Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian will be staying for two nights in Miami en route to Central America; on his way back to Taiwan he will be staying overnight in San Francisco. During the last five years as president of Taiwan, Chen has gone on several state visits including trips to some of Taiwan's diplomatic allies. Last April President Chen visited the Vatican City to pay final respects to the late Pope John Paul II. I hope President Chen's stopovers in America this September will be both restful and useful to the exchange of ideas between himself and some of his American friends and supporters.

As a friend of the Taiwanese people, I believe that Taiwan has been unjustifiably denied its proper recognition in the international community. Taiwan is a sovereign state; it is a constructive global citizen and a dynamic democracy. Yet it is not a member of the United Nations. As the United Nations celebrates its 60th anniversary this year, it is time for the UN General Assembly to re-examine the issue of Taiwan's membership. I therefore urge my colleagues, friends and supporters of Taiwan to speak up on the issue of Taiwan's bid to join the UN. The world must not allow China, an authoritarian state, to continue to deny Taiwan UN membership.

As for Taiwan's relations with the United States, Taiwan enjoys the support of both the Bush Administration and Congress. U.S. presidents have all committed the United States to the Taiwan Relations Act and pledged support for Taiwan if it were to be attacked by China. Congress has also passed legislation voicing its support of Taiwan. In the mean time, the United States has continued to sell military articles to Taiwan in accordance with Taiwan's defense needs. In addition, we appreciate our strong trade relations with Taiwan. This September a Taiwan agricultural goodwill mission is touring the United States, pledging to buy up to more than $3.1 billion of U.S. wheat, soybeans, corn and hide in 2006 and 2007. A letter of intent signing ceremony between members of the Taiwan mission and U.S. grain exporters was held on September 14 on the Hill.

Trade relations aside, the Taiwanese people have been standing firmly behind the United States after 9/11. Their government has made every effort to protect U.S. interests in Taiwan and cooperated with our intelligence agencies. It made monetary contributions to the Twin Towers Fund, the Pentagon Memorial Fund and most recently gave $2 million to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Other signs of friendship include Taiwanese people sending their brightest students to study at our colleges and universities and a great majority of their tourists choosing to spend their dollars in American destinations.

As President Chen passes through America this September, we'd like him and his people to know that we greatly appreciate his country and have great fondness for his people and their friendship for us.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of September 19 to grant a rule which would limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 2123, the School Readiness Act of 2005. The Committee on Education and the Workforce ordered the bill reported on May 18 and filed its report with the House on June 16.

Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by 1 o'clock on Tuesday, September 20. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members are also advised to check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that the Republic of China, Taiwan, has sent an Agricultural Trade Goodwill Mission to Capitol Hill and there will be a signing ceremony between the Mission and its American grain suppliers on Wednesday, September 14, 2005, at 9 a.m. in the Mansfield Room of the Capitol Building.

It is also my understanding that Taiwan's Goodwill Mission will sign letters of intent to purchase 14.5 million metric tons, equivalent to 559 million bushels, of U.S. wheat, soybeans and corn in 2006 and 2007. The mission's tannery group will also sign a statement with American suppliers to buy up to 6 million pieces of ``wet salted hide'' and ``wet blue hide'' for years 2006 and 2007. The total value of all the purchases will amount to $3.1 billion.

I welcome Taiwan's Agricultural Trade Goodwill Mission to Capitol Hill. Two years ago, the same Agricultural Trade Goodwill Mission came to the Hill and signed letters of intent agreeing to purchase $2.87 billion for the years 2004 and 2005. The last mission planned to buy 15.1 metric tons, approximately 581 bushels, of wheat, soybeans and corns and 4 million pieces of hide. As of June 2005, Taiwan had already purchased 10.5 metric tons, equivalent to 404 million bushels, of U.S. grain. And in 2004, Taiwan purchased an additional 3 million pieces of U.S. hide in 2004. Given Taiwan's long history as an excellent customer for U.S. agricultural products, it is reasonable to expect Taiwan to fulfill all its agreed-upon commitments and more.

Taiwan has had a very strong trade relations with our Nation. Year after year, Taiwan has imported U.S. cattle hides, U.S. hog skins, soybean, corn and wheat and other agricultural products, amounting to billions of dollars for American producers. We hope this trend will continue in the future as our agricultural exports to Taiwan greatly benefit our grain exporters and farmers.

