Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 836 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman, my friend from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.

Madam Speaker, the resolution before us today is a fair and completely open rule that provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides under the rules of the House that the bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph. The rule waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, except as specified in the resolution. It authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record.

Finally, as always, the rule provides the minority with one motion to recommit the legislation with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. This bill sponsored by my friend from Kentucky, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Mr. Rogers, provides the funding needed to help secure our Nation's borders and revitalize immigration enforcement, enhance port security, support our first responders and empower them to effectively deal with disasters while also providing the fiscal discipline and oversight needed to ensure the Department is accomplishing its mission as effectively and efficiently as possible.

This legislation provides for a total of over $32 billion for the critical domestic and defense activities of the Department of Homeland Security. This funding is balanced along with an array of Federal programs that will ensure our Nation against terrorist attacks, including critical antiterrorism and border security activities, as well as emerging threats like nuclear detection and enhanced port container and cargo security.

This legislation provides nearly $20 billion for immigration enforcement and border security, including over $2.3 billion for border security, which will add 1,200 new Border Patrol agents for a total of 13,500 agents authorized as overall agents.

Over $4 billion for immigration and customs enforcement, which will add 1,212 new officers for a total of 11,500 overall agents. And $115 million for border security technology and tactical infrastructure.

Additionally, this bill allocates increased funding for Customs and Border Patrol air interdiction operations, maintenance and procurement. Last year the Department consolidated the Office of Border Patrol Air and Marine Assets with the Office of Air and Marine Operations in the newly formed CBP Air.

In 2004 and again last year, in 2005, I visited San Angelo, Texas, to witness firsthand how our air assets were being used to secure our southern borders and to prevent illegal drugs from entering this country.

Since then, I have strongly supported the balanced multimission AMO strategy of pushing out the border to combat illegal immigration, narcotics trafficking and smuggling of other illegal cargoes. I believe that a vigorous coordinated Department of Homeland Security air program is essential to our national security, and I continue to work closely with our Members, including Marcia Blackburn, Chairman Rogers, Chairman Peter King, Chairman Mark Souder, John Sweeney and others to ensure that multi-mission strategy be maintained.

It is interesting to note that this agency has taken the plan that they have initiated and are bringing it forward at this time to make sure that this Congress is aware of what their new strategy is as a result of this realignment. I applaud CBP Air's efforts to achieve greater operation and cost efficiencies; however, a multi-mission CBP Air is vital to a comprehensive border security strategy.

I am very pleased that this legislation details that this expectation, that while CBP Air continues to secure our border, this important function cannot come at the expense of other critical Homeland Security missions, and I will continue to work with Chairman Rogers to ensure that CBP Air follows through with the committee's recommendations.

Aside from these important border security and immigration enforcement functions, this legislation also addresses many other integral national security functions building upon the successes of recently passed legislation, this legislation provides funding over last year's level to secure our ports and in-bound cargo to prevent terrorists and criminals from exploiting the international commerce system.

It provides funding for Coast Guard port and water way security operations; funding for CBP Air cargo inspection and trade operations needed to implement the House's recently passed port security legislation; the funding needed to double the amount of cargo currently inspected; screening 100 percent of cargo through the Automated Targeting System; and to establish minimum security standards for cargo containers

Chairman Hal Rogers has addressed these needs for our first responders by providing over $3 billion to ensure their readiness. Since September 11, including the funds in this bill almost $37.5 billion has been provided to first responders for terrorism prevention and preparedness, law enforcement fire fighter assistance, airport security, sea port security and public health preparedness.

Finally, this legislation provides the oversight and Congressional guidance that the Department of Homeland Security needs to accomplish its mission effectively in areas such as port and container security, border security and immigration enforcement, first responder grants, air cargo and transportation security and disaster management preparation.

Chairman Rogers has included provisions to withhold funds to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security complies with these Congressional dictates and direction. I want to commend Chairman Rogers and others on his committee, including Zack Wamp, Tom Latham, Jo Ann Emerson, John Sweeney, Jim Kolbe, Ernest Istook, Ander Crenshaw, John Carter and Tom DeLay for their hard work and for working with me in the preparation of this important bill as we bring this bill to the floor.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this Congress I think has done a great job under the leadership of not only Hal Rogers but also Chairman Peter King in making sure that we are involved in a collaborative effort with the administration. There have been a number of things that we have seen differently than the administration, but there are a huge number of areas that we have worked together with this administration.

I am very proud of the leadership of this House on a bipartisan basis to address the issues, whether it is dealing with ports, whether it is dealing with our borders, or whether it is dealing with the individual processes that take place in trying to make sure that this Department runs on a better basis.

It is a big task that was undertaken by Homeland Security. It was a big task undertaken a couple of years ago. We know, all of us Members of Congress, that not everything has gone right. That is why we are doing this bill today. We are trying to make sure that we are addressing those things which have not worked as well, but we are also perhaps more importantly trying to put things into a perspective of funding those activities that we think that are important, providing the necessary money but with a strong sense of oversight to make sure this administration understands that while we are giving this money to them on behalf of the taxpayer, they accept it knowing that they have a duty and a responsibility, that we have a collaborative effort.

So I am proud of our oversight. I am proud of the things we are doing and

working on a bipartisan basis on homeland security, and I am proud of what this bill is all about.

A prime example I will give you is a man, Mike Conaway from Midland, Texas. Congressman Conaway has within his congressional district something I spoke about earlier, CBP Air, Customs and Border Protection Air. They are responsible for air interdiction programs. Congressman Conaway has been intimately involved in working with them to make sure that they have the necessary resources for looking over the horizon of those planes and other activities that may be associated with drugs coming into this country.

He has taken it by himself as a lead because it was an area within his congressional district, to make sure that he listened to the men and women, to pat them on the back in San Angelo, Texas, for the hard work they have done, to make sure the coordination and talking with them about the expectation of this Congress and the American people was done.

