Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2005
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 -- (House of Representatives - June 18, 2004)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is simple. It takes $20 million out of a very important program that cannot afford it and gives it to a program that does not need it. The $20 million the gentlewoman would put in the Citizen Corps comes from the Flood Map Modernization Fund, a program that is critical to our communities and our individuals. These moneys are for a 5-year, $1 billion program to update and modernize the 100,000 aging flood maps nationwide which affects hundreds of thousands of people. It is already underfunded. So we cannot afford to take money out of that.
We include in the bill $20 million for the Citizen Corps. However, Mr. Chairman, they have got $51 million laying around unused which is way more than they need. There is $51 million in the pipeline all the way back to 2003 that has not been used, and so there is plenty of money there, and we do not want to take the money from the Flood Map Modernization Fund that is critical to so many people in this country.
I oppose the amendment and urge Members to oppose it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. We have not seen the amendment. We have no idea what this is.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky reserves a point of order.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to introduce a very important amendment to H.R. 4567. My amendment would make sure that our firefighters, law enforcement officers, and emergency medical personnel or other first responders are actually receiving the terrorism preparedness grant money that the Department of Homeland Security promises to them. The amendment would require States to distribute the already-approved grant money to those first responders no more than 15 days after the States receive the receipts for equipment, training or the other purchases approved under the grants from the local first responders.
The homeland security appropriations bill in its current form would allocate $1.25 billion for formula-based grants. Yet the bill does not spell out the requirements for making sure that the money gets down to our first responders, to our police officers, to our firefighters, to our hospitals and emergency medical personnel.
As we all know, these first responders are not receiving their promised funds to fulfill their mandate to protect our homeland. In some cases, the State is holding tight onto the money. In other cases the local responders do not understand the very complicated process that has been set up for actually receiving those grant dollars from the States. I believe that we need to have a system to verify that critical homeland security money is making its way through the pipeline. That is the biggest criticism that I have heard, that the money is not getting down to the people who have already spent their own money and are supposed to be reimbursed from the Federal Government. My amendment would make such a system possible.
POINT OF ORDER
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist upon his point of order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I do, Mr. Chairman.
I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI which states, in pertinent part: "An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law by imposing additional duties."
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to withdraw my amendment, but I think this is a very important point. I just held for all of the membership here about 10 days ago a meeting with first responders. The answer is always the same. The money is taking too long to come down into the local hands.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the gentlewoman's withdrawing the amendment? Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment. This amendment earmarks $10 million within the Science and Technology account for specific institutions of higher learning.
Mr. Chairman, we have studiously and steadfastly avoided all earmarks in this bill. There are none. This would be an earmark. For that reason, I have to oppose it. The University Centers of Excellence awards are made on a competitive basis and should stay that way.
All universities and colleges in the United States can apply, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-serving institutions and community colleges. Universities and colleges can apply singly or together as part of a consortium, pooling the talents of several higher-learning institutions. The recent Center of Excellence award on agroterrorism to the University of Minnesota includes Tuskegee University, a Historically Black University, as one of its partners.
The S&T university program has been proactive in reaching out to minorities. S&T encourages the Center of Excellence competitors to partner with minority institutions. They are setting up a program for partnering university minority faculty with national labs for fellowships and internships. A new Center of Excellence award on emergency preparedness and response will be targeted to the urban community, with the intent of reaching more institutions with minority populations. This center will focus on training for emergency preparedness.
The competition element, Mr. Chairman, is critical to bring together the Nation's best experts and focus its most talented researchers on science and technology solutions to combat terrorist threats against this Nation from wherever they come.
It is absolutely critical to the security of the country that the Department of Homeland Security is able to utilize the best science that the Nation has to offer, be it private sector technology, national labs, or our great universities and colleges. The best way to identify that talent is through open competition, not earmarks, which this amendment would do. For that reason, I urge Members to reject the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 47, line 22, be considered as read, printed in the RECORD, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I will only make a brief statement in regards to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), who serves on our subcommittee, who has been so active on this issue. He has been a leader in the whole Congress on Buy-America issues through diligent efforts on his part to make sure that companies that manufacture goods and supplies must comply with the Buy-America Act.
