Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

We are not here by mistake. We are not here because we could not get our work done. As a matter of fact, the month of September I think this House worked less than any September that I have been in this House in the last 21 years.

We are here because the Republicans did not want to put their bills on the floor and have their Members vote for it. I am a member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. We did not have 1 minute of consideration on a $130 billion-plus bill, not 1 minute of consideration in subcommittee. Not 1 minute of consideration in the full committee. Not 1 minute of debate and consideration on the floor of this House. Yet, behind me is a bill of over 3,000 pages. It was written last night. Not all of it; it is cumulative. But it was not finished until early this morning.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to pass a CR. Why are we going to pass a CR? Because as President Reagan also said, we needed time for OMB to read the bill. So we are going to have a CR so that the President can read this bill. But there is no time for the 435 Members of this body elected by 280 million Americans, no time for us to read this time. No time for us to digest what is in this bill. No time to have amendments on this floor so that we can strike egregious environmental provisions put in in the dark of night. No time to bring to this House the considered judgment that the Founding Fathers thought the people's House would give to legislation.

Luckily, Mr. Speaker, we are not all held to our comments that we might make. Some have made an analogy to making sausage. We defame the sausage industry in that analogy.

I want to join my colleague in saying that this is not the responsibility of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) said that. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is one of the fairest, most open, most democratic Chairs in this House and, indeed, under whom I have served during my tenure. It is not the responsibility of the majority party in the Committee on Appropriations. If it were their choice, they would have brought bills to the floor, bills that they felt were responsible, and we would have considered them. I will lament the fact that there are 54 Members of this House, all representing over 600,000 people, 30 million people, who have not had 1 minute to consider this legislation, because they were not here last year.

So we consider a bill. I am going to vote for this bill. I am going to vote for this bill because it has some very good things in it. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) says, some of this money comes way too late. First responders, homeland security, frontline defense, Customs agents, FBI technology and capability have all been shortchanged for the last 5 months since the beginning of this fiscal year. That is not, in my opinion, being on high alert, on red-orange or whatever color now confronts us. I am going to vote for this bill because this bill will,

in fact, fund some of the critical things that America needs. NIH research has been on hold for the last 5 months. Extramural grants have not been given. But this is the worst process I have seen an appropriation bill put to in my 22 years in this House.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California is very kind, and I thank him for his remarks; but more than that, I thank him for his leadership on this issue and so many issues of vital concern to human rights internationally.

I also want to thank my very good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman. He himself is a giant in standing up for human rights. He and I have traveled overseas and participated in the Helsinki process together, he chairing delegations on which I had the honor of serving with him.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friends, the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from California, for bringing this very important resolution to the House floor. It is, I believe, a moral imperative and a matter of principle that this House speak as one today.

The selection on January 20 of Libya, a gross, and I have heard that word used a number of times, and in our own lexicon of law ``gross'' means beyond the pale, a gross violator of human rights and a state sponsor of terrorism to ironically chair the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is, in my opinion, an affront to basic decency and it demeans the United Nations itself.

Absurd, grotesque, tragic. Those are just a few of the words that have been used to describe Libya's election to this post. Our State Department includes Libya on its list of state sponsors of terrorism. Amnesty International has documented Libya's extrajudicial execution of government opponents and torture of political detainees. Human Rights Watch has called Libya's human rights record over the last three decades appalling.

Imagine, the Commission on Human Rights, which claims to stand for free elections, free expression and fair trials, will now be chaired by a Nation that has not had a free election since Colonel Qaddafi seized power in 1969. Imagine, the Commission on Human Rights will now be chaired by a nation that itself refuses, refuses to admit U.N. human rights investigators. Imagine, the Commission on Human Rights will now be chaired by a nation that was responsible for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 270 people, and they harbored for years and years the perpetrators of that act; responsible for the 1986 bombing of La Belle Disco in Berlin that killed two U.S. servicemen; and for the 1989 bombing of UTA Flight 772 over Niger.