So I am pleased and can stand here before you today, Madam Speaker, to say this bill is important. This bill is a collaborative effort. This bill is bipartisan. This bill is something that many, many Members have had a huge part of working on and making sure that we are doing those things that prepare this country and continue to keep us prepared. But more importantly, we have had to put them in a priority basis. That is what this document is all about.

We will continue to work with this administration to make sure that homeland security is something that works for the security of this country.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the Rules Committee from California for her words. I do understand that many people on her side of the aisle want to spend more money. That is a natural tendency: spend more money. Make sure my district is protected. Give money to me. Make sure all of these things are taken care of back home. And I share that same concern. I share that concern because we really do see need around our community.

However, with that said, there had to be decisions made that were on a priority basis. And we have learned a lot over the last few years about where the threats are and how money can and must be spent more efficiently and effectively.

I want the gentlewoman to know that I do believe that her attempts to secure money for her first responders are big needs back where she is from, but there are 435 of us who see it that same way also about the needs of our districts. And that is why this committee has worked very carefully with the authorizing committee to make sure that the money that we spend is on a need basis based upon the threats of this country.

So I admire the gentlewoman, Ms. Matsui, for her comments. I want her to know that it is a continuing process, and we will learn things as we move forward, and this bill is necessary for us to prioritize. That is what the Republican majority needed to do in this bill, and that is what we have done. And then along the way we have said ``no'' to a lot of our own Members also based upon the priority that is necessary to ensure the security and the safety of the entire Nation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate and respect the gentleman who will be retiring this year, Mr. Sabo, who appeared in the Rules Committee yesterday to provide not only feedback related to this bill and his thoughts and ideas but also to recommend additional points of consideration.

The gentleman has once again appeared on the floor of the House. The gentleman is aware that this would be the equivalent of legislating on appropriations. And thus the gentleman, Mr. King, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, has sent a letter to Chairman Dreier, the chairman of the Rules Committee, indicating that he preferred that this section 536 not be included within the rule or protected as a result of the committee deciding that it will have comprehensive hearings on this matter to develop legislation rather than what Mr. Sabo's legislation tends to do, but rather comprehensive, overall way to look at these high-security risks as it relates to these facilities.

Committee on Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, May 23, 2006.

Hon. David Dreier,

Chairman, Committee on Rules,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Dreier: The Committee on Appropriations

recently ordered H.R. 5441, the Homeland Security

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007, reported to the

House. This measure contains a number of provisions that

violate House rule XXI, clause 2, which prohibits legislation

in a general appropriation bill. Included below is an

explanation of a legislative provision within the primary

jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security that

appears in the Bill, and I respectfully request that you not

protect this provision from points of order on the Floor.

Section 536 (page 62, lines 1-17), adopted as an amendment

offered by Congressman Martin Sabo at Full Committee markup,

requires the Department of Homeland Security to issue

security requirements for chemical facilities that the

Department deems to have the highest risk within six months

of enactment of the bill. The Committee on Homeland Security

is actively engaged in developing comprehensive legislation

to address the issue of chemical site security, and the Sabo

Amendment would undermine the Committee's efforts to provide

common-sense, risk-based solutions to this problem.

If you have questions regarding this request, please do not

hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Peter T. King,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the vice chairman of the Republican Conference.

Madam Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I respect and appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin for coming to the floor. Just as he did yesterday in the Rules Committee, he asked for us to spend more money, told us about priorities that were not funded properly, wants to get the money by raising taxes, wants to make sure that we know that the priorities should be done differently, and that I respect.

It is no surprise to anybody that the Democrat party sees things differently than we do about how you focus on the priorities of this Nation to ensure our security and our safety. I am worried about their plan. I have worried about their plan because I know that what they want to do is raise taxes. I know what they want to do; they want to spend more money.

Yet, I have only been in this House for some 10 years, and I remember, year after year after year, all they did was take money from the Border Patrol. Year after year after year, they took money from the CIA. Year after year after year, they took money out of the military. Then, all of a sudden, there are problems; they want to know, golly, why can we not get more money to fund the priorities of this Nation?

We are trying to balance what we are doing. I will confess to you that I am not as happy about how much money we are spending or not spending also, but we are trying to move things through on a process basis. That is where Hal Rogers and Pete King, the chairmen of these Republican committees, are doing a good job to balance that money that is available within the parameters of the budget assignment that has been given to this Congress.

So we are going to keep doing it, and we are going to keep struggling, and I thank the gentleman for coming forward. I hope he comes forward with all the spending bills, and I would be disappointed if he did not disagree with us. But I think the answer every time just about, spending more money and raising taxes in this country is not the answer but, rather, a priority basis where we are trying to aim at the threat against this country where homeland security is, and I think this is a balanced bill and I am proud of what we are doing.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman coming forth and speaking very clearly. I think every single Member of Congress has an opinion on the effectiveness of homeland security, the effectiveness of FEMA. Our great chairman, Hal Rogers, yesterday came before the Rules Committee and spent a great deal of time. There was disagreement even among the ranking member and himself about how we continue giving these agencies not only the needed resources but helping them to reform what they are doing.

The gentleman from Chattanooga, Tennessee, Zach Wamp, who sits on the committee, is an example of one of the members of this committee, the Appropriations Committee, who is spending time to look very carefully at this effort. Congressman Wamp, being from Chattanooga, Tennessee, is in the middle of the storms that come and go not only across our southern borders, the gulf region, but also as a member of this Homeland Security Oversight Subcommittee, and he is concerned about what the right thing to do is.

So I have confidence that people like Hal Rogers and Zach Wamp, who care about and can listen to the discussions from other Members, will eventually rectify this issue. Hal Rogers spoke very clearly that it is his intent right now to provide them the necessary resources and to continue working with them to where they are prepared and ready for this summer, having learned lessons from the past.

So I think, and I hope that money that we have provided now and the input that has been provided from Members of Congress in this authorization will go a long way to learning from the past and being prepared for the future.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from New York engaging in what I thought was a fair and balanced discussion about the homeland security appropriations bill. I think it is important that we remember that the balance of what we do says a lot about the success of this government to focus and make sure that we are prepared to ensure that this great Nation is protected by those very important first responders and the United States Government, which has this obligation.