I join my colleagues in welcoming members of Taiwan's Agricultural Trade Goodwill to Capitol Hill and I wish Dr. Chen Hsi-Huang, Mr. Kuo Hsin-Hong and Mr. Wang Tsong-ming, heads of The Soybean and Corn Delegation, The Wheat Delegation and The Hide Delegation, and members of the delegation a pleasant journey as they travel to Iowa, Ohio, Missouri, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, Kansas, and Texas to meet with state and local officials and suppliers.

We also hope they will return to Capitol Hill again next year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor U.S. Army Specialist Michael R. Hayes, 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.

Spc. Michael Hayes was killed on June 14, 2005 when a rocket- propelled grenade hit his Humvee while he and four other Marines were providing security around a suspected explosive device near Baghdad. He was 29 years old. Spc. Hayes was assigned to the 617th Military Police Company, Kentucky Army National Guard at Richmond, KY. In addition to his family, fiancee and country, Spc. Hayes loved soccer. He founded the girls' soccer program at Butler County High School of Kentucky six years ago and was a devoted coach. He took this love from the soccer fields to the streets of Iraq where he took particular pride in seeing the children attend their newly built or refurbished schools. He wrote often of the Iraqi children and how their smiles brought him comfort. His leadership, dedication and enthusiasm will be missed.

He is survived by his mother, Barkley Hayes, fiancee, Melissa Allen, sister, Spc. Melissa Stewart, and brother, Spc. James Hayes, both of whom serve in the 617th Military Police Company.

I want to thank his family for raising such a fine man. As the father of two sons, I know their sacrifice is indescribable. Spc. Hayes leaves behind a legacy marked by courage, integrity and character. It is an honor and a privilege to represent his family in Congress. May God bless them, and may I convey to them the many thanks of a grateful Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Marine Corporal Tyler Seth Trovillion, 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.

Corporal Tyler Trovillion was killed on June 15, 2005 when his vehicle hit an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations near Ar Ramadi, Iraq. He was 23 years old. CPL Trovillion was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton, CA and was operating with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division of the U.S. Army, which was attached to 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force. During his funeral service, CPL Trovillion was remembered as a fun-loving, hard working man who lived his life not for himself, but for others. He was a man filled with the joy of living, and we celebrate the life he lived as a son, brother and friend.

CPL Trovillion is survived by his parents, Mark and Gina Trovillion, sisters, Austin and Skye, brother Jazak and fiancee, Rachel Walker.

I can only imagine the immense pride they feel knowing that CPL Tovillion fought for what is just and right in our world. He leaves behind a legacy marked by courage, integrity and character. It was an honor and a privilege to represent this man in Congress. 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 380 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 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.

This structured rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform, and waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Government Reform now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Government Reform.

The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution and provides that these amendments may be offered only in the order printed in the report, only by a Member designated in the report, and shall be considered as read. They shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 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 one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 22, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, and this underlying rule. When I was first elected to Congress in 1996, I served on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight's Postal Service Subcommittee, which was charged with the task of reforming our Nation's postal operations to make them more efficient, cost-effective, and responsive. And although I no longer serve on the committee or the subcommittee charged with the oversight of the U.S. Postal Service, my commitment to reforming the Postal Service has not decreased.

Today, for the first time in three decades, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), chairman of Committee on Government Reform; and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), my friend, have brought to the House floor a comprehensive bill that would vastly improve the United States Postal Service, and I would like to thank both of them for all the hard work that the Committee on Government Reform has invested in this legislation.

Since President Nixon signed the Postal Reorganization Act in 1970, the United States Postal Service has not significantly updated its fundamental operations. While this legislation helped to update the Postal Service and to move it from a bureaucracy subsidized by tax revenue to self-sufficiency, a market-based entity, the way that people communicate has changed dramatically over the last three decades, and the Postal Service must now evolve to meet the changing demands of consumers.

The Postal Service is a very large organization that sits at the center of a $900 billion industry, representing about 9 percent of America's GDP, that employs more than 9 million workers nationwide. It processes more than 200 billion pieces of mail to 130 million households and businesses every year, and it directly employs 700,000 people, making it the second largest employer in the country. If the Postal Service were a private company, it would rank 11th on the Fortune 500 in terms of revenue.

However, 21st century realities, including decreasing volume; insufficient revenue; mounting debts; and the rapid growth of electronic communications for advertising, bill payments, and information transfer present an enormous challenge to the Postal Service in fulfilling its mission to ``provide postal services that bind the Nation together through the correspondence of the people, to provide access in all communities, and to offer prompt, reliable postal services at uniform prices.''