The selection of Libya to head the Commission on Human Rights undermines the credibility, integrity, and relevance of the United Nations. We must not, I repeat, Mr. Speaker, we must not countenance or ignore or rationalize the dangerous, illegal and destabilizing behavior by criminals and nations whose rogue status endangers international security and stability.

The only bright spot in this otherwise outrageous, dismal act is that it may, it just may spur the international community to closely scrutinize Libya's human rights record and force serious thinking about reforming the Commission and the way of selecting the Commission. I urge our government, Mr. Speaker, to work to accomplish both of those ends.

I believe this resolution is an important step in focusing our attention on this egregious act of irresponsibility by the United Nations and by its member states, and I urge my colleagues to support unanimously this very important resolution.

Again, I thank the chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois,

and my friend, the gentleman from California, for yielding me this time and for their leadership in this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Edward D. Casey on his retirement from the Capital-Gazette Newspapers, and his election to the Maryland press association's hall of fame. I would also like to thank him for his years of service to our community.

For 30 years, Mr. Casey has been the editorial voice of the Capital. In March when he is officially inducted, he will join 35 other outstanding newspaper men and women who have been similarly honored over the years by the Maryland-Delaware-D.C. Press Association.

Mr. Casey is respected throughout Maryland for being a pioneer and effective advocate for the freedom of information project, especially during his service as president of the Maryland-Delaware-D.C. Press Association.

Prior to joining the Capital, Mr. Casey was editor of the Daily Advance in Dover, NJ for six years. He began working in newspapers as a sports editor in 1957 at the Binghamton Press in New York. He also worked as a sports editor for the Endicott Bulletin in New York and managing editor of the Binghamton Sun-Bulletin.

I congratulate Mr. Casey in his retirement, and I wish him every success in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, the Huntingtown community in my district experienced a tragic and untimely loss, a loss to the U.S. Postal Service, a loss to the 5th District of Maryland, a loss to a community, and a loss to many close family and friends. I wish to take a moment today to pay tribute to the memory of Michael Dean, Postmaster of the Huntingtown Post Office in Huntingtown, MD.

Mike Dean tragically died following a motorcycle accident on January 9, 2003. He was a highly respected Postmaster who had been recognized on numerous occasions for his outstanding work with the Postal Service. On many occasions, he was given the opportunity to advance his career by accepting a well-deserved promotion. He always refused, preferring to stay and serve the community of his beloved ``Downtown Huntingtown.''

His accomplishments within the Postal Service, within his community, and within his church are so numerous that it is impossible to list them all. For the Postal Service, Mike will be remembered as a loyal and trusted co-worker. He was a teacher and mentor to newly appointed Postmasters. He was a person his manager or a fellow Postmaster could call upon when help was needed anywhere, at any time. He was active for many years in the National Association of Postmasters of the United States. To his employees at the Huntingtown Post Office, he was much more than just ``the boss.'' He was a friend, advisor, teacher, and a leader by example.

Mike was appointed Postmaster of Huntingtown 24 years ago, and he grew along with the town. Until his death, the bond between Mike Dean and his community seemed unbreakable. He served people in every way imaginable with grace, humor, and always with a sense of selflessness. Mike served on the

board of directors of the United Way of Calvert County, and was a long- time volunteer with the Meals on Wheels program. He was active with local schools, serving on the PTA and establishing a ``Wee Deliver'' program to promote reading and writing skills. When a neighbor was ill, Mike was there to cut his grass. When a local farmer needed help, Mike was there to help strip tobacco.

As a member of St. John Vianney Catholic Church in Prince Frederick, he served enthusiastically as president of the Men's Club, raising funds for the parish for numerous projects. When the parish grew so large that it became necessary to create a new parish, he took a leadership role in the formation and development of Jesus the Divine Word Catholic Church. He leaves behind family, many friends, neighbors, and coworkers who mourn his loss deeply.

Michael Dean's own life was not without sorrow and loss, but he had the ability to work his way through the pain and difficulty, and to emerge from difficult times still strong in his faith, and ready to serve his fellow man. In this way, I would like to take a moment to honor the memory of a colleague, a dear friend, and beloved family member to so many.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purposes of inquiring of the distinguished majority leader the schedule for the coming week.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information. I would ask the distinguished majority leader, when does he expect the conferees will complete their work on the omnibus? Does the gentleman have any idea?