During this time, we have spent a lot of time talking about Members of Congress who focused on the policy issues, but there has also been a lot of work that has been done by many other people. I mentioned my work with Customs and Border Protection. I would like to thank Major General Kostelnick at CBP Air for personally engaging me; Mike Conaway from Midland, Texas, on his thoughts and ideas for the work of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.

We have also spent a lot of time at the White House. The White House has reached out to Members of Congress to find out their thoughts and ideas, and I think the President is well represented by his legislative staff who have come and listened to us and tried to take those thoughts and ideas back to formulate a balanced policy with the administration's position. I want to thank them:

Candi Wolfe; for his professionalism and grace and balance, Brian Conklin; for the star of the White House legislative team, Elan Liang; Chris Frech and

Peter Rowan, because they have been an equal part of the success of this important bill as it moves forward.

I am proud of what we have done. I ask for all the Members' support not only on this rule but the important legislation which makes sure that we have a balanced policy effort and funding effort to make sure this country is protected.

I thank God every day that America rises to its feet, has an economy that works the way it does and the strength and power to lead this world economy, and for strength and peace.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Chief Warrant Officer Eric W. Totten, an American hero who lost his life in defense of liberty and freedom. He made the ultimate sacrifice so that others might know freedom, and I am humbled by his bravery and selflessness.

Chief Warrant Officer Eric Totten was killed on May 5, 2006 when his CH-47 Chinook helicopter crashed in Kunar Province, Afghanistan while conducting combat operations. Chief Warrant Officer is survived by his stepmother, Tommie Totten.

Chief Warrant Officer Totten was assigned to Company B, the 3rd Battalion, 10th Aviation Regiment, and 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, New York. During his service to our Nation, he exemplified the skill, commitment, and passion of a true patriot for freedom's reign. Chief Warrant Officer Totten died accomplishing the task he loved the most--serving his country.

Chief Warrant Officer Totten leaves behind a legacy marked by courage, integrity, and character. May God bless all those he loved, and may I convey to them my sincerest condolences and the gratitude of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Augustine Perez of the Northwest Postal Station on Northwest Highway in Dallas, Texas, which I am proud to represent in Congress. Mr. Perez's record of accomplishment as a letter carrier is truly remarkable. Very few carriers become members of the U.S. Postal Service's Million Mile Club. Only those carriers who have driven 1 million miles, 25,000 hours, or 30 years without a preventable accident can earn induction. While membership in this club is very exclusive, Mr. Perez continues to exceed these expectations, as he joined the club more than five years ago and is still delivering the mail.

Mr. Perez's normal daily routine includes 240 delivery stops with at least six hours of driving. Moreover, most of his delivery vehicles are without air conditioning in what is often a brutal summer Texas heat.

I salute Mr. Perez for his continued service in delivering the mail to the community, and I wish him many more years of great service to the Post Office and its customers. His dedication is unmatched and for this I express my sincere thanks.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 789 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.

The structured rule provides for 1 hour of general debate with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security, and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Homeland Security now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read.

This rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Homeland Security and makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution.

It provides that the amendments printed in the report accompanying the resolution may be offered only in the order printed in the report and may be offered only by a Member designated in the report. They shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent. They shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides the minority with one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this balanced rule providing for consideration of the bipartisan Security and Accountability for Every Port, or SAFE Port, Act. The rule, which makes in order 10 Democrat amendments and five Republican amendments, will allow the House to begin its consideration of this bill, which has 80 bipartisan cosponsors, was approved unanimously through its subcommittee and full committee markups in the Committee on Homeland Security, and represents a responsible and thoughtful approach to providing security at our Nation's ports.

The SAFE Port Act improves cargo security first by enhancing security at United States ports. It requires the Department of Homeland Security to deploy nuclear radiological detection systems at 22 seaports by the end of fiscal year 2007, covering 98 percent of all incoming maritime containers. It provides risk-based funding through a dedicated Port Security Grant Program and requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to coordinate Federal, State, local, and private sector security activities by establishing a streamlined, integrated network of virtual and physical command centers.

Second, this legislation improves cargo security by tracking and protecting containers that are en route to the United States. This legislation will require the Secretary to develop uniform standards for sealing containers entering the United States and provide for the improved utilization of private sector advances in security, including research and development of new technologies and applications. It also improves the International Trade Data System and directs the Department to conduct additional research and testing on technology integration, access control, and data-sharing capacities.

Third, this legislation improves our port security by preventing threats from ever reaching the United States. It improves the Automated Targeting System by collecting enhanced cargo data from importers bringing goods through U.S. ports. It codifies the existing Container Security Initiative and requires the Secretary to refuse entry to high- risk cargo that the host nation does not inspect. It also authorizes the Department to lend detection equipment and provide training to host

nations so that our closest trading partners can utilize the best technology available anywhere in the world. Obviously, that is meant to keep America and our trading partners safe.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation takes a responsible and bipartisan approach to protecting American citizens from the threat of terrorism being brought to our shores through our ports. It includes a provision that requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to continue his aggressiveness and ceaseless efforts to evaluate emerging detection and screening technologies and measure those technologies against real- world performance metrics before deploying them in the field to ensure that they are effective in protecting the American people.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation to improve our Nation's ports.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this fair and balanced rule is one that involves a bunch of cosponsors of Democrats and Republicans. It has been well thought out. It has required a lot of thought process. This afternoon you are going to hear from a number of Members on the Republican side who will articulate how balanced and wonderful and how we have taken time to make sure that we dealt with the minority, that we dealt with the administration, that we looked at other ports around the world, that we are trying to do those things that are best that will secure our ports and get them done as quickly as possible but will also present something that can be done in a balanced and proper way. I think that that is the argument you are going to hear today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke about this fair and balanced rule. We have also spoken about how great the legislation is.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman who is the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, once again articulating this balanced rule and fair and wonderful legislation, we continue to talk about what the legislation stands for without attempting to scare people but rather to give the substance of what the bill is about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection and Cybersecurity Subcommittee, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. Speaker, once again continuing, the majority side, to present a fair and balanced rule with the substance of the bill, I yield 4 minutes to our next speaker, the gentlemen from Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

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

Mr. Speaker, the rule and the substance that we are debating here is very important and one which, to support the balance that we have, the committee heard many of the amendments that had been discussed in subcommittees and in full committee. They were voted down twice as a result of substantive debate and all of the members of the committee being together.