I regret that this provision is being probably stricken from the bill, but the work of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) on this issue must go as noted, because it certainly has been a labor of love on his part, and a very effective one.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman may be referring to another section of the bill. This is about port security, not container or cargo security. It is about the security of the port itself.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FILNER. I understand what the chairman is saying. I would argue with great respect that the so-called empty containers lying around the ports are part of our port weakness. Container security is port security. Longshoremen have shown that the way that we inspect, for example, "an empty container" is through an optical system that leaves almost one-third of the container completely invisible to the so-called inspection. In addition, most of the inspection techniques do not allow us to really know what is inside.
I was going to do a press conference that would show, after an inspection of an empty container, a longshoreman jumping out with an Uzi and showing that we can actually bring in weapons of mass destruction in these seemingly empty, innocent things.
So we have got to do a better job. The amendment of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) ought to be supported, and I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, port security obviously is terribly important, and that is why we have provided in this bill $125 million, which is $79 million more than was requested and more than the 2004 level. So we are putting heavy emphasis on port security in the country.
Is that enough money? Of course not. There is not enough money in the world to perfectly protect everything in America, but we think we have on balance provided plenty of money in the bill for port security.
Number two, I have to oppose this amendment for a second reason, and that is probably the most important one. And that is that this would dangerously deplete the disaster relief fund, which concerns me greatly, and we are just now getting into the heavy part of the disaster season. So if there were another offset, this might be more attractive to me, but to take the money out of disaster relief is just a dangerous thing.
So I oppose the amendment. I would hope the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) would consider withdrawing the amendment, and we will address this issue, I guarantee in the conference with the Senate, the other body, as we go along during the year. But I appreciate very much the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), and those who have been speaking with her, in bringing up this very, very important issue, and I assure them it is on my mind and on the mind of the subcommittee.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes, but I do want to challenge something my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) just said. He indicated that every container in foreign ports was inspected. That, as I understand it, is far from the facts.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I did not say every container. I said every high-risk container.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I agree with the gentlewoman from California, who by the way is a very hardworking member of our subcommittee and a very valued member. I agree with her that CIS should meet the highest standards in evaluating petitions for naturalization or immigration benefits, but I do not believe her proposal is justified.
CIS is in the midst of a critical effort to reduce its very large case backlog, while ensuring that it screens applicants for the privilege of living here or acquiring citizenship. Our bill demands a high degree of accountability from this agency, and we will exercise significant oversight into how it achieves the elimination of its backlog.
In the meantime, I believe that the Department deserves some latitude to explore new ways of getting this job done and the backlog reduced, to include privatizing some functions that may be just as easily performed outside of the government, and allows the agency to concentrate internally on its core government functions.
The argument that the positions up for competition are "governmental" begs the question: Immigrants need information and help getting through this system, but such service is not inherently governmental; and, two, the requirement to have specialized subject matter expertise also does not uniquely limit the work to government officials.
So I think the amendment is not necessary. I believe the Department should have some leeway in getting this backlog reduced, and so I, therefore, ask my colleagues to support us in rejecting this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of attempting to save time and to get us out of here today on this bill, I want to engage my ranking member and ask his and others unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes, the time to be equally divided between myself and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with that, with the exception that the time on our side should be controlled by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), who is authoring the amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I so amend my request.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes, that the time be equally divided between myself and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, could we not have agreement on the limitation? I think it is agreed to by the ranking member and all parties on the subcommittee of which the gentleman is a member. Could we not have a unanimous consent to limit the debate time?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. If there are no further speakers on the amendment, I will agree to it. If there are further speakers, I will oppose it.
I think it is a wonderful amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 24 minutes and that the time be equally divided between me and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to find out whether I should pursue the point of order or not, and I get different interpretations of the gentleman's amendment and what it is intended to do. If it does not do much or anything, then I think the amendment is in order. On the other hand, the rules say we cannot legislate on an appropriation bill, and if it does something, then it seems to me it may not be in order.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, if I could speak on the point of order, as I read the amendment, it says no funds may be used to violate the law, and I am prepared to accept that.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, so the gentleman's judgment is the amendment does not do anything?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, it says Federal funds cannot be used to violate the law. I agree with that. Does the gentleman not?