H.R. 22 maps out a responsible and accountable future for the United States Postal Service that will provide increased oversight for its operations, renew its focus on its core mission of delivering the mail, and save as many as 1.5 million jobs in the private sector that rely on the Postal, and accomplishing all of this without imposing a significant new tax burden on every American who uses stamps.

This bill would transform today's Postal Rate Commission into the Postal Regulatory Commission and give it to the authority to ensure that the Postal Service as an efficient and responsible operation in the 21st Century environment exists. It would require the Postal Service to account for all of its costs in SCC-like financial disclosure statements and give the Regulatory Commission the authority to punish the Postal Service for any noncompliance. It would also subject the Postal Service to antitrust laws, require the Regulatory Commission to account for the advantages that its government status confers, and build these advantages into a competitive product that helps to raise the level playing field with private business.

H.R. 22 would renew the Postal Service's focus on its core mission also of collecting, sorting, transporting, and delivering the mail more efficiently, and to bar it from new nonpostal products and services already being provided efficiently by the private sector. It would also prevent a 2-cent postage rate increase this year with another even larger increase that might have been anticipated next year that would act as a significant drain and back-door tax on our growing economy.

According to estimates, if mail decreased by 10 percent, over 780,000 mailing industry jobs would also be at risk; and if decreased by 20 percent, over 1.5 million jobs would also be at risk.

As our economy continues to expand with 25 consecutive months of job gains adding over 3.7 million new jobs to payrolls, and payroll employment having increased by 2.1 over the year, we should not be adding artificial impediments to future job growth and expansion like a stamp price increase. Adding this new stealth tax on American families and businesses would simply accelerate the movement of mailers to other communications media, decreasing volumes at the Postal Service even further and exposing taxpayers to the unfunded obligations of the United States Postal Service.

I am very proud of the hard work that so many Members have put into reforming the United States Postal Service to ensure that it is a dynamic, market-based entity that provides uniform and universal service to America while preventing its status as a government entity from subsidizing its competition for providing goods and services already being supplied by the private sector.

I would personally like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), our wonderful chairman, for their tireless efforts to

improve the United States Postal Office.

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

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

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has made some very good points, and that is that the work that has gone into this bill, while it has been some probably 10 years in the making, was done through strong leadership, it was done through strong bipartisan leadership, it was done not only with the negotiation of the United States Postal Service, its management and its unions, but also so many outside groups that had an influence in impacting a bill that was done properly.

A lot of that credit goes to the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, who a long time ago decided that it was in the best interest of the economy of this country to make sure that a carefully crafted bill, a bipartisan bill that could be supported on this floor by members like the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), who had served on the postal committee many years ago with me, would be able to bring forth to this floor a good answer. I am very proud to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

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

A lot of the leadership that has been talked about, making sure that this bill is a carefully crafted bill, is true. But there are also a lot of people who played a big role in making sure that the elements and the people who are a part of the dialogue and a part of the things that were necessary to make sure this balanced bill was brought forward were important also.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs for the Committee on Government Reform, has played an integral role in making sure that not only her footprint was on this and hand print was on this but, also, in particular, that other people who had a vested interest, most of all the taxpayers of this country, were also involved.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, as you know, this bill is about the taxpayer. It is also about high-tech areas that depend upon a Postal Service that works properly. And our next speaker is from one of those areas, a high-tech area that is important to this country in not only manufacturing, but also delivery of goods and products.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

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

Today, we have had an opportunity to bring forth this postal bill with not only bipartisanship, but really some pats on the back to a lot of people who have been engaged in this issue for a long time, and perhaps none more diligent about this than the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), our wonderful colleague. I think the way he has gone about this, Mr. Speaker, has been good, not only for this House but a credit to the men and women who have also been engaged in this.

I remember some 9 years ago as I went with a rural letter carrier down in Jeuitt, Texas, Stan Waltrip. I had a chance to go and deliver the mail with Stan and to see firsthand the kinds of, not only the people he came in contact with but the importance of doing this. So this bill is important that we have done this.

There are other people who have contributed to the success, rural letter carriers, certainly the postal carriers, letter carriers, those people who represent the Post Masters, the Financial Services Roundtable and many others. I would also like to thank the White House for their involvement. Three people in particular from the Leg Affairs office, Brian Conklin, Elan Liang, and Chris Frech, have been very diligent in making sure that this House and its Members are updated about the position of the White House.

Mr. Speaker, I would say this is a good piece of legislation. It is one that comes at a great time for this country. It is one that will spur the economy and make sure we are prepared for the future.