The Rules Committees was aware of that. We took testimony, we heard from people, and we made a decision. Our rule, the one we are putting together, is fair: 10 Democrat amendments, 5 Republican amendments. We feel good about what we are doing. The substance of the bill is strong, the substance of the bill is balanced, and the substance of the bill aims directly at what our national self-interest is as it relates to protecting our ports.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the gentleman from Florida that the majority does not have any additional speakers at this time and that I would welcome any opportunity that he would have to utilize his time up with the knowledge that I then would close as appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this point and would encourage the gentleman from Florida, if he would choose to close at this time, to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for articulating the Democrats' side this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, we understand what they are saying. We get it. As a matter of fact, there have been these debates now for several years, and this House, time and time again, has said that we support a risk-based funding approach. Risk-based.

We have already shown this where Democrats have voted. In the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, 44 Democrats voted for that; first responder authorization, 181 Democrats; Homeland Security appropriations bills, 194 Democrats; and then, on the conference report, 124 Democrats; and then in the 2004 intelligence reform bill, 183 Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, we do not say this bill is perfect. What we try and do is aim the resources, the precious resources combined with the technology and the desire that the United States of America has to support the efforts of protecting this country, not only in our ports, on our borders, in our cities, and in the intelligence that we do. And time in and time out, we have said we are going to be threat-based. Where the threat is, that is where we will put our resources. And a 100 percent check of all the cargo that goes in and out of our ports is simply unrealistic.

What is realistic, that overwhelmingly has been supported by this House, that I believe once again this House will be on record to support, is the thing that works, and that is to not chase our tail but to look at where the threat exists. That is what this committee has done. That is what the Rules Committee has done. I am proud to say that we have a fair and balanced rule. I am proud to say that the underlying legislation that has been supported by these two committees is threat- based, aims directly at a bipartisan approach and, more importantly, is something that will make us a little bit safer now and in our future.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of what we have done today, and I think this House will support that. I urge all my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation to give the Department of Homeland Security the tools and the direction it needs to keep America's shores free from the threat of terrorists.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 739--Rule on H.R. 4954--The SAFE Port Act

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution the two amendments specified in section 3 shall be

in order as though printed after the amendment numbered 15 in

the report of the Committee on Rules.

Sec. 3. The amendments referred to in section 2 are as

follows:

An amendment offered by Representative Thompson of

Mississippi or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable

for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled, by the

proponent and an opponent.

Amendment to H.R. 4954, as Reported Offered by Mr. Thompson of

Mississippi

Page 44, after line 9, insert the following new section:

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on this, day 25 years ago the U.S. Family Health Plan was approved by the U.S. Congress. For the past 25 years the U.S. Family Health Plan has provided a commitment and service to the Nation's military health system by caring for our military families. Through the years, the U.S. Family Health Plan has been a valued partner with the U.S. Department of Defense by continuing to serve nearly 100,000 military beneficiaries today.

The U.S. Family Health Plan is a proud member ofthe TRICARE program. It has distinguished itself by consistently earning the highest beneficiary satisfaction ratings among all TRICARE providers. The plan is administered by some of this Nation's finest health care institutions, including Johns Hopkins--Maryland, Brighton Marine Health Center--Massachusetts, Martin's Point Health Care--Maine, St. Vincent Catholic Medical Centers--New York, CHRISTUS Health--Texas, and Pacific Medical Centers--Washington State.

U.S. Family Health Plan's roots date back to 1981 when the Omnibus Reconciliation Act designated 10 public health hospitals as U.S. Treatment Facilities to provide care for the uniformed services through an agreement with DoD. In 1993, that designation evolved into a fully at-risk managed healthcare plan named U.S. Family Health Plan. The plan's popularity grew in the regions where it was offered. In 1996, the National Defense Authorization Act designated the U.S. Treatment Facilities as TRICARE Prime Designated Providers and made the U.S. Family Health Plan a permanent part of the military health system.

Please join me in congratulating the U.S. Family Health Plan on their 25 years of service to our Nation's military families and for

their outstanding contributions to military health care.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the generous volunteers of Southwest Housing and the Villas of Remond community in Dallas, Texas. While many volunteers in the DFW Metroplex are worthy of recognition during National Volunteer Appreciation Week, the Southwest Housing and the Villas of Remond Community have performed inspiring and commendable work through their many acts of volunteerism.

During the past year, these volunteers have served on hospitality, spiritual wellness and entertainment committees that make important decisions for their community. They have led Bible studies, exercise classes, hosted book clubs, and planned celebrations. Additionally, volunteers and residents not only shared the food and clothes with the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita evacuees, but also encouraged friends, fellow churchgoers and family members to do the same. Through their generous work they have experienced first-hand the ancient truth to give is better than to receive.

The Villas of Remond is a senior community for ages 60 and ``better'' that encourages its residents to live life to the fullest and share their love, laughter and wisdom with anyone in need. It is indeed an honor and privilege to have these exceptional volunteers supporting the Dallas community. I salute their leadership and look forward to hearing of their continued volunteer success stories that are so critical to the local community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of an outstanding individual, Martha Cheely Brown, as she concludes her distinguished work as Chairman of the National Panhellenic Conference (NPC). The National Panhellenic Conference is the association of 26 women's college fraternities. NPC member organizations are found on 620 college and university campuses nationwide and more than 3.8 million women nationwide are alumnae of one of the 26 fraternities that comprise the NPC. Since 2003, Martha has led the over 3.8 million NPC members in having their voices heard through a ``Speak Up For Sororities'' program she implemented. As Chairman, Martha consistently dedicated herself to furthering the NPC's core values of ``helping women grow, give, lead and succeed.''

