing that we do, and that is we say there are certain expenditures that are emergencies and go above and beyond the normal budget process. Since 9/11, we have appropriated billions of dollars as emergency expenditures for our friends in New York, for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think with unanimity on the expenditures in Afghanistan, division over our operation in Iraq, but then again significant support for our troops whether we agreed or disagreed with that policy.

Just the other day in appropriations, we appropriated $25 billion more of emergency spending beyond the normal defense appropriation for next year for operations in the Middle East, and we know that number is going to increase. What some of us are saying is that there are significant security gaps that we should deal with in this country and we should have a modest amount as emergency spending.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) asked for $3 billion for rational things to do, disciplined things to do, in comparison to the billions and billions we are spending outside this country. That is legitimate debate. It is legitimate options that we could do, and some are choosing not to do that. If we declared it emergency and appropriated that $3 billion, it could not be spent unless the President decided to spend it.

So what we are talking about here is not irrelevant, it is important and there are distinct differences; and those differences do not diminish our respect for the quality of work done by the chairman and the subcommittee.

I would just suggest do not belittle the opinions of lots of people in this place that there are significant security gaps in domestic security, echoed by all kinds of experts outside this institution that we are not dealing with.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), a member of the full committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) who has done an outstanding job as the ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a member of the authorizing committee for a significant part of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, unrelated to the gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment, I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) had an amendment right prior to that, and I think he was standing right here.

I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) be allowed to offer his amendment after the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).

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

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, and I am ready to vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman on a very good amendment. It is a much needed study.

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

Mr. Chairman, I suppose if it were an ideal world, I would prefer not to have staffing caps and would like to think I could trust an agency to manage the staffing.

There is nothing about TSA that gives me that confidence. I have dealt with endless agencies over the years. I have never dealt with one more frustrating to deal with in all my years of public service than

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

I just want to make sure where we are in the bill. Let me describe the problem. I think the last number read was the number on the bottom of page 22. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) had an amendment that would have come after that but before the top of page 23; but I think, in fact, the current amendment is amending the number on the top of page 23.

After this amendment?

I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I join everyone else in congratulating the New York/New Jersey delegation on their enthusiasm and their vigor. This Congress has responded. It has promised New York in a rather dramatic fashion post-9/11. But let us be clear about what we are doing today. We are very substantially reducing the funding for local responders, fire, police, emergency personnel all over the country. We are doing that before this amendment and dramatically more if this amendment is adopted. The basic formula grant in 2004 was $1.690 billion. Under this bill it is $1.250 billion, a drop of $440 million. This amendment would reduce it by another $446 million. The Urban Area Security Initiative, $721 million last year, $1 billion, under this bill, already an increase of

$279 million plus another $446 million under this amendment for more than a doubling of this program, while the other program would be virtually cut in half, that deals with the balance of the country, most of the rural and moderate size communities in this country and many fairly large size communities.

Another thing that sort of strikes me in all this discussion, I hear about the initial grants in proportion of grantees that happened later on and that some terrible thing happened because the numbers increased. I recall that first grant by the agency. I asked them a question: What were the criteria they used to distribute these funds? I waited and waited and waited for an answer. I talked to a high up official, and they said, We will see you in a week, and I would wait another month or two. I am still waiting. We finally did have a briefing before the second round of grants were awarded, at which point we had some criteria. But this is no great science. I wish we had this total understanding where threats were in this country. Clearly large urban areas like New York, like the District of Columbia, are threats. But so are many other parts of this country. And in many parts of the country, the need for technical assistance, for training, for specialized equipment, it is probably more substantial than it is even in some of our larger urbanized areas. And these formula funds do not flow out willy-nilly sort of around the country. We have to develop a State plan and a regional plan to get these funds.

So it is not a dab here and a dab there. But States have to work at it; local communities have to work at it. They have to have regional approaches. They have to use these funds where they make sense to deal and respond to real projected threats.

So, Mr. Chairman, I wish we had all the money we needed. The fact is the base bill in total has some reduction in funding for local responders. The basic formula grant would be further reduced in a significant fashion by this amendment, while the urban security initiative, which is already receiving an increase, would have a substantial increase.