I notice the gentleman says, ``if it is available.'' Does the gentleman have any information on when it may be available and completed?

I thank the gentleman for that answer.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know, and as I said last week, because of the process we are pursuing Members are not as knowledgeable, perhaps, as they otherwise would be on exactly what is going on. Can the majority leader inform me as to how much time he would expect to give Members, A, to review the conference report, and then to have consideration of it on the floor, and what procedures might be available to them on the floor?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the staff of the Committee on Appropriations is now very upset with the gentleman for that recommendation.

The staff clearly is overwhelmed because they are trying to move ahead, covering 11 appropriation bills, in a short period of time.

I appreciate the gentleman's observation that there is going to be an attempt made to give the Members sufficient time when the report is issued, when the conference report is issued from the committee, to at least have 24 hours to review it and come to grips with what is in it. Because, again, the process has been one in which we have not had many of the bills, as the gentleman knows, on the floor for consideration in the House in the first instance, much less the conference reports, while the Senate, obviously, had a fuller debate on most of the pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman again, I would like to ask him about the Welfare Reform Reauthorization Act which he indicates may be on the floor next Thursday. If it comes on the floor next Thursday, can the gentleman tell me how whether it is going to go to committee, to the Committee on Ways and Means for consideration, or whether it will go directly to the Committee on Rules and be reported out by the Committee on Rules?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the leader for that information with reference to how it is going to be considered.

As the gentleman, as the leader will recall, and I am sure the chairman of the Committee on Rules will recall, when last considered, the Democrats, the minority, was given a substitute, and a waiver was given with respect to that substitute as well. We would hope that that would be repeated again this year.

Again, notwithstanding the accelerated consideration, clearly we would hope that we would be able to offer, with an appropriate waiver, an alternative to the proposal that emanates from the Committee on Rules.

Could the leader tell me whether that is the intention?

Reclaiming my time just briefly, Mr. Leader, we do not have time to debate that issue; but I will yield back to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the last time this bill was considered the chairman will recall a waiver was given because of the budget objections that might lie.

Would the chairman contemplate a similar waiver being offered?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, as some know, I was one of those who voted for the welfare reform bill.

I believe that we have made great strides. I believe that there are, obviously, different times that confront us at this point in time; but I think, given where we are, that both sides may still be pretty much in the same position they were in last time.

I would, without asking further questions, urge my friends on the majority side to provide for that full and open debate and not allow a technicality which would result from a lack of waiver to preclude a substantive alternative to be debated on this floor and the different perspectives that Members might have being aired.

I think that is good for the American public, I think it is good for the House of Representatives, and I think it is good for the final product. I would hope that would be done. We certainly anticipated the gentleman's announcement, and we will be offering a substitute in a timely fashion on Tuesday next, as I understand the chairman will announce.

I do not want to announce it for the gentleman, but I appreciate it. I appreciate the comments of the leader and the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, for the better part of a year University of Maryland basketball fans have been celebrating and enjoying the National Championship won by the Terps in April 2002. This was a wonderful accomplishment for which coach Gary Williams and his players have been widely praised, and they deserve a tremendous amount of respect and credit for bringing, the University its first men's basketball title,

But there is another individual whose contributions to the 2001-02 championship season should not be overlooked--former Maryland coach Charles ``Lefty'' Driesell, who earlier this year retired after 41 years in the coaching ranks. When coach Driesell arrived in College Park for the 1969-70 season, after having turned small Davidson College into a respected Division I basketball program, his stated goal was to make Maryland ``the UCLA of the East.'' And while no university has ever won titles at the rate of John Wooden's Bruins, the fact is that Lefty Driesell established at the University of Maryland one of the nation's elite basketball programs.

Maryland fans now take for granted that the Terps will challenge for the ACC title, receive an invitation to the NCAA tournament, and be among the handful of serious contenders for a trip to the Final Four. But that wasn't always the case.