Martha Cheely Brown was a graduate of the University of North Texas in Denton, Texas, where she served as chapter president of her Delta Gamma Sorority. As an alumna, she has served as Delta Gamma's national convention Chairman, National Panhellenic Conference

Delegate, and a member of the Delta Gamma International Board of Directors. As NPC College Panhellenics Committee Chairman, she worked with the 630 College Panhellenics in the United States and Canada.

Martha Cheely Brown's service and leadership were recognized by her alma mater in 2004 when she was awarded the University of North Texas Outstanding Alumna Award; by Delta Gamma Sorority with an Honorary Fellowship; and by the National Panhellenic Conference with a well- deserved citation celebrating her achievements as the 2003-2005 National Panhellenic Conference Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, please join me today in honoring the exemplary service that Martha Cheely Brown has given to the over 3.8 million members of NPC. The National Panhellenic Conference is a better organization because of her dedication, commitment, and determination to improve the lives of women of the NPC.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend from Florida and the Rules Committee, Mr. Putnam, the chairman of our policy committee

here in the House Republican Conference.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule for this budget resolution, which strikes a delicate balance between fully funding our priorities and exercising restraint of spending.

Mr. Speaker, already we have heard the debate and the dialogue here. I have known this a long time. Every Member of Congress understands this: needs outpace resources. It has always been that way. That is why we have a Budget Committee. That is why we have Mr. Putnam here on the floor today and other Members who are going to say, golly, we could spend as much money as we really wanted if we could come to some resolution of how much was enough. But the fact of the matter is that the insatiable appetites that continue to be fed in this House and in this government for more and more and more spending will not be ever satisfied; so we have to strike that balance.

We know that we have had devastating challenges that have faced this country, terrorists attacks of 9/11, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and yet our economy has demonstrated strength and resiliency. It is Republicans who come to the floor of the House of Representatives in the majority and every year defend what we do. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I am proud of what we did last year for this year and what we are doing proudly to make sure next year will work properly, we are doing this year.

This last year our economy grew at an impressive rate of 3.5 percent. The greatest, most vibrant economy that is in the world that we know today from a G-8 country. This was no accident, but it came as the direct result of Congress's planning, planning for growth and tax relief, planning for giving Americans more of their own money, and planning to make sure that we had investment that was made here in America.

Since comprehensive tax relief was passed in 2003, 5 million new jobs have been created. At just 4.8 percent, the unemployment rate remains at the historically low figure, below the averages of the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. This rapid economic growth has also generated rapid Federal tax growth.

We are pro-growth Republicans. We do not want to run a deficit. But we must make sure that we look at both sides of the equation, that is, growing the economy as well as being careful by what we spend.

Treasury figures show our booming tax receipts grew by 14.5 percent in 2005, the fastest pace in 25 years. However, on the flip side, Mr. Speaker, since 2001 our government has expanded in spending by 45 percent. We are saying with last year's budget this spending spree has got to end. And that is what we did last year for this year and what we are going to do this year for next year.

Jim Nussle, the chairman of the Budget Committee, has led this House to an important conclusion, and that is what Mr. Putnam is here selling to the Members today, and that is we are not about politics in this budget. It is about structure. It is about saying how much money we are going to make available and then we are going to let other important committees, our appropriators, be able to understand where the present needs are, and then we are going to give them the authority to go and spend the money based on priorities.

This is the right way to run the railroad, Mr. Speaker. This is the right way to do things. But we must have the responsibility by passing a responsible bill, or this House will fall to the whims of every single person who wants their own special project to be passed. Spending will be out of control.

So I urge my colleagues to recognize and understand that the process that the Budget Committee has been going through has been very important, and it has produced a winner. It has produced the ability that we have in a framework to put the needs and priorities into balance for this United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of what we have done. I am proud of what Mr. Putnam supports today. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the budget.

Mr. Speaker, Chinese President Hu Jintao is scheduled to visit Washington, DC, later this month. Mr. Hu is most likely to discuss trade, currency, North Korea, Iran and Taiwan with President Bush. I ask President Bush to not yield to Chinese demands on Taiwan but to reaffirm our long standing support for Taiwan and its people.

During the 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait missile crises, President Clinton sent two aircraft carrier battle groups into the region. Since then, the Chinese military has greatly expanded its capabilities and deployed hundreds of missiles targeting Taiwan. As the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs

Peter Rodman mentioned in his remarks before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, ``U.S. policy opposes unilateral changes in the Taiwan Strait status quo by either party. The PLA military build-up changes that status quo and requires us to adapt to the new situation, as we are doing now.'' Therefore, we must help the Taiwanese people to protect themselves in the event of a military conflict in the Strait.

Taiwan is very worried about China's military intentions. Last March, the Chinese enacted the anti-secession law, which gives them the right to use force against Taiwan. Chinese leaders have consistently maintained that military action is a viable possibility.

I ask President Bush to persuade Mr. Hu to withdraw Chinese missiles from the Strait, to rescind the anti-secession law and to resume a dialogue with Taiwan's elected leaders.

Peace in the Strait is important to the United States, China, and Taiwan. The 23 million people of Taiwan have worked hard to earn their democratic way of life and they should be allowed to determine their own future. Keeping the freedom of the Taiwanese people secure is a matter of deepest concern to all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the naming of a United States Postal Facility in Dallas, Texas as the ``Francisco `Pancho' Medrano Post Office Building.'' Pancho Medrano was the embodiment of the civil rights movement for the Hispanic community in Dallas. He was a decisive leader in encouraging Hispanics to actively participate in the political process in Dallas. Mr. Medrano brought Hispanics into the city's mainstream community and mentored a generation of Dallas political leaders. His operational base centered in Little Mexico, an enclave immediately north of downtown Dallas. In this neighborhood where he was banned from swimming in the public pool as a child, he raised a family whose name became synonymous with civic life.

Not only was he a strong civil rights leader, but along the way, he became a very talented and successful heavyweight prize fighter.