I ask my colleagues to please make sure they support this rule and also the underlying legislation.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I offer a thanks to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules, who made in order my request for an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the PATRIOT Act currently makes it a Federal crime to interfere with any person operating a mass transportation vehicle with the intent to endanger any passenger or with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life.

While this clearly applies to passenger aircraft, it fails to protect other aircraft. The consequences of this oversight were recently exposed by a widely reported New Jersey laser beam incident. On two separate occasions, an individual directed a laser beam at the cockpit of a small passenger airplane and at a Port Authority Police Department helicopter. Such conduct is extremely dangerous, putting aircraft at tremendous risk by startling, distracting, and even blinding pilots. However, when apprehended, this individual was charged only in connection with the airplane. Although equally in danger, the police helicopter did not qualify for mass transportation vehicle protection.

Unfortunately, the New Jersey incident was not an isolated instance. Similar occurrences have happened in Ohio, Texas, Colorado, and Oregon. Pilots nationwide increasingly are reporting laser-beam interference during landing approaches, and although no reports have been terrorist- related to date, there is evidence that terrorists are exploring the use of similar laser tactics as weapons.

Regardless of intent, we must communicate to the public that aircraft interference of any kind is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. It is our duty to give law enforcement the tools it needs to protect pilots, passengers, and civilians on the ground. The PATRIOT Act has taken a first step, and now we must tie up these loose ends.

This amendment would simply extend the existing PATRIOT Act passenger aircraft protections to all aircraft. Just as it is entirely unacceptable to interfere with the pilot of a passenger aircraft, it is equally unacceptable to interfere with a pilot of a government or private aircraft.

Additionally, this amendment would ensure the protection of everyone engaged in the operation of an aircraft from those in the air to those navigating on the ground.

Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment that will improve aircraft safety. A gap has been exposed in the current law, and now we have an opportunity to fill that gap.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the kind words of the gentleman from Wisconsin and also his words about the need for this body to adopt this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we owe it to the pilots to offer them every extension of protection possible, and I am asking all of my colleagues to protect aviation in America by supporting this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for not only her words in support of this amendment but also thank this body for carefully looking at the provisions and amendments adding to this PATRIOT Act to help keep America safe. I am very proud of this product that we are working on. I would like to ask all my colleagues to support the Sessions amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my former Chief of Staff for Texas Operations, Charles ``Chuck'' W. Bauer, who recently left my office. Chuck has been at my side for the last 11 years, starting with grassroots outreach, then on to handle legislative issues in my Washington, DC office before returning back to Texas to run my Dallas district office. Chuck has provided experienced judgment and advice to his fellow staff members and me for years, and his tireless work ethic will be greatly missed. I have come to appreciate and value his keen ability to lead by example and facilitate smooth flowing district operations for so many years.

Chuck graduated with a bachelor of science degree in political science in 1993 from Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas and he received his masters of business administration from the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas earlier this year.

Chuck and his wonderful wife have two children, Abbey (3) and Hayden (6 months). I wish the entire Bauer family all the best for Chuck's next endeavor. I thank him for his great service to the people of the 32nd Congressional District of Texas.

Even though he will no longer be employed by the Congress, I will always be able to call him my dear friend. I am sure that the great Chuck Bauer will continue to impress those around him in his new line of work.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time. I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) coming forth and asking questions which are very important, and I believe the chairman talked about that, and that is that where we believe appropriate that the government be involved in inherently government operations, the government should be. However, we know that this government is huge and has many areas in which they are not only behind in their ability to be prepared technologically-wise but also to meet the demands and needs of taxpayers and people out in this country who need to make sure that this government works and works properly.

I would like to remind the gentleman that this is part of the President's management agenda, part of the management agenda where he has talked very clearly to the American public and to Congress about things where we need to change, to change and incorporate changes so that taxpayers and people in need are able to get better benefits and better services.

What the gentleman is doing today says, we are going to wipe out the President's management agenda. We are not going to allow competitive outsourcing and then come to the floor and say, look, you have done it five times. Is that not an indication that this is a broken system?

It is not. It is a system that will continue to be reformed. What the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has done is to say very clearly where reform is necessary, we will do it; but the taxpayers and people who need the things which government or government money does to implement change within our system is very important.

Mr. Chairman, I will tell you, I oppose the Van Hollen amendment and the taxpayers would too. I hope that our colleagues all hear this debate because it is important not only for taxpayers but for government efficiency.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

During the last 35 years, congressional funding for Amtrak has amounted to roughly $29 billion. It is $29 billion from the taxpayers that were given for a system which we really do believe in, but back in 1997 with its reauthorization, Amtrak came to the table with an agreement that they would change their operations and become profitable.