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I know we have Members' concerned and who want to discuss this issue. But the amendment has left me confused. But I do recall a year ago I was confused by an amendment and after some discussion, the House voted the amendment down. And so I am still trying to sort out if it does something or does not do something.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, that amendment last year was altogether different. As I read this amendment, it is fairly simple. It has been modified, obviously, and now just says no funds may be used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Act, and I find it to be innocuous, frankly.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the sponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment seeks to cap the number of high-threat, high-density urban area grants and rail and transit security grants to the 80 presently awarded in 2004.
Mr. Chairman, the whole concept of giving monies on top of the regular distribution of funds across the country, to give extra money to certain cities in the country, the whole concept was we need to protect those cities that we know are targets from the threat information we receive from time to time, because they have extra needs.
[Time: 13:15]
And so that was the very concept of the urban area grant program which was added on top of all of the other grant programs. But threats change.
Anyone who is privy to intelligence knows that yesterday it is Columbus, Ohio. It is New York. It is Washington. It is LA. It is Chicago. But then it is Albuquerque, and who knows where. And the Secretary needs to have wide latitude. We do not need to use this pot of money as pork. This needs to go where the needs are. We do not know where the needs are until we hear the intelligence of the moment. And that is why we leave great discretion in this bill with this pot of money as with most of the others with the Secretary and the intelligence community to make these grants based on real intelligence. Not what I think or what some Member of this body thinks, but what are the real facts, what information do we have that we need to respond to. And that is why it needs to be a flexible fund.
Next year there may be 20 cities that are in that list, or it may be 10, or it may be 60. I do not know. But the funds are there for that purpose, to protect the large urban centers of high-density, high-threat urban areas. To restrict this amount, to restrict the number of cities, to say that these are these and no more, we will protect these cities and the rest of you can fend on your own, that is not right, is it?
Are we to say to a certain segment of America, you do not matter. You do not count. I do not think so. I think this Congress should say these monies are to protect Americans wherever the threat is and wherever the risk is. And we should not be monkeying around with this type of thing.
Please do not try to earmark in this bill, and this is an earmark in reverse. I oppose the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, with respect to my colleague, I have to oppose the amendment. The bill provides $2,270,000 for the Office of Privacy in 2005, which is $1.5 million above the level enacted for the current year. And the Department of Homeland Security continues to be slow in hiring. The current vacancy rate in the Office of the Secretary, which includes the Office of Privacy, the vacancy rate is over 30 percent. A lot of that is due to the slow process of clearing people for these jobs. And we do address that in the bill in another section.
So we hope to allow them to hire people and get them on the job quicker. However, the money in the bill already allows the Office of Privacy to hire eight new staff, and I do not think they can get that many hired anyway. This amendment would increase funding even more, and it is just not needed.
So I would hope that the Members would reject this amendment. It is not needed. We have got more money there than we can use.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing laws and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI which states in pertinent part: "An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law."
This directly amends existing law.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I really hate to disappoint the ranking member, but I do raise a point of order against the amendment under clause 2 of rule XXI.
The provision designates an amount as emergency spending for purposes of the concurrent resolution on the budget. As stated in the House Rules and Manual, such a designation is "fundamentally legislative in character."
Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the amendment under clause 2 of rule XXI. The provision designates an amount as emergency spending for purposes of the concurrent resolution on the budget. As stated in the House rules and manual, such a designation is fundamentally legislative in character.
Mr. Chairman, I would reserve raising the point of order and yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. TURNER) to explain.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I do, Mr. Chairman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes and that the time be equally divided between myself and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we agree that 100 percent of all cargo on passenger planes should be screened. We are together on the goal. It is just that we do not have the capability now. We cannot do it this year. It is going to take a little bit longer. The machinery does not exist, contrary to what the gentleman from Massachusetts says. That big box is too big for the machines that we check our bags through that x-rays packages. The machinery does not exist at this time. We have effective means in place at the moment to reduce the risk to acceptable levels without shutting down air cargo and bankrupting airlines, as this amendment would surely do.
We are aggressively tackling this problem of cargo on passenger planes. This bill that we have before you requires at a minimum that the TSA double the percentage of air cargo screened, actually screened. We appropriate $118.5 million for air cargo security, which is $33.5 million above what we put in the bill last year for this and as requested by the President, including $75 million for developing screening technologies, the R&D to develop the machines that would accommodate palletized cargo on airlines and the larger packages; $10.5 million to hire an additional 100 air cargo inspectors; $20 million to make further enhancements to the known-shipper program and implement a new cargo rule; and $3 million to expand the canine teams deployed to inspect air cargo.