Today Pancho Medrano would be most proud of his family's achievements. One of his sons was a Dallas ISD school board member. Another was selected to serve on the Dallas City Council and Dallas/ Fort Worth International Airport Board. Additionally, his daughter, Pauline Medrano, was recently elected to the Dallas City Council, representing the area that has long been home for the Medrano family. She proudly carries on the legacy of leadership and passion to serve the community. I will continue to work with her locally to better our great city.

Therefore, it is with distinction that I recognize the designation of the United States Postal Facility located at 8624 Ferguson Road in Dallas, Texas as the ``Francisco `Pancho' Medrano Post Office Building.'' I ask that all of my fellow colleagues support H.R. 4561.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of an outstanding individual, Mr. James R. Estes of Columbia, Missouri as he concludes his second term as the volunteer International President of the North American Interfraternity Conference (NIC). Professionally, Jim is President of Gaslight Gundaker GMAC Real Estate, which is one of the nation's 500 largest real estate firms.

Jim Estes graduated from the University of Missouri, where he was initiated into the Kappa Alpha Order fraternity in 1960. Jim served his chapter as undergraduate president and was also a member of the University of Missouri football and baseball teams. He played in the 1961 Orange Bowl and was an All-Big 8 selection, while his work on the baseball team helped his Missouri Tigers earn three trips to the College World Series.

Jim Estes' commitment to the moral development of young men has extended to working with college fraternities, the organizations that build the character and leadership skills of tens of thousands of college men every year. Mr. Speaker, it is Jim's exceptional work for fraternity men nationwide that I rise to recognize today.

Jim Estes has had an exemplary record of service to Kappa Alpha Order fraternity and the interfraternal world. He served as a province Commander for the State of Missouri and was first elected to the Kappa Alpha Executive Council in 1995 and served as Vice President. In 1997, he was elected to the first of two terms as Knight Commander or National President of Kappa Alpha Order. He has also served as a member of the Kappa Alpha Order Educational Foundation, including two years of service as the Foundation's president.

Jim Estes has not been content to serve just his own brothers for he has had a larger mission of improving the collegiate experience of all men and women who join a college fraternity. For that reason, Jim Estes has served the interfraternal community as well, serving on the board of the North American Interfraternity Conference (NIC) for the past several years, including the past two years as the National President of the NIC. The NIC is the umbrella group for 66 national fraternities that have 350,000 undergraduate members and 4.2 million living alumni worldwide.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to explain Jim Estes' contribution to the fraternity world without explaining what fraternity life is all about. Nine million Americans are proud fraternity and sorority alumni and their experiences in these organizations helped them become better students and better citizens of our great nation. While only three percent of the nation's population has been a member of a fraternity or sorority, these organizations are proven leadership laboratories for developing the next generation of American leaders. For proof, you need look no further than this Congress itself, where 155 current Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate are alumni of fraternities and sororities.

College fraternities and sororities are one of the most successful leadership development programs available to college students today, helping members graduate with the management and interpersonal skills needed to excel in today's society. These fraternities are the nation's largest networks of student volunteers, providing 10 million hours of service a year and preparing members for a lifetime of community involvement. Fraternity housing is the largest not-for-profit housing market outside of the host colleges and universities themselves. The 250,000 students living in fraternity housing today at 8,000 chapter houses nationwide have an unparalleled opportunity to live and work together on a daily basis with students from different cultures, religions and life experiences. Fraternities are now the largest, most visible, and most active values-based organizations on college campuses today. The men and women who are fraternity members today learn how to incorporate the principles and values of their organization into their daily lives to form the moral foundation for their future actions.

Jim Estes has served the NIC as President during challenging times and he has helped foster a number of national initiatives to improve the standards that fraternity men live up to in their daily lives on campus. He has continued the NICs fight for freedom of association on campus and he has continued to champion passage of the Collegiate Housing and Infrastructure Act, which today is sponsored by almost 100 of my colleagues in the House. If that bill becomes law, it will allow all student associations on college campuses to use a private market approach to upgrade and replace their facilities in the future, thus making it possible for these student groups to continue to thrive for decades to come.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of April, Mr. Marc Katz of Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity will be sworn in as the new National President of the North American Interfraternity Conference. I welcome Mr. Katz and look forward to the opportunity to work with him to improve the fraternal experience for today's college students. As I welcome Mr. Katz to his new position of responsibility, I ask this chamber to join me in recognizing Jim Estes for his outstanding decades of service to the college fraternity world. I know he will continue to be an active and visible part of the fraternity movement in the future, but now is the moment to thank Jim Estes for his dedication and service in leading the fraternal community to better days.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I would like to, before I really begin my remarks, thank the gentleman, the chairman of the committee and his staff who have been very helpful not only in working with me on this amendment but being supportive of it. I would like to thank the gentleman from California.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer my amendment that would grant students with intellectual disabilities access to Federal work study funds for enrollment in comprehensive post-secondary educational programs. The reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, known as IDEA, in 2004 helped ensure that students with intellectual disabilities are provided every resource necessary to address their elementary through high school education goals.

However, education for people with disabilities should not end in high school, which is why this amendment is so important. My amendment provides these young adults with an opportunity to participate in post- secondary education programs along with their peers.

Madam Chairman, approximately 94 universities and colleges currently offer programs for students with intellectual disabilities, enabling these students to lead productive and independent lives. For example, Laura Lee, a student with Downs Syndrome, is a junior at George Mason University's LIFE program, or known as the Learning into the Future Environments program. She is one of the first students in this innovative post-secondary program for young adults with intellectual disabilities, providing these students with not only the experience of college life in a supportive environment, but also with important life and employment skills. Laura is taking courses in computers, banking, employment skills and other subjects that will help her to become as self-sufficient as possible and to use her future education for employment endeavors.

I am very proud of Laura's success in the LIFE program at George Mason University. While Laura is fortunate enough to have the financial resources to enroll in this program, many students with intellectual disabilities do not. These students are unable to assess Federal financial aid because these programs typically do not lead to a post- secondary degree, or the student may not have a traditional high school diploma. This amendment recognizes the unique nature of these programs and removes the barriers in current law from providing work study funds to each of these students.