Today, Members of Congress come to the floor to ask, once again, for Amtrak to do exactly that. We have heard, boy, there is not enough money there; we are going from hand to mouth. Yet, we know that there is $83 million that Amtrak loses alone just in its food service on trains.

I would submit to this body that it is time now that we take additional steps to do the right thing, to give Amtrak that necessary kick in the pants that allows it to be able to offer its service on a more efficient basis, a market-based way, and this will allow us the opportunity to end this large subsidy, to have Amtrak do something that the American public not only has confidence in but is run on market- based forces. I would submit to my colleagues, they will become a better transportation service.

I support what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) is doing in his bill. The President of the United States is correct, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), our Committee on Appropriations chairman, is right. It is time that we take on this unwieldy process of spending $1 billion a year as a subsidy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 44th Annual YMCA Youth Governor's Conference that begins in Washington, DC next week. I am pleased to once again have the honor of being the Congressional sponsor for the Youth Governor's breakfast with my fellow colleagues in the House.

The YMCA Youth Governor's Conference brings together some of the most outstanding youth leaders in America. YMCA Youth and Government is a nation-wide program that allows thousands of teenagers to simulate state and national government.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to personally recognize each of this year's YMCA Youth Governors for their dedication and service to America's youth.

Hunter Patterson of Texas, Quentin James of South Carolina, Forrest McConnell of Alabama, Matthew Hughes of Arizona, Paul Gardner, III of California, Daniel Spellacy of Connecticut, Mansoor Zaman of Delaware, Taylor Siegel of Florida, Britt Bush of Georgia, Colin Clark of Illinois, Phil Reaves of Indiana, Arshiya Saiyed of Kentucky, Ty Bottoms of Kentucky, Beau Landry of Louisiana, Matt Gorman of Maine, Karima Tawfik, Amar Gupta of Massachusetts, Elissa Laskey of Michigan, Marvin Yates of Michigan, Jonathan Kent of Minnesota, Laura Kergosien of Mississippi, Sam Barrett of Missouri, Paul Morgan of Montana, Erik Ruediger of New Hampshire, Mohit Shah of New Jersey, Anne Baldwin of New Mexico, Andrew Vigliotta of New York, Niema Alimohammadi of North Carolina, Caroline DuWors of Ohio, Tony Viola of Oklahoma, William Glennie of Oregon, Davon Magwood of Pennsylvania, Dusty Good of Tennessee, Gentry Martin of Tennessee, Josh Tate of Virginia, Addison Tice of Washington, Janesse Lewis of the District of Columbia, and Iain Padley of Wisconsin.

I wish all of the 2005 YMCA Youth Governors a very successful conference here in Washington, and I encourage them to continue their sincere devotion to leadership and public service in this and their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 283 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my friend, 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, the rule before us today is a fair, structured rule that provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

It provides that in lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read.

It waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report and makes in order only those amendments printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report.

These amendments may only be offered in the order printed in the report and only by the Member designated in the report. They shall be considered as read, debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment or a demand for the 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 part B of the Committee on Rules report and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and its underlying legislation, the first ever Homeland Security authorization legislation. The rule before us today is a fair rule that will allow for consideration of 25 amendments to the legislation, 13 of which are sponsored by a Member of the minority party, 10 by Members of the majority party, and two which enjoy bipartisan sponsorship.

This bill, brought to the floor today by the leadership of my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), empowers the core mission of the Department of Homeland Security, which is, first, to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States; second, reducing America's vulnerability to terrorism; and, third, responding to and recovering from terrorist attacks if some tragedy does occur.

It accomplishes this necessary and singularly important goal by ensuring that the Department has the resources and the authority it needs to prevent and prepare for terrorist attack, and to respond to and recover from an attack if one does occur.

