Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2005
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2005 -- (House of Representatives - June 18, 2004)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 675 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4567.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4567) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, with Mr. Gillmor in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on the legislative day of Thursday, June 17, 2004, amendment No. 3 by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) had been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment from page 22, line 22, through page 25, line 20.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against Page 31, Line 11, beginning with the words "provided further" through the word "funds" on Line 15.
This section violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law, therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of the House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members wishing to be heard on the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that the proviso explicitly supersedes existing law. The proviso, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the proviso is stricken from the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding time to me.
I was in my office listening to this debate and came rushing over because I heard a couple of things during the debate that disturbed me. One was from the gentleman from Connecticut, who, in response to an observation by the chairman, said he does not believe that the technology does not exist today to do what their amendment seeks to do. I believe that and I believe that to be true.
The other observation was there was reference made to the folks in the gallery who came here, and the observation was they probably do not know that the cargo that goes into the belly of their passenger plane is not screened. I would venture to say that most people that get on passenger planes do not even know that they are carrying cargo. Most people that get on passenger planes, however, also do not know that it is the cost of the cargo, the money that the airlines make relative to the cargo shipments, that enable them not only to have cheaper fares but also enable them to fly to small areas.
Just citing one airline that is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, an area that is near and dear to my heart, if this amendment were to pass, I have been advised 67 jobs would be lost at that one airport by that one airline. For that one airline, $325 million in revenue would have to be made up in higher and additional fares. And service to smaller communities, again the folks in the gallery, if they live in New York or Chicago or Los Angeles, they can get home, but if they live in some of the smaller hubs, they are not getting home because there will be no service to those areas because their fares are subsidized by the revenues made up as a result of cargo shipments.
I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that, again, the chairman has done a good job in this bill. He has doubled the amount of belly cargo that is being inspected. From where we are today, 100 new inspectors are being added, research and development so that pilot programs going on down in Houston and other areas can continue to go. This is a well-intended amendment. I think we all want to get to 100 percent, but it is a wrong-headed amendment because the technology that they seek to impose does not exist today.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, just to correct the record also, I would like the gentleman and the other Members to know, it was said in the beginning of this debate, also, that Pan Am 103 was brought down as a result of this situation, explosives in cargo. That is not true. It was explosives in luggage.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
END