My amendment would allow these students to assess work study funds without creating a new program and, therefore, adding no additional cost to the government.

This amendment provides flexibility to institutions, granting them the power to decide if it is appropriate to award work study funds to students

with intellectual disabilities enrolled in comprehensive programs on their campus.

Madam Chairman, I have seen firsthand how IDEA has benefited my own son, Alex, who is a student at Lakewood Elementary School in Dallas, Texas. Alex, who is 12 years old, has Downs Syndrome, and he has made significant academic progress and has been provided with many of the same educational opportunities as his peers as a result of IDEA. I know that IDEA will serve as an incredible opportunity for Alex throughout his K-12 education.

However, I also realize that IDEA will not be there to serve his needs after high school. Therefore, I am very pleased to stand here today in recognition of those colleges and universities who are filling the post-IDEA void for so many young Americans. I am proud to offer this amendment that will provide many young adults with intellectual disabilities the ability to access the vital postsecondary programs that lead to a very fulfilling life.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the committee.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

In addition to the chairman's remarks, I would like to add, if I could, that from time to time, my son, Alex, is on the floor of the House of Representatives, and I believe that Alex is a fine representation, as well as the Members of this body, who take time to recognize the individual and special talents that not only Alex possesses as a result of him being a young adult with Downs Syndrome, but also his love that he extends to people. And this body has always gone out of their way to express to Alex and make him feel like he was a part of this body also.

And I would thank the gentleman, both the gentlemen from California, not only for their agreement with this bill today, but also I think it extends the knowledge that this body has with the capacity to understand that thousands of other families that have their own Alex, that they, if their children have the ability to do something when they get out of high school, that there would be a program like this. And so I would like to thank the ranking member and the chairman of our committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor United States Coast Guard Commander Neil Nickerson and to commemorate his illustrious career of dedicated service to our nation.

Commander Nickerson graduated from the Coast Guard Officer Candidate School in March 1984. Since then, he has served a wide range of tours taking him from the Atlantic, to the Pacific, through the Panama Canal, across the Equator and into the Arctic Circle.

During his first tour in Miami Beach, Florida, Commander Nickerson assisted with search, rescue and recovery for the tragic Space Shuttle Challenger explosion. He then served in Guam and Alameda, California, where he began law enforcement missions ranging from drug interdiction to fishery regulation. Several years later, Commander Nickerson began service as Coast Guard Liaison Officer to the San Diego, California Navy Fleet Training Group. From there, he became Commanding Officer of USCGC Liberty in Alaska.

Over the course of these tours, Commander Nickerson distinguished himself as an outstanding officer, earning the respect of his peers and superiors alike. Based on these merits, in 1995 he was one of the elite few selected to attend post-graduate education at the Naval War College. Upon completion of this rigorous coursework, he began service in the Budget Office of Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, DC.

Soon thereafter, Commander Nickerson assumed the position of Executive Officer of the USCGC Alex Haley in Alaska. During his tenure, he oversaw the complete refurbishing of the former US Navy ship. Commander Nickerson then led the USCGC Alex Haley on its maiden voyage from the Naval shipyard in Philadelphia through the Panama Canal and up to Kodiak, Alaska. Following this tour, Commander Nickerson began service as Executive Officer of the USCGC Jarvis in Honolulu, Hawaii, where he continues to serve today.

This year, Commander Nickerson will retire from 22 years of service to the US Coast Guard. Throughout his accomplished career, Commander Nickerson has kept with the highest traditions of the US Coast Guard and serves as an inspiration to us all. In recognition of his exceptional performance of duty, Commander Nickerson has been awarded six Coast Guard Commendation Medals with Operational Distinguishing Device on all. On the occasion of his retirement, the US Coast Guard also will be awarding him the Meritorious Service Medal. This prestigious honor recognizes officers that have demonstrated expert knowledge, effective management and outstanding leadership.

I ask that my colleagues join me in commending this dedicated public servant and in congratulating him on a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, on February 27, Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian declared

that Taiwan's Unification Council will cease to function and the National Unification Guidelines will cease to apply. He came to his decision after weighing the importance of preserving Taiwan's freedom, democracy, human rights, the status quo and Taiwanese people's right to choose their own future.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan stated, ``We welcome President Chen's reaffirmation of his administration's commitment to cross-strait peace and stability, and Taiwan's commitment to the pledges that President Chen made in his inaugural address . . . to not unilaterally alter the status quo on the Taiwan Strait.''

Since peace in the Taiwan Strait is critical to our national security and any military confrontation must be avoided, I therefore urge China to end its strident rhetoric against Taiwan, rescind the Anti-Secession Law enacted last spring and remove the hundreds of threatening missiles targeting Taiwan.

On the first anniversary of the passage of China's Anti-Secession Law and the 10th anniversary of the Taiwan Strait Missile Crisis, it is high time for a meaningful dialogue to resume between Chinese leaders and the elected leadership in Taiwan, leading to a peaceful resolution of their differences. I support these efforts to reduce the tension on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, and urge my fellow Congressional colleagues to continue their support for repealing the Anti-Secession Law.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 713 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, this structured rule under consideration provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform.

It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read.

It waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute and makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying this resolution.

This rule provides that the amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. They shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Finally, this rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and its underlying important legislation reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which was created in 1998 to be the primary shaper, coordinator and proponent of Federal efforts to end drug abuse in our communities across America.

By supporting this legislation to reauthorize the ONDCP's activities for the next 5 years, Congress will reaffirm its support for national programs to combat the consequences of drug abuse in the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign and the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program known as HIDTA. It also makes the development and implementation of Federal drug policy more streamlined, efficient and accountable.

H.R. 2829 accomplishes this goal by implementing a number of meaningful reforms to ONDCP and to our national drug control strategy. It provides the director of the ONDCP with a rank equal to Cabinet secretaries. While not affecting the President's ability to undermine the makeup of his Cabinet, it will ensure that the director will be able to interact with other department heads as an equal peer as this person coordinates our national drug policies.