Through the authorization of over $34 billion in homeland security spending in 2006, this legislation will ensure that our Nation's highest funding priorities are met. It also includes a number of other legislative and oversight measures to strengthen and improve the safety of Americans here at home, including:

Deploying counterterrorism technologies within 90 days so that Federal, State, local, and private sector officials can prevent domestic terror;

Funding 2,000 additional border patrol agents;

Assessing the effectiveness of operations at the Departments of Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement so that spending on these programs is efficient and effective;

Consolidating the current background check system, so that individuals can be prescreened by checking their names and biometric identifiers against terrorist watch lists and other criminal databases;

Adopting risk-based cargo screening, and expanding the number of foreign ports where Customs and Border Patrol agents screen incoming containers from 36 to approximately 50 ports;

Improving information analysis and infrastructure protection recruiting;

Improving nuclear and biological intelligence;

Establishing a one-stop shop within the Department of Homeland Security for reliable, comprehensive, and accessible open-source intelligence information and analysis;

Providing better information to local leaders by requiring that any threats be communicated in a manner that limits confusion and operational conflicts;

Clarifying the color-based threat system so that specific information is given directly to regions, States, localities, and private sector industries;

Creating a National Terrorism Exercise program to coordinate and establish minimum standards for all Federal, State, and local terrorism drills; and

Providing for greater Federal, State, and local homeland operations collaboration that needs to take place.

By providing leadership and guidance on these issues and many others, Chairman Cox and his committee have provided this House with a product that I believe is effective in providing for the security of our homeland, which deserves the support of every single Member of this body. I urge 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 to say that it makes me so proud to hear the gentlewoman from New York talk with glowing admiration not only about how important this Homeland Security bill is but about the hard work that went into it and how it became a part of a better product.

Yesterday, the Committee on Rules had an opportunity, virtually all day, to hear testimony from Members across the aisle talk about ideas and thoughts and suggestions that they had that would make this a better bill. The chairman, the gentleman from California, not only listened to them but he worked with the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), on perfecting this bill by adding in amendments.

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, there are a large number of amendments that were added to this, perfecting the bill, perfecting the process, but more importantly giving an opportunity for Members of this body to make sure, from their own perspective, that Homeland Security became more effective by providing the information that was needed to address their local communities.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation.

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

We have had a number of our colleagues make observations, just as the gentleman from Oregon did, about the importance of not only the debate that takes place here in the House but also about our desire to make homeland security even better, more robust, more dynamic, aiming at the threat. We heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) talk very eloquently about the need for border control, for us to make sure that those people who might be terrorists or may be criminals entering this country.

I am sure we will hear a debate about cargo, cargo ships, thousands of containers that come to this country every day, the commerce of this country that is affected. We know that we talked yesterday in the Committee on Rules about the Canadian border and how the Canadian border needs the attention that they not only deserve but also with the flow of goods and services with the economies that are affected and products and services that are denied when the backlogs occur. Each of these has been a part of the arguments, the debates, the discussions that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has taken into account, has made sure that he has taken them to the Homeland Security Department, has spoken with the administration.

It just makes me very proud today to see our Members who are able to cogently come up with not only good answers and better decision-making processes but an abiding faith in what we are doing here today. I am proud that this debate, some 5 hours of debate that will take place today about this very important subject where Members of Congress are able to come down and really identify their specific suggestions that they have. I think this process works. I think the Committee on Rules was wise in what it did. I think the gentleman from California knew when he put together this rule with our leadership what it would look like. It is working today.

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

Mr. Speaker, we spoke earlier about how Members provided information back and forth not only to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the Homeland Security Department but also about how we were able to have a Committee on Rules meeting yesterday with thoughtful ideas that were presented yesterday. Our next speaker was a part of

those thoughtful ideas. He not only sat through hours of testimony, quizzing Members about their questions and comments, things that would make things better, but also a few ideas himself.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman has noted, there will be 5 hours of debate today. There will be a Democrat substitute that will be included, some 200-plus pages that will allow not only full debate under these 5 hours but an opportunity for Members to come down, just as the gentleman from Massachusetts has done, to provide each Member with information about how important this bill is. And I am really proud of the time that we have. The Committee on Rules did a great job.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we have had a great debate. A few people showed up and expressed some concern about what they had, and I would like to address that so that the Members are aware. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) did come before the Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules did not put it in the bill, but it is not in the Democrat substitute either, so the Democrat leadership chose not to include that in their substitute.

We also had some discussion about air cargo. For those Members who are interested, air cargo will be in the substitute; it will be in section 519. Republicans addressed the issue. We have doubled the number of air cargo inspectors that would be at the airports to make sure that we are looking at the cargo.

Today has been a good debate, an opportunity for Members to come forth and speak about the important things about this bill. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has our admiration. He has done a great job. The Committee on Rules I believe did a fair job. I would also at this time like to thank the White House and the liaisons that the White House provided to us, Brian Conklin for his great leadership, Chris Frech for his hard work with us, and certainly their superstar at the White House, Elan Elinjg, who took time to make sure that Members were updated, not only about the position of the administration, but about how they could work closely with Members of Congress.