I do not think that is fair. I think we need to be fair to the totality of our country. In my judgment, the base bill, if anything, is skewed too much in changing money away from the basic formula grant. So I would urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, those are decisions that are at a higher pay level than mine, and I have to object.

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

Mr. Chairman, while I objected to a time limit a short time ago, let me suggest that if only those Members that had something unique and new to say chose to speak, we might be able to vote fairly soon.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me time.

I rise in opposition to the rule on the fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security appropriations bill. The President's 2005 Homeland Security budget request falls short. This bill represents an improvement; however, I have serious concerns about some of the program funding levels and the policy decisions which a rule would prevent us from addressing.

The rule fails to waive points of order against the Obey amendment. The bill contains deep cuts in first responder funding, which is $327 million below 2004 enacted levels. The House-passed budget resolution and the resulting Homeland Security allocation restricts this bill from doing more to protect our borders and ports and other critical infrastructure.

To address some of the most critical needs, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered an amendment in the Committee on Appropriations to provide a contingent Homeland Security emergency reserve of $3 billion available to the President upon request. The amendment is common sense, yet Members cannot vote on it because this rule fails to waive points of order against it.

The Committee on Rules also failed to make in order an amendment that I offered the Committee on Appropriations on chemical plant security. My amendment would direct the Department of Homeland Security to require both vulnerability assessments and security plans for chemical facilities and to provide oversight of the action taken by these facilities to improve security. The decisions on which chemical facilities must comply would be left to the department based on risk.

It is widely known that chemical facilities are clear terrorist threats and there are about 3,000 such U.S. facilities where a release would affect over 10,000 Americans.

Despite years of such warnings from many experts, the General Accounting Office reported in 2003 that no comprehensive information exists on the security vulnerabilities facing the chemical industry, and many facilities have neither assessed their vulnerability nor their security. We should not wait any longer to protect this glaring problem, but this rule prevents us from taking prudent action.

As Warren Rudman recently said, ``You have to only look at television footage from Bhopal in India when an accident occurred to recognize how serious a disaster this would be. If you were terrorists and you decided to cause a major disaster, why would you not go to a plant that, if you could penetrate it and blow a part of it up, would cause fumes to waft over the entire area to kill who knows how many people?''

Last, I am disappointed that this rule leaves unprotected the most critical element of the CAPPS II passenger prescreening provision. This bill language mandates that the GAO review the methodology used by TSA to determine which passengers may be terrorists.

This is the most sensitive aspect of the CAPPS II, with broad implications for Americans' privacy and civil liberties, and GAO has not yet been able to review it.

In closing, I believe this rule prevents the House from addressing some of the most critical Homeland Security funding and policy issues. I urge Members to defeat the previous question and, if that is defeated, to defeat the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the important work that is being done to aid victims of torture, and to reemphasize my support for the reauthorization of the Torture Victims Relief Act,

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I rise to honor Barbra Wiener, the founder of the Women's Cancer Resource Center (WCRC) in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Barbra founded WCRC in 1993 with the vision of providing free support and advocacy to women affected by cancer and to promote cancer prevention through environmental awareness and activism. Ms. Wiener was inspired to launch WCRC after the loss of both her mother and sister to breast cancer and her own battle with thyroid cancer.

WCRC serves as an information, support, and advocacy center for women with cancer. Information services include treatment referrals, guest speakers, and a comprehensive health library. In addition, WCRC offers support groups, one-on-one support programs, therapeutic massages, and a mentoring service that matches volunteers to clients with a similar cancer diagnosis. WCRC also holds public health forums on environmental issues related to health and facilitates outreach programs that focus on cancer prevention. All of these services are provided free of charge to women with cancer.

Ms. Wiener has been acknowledged for her work with several awards including the Helen Caldecott Leadership Award, an international award recognizing leadership on behalf of women. Further, the Ford Foundation recognized her and her colleagues at WCRC as finalists for the Leadership for a Changing World Award. In addition, Barbra currently serves on the boards of the Headwaters Foundation for Justice, Women's Environmental Institute, and the Minnesota Interplay Community. She is also a member of Alliance for Accountability in Breast Cancer, a national coalition of cancer activists.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and honor to represent a woman who has turned personal tragedy into an invaluable service that helps women affected by all types of cancer. It is during National Breast Cancer Awareness Month that I ask that my House colleagues pay tribute to the life work of Barbra Wiener.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Peter Agre, M.D. who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry today. Although he is now at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore where he received his M.D., I am proud to say that Dr. Agre received his bachelor's degree in chemistry from Ausgburg College in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Dr. Agre's father, the late Courtland Agre, taught chemistry at Augsburg College from the 1950s to the 1970s.

