Maritime Terminal Security Enhancement Act of 2006

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

At the outset before we begin this debate, which will be a very positive debate, let me express my thanks to the ranking member, Mr. Thompson, for the tremendous cooperation he has given throughout deliberations on this bill, and also to the ranking member, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, and to Ms. Harman for working so closely with all the Members, especially Chairman Dan Lungren who is the prime sponsor of this legislation.

I also want to mention other Members such as Chairman Reichert and the ranking member, Mr. Pascrell, for the important amendments that they introduced during the committee markup which have made this a very significant bill.

Madam Chairman, on September 11 all of us pledged that we would do all we could to prevent another terrorist attack from occurring in this country. One of the areas where we are most vulnerable is our ports. There are 11 million containers that come into our ports every year from foreign countries. Much progress has been made since September 11 in protecting our ports and improving the inspection process, the screening process, the scanning process; but the reality is that more has to be done.

I strongly believe that the SAFE Ports Act is a major step in the direction of giving us that level of protection that we need. For instance, it provides $400 million a year in risk-based funding for a dedicated port security grant program.

It mandates the deployment of radiation portal monitors which will cover 98 percent of the containers entering our country and then going out into the country.

It mandates implementation of the TWIC identity cards, and it sets up port training between the employees at the ports and first responders. It also requires more cargo data to be given to improve our automated targeting system.

And as far as the Container Security Initiative, CSI, it mandates that the Secretary of Homeland Security will not allow any container to be loaded onto a ship overseas unless that container is inspected at our request. In the past, we have had a number of countries that refused to make these inspections. There have been 1,000 containers that have entered this country unexamined, uninspected because the overseas ports would not carry out the inspection. In the future, that will not be allowed to happen.

Also, we require DHS to continually evaluate emerging radioactive detection and imaging technology. We also increase the number of inspectors by 1,200. All of these are part of the layered response and the layered system of defense that we need to significantly and dramatically upgrade the level of protection in our ports.

This is a bill which I believe warrants the support of the entire House. It passed out of the subcommittee unanimously, and it passed out of the full committee by a vote of 29-0, and I will be urging its adoption today.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I include for the Record letters of jurisdiction.

House of Representatives

Committee on Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding the

Judiciary Committee's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 4954,

the SAFE Port Act. The bill was introduced on March 14, 2006,

and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security. The

Committee on Homeland Security marked up the bill and

reported it on April 28, 2006.

I appreciate your willingness to waive further

consideration of H.R. 4954 in order to expedite proceedings

on this legislation. I agree that by not exercising your

right to request a referral, the Judiciary Committee does not

waive any jurisdiction it may have over H.R. 4954. As you

have requested, I will support your request for an

appropriate appointment of outside conferees from your

Committee in the event of a House-Senate conference on this

or similar legislation should such a conference be convened.

I will include a copy of your letter and this response as

part of the Congressional Record during consideration of the

legislation on the House floor.

Thank you for your cooperation as we work towards the

enactment of H.R. 4954.

Sincerely,

Peter T. King,

Chairman.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations.

Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve.

Madam Chairman, I join the lady in the commemoration of the greatness of this day. And with that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Management Integration Oversight.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack.

Madam Chairman, I am privileged to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), the former attorney general of California and the sponsor of the bill.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), the former sheriff of King County and chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), who, as has been noted by several of the speakers, has made an extraordinary contribution by her amendment at the full committee level.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Castle, I share your concerns. The legislation under consideration today is only one part of an aggressive campaign to bring common sense to our homeland security efforts. Rail security has been one of my highest priorities, certainly coming from New York, which has one of the largest subway systems in the world. The terrorist attacks on the rail systems in London and Madrid were very grim reminders that our enemies are not above exploiting civilian targets.

In the next few weeks, we will be moving TSA reform legislation that has provisions designed to enhance rail and transit security. This matter is a priority for the committee, and I thank the gentleman for his leadership in this area.