Consider that during the first 50 seasons of men's basketball at the University, prior to the arrival of Coach Driesell, the Maryland men's basketball team won 53 percent of its games, twice finished the season ranked in the AP poll, and played in the NCAA tournament one time. In the 33 full seasons since Lefty came to Maryland, the Terps have a winning percentage of 65 percent, have been ranked 14 times, and have made a remarkable 19 NCAA tournament appearances.

Because of the level of success that has been achieved and maintained, the University is now able to recruit from among the nation's top high school players. But it is the initial success, or ``turning a program around,'' that is the difficult first step. Coach Williams' two Final Four appearances and National Championship last year were built on the foundation established by Lefty Driesell in the 1970s and 1980s.

Coach Driesell's career numbers are almost too much to comprehend, but a few are worth noting. He retires with 786 wins, behind only Dean Smith, Adolph Rupp and Bob Knight; he compiled 22 career 20-win seasons; he is the only coach to win at least 100 games at four schools, and one of only three coaches to take four schools to the NCAA tournament; he was twice voted ACC coach of the year and won more games during his 17 seasons in College Park than any other Maryland coach.

But Charles Driesell was not just the ``Lefty'' we all came to know and love as the Maryland basketball coach. Joyce Gunter, his wife of more than 50 years, his four children and 8 grandchildren know him as a loving and committed father and husband.

He has also been officially recognized by the NCAA as a hero for his actions the night of July 12, 1973. Driesell was surf fishing with some friends around midnight in Bethany Beach, Delaware when they spotted flames shooting from a nearby townhouse complex. Coach Driesell broke down the door and started getting the people out of the burning buildings, and he is credited with having saved the lives of ten children that evening.

For his actions, Driesel received the NCAA Valor Award in 1974, which is presented to a coach or administrator currently associated with intercollegiate athletics, or to a current or former varsity letter- winner at an NCAA institution who, when confronted with a situation involving personal danger, averted or minimized potential disaster by courageous action or noteworthy bravery. In the nearly 30 years since its creation, the award has only been presented eight times, which speaks to the true heroism of Coach Driesell's actions that night.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Charles ``Lefty'' Driesell on his much-deserved retirement and thank, him for his contributions to the University of Maryland, its fans and the citizens of the great state of Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, the hollow promises must end. Last night President Bush said, and I quote, ``Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people.'' That was correct that he said that. Last year he said, ``Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay.'' I think he was right to say that. The late fees, however, on those promises are piling up.

My friends on the other side of the aisle, not, by the way, members of the Committee on Appropriations, and not under the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who does an extraordinary job in our committee, but some of my friends on the other side of the aisle are licking their chops at the smorgasbord of tax cuts that would fatten the wealthy and leave scraps for most Americans and force our children to pay the bill. But they do not want to spend resources now that are needed for Federal agencies to respond to terrorist threats. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) tried to bring that to their attention. Nor will they honor the bipartisan pledge to improve our educational system.

Within the limits of parliamentary procedures, we are limited in what can be offered in this motion. However, its purpose is critical. It is time to leave the hot air behind and the rhetoric behind and to live up to our commitment and the expectations of those who sent us here. It is time to live up to our commitment to indeed leave no child behind.

We made a promise to help schools implement reforms to meet higher

standards. We have asked States and local school districts to do the work, and we must show that we were serious, that we meant what we said, that we will put the Nation's money where the Nation's heart is. The House bill is $5.7 billion less than the other body's funding for the No Child Left Behind Act. If we pursue that number, we will leave millions of children behind.

This is simply inadequate, inadequate to help local school districts meet the new mandates we insisted upon just last year. Title I is intended to help disadvantaged students meet high academic standards, a critical objective. Ten million children are eligible for Title I services. Again, the House only meets two-thirds of the $16 billion we need. I say to my friends, that is saying to over 3 million children in America there is no room in this rich inn. The other body provides an additional $500 million, and we ought to give them at least that level so that we leave no child behind.

The other body also provides $2 billion more in IDEA grants, children with disabilities who seek an education. We promised the States we would participate; $2 billion light are we. The House level provides less than half of the Federal contribution toward the added cost of special education that is authorized under IDEA. Again, we as the representatives of the American people need to ensure the fact that America lives up to its promises.