Dr. Agre's award is for the discovery of transportation channels in cell walls. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences believes the work of Peter Agre and Roderick MacKinnon, with whom he shares the prize, is of great importance for our understanding of many diseases of the kidneys, heart, muscles and nervous system.

Today the entire Augsburg College community, including alumni like me, congratulates Dr. Agre for a discovery that benefits all of humanity. I hope that the young people in our schools and colleges and universities are inspired by your example and will explore the exciting possibilities that lie in scientific discovery.

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

Madam Speaker, when it comes to homeland security, the rhetoric flies fast and furious. Everyone wants a safer, better-prepared America against both terror threats and natural events like Hurricane Isabel. But our actions do not always match rhetoric. In most respects, this conference report does a responsible job of allocating funds within the budget constraints we face.

I commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the staff for their hard work and the many thoughtful decisions that are reflected in this bill. It is a clear and substantial improvement over the administration's request. I suppose one of the things Chairman Rogers mentioned was funding for port security. And I think it is obvious that we could spend more there, but every penny that has been appropriated by Congress was money not asked for by the administration.

Let me also pay particular respect to the hardworking staff. They are hardworking, they are professional, they are competent. From the minority staff, Beth Pheto; from our committee staff, Marjorie Duske; from my personal staff, Michelle Mrdeza, Jeannie Wilson, Stephanie Gupta, Jeff Ashford, Tom MacLemore, Tammy Hughes, and Brian Dunlop. They have had a big job to do, and they have done it in a professional manner.

It is a simple fact, however, that the United States is not as well prepared as we can and should be to meet our homeland security challenges. We should do more.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the debate I will offer a motion to recommit that is very similar to the motion to instruct conferees that this House passed overwhelmingly 2 weeks ago. By a vote of 347 to 74, the House instructed conferees to insist on the highest possible funding levels for each homeland security preparedness and disaster response program and to require screening of cargo on passenger airplanes.

This conference agreement does not do that. One troubling shortfall is first responder funding which would remain flat at the 2003 level. The House bill would have provided a 4.5 percent increase, which is $200 million more. We know from our fire chiefs, police, and other first responders that more resources for equipment and training are urgently needed. The Council on Foreign Relations independently documented these needs in its recent report, ``First Responders: Dangerously Unprepared, Drastically Underfunded.''

I might add that adding money for such things as first responders is not simply throwing money at the problem. It is a substantial need, and we need to deal with it.

But homeland security preparedness is not just about more money. Across the board we need better management at the Department of Homeland Security. We need better plans. And in some areas we need more aggressive security goals. I put screening of cargo carried on passenger planes at the top of that list.

Mr. Speaker, 374 Members voted to instruct conferees to insist on the House amendment to require the immediate screening of cargo carried on passenger planes. This conference agreement comes up short in that respect. Instead, the agreement directs Secretary Ridge to research, develop, and procure systems to screen cargo on passenger aircraft at the earliest possible date. I do not think that is strong enough. The Department shows no eagerness to address the cargo problem. We should give them a deadline to act.

I might add that I sensed no particular interest, even, in this problem by the Department until the House passed its original amendment.

Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit would set a deadline of October 31, 2004, for the Department to implement screening of cargo on passenger planes. We know who flies on passenger planes, but we still do not trust them. We still screen their bags. The same should be done with cargo shipped on these planes.

Airlines and others have argued that screening air cargo is a technical challenge that requires much more time to develop. This argument is similar to those made prior to 9/11 about screening passenger baggage: it cannot be done. How quickly we seem to have reworked old ways of thinking.

The motion I will offer will give the Department of Homeland Security 13 months to develop and implement a plan to screen cargo carried on passenger planes. Some may argue that is not enough time. I question how long we should make the American people wait.

I would also point out that this requirement would not affect every airport. The FAA tells us that 95 percent of all cargo carried on passenger aircraft is loaded at only 44 airports.