So I think today has been another successful opportunity for us to begin the 5 hours of debate that will take place today where every Member will have an opportunity to come down and express themselves and where we will have a Democrat substitute that will be over 200 pages where they are able to express the things which they believe are best. Members of Congress will be able to vote and a decision can be made today. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this process.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 278 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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.

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

It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides that under the rules of the House the bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph. It waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill except as specified in the resolution.

Finally, the rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation. This bill, sponsored by my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, funds an array of Federal programs aimed at securing the Nation against terrorist attacks, including Customs and border protection, transportation security, and Federal assistance to State and local first responders.

In addition, it funds some additional and vitally important missions of agencies that were included in the Democratic of Homeland Security when it was formed 2 years ago, such as disaster relief. This carefully considered legislation provides almost $31 billion for operations and activities of the Department of Homeland Security, an increase of $1.37 billion above fiscal year 2005 enacted levels, excluding $2.5 billion in advance appropriations for BioShield and $1.3 billion above the President's request.

It also provides $1 billion in mandatory budget authority for programs in the Department. Some of the other initiatives that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman, and his subcommittee have funded through this bill on behalf of the American public include: $7.5 billion to the Coast Guard, who are called today to defend our coast from the threat of terrorism;

$6.9 billion for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, including $4.9 billion for enforcement activities and assets; $458 million for computer automated import and export tracking

functions; $348 million for maintenance of air and marine vessels; and $93 million for facilities construction and maintenance;

$5.7 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, including $2.5 billion for aviation, passenger and baggage screening; $983 million for aviation security direction and enforcement; and $36 million for surface transportation security;

$4.5 billion for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including $3.1 billion for immigration enforcement, detention and removal; and $699 million for Federal air marshals;

$3.6 billion overall for terrorism preparedness grants, including $750 million for formula-based grants to States; $1.2 billion in discretionary grants for high-threat urban ports, port security and public transportation security; $600 million for fire prevention and control grants; $200 million for training exercises and technical assistance grants; and $180 million for emergency management performance grants;

$3 billion for emergency preparedness and response, including $2 billion for disaster relief; $861 million for information analysis and infrastructure protection; and $422 million for the Office of the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security, including $390 million for the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology known as US-VISIT program; $14 million for the NEXUS/SENTRI program; and $7 million for the free and secure trade programs.

In addition to providing these much needed funds throughout this legislation, the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and his committee have also focused sharply on the need for strong oversight and Congressional review of how the taxpayers' money is being spent wisely and efficiently on homeland security.

This much needed emphasis on oversight of the efficiency and effectiveness on how money is spent on defending our homeland will ensure that the money is spent wisely. It will also limit waste and abuse so that the programs that are truly needed to protect the safety of American citizens will have the funds when they are needed and the ability to operate those plans.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support this legislation and this open rule. I commend my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their hard work in developing this legislative product.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the opportunity to be here on behalf of this rule today, as my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), points out, is all taking place as a result of the hard work that took place not only between the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Sabo); but, really, it was from a lot of work that has taken place over a long period of time, working with the administration, working with the Homeland Security Department.

I must confess that I believe that we should have stronger oversight. I think we agreed on that last night in the Committee on Rules. We are also of the belief that the new leadership at homeland security will continue in this very important task of working with not only the administration but working with our appropriators, our authorizers, the people who are very interested in making sure that we move in a collaborative effort forward for homeland security.

So I am proud of what the bill is today. I think that what the subcommittee did was good work. We are going to get it on the floor today. We are going to debate it. We are going to make it better, and I am proud of the progress that we are making.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The gentleman makes some very good points about not only his vision and ideas about jurisdictional issues, but I would say to my colleagues today that there is some disappointment on behalf of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), our great chairman, who worked very diligently, faithfully not only with homeland security but also others in this Congress who are attempting to make sure that Congress not only has a say about the money that is appropriated but an expectation back from the administration and homeland security about the worthiness of what we believe public policy should be. I think this leadership, I think the Committee on Rules last night heard the argument and were very hopeful that we can reach resolution.

Today, we are going to debate this bill. Today, we are going to pass this rule, and we are going to pass this bill, and it is going to empower not only the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) but also the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) to continue, to go back and do their work, to go back, yes, to the table once again with homeland security and to talk about how important it is that the Homeland Security Department provide information on a timely basis.

It is important for us to continue providing reassurance to the American people that the philosophy, that the plans that are in place and moving forward will meet the continuing threat needs against this country.