We are getting there, and we are a long way there. We cannot get there 100 percent at the moment. However, with this funding, TSA will continue an aggressive R&D program to examine technologies, to improve the capability to screen the high-risk cargo, including new technologies for screening palletized cargo and containerized cargo for explosives. A number of vendors have been tentatively selected for laboratory evaluation of these kinds of products. TSA is enhancing the known-shipper program.
What is the known-shipper program? It means that you cannot ship cargo on a passenger plane unless you have been certified by the Federal Government; and they look at you very, very carefully. You have got to be a certified known shipper before your cargo can be placed on a passenger plane. If you are not a known shipper, you have got to put it on a truck or on an all-cargo plane or what have you, but not a passenger plane. We do not allow it. So you have got to be a known shipper, and you have got to be certified by the Federal Government before you can become a known shipper. Known shippers go through a very rigorous and thorough process to obtain their status: verification of their legitimacy by way of a comprehensive database, random inspections, recertifications on a yearly basis.
This bill includes language requiring at a minimum to double the percentage of air cargo that is currently screened. That is an incremental approach. We are headed toward 100 percent when we can get there, but we simply cannot get there at this minute.
Screening technologies to inspect air cargo are not ready yet, in spite of what anyone says. The latest information that we have is that there is no machine at this moment in time able to see explosives. You can x-ray a package looking for drugs or contraband, but you cannot see explosives with that kind of a machine. That is the distinction the gentleman from Massachusetts fails to see. We are looking for explosives in passenger planes, not contraband; and the x-ray machines, of course, are designed for contraband.
If this amendment passes and airlines are not allowed to accept air cargo, it means that they will go bankrupt. That is it. You shut off air cargo; you close down the airlines. I am not going to vote for that. The TSA tells me that it would take 9,000 screeners at a cost of over $700 million next year to inspect every cargo at the top 135 airports that handle about 95 percent of all cargo on passenger craft.
The economy of this country relies on just-in-time delivery by airplanes, whether it is fresh produce and meats for grocery stores, mechanical parts for manufacturers, medical supplies for hospitals and clinics and the like. Cargo transported on passenger aircraft typically arrives about 30 minutes before flight time. If you shut off air cargo, you are shutting off just-in-time delivery in this very sensitive area in this country in manufacturing.
In this bill, Mr. Chairman, we are going all out to develop the technology to screen all cargo. We have in place the known-shipper program, canine searches, and other practices; and we will double the percentage of personal inspections in this bill. I urge Members to vote "no" on Markey.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the simple fact is if this amendment passes, there will not be any planes for them to get on in the first place.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), a very important member of our subcommittee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Let me inquire of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), is the gentleman the last speaker?
Mr. MARKEY. I will be the last remaining speaker, yes, sir.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I will yield myself the balance of our time.
Mr. Chairman, our gentleman friend from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) I thought needs an answer to the question he raised. What are we doing about cargo on passenger planes? What are we doing about it, and where are we?
Well, at the moment we physically inspect a certain percent of all cargo
on passenger planes. That percentage is a law enforcement-sensitive number, and we cannot talk about it publicly, but it is a percentage that we actually physically inspect.
The rest cannot be put on a plane unless it has been certified by the government to come from somebody we know, a FedEx or UPS or some other known shipper, a Toyota, GM, where we have gone to that shipper and put them through a rigorous examination so that we know whether or not they are reliable and their chain of supply, their security of supply has been checked.
We are developing machinery, however, to be able to take the place of all of that. The machinery is just simply not there yet. It is being developed, and in the bill we appropriate $118.5 million for air cargo security. It is an enormous figure. That is $33.5 million more than we spent this year or that the President requested. We topped everybody in that respect. And $75 million of that is going to develop new technologies.
One of these days we will have machines that will do for cargo on passenger planes what we do for baggage on passenger planes. We simply do not have it yet. We are working on it and working on it very quickly.
But in this bill in the meantime we say, okay, we want to double the number or the percentage of air cargo that is physically checked, double it this year. We provide additional cargo inspectors for that purpose. We provide canine teams to help with the inspection of air cargo, and we provide $20 million more to make further enhancements to the known-shipper program and implement a new cargo rule.