The lack of screening of cargo on passenger planes is not the only homeland security gap that exists today, but it is a huge one. Unless we make steady progress in closing these gaps, they will exist for years to come.

Let me add that the known-shipper program is probably better than not having anything, but I might remind Members that the gentleman who shipped himself in an air cargo crate was working for a known-shipper.

The Department's oversight of this program today basically consists of a few inspectors checking paperwork at airports. It is not a serious screening program today.

So I urge the adoption of the motion to recommit.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is accurate.

No. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I was not an advocate of the position in the conference committee. I thought we made a mistake in changing it. To be fair, the language in the bill retains some money as a separate line item, and there is language indicating the fire chiefs and the people involved in fire should be involved in the grant-making process.

I personally have questions about taking a program that was well run where it was and shifting it to another agency. I have a concern that what will develop are people who do not know much about the program making the grants.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his concern. We clearly need continuing strong oversight of this program.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

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

Mr. Speaker, let me take a few minutes to talk about another provision in the bill which I think is important and it relates to the CAPPS2 system.

TSA has been working on this system for almost a year, but there remains many unanswered questions about it. I am concerned particularly that those people who move residences a lot or do not have phone or other bills in their name, like children and some older Americans, will be singled out for further TSA screening, not based on risk, but simply because of these two factors.

I am also concerned that TSA will have no real system where passengers can correct incorrect information. The provision in the bill, which I originally offered and strongly support, requires GAO to review CAPPS2 as it exists today before funding can be obligated on a planned pilot program. TSA is allowed to test the system while GAO's review is being conducted.

The GAO's review would mirror the recommendations put forth by the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General in the report they submitted

on May 20 on DOD's Terrorism Information Awareness Program.

It is unclear how many of these recommendations, if any, have been followed by the TSA or by the Department of Homeland Security. I suspect none. Those recommendations include testing the search tools and security of the architecture, ensuring that the system is secure from hackers, and that the proper policies and processes of the system are in place.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the passenger profiling system we are using today is a sophisticated or good one. However, we as a Nation need to be very careful as we proceed.

We recently heard about further problems about the TIA where a test conducted with Jet Blue, unknown to its passengers, matched up passengers and Social Security information and allowed some of this information to become public. We need to prevent this and any aviation passenger profiling system TSA develops, and that is what this provision in the bill seeks to do.

The bill has good language, and I hope it is fully implemented and followed by TSA.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

First, let me indicate my strong agreement with the statement of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) that getting good information and getting it accurately out to our local units of government is incredibly important. We focus on homeland security in this bill, but clearly, some of the most important work, even more important than anything we do in this bill, is the work that is done by the Intelligence Community and the FBI to gather appropriate information.

And I think we are still sorting out how we get that information, even to us in Congress and to local units of government; and that remains and should remain very high on our priority list.

Mr. Speaker, I urge people to vote for the motion to recommit. Under the process of the House, there will be no separate debate on that motion after the debate concludes on this bill.

Our motion is a reasonable one. It is a problem that exists. I think we all understand that what goes into the belly of the plane is really a problem. From the earliest days of discussion of airplane security following 9/11, my initial response was that the biggest problem was not what went in the plane itself but what went into the belly of the plane.

Frankly, at one time I was not aware of the amount of cargo that was being carried. Baggage we are screening; cargo we are not. We have technology that we can use. The problem is how we put packages together and we prepackage into big containers. That gives us some trouble. We could prescreen before we repackage everything.

The Department is planning pilot projects, and clearly there is technology they are going to use. They need a prod and a push. They have basically ignored the problem. There has been no interest in the industry, no real initiative from the administration and from the Department. I do not know any other way to get their attention than by putting a deadline in a bill.

We would have had a little more time frame within a motion I offered in conference for planning and then implementation, but I could not offer that same motion here because of the limits of germaneness. So we have an amendment that is reasonable, gives them over a year to put a plan in place and to implement it. If there are problems that are real, they can come talk to us. It is after the start of the next fiscal year.

If we want to deal with the issue of cargo security and cargo screening on airplanes, the only way we are going to get action from this agency is to put a real prod to them, and that is by adopting the motion to recommit and setting a time frame for when they have to have it done.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.