This legislation also reaffirms the role of the ONDCP director as the principal coordinator of national drug policy and enhances effectiveness and accountability in drug treatment by requiring a uniform system of drug treatment evaluation based on results. It also enhances the national antidrug abuse media campaign, preserves and strengthens the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program and places a greater emphasis on providing resources to critical emerging drug threats that face our country.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the war on drugs is an ongoing struggle, but one that is also where we are seeing improvement, real improvements with positive real-world effects for American families. As President Bush outlined in his State of the Union address, there has been a 19 percent decline in overall drug teen use over the last 5 years, which translates into about 700,000 fewer young people using drugs. I think that is significant. This did not happen by accident.

But despite the fact that illegal drug use for 8th, 10th and 12th graders has been trending down since 2001, American teens still engage in risky drug-related behavior far too frequently. Nationwide, each day approximately 7,500 children between the ages of 12 and 17 try alcohol for the first time and over 30 percent of high school students report having ridden in a car with a friend who has been drinking.

Even more alarmingly, each day about 3,500 teens try marijuana for the first time, 3,500 teens try marijuana for the first time every day, and one in four children have been offered drugs at school.

Most disturbing of all, 12 million Americans age 12 and older have tried what is called methamphetamines, known as meth, a drug known principally for its equally addictive and destructive qualities.

We all know that the battle to keep our kids drug-free starts at home. Over two-thirds of teens say that the greatest risk for them in using marijuana is upsetting their parents, and we know that children who are not regularly monitored by their parents are four times more likely to use illicit drugs.

Congress has an important role to play in the process of protecting our Nation's families and communities from the devastating effects of drug use and drug addiction. This legislation will allow the ONDCP to continue fighting on the domestic front in the war on drugs through comprehensive efforts like what we call the Major Cities Initiative, which targets drug abuse in large metropolitan areas that have the highest rates of current illicit drug use by developing inventories of Federal, State and local resources for prevention, treatment and law enforcement.

By passing this legislation, the ONDCP will also be empowered to continue its involvement in a number of education programs and outreach activities whose results are backed by sound scientific data which have dramatically helped to reduce drug addiction across America.

This legislation will also allow ONDCP to continue its fight on the international front of the war on drugs. America has gotten a little bit better in choking off the supply for drugs through fostering a closer working relationship with countries, including our neighbors to the south, including Mexico, where marijuana cultivation fell almost 25 percent between 2003 and 2004 and opium poppy cultivation dropped about 27 percent during that same time.

In Colombia, the coca crop has declined by more than one-third from its high point of expansion in 2001, a pattern that holds true for the other large Andean coca-growing countries of Peru and Bolivia.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, America can by no means declare victory in the war on drugs. Many challenges lie ahead in teaching our children to simply say no and abstain from using drugs, in protecting our communities from crime and domestic upheavals caused by drug use and in disrupting international markets that bring to and provide this country with illegal drugs.

But progress is being made in no small part due to the actions taken by this Congress, my colleagues who care very immensely and deeply about the children and families of our home districts, and due to this administration to continue the fight for our communities, our children, and our future.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, back in 1997 when I was elected to Congress, I was aware of the drug issue as it related to not only my district but, in general, to Texas and the country. And I became engaged in working with a group of Members who were intensely interested in understanding, developing a process, a policy, and a regular format for discussing drug use in America, those people who would bring drugs into the country, understanding how we stopped it, how we rehabilitated people, how we worked with law enforcement, how we dealt with the entire issue of policy from top to bottom.

One of those leaders at that time who continues to be one today will be our next speaker. He is a gentleman who intensely cares about the issue. He has traveled internationally, South America, around the world, to become an expert on not only drugs but also those things that surround drugs.

As we know, terrorism and terrorists make money off the money that comes from users in the United States of America. And so I am pleased to have at this time the gentleman who is the vice-chairman of the Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Subcommittee for Government Reform and the main author of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to hear from the vice chairman of the Committee on Government Reform about this important issue today, about ONDCP, is important. Today we have an opportunity to hear from the youngest member of the Republican leadership, newly elected chairman of our policy committee; a young man who is from Florida; a young man who has been in the thick of the battle of seeing not only the devastation of drugs but also what communities and what effective law enforcement can do in combating drugs. He is a young man who has an opinion. He is bringing that opinion to the Republican policy committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman

from Florida (Mr. Putnam), my colleague from the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to be on the floor today to talk about the ONDCP, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the reauthorization of that important act is why we are here today, and I do understand that the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Wisconsin have some very strong feelings about some other issues that are not germane to the discussion of ONDCP.

I would also note that I am sure there will be a discussion today as we adjourn between the leadership parties, as they always meet on the floor to talk about thoughts, issues and ideas; and I am sure part of that discussion is going to be about the process that has been discussed through the Appropriations Committee, where there appears to be bipartisan agreement on moving forward on that important legislation.

However, today, I encourage all my friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle to maintain their focus on what the attempt is today, and that is to support the rule that reauthorizes ONDCP on behalf of America's families and for our future.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks by reminding my colleagues that defeating the previous question is an exercise in futility because the minority wants to offer an amendment that would otherwise be

ruled out of order as nongermane. So their vote or the request is really one without substance.

The previous question vote itself is simply a procedural motion to close debate on this rule that we are speaking about and proceed to vote on its adoption. The vote has no substantive policy implications whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, at this point I will insert in the Record an explanation of the previous question.

The Previous Question Vote: What Does It Mean?

House Rule XIX (``Previous Question'') provides in part

that:

There shall be a motion for the previous question, which,

being ordered, shall have the effect of cutting off all

debate and bringing the House to a direct vote on the

immediate question or questions on which it has been ordered.

In the case of a special rule or order of business

resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing

for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the

previous question is moved following the one hour of debate

allowed for under House Rules.

The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural

vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting

the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and

amendment on the legislation it would make in order.

Therefore, the previous question has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Previous Question on H. Res. 713--Rule Providing for Consideration of

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.