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

Mr. Chairman, we went through a very long and productive, bipartisan process in arriving at this point today. It trivializes the debate, it demeans the process, to be suggesting that anyone, anyone at all in this body, certainly anyone on this committee, is not absolutely committed to the protection of every American life. Those of us who came from districts who lost large numbers of people on September 11 perhaps have even a more acute interest in doing all we possibly can.

But we also don't want to do the most cruel thing of all, and that is hold out a false hope. The worst thing of all is to adopt legislation which is symbolic rather than real. We want results. We are not looking for sound bites, we are not looking for headlines, we are not looking for the evening news, we are not looking for the tabloids. We are looking to get results to save American lives and to make America safer.

That is exactly what this legislation does, through layers of defense, through layers of security, through well-thought-out processes and urging as quickly as possible the advancement and the use of technology that can be done. Not technology that might work or might not work, but technology that can work and will work and can be implemented in an effective way.

That is what this is about. That is what the debate should be about. As the late morning and early afternoon goes forward, I am sure the American voters who are watching this will see that there are those of us who do want to maintain the level of debate on both sides of the aisle, and that level is going to bring about American security.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment makes technical changes, adds several new findings on the importance of maintaining vibrant international trade, clarifies that port security funds can be used to address vulnerabilities in vessel and facility plans in addition to maritime security plans, and clarifies that the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office is responsible for implementing Department of Homeland Security requirements under the Global Nuclear Architecture and that any private testing performed by DNDO will be confidential.

Additionally, the manager's amendment includes two provisions at the request of Chairman LoBiondo to set deadlines for the enhanced crew member identification cards so that the rollout is on the same expedited schedule as the Transportation Worker Identification Credential, TWIC, in the base bill. The second provision is the establishment of a Center of Excellence for Maritime Domain Awareness.

The base bill represents the work of the Homeland Security Committee and also input from several other committees: Science, Ways and Means, Transportation and Infrastructure, Government Reform and others. The manager's amendment also includes several changes to the base bill at the request of our colleagues from other committees.

Specifically, given that H.R. 889, the Coast Guard Authorization Bill Conference Report, is complete and likely to be considered on the floor in the near future, the amendment removes two provisions accepted during full committee consideration that relate to the Coast Guard. The first establishes a pilot program for training Coast Guard reserve officers and, two, the funding for the acceleration of Deepwater. Finally, the manager's amendment establishes a Director of Trade Policy in the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Policy.

The changes and additions made in the manager's amendment are consistent with the overall goals in the base bill and represent perfecting changes at the requests of several of our colleagues. I ask my colleagues for their support for the amendment and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. Chairman, at the outset, let me thank the gentleman from Mississippi for his very kind and generous remarks, and I want to again return the compliment by saying it has been an outstanding privilege to work with him as the bill has worked its way to this present stage.

I also want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for once again reaffirming his support of the Deepwater Program and pledging to work to get the necessary funding for the Coast Guard. All of us saw the outstanding job in Katrina, the outstanding job. They were the true heroes of Katrina, certainly from the Federal level. So I think we stand as one in urging full funding for the Coast Guard.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support of the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition to the amendment even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland for proposing a study of an important Customs and Border Protection initiative. The study of the NTC will assist Congress in determining whether the NTC in its current form is accomplishing its mission of better coordinating CBP field operations and communications.

Improving ATS is essential for a robust container security regime. As the home to ATS, the National Targeting Center must have appropriate resources and management to sufficiently operate the system. As stated, I thank the gentleman for offering his amendment, and I am willing to accept it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition to the amendment even though I am not opposed.

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

I want to thank my friend from Maryland for all his efforts in relation to this amendment and to his commitment to the establishment of maritime security command centers.

These centers will be vital tools in the war on drugs, will assist in preventing illegal immigration, and will monitor possible terrorist activity in each region by tracking shipping movements.

I agree that the close cooperation and coordination between the Federal, State, and local governments is an integral part of a successful command center structure, and I will be pleased to accept the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, at the outset let me thank the gentleman from Texas for introducing this amendment and doing it in such a spirit of bipartisanship. To me, it typifies what this issue should be about: good people from both parties working together to resolve one of the most serious issues facing our country today.