We must not forget our veterans either. Over 310,000 veterans are on waiting lists for medical care, and many veterans are waiting as long as 6 months for an appointment to see a doctor. To a person last night we stood and cheered and clapped with respect and appreciation for those who serve us in uniform both here and abroad. Should we do any less for them when they are through their active service but need the health care we have promised? It is an outrage to not do so. Freedom's defenders deserve better. We must fully fund VA medical care. We do not do it.

Finally, with regard to homeland security, the Council on Foreign Relations reported last October that we are ``dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil.'' The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pleaded with the President of the United States to respond to this vulnerability. The cost of addressing our vulnerabilities is a mere fraction of the President's $674 billion tax cut.

I was elected to State Senate in 1966. Ted Agnew, who was then the county executive of Baltimore County, elected Governor that same year, and in the inaugural address he said this: That the price of progress far exceeds the cost of failure. The billions of dollars that were suggested by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) could save us tens of billions of dollars, as the President said, in preventing just one catastrophic event.

I hope my colleagues will support this motion. I hope my colleagues will stand and say we promise and we talk, but this motion says we are also prepared to take the walk. I believe Americans are prepared to take that walk as well.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that both of us are brand new in this job and this is the first time we are doing this, I want the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to know that I am pleased to yield to him today and will be pleased to yield to him in days to come. I want him to stay leader; I would just like to change the designation, the adjective, but I yield to the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information he has given to us. I understand we are coming back at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday and leaving no later than 1 p.m. on Thursday. I know the gentleman's party has its retreat. Ours is this week, as the gentleman knows.

I would ask the leader, Mr. Speaker, he indicates that the conference committee report may come back on Wednesday. If that is the case, does the gentleman have any information as to when the conference might meet?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.

Assuming that the conference report would be offered on Wednesday, assuming that work gets done, can the leader give us any information on the kind of rule under which that conference report would be considered? And I say that, Mr. Speaker, to the leader in the context that most members of the Committee on Appropriations, not to mention most Members of the House,

have not had the opportunity to see exactly what is in the bill. I think we just got the papers yesterday, so there has not been much consideration.

As the chairman, I am sure, knows, there will be a desire on, I am sure, both sides of the aisle, perhaps, to offer some legislative proposals to the conference committee report if they are made in order. Can the gentleman enlighten us as to what kind of rule the conference committee report might be considered under?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Let me make a couple of comments.

First of all, the gentleman is almost right; we did 11 of the 13 bills. But the second largest bill, of course, as the gentleman knows, on discretionary spending, not only did we not do it, but it was not considered in subcommittee, much less in full committee, the Labor- Health bill, which is, of course, itself over $125 billion in discretionary spending, and somewhere approximately $300 billion, when we include the mandatory spending within that bill, as the gentleman recalls.

But as the gentleman makes the point, this is the most unusual procedure for the appropriations process that I have seen in my 20 years on the committee. It is the least involvement, I think, that members of the Committee on Appropriations in the House have had on the product that now is being sent to us by the Senate.

I know that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) on the Labor-Health bill introduced 2 days ago a Labor-Health alternative, which presumably will be used as a basis for that title of the bill to be conferenced. However, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, I would very much hope that in light of the extraordinarily unusual circumstances under which this appropriation bill is being considered, essentially emanating from the Senate, which obviously from the House position is not what we want to see as normal practice, that the majority would very seriously consider, in the interests of democracy in this House, with a small ``d,'' and in the interest of full debate on the priorities we are going to set forth in this bill that deals with over $360 billion of discretionary spending, to have a rule that is not traditional, because we are not dealing with a traditional process.

I would hope that the leader, in discussions with the Speaker, with the majority whip, and with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), would consider a process which would allow Members to have a greater opportunity to express their views on this particular bill.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I understand what the gentleman has said; but I am sure the gentleman also understands our consternation, because we are going on a retreat for 2 days. We are leaving here tomorrow morning. I ask the gentleman when the conference is going to occur. We really do not know when the conference is going to occur.