Now, if this amendment passes, I am sad to say I do not think the airlines will make it. If we prohibit all passenger cargo, as the gentleman from Florida (Chairman MICA) has said, we are taking away $3.5 billion in income to the airlines that are barely hanging on now. 27,000 jobs are involved here. We do away with the capability of the Nation's economy to have just-in-time delivery, upon which the country, in fact the world, runs.
So I urge Members to be careful if we want to vote for this amendment. That is the safe thing to do, of course; but the responsible thing is to vote "no." We are doing all we physically can do at the moment, and it will not help any if we shut down the airlines.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a "no" vote on the Markey amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition.
This is the first time we have seen this amendment. It is brand-new to me. We have not had a chance to discuss the matter with the gentlewoman.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, the problem is that I was just contacted by one of the small business firms that has provided these services who is going to go out of business, and he contacted me yesterday.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, I understand the gentlewoman, and I appreciate the predicament that she is in on this.
It also puts us in a predicament because I do not know the ramifications of the amendment. It could have some very significant national unintended consequences that I have not had time to think about. So I wish we could work with the gentlewoman. Rather than bring this to a vote, perhaps if the gentlewoman would reconsider.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, I am not prepared to do that at this point, because in the past, like in Homeland Security, I introduced an amendment where 23 percent of any monies spent by DOD in the reconstruction of Iraq will go to small businesses. During conference it was taken out. So time and time again, when we have an opportunity to help small businesses through the legislative process, they are being shut out.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, then I have no choice but to oppose the
amendment. I want to help the gentlewoman, but if this is the attitude, then we will just have a debate here and let the vote take place, and it will be one way or the other and over with.
So I would hope that the gentlewoman would reconsider that.
But nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I do not know the ramifications of this amendment. It could be devastating around the Nation for all I know, so I have to at the moment oppose it and oppose it vigorously.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. VELÁZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, it is just simply outrageous that if these securities have been performing these types of services by small businesses, that Homeland Security, despite the goals that have been set up by Congress, and despite the fact that the President made a commitment to small businesses of making contract bundling his top priority, that now Homeland Security is going to bundle this contract, putting so many small businesses out of business.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if the gentlewoman would give me time to work with her on this, I will be happy to do it, but this is the first I have known about it. I do not know the ramifications of the amendment the gentlewoman filed nationally. It could very well be very expensive nationally; it could cost the government a lot of money. It could set a bad precedent to predetermine the most efficient way of contracting. How does it help? How does it hurt? I do not know. So I have to oppose it until we know more about it.
So I would hope the Members would reject the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I do that because I think we have reached the end of the amendment process here and are about ready to call for the votes on the amendments that have been rolled over. But before we finish, I wanted to take a moment to say some things.
It is a pleasure working with my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo). He works hard. He is smart. He has a good level head. He is a reasonable person, and he is a joy to be around and a great help in constructing this bill. It truly has been a partnership as we built the bill. I want to give him a lot of credit for the work that has been done. Of course, the members of our subcommittee. We have a super bunch of people. All of them contribute. All of them participate in the public hearings and, of course, the closed briefings that are classified.
[Time: 15:00]
They keep those secrets secret. So we have got a wonderful subcommittee to work with. And I could not be more pleased to be a part of this team, as I will call it.
Then a big part of that team too is this staff. They are just wonderful. Michelle and all of the crew and the minority staff work closely together; and they work long, long hours on extremely complicated matters building a brand-new Department, breaking ground on entirely new concepts that we are dealing with in this whole country.
This is the second bill for the whole Department of Homeland Security, a new concept in Americans dealing with themselves and their country and the world. So we are plowing new ground. And this staff has just been wonderful in helping us all understand what it is we are dealing with and trying to come out with a proper result.
I appreciate so very much this staff on both sides of the aisle who have made this day possible.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for presiding over these proceedings as you have. We appreciate it very, very much.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his kind comments. Let me say he is a pleasure to work with. He is a very knowledgeable, hardworking chairman, and he does an exceptional job as he has in heading two other subcommittees in this House. He is a long-experienced chairman. We do have good subcommittee members and a great staff on both sides of the aisle. It is a pleasure working with the gentleman and the staff and the other members of this subcommittee.
We have our differences, but I think we also have a good product. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.