I agree that such a study is necessary primarily because of the sharp increase of trade that the United States has experienced through its ports in recent years. All forecasts seem to indicate this trend will continue.

While this debate largely focuses on seaports, our land ports play a vital role in our economy. Therefore, a comprehensive strategy is needed to address the challenges of efficient trade and land port security. The balance between trade efficiency and adequate security is central to the future success of the United States economy. I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Again, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

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

Including mobile detection capabilities in the evaluation process is vital and will aid search capabilities. Also, these potentially cheap sensors will allow for more widespread application. This detection equipment will be considered under the same criteria and measured against the same real-world performance criteria before they are deployed.

The gentleman's amendment raises responsible questions that must be addressed prior to asking our allies to deploy new inspection equipment or for domestic use.

I appreciate this thoughtful addition to the bill offered by the gentleman from Kansas, and I am prepared to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

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

I rise in support of the gentleman from Connecticut's amendment. The type of technology to which he is referring certainly has extraordinary promise. The measured approach he is proposing here, I believe, is the way we should go forward. I understand the Department of Homeland Security may have some concerns, but the fact is, I think, all of us agree the government does not always have the right answer to a particular problem. I believe that the gentleman from Connecticut should be commended for pushing this matter forward and for using his energies and abilities to bring that about.

I know that this technology is said to have limitations, but a thorough operational test by independent evaluators will enable us to look at it much more objectively.

So with that, I strongly urge the adoption of the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition even though I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I commend the gentleman from New Hampshire for his proposal. It is something that is needed. It fills a very vital need, and I urge the adoption of his amendment.

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

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed.

Madam Chairman, I would like to raise several points. I want to commend my good friend from New York for offering the amendment. Obviously, more oversight is needed. This amendment serves that purpose.

I did have some concerns about the danger of potential national security information being listed. But the language of the amendment does provide an exception on that. There is also some concerns about whether or not this could prove burdensome on some local governments.

I just want to work with him to ensure the amendment does not impose unnecessary burdens on State and local governments.

Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

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

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the coauthor of the legislation.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Madam Chairman, I understand what the gentleman from Arizona is attempting to do as far as imposing a sense of fiscal order, but the fact is you know sometimes the price of everything, but the value of nothing. I cannot imagine any potential target in this country which would have more of an economic impact on us than our ports. A nuclear attack in one of our major ports could cost up to $1 trillion in loss to our economy.

The gentleman refers to money that has definitely been wasted in certain projects around the country under the rubric of homeland security. The fact is, we passed legislation in this House last year, H.R. 1544, which would base funding on threat and risk analysis. It is that exact same philosophy that applies to this port security bill. It is based on threat and risk.

As the gentleman from California said, the Coast Guard estimates it would cost over $5 billion for the targeted ports to receive the proper amount of security which they need. This funds slightly less than half of the amount that is required. There is matching money required from the ports.

The fact is we are at war, and we cannot be applying the same green eyeshade philosophy to protecting our National home as we do to other projects.

I agree that nothing is worse than having $1 of homeland security funding wasted. That is why we passed the legislation last year, that is why we are passing this port security, this bill, this time this year to ensure that money will go where it is needed; but it is only going to be based for security. It is not going to be wasted, and to me, this is clearly money well spent. It will also save human lives.

As someone who comes from a district next to the Port of New York and New Jersey, who saw the thousands of people who were killed on September 11, this is a war we cannot afford to hold back in any way. It is essential we go forward. This money is money which is absolutely necessary; and as the gentlewoman from California said, we are taking away the $176 million, adding this. It is money well spent, and I urge defeat of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), the author of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset commend Ranking

Member Thompson, Chairman Lungren, Ranking Member Sanchez, Ms. Harman for the truly bipartisan job they did in putting this together.

Let me also commend our staff, Mandy Bowers, Mark Klaassen, Mike Power, Joe Vealencis, Coley O'Brien, Dr. Diane Berry for working together in a solid way to get a real port security bill.