What I would say is that we are not going to give up on the process. I do not know that it is perfect. I expressed some reservations myself yesterday in the Committee on Rules about things which I supported, but I believe that our chairman and the ranking member are forthright about their need, their desire to make sure that we will continue working with Department of Homeland Security, even when we have the disagreements. This is a strong sense of the support in Congress that we have for the appropriators to go back and continue to do their work.

So I am proud of what we are doing. I do not think it is a sham. I understand completely why we are here today. I think it will be very clear when we vote today, and it will be a strong signal back to the American public that we intend to be serious about not only the threats that are placed against this country but also those avenues that make sure that our border security continues to provide on a moving-forward basis the ability that we have to meet the threat that is placed against this country.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I think we just saw an articulate discussion about how people do need to work together here in Washington and how the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), and

our chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), worked together in their desire to make sure that Homeland Security is listening and to make sure it is a collaborative effort. We are going to keep after it. We are going to keep doing the right things that will ensure that the American public understands and gets not only every single dollar's worth, not a penny more, but every single dollar's worth of what is paid for that will secure this country, and that involves the efficiency and effectiveness of Homeland Security.

We had a discussion yesterday about the leadership of Homeland Security; how we know it is brand new, how we know the daunting challenge that is ahead of placing together all of these organizations and making them work well together, having them under the same mission statement and making sure that they are funded properly, making sure we hear back from them, making sure they hear back from us.

Really, what this debate is about today is that we are not sure that Homeland Security is effectively listening to us, the policies that we would intend for them to place before the American public; to implement those and to make sure safety and security is taken care of properly, and then, lastly, the information back that will allow the ranking member and our great chairman a chance to philosophically address those changing parameters and threats against this country.

I believe that this administration will be serious about it. I believe the new leadership of Homeland Security in their wisdom and ability to work more carefully as time moves on will answer these questions and they will provide those things that are necessary.

But we just saw a prime example of the kind of steady hand, proper leadership that exists here in the House of Representatives, and I am proud of that. I am proud of this on both sides of the aisle. I think we will continue working together, and I think that is what this legislation will prove worthy of today.

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

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

We have had a great opportunity to air out our differences today, our hopes and expectations about what we think the brighter and better future will be for the relationship that we have with Homeland Security, and today is part of that process.

I would like to once again reiterate my support for Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Sabo, but I would also like to extend to the members of the Homeland Security Subcommittee my thanks for a job well done. They have spent a lot of time not only traveling around the country, with interaction and meeting with very important people who are focused on a daily basis on our homeland security, and so I want to thank those Republicans who are members of this subcommittee: The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Crenshaw), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), and the vice chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). It has taken a lot of their hard work, along with our friends on the other side of the aisle to make sure that the legislation would get to the floor today.

I would like to congratulate the chairman of the full committee also, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), for his hand in making sure this works.

Amendment offered by Mr. Sessions

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 23 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 18, 2005, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my congratulations to the people of Taiwan on the occasion of their president's first anniversary in office this May 20th. Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian was re-elected to a second four year term in 2004.

During the last five years, President Chen has been deft in navigating the dangerous shoals between the demands of his people seeking independence and Chinese threats to attack Taiwan. In recent weeks and months, China passed the anti-secession law, codifying the use of force if Taiwan moves toward independence and lavishly entertained two Taiwan opposition parties leaders.

At the moment, there is a ``China fever'' sweeping Taiwan. Many Taiwanese are lured by China's promise of trade benefits and are willing to make political concessions to China. However, President Chen has been steadfast in demanding that the best welfare for the people of Taiwan must be safeguarded in any negotiations with China.

I believe it is time for us to speak up for President Chen and the Taiwanese people. We treasure our affiliations and relations with Taiwan as we admire Taiwan's political and economic achievements of the last two decades. It is often too easy to forget that all these accomplishments came through decades of hard work. Taiwan today is a beacon of democracy and an island of prosperity to many developing countries, including China.

The Taiwanese people, as we know, do treasure their democratic way of life and their independence. And the person who has their best interests at heart is President Chen Shui-bian. I rise today to support President Chen's handling of Taiwan's relations with China. President Chen is right in pointing out the differences between democratic Taiwan and autocratic China and the importance of conducting direct talks by elected leaders in Taiwan and China.

In the meantime, I urge Chinese leaders to withdraw their missiles deployed on the other side of the Taiwan Strait and accept President Chen's suggestion of setting up a stable mechanism for cross-strait interaction, leading to permanent peace and development in the Taiwan Strait.

Again my best wishes to the Taiwanese people on their president's first anniversary.