As the gentleman knows, like himself, I am a ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations. I have received no notice of a scheduled conference on this particular piece of legislation. I am one of the higher-ranking Members in the House. Therefore, I would think the gentleman and I would have access; but the more junior members of the Committee on Appropriations and those who do not serve on the Committee on Appropriations, while theoretically having some access to a conference, if the conference is never held, if there is no scheduled meeting, if they have no opportunity to participate in those deliberations, it is very difficult for them, short of acting on the floor, to consider this legislation.

So I would simply ask of the leader, Mr. Speaker, again in light of the extraordinarily unusual process that has been pursued over the last 12 months in dealing with the appropriation bills, and the fact that we did not bring the Labor-Health, one of the largest bills that our committee considers, to the floor or to full committee or to subcommittee for consideration, and yes, the chairman introduced a bill, but it was introduced by the chairman alone; it was not cosponsored by anybody else. That did not give us much input.

I will not belabor this point further, but I would hope and ask my colleagues, in light of the fact that this is the first substantive piece of legislation that we are going to consider, that it be considered with an opportunity for those of us who represent somewhere in the neighborhood of 49 percent of the people of the United States to have their voice heard meaningfully in the deliberations.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time and congratulate my chairman, as always, for trying to do the best job he possibly can under the circumstances and the facts that he is dealing with.

I do not speak in my capacity as whip but as I guess still the ranking member of the Treasury, Postal committee, or whatever capacity I am in, because we have not reconstituted that committee. Mr. Speaker, in the Treasury, Postal committee we included a number of dollars in the supplemental, which would be the subject of the amendment that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) speaks of and that we would like to offer and we think is critical.

First of all, there was $400 million in there for the emergency first responders. That is a critical figure. All of us are for that. I do not think anybody is opposed to that. As a matter of fact, all of us were for all the dollars that were in this bill. We voted on it, passed it, and it was sequestered by the President. We believe that it is underminding homeland security not to move ahead with these finances at this point in time.

And not only the $400 million for first responders, but I was at the White House today with the leadership and brought up the funding of the election reform bill. The election reform bill was the most significant bipartisan success that we had in the 107th Congress. The chairman was a very important part of passing that and committing ourselves to funding that election reform legislation to make sure that every American vote not only is cast but is counted accurately. There was $400 million in that bill for that objective.

The President agreed today that we ought to fund that. Mitchell Daniels agreed we ought to fund it. I do not say they were for this particular amendment, but they believe that funding is appropriate funding. As a matter of fact, I am hopeful and believe that we will get a higher figure.

In this amendment was $28.5 million for the Secret Service to support the increased cost to protective details and to implement provisions of the PATRIOT Act we passed to secure our homeland. But it needs funding. This $28.5 million would be in that request.

In addition, there were $39 million for the Customs Service Container Security initiative. We have heard recently the vulnerability of our ports and the infrastructure in our ports to boats, ships coming into our ports that may be laden with explosives. Customs needs to have additional resources in order to check this. I do not think anybody disagrees with that proposition. However, it has languished unfunded.

Mr. Speaker, because my time is short, let me mention also, and lastly, $16 million in the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, FLETC, located in Glynco, Georgia. All of us know as a result of the tragedy of 9-11 of the outrage that was committed against this country, that we have made a determination that we are going to upgrade the security of our homeland. One of the ways we are doing that is adding Federal security officers. We are adding them at our airports, we are adding them at our Federal buildings, we are adding them in other places in our Federal infrastructure. We need to train them.

This was not anticipated. The demands for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center have, therefore, been substantially increased. But we have not given them the resources to accomplish that training. In doing so, we undermine homeland security. What we are saying is we ought not to wait. We ought to act, and we ought to act now to protect the homeland security.

It is very nice for us to pass bills and say we want to do this. But if we do not fund it, we cannot do it. We are going to be talking about that at the end of this month. I would hope to find a way to allow this amendment to be offered and that we could pass this amendment overwhelmingly because I believe the objectives are supported.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 7) and ask for its immediate consideration.