I am proud of how bipartisan this was, right up till a few moments ago. Just this afternoon we adopted nine Democratic amendments on this bill.

The reality is, though, this is an outstanding port security bill. I came from a district which lost more than 150 friends, neighbors and constituents on September 11. Unlike Mr. Markey, I don't need visual aids to remind me of what happened on September 11.

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

Madam Chairman, this day is the reason that I decided to come back to the Congress. An effort to work together on a bipartisan basis to solve one of the great challenges affecting America, that is what this place is all about. There are a lot of cynics and skeptics out there who say that the Congress of the United States is incapable of doing the work that it should do. This day is a refutation of that suggestion. Today is an indication that we can work together. And I want to thank Chairman King for the work that he has done and the broad flexibility that he granted to our subcommittee to put this bill together. I want to thank my ranking member, Loretta Sanchez, for the work she has done; the ranking member on the full committee, Mr. Thompson; and, of course, Jane Harman, my chief co-author on this bill.

This is the best of bills: legislation written to make a law, not to make a political statement. Yes, there are political statements that will be made about this bill, but the fact of the matter is we are moving forward in an effective way to solve a challenge that is out there that the American people recognize and that we recognize.

In response to 9/11, the natural response was for us to look at where we were attacked and to focus most of our attention and energy in that direction. That is why we have had, if you will, a heavy response in the area of aviation safety. But that does not mean we can ignore the other areas.

As I said on the floor yesterday, the greatness of our ports as an integral part of our international trade, the fact that we are leaders in the world in international trade, the fact that we benefit from it more than anybody else, but we do so because it is so different than it was 30, 40, 50 years ago.

The instantaneous communication. The ability to deliver products within a short period of time. The fact that inventory is carried on rail, on trucks, in ships, rather than sitting static in a warehouse somewhere. The world has changed and we have been the leaders in changing the world, and we should be pleased and proud of the tremendous contribution that our ports make to our economy and to our everyday living.

But the very things that make that possible make us vulnerable to those who would destroy everything we stand for. The terrorists do not want to see international trade. The terrorists do not want to see an exchange of ideas. The terrorists do not want to see cultures mixing together. The terrorists do not want to see America shown at its best. And that is what we do, as we Americans live every single day with the benefits of the trade. It is not the totality of what we do, but it is an essential part of what we do. And this bill responds to the attack that those would have on us through this very much shining star in our constellation of America. So I thank the Members for work on this.

I would say we are going to have a debate about 100 percent inspection, and I would say we all would hope for that day. But I would just direct people's attention to the National Journal of this last Friday on the inside page where they have something called the ``Reality Check'' and they refer to this effort to have 100 percent container inspection. They say, and this is the National Journal, that ``it is a nice idea but not very feasible with current technology. Eleven million containers are shipped to U.S. ports each year. Of those, U.S. Customs and border protection personnel physically screen only about 6 percent, 660,000. `It is a noble impulse, but as a practical matter, it can't be accomplished right now,' said Jack Riley, homeland security expert with RAND.''

The key to being able to carry this out in the future is better equipment that stands faster; and that requirement, that impulse, is in this bill as a result of an amendment adopted that was presented by the gentlewoman from Florida. We are attempting to make us safer. Let us rejoice in this day and let us support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I seek to obtain the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition because of some lack of clarity on this amendment, and perhaps I can be relieved of my concern.

The gentlewoman, in her comments, suggested that the World Shipping Council and the Pacific Maritime Association were in support of this amendment. And yet I have a letter with a contrary conclusion, not based on the fact that they object to the objective of the gentlewoman's amendment but rather some concern that the gentlewoman's amendment would be too restrictive in bringing us to the point of having the best technology available as soon as possible.

As I understand the gentlewoman's amendment, it changes the definition of Container Security Device from ``a mechanical or electronic device designed to, at a minimum, detect unauthorized intrusions of containers'' to, ``a mechanical or electronic device designed to, at a minimum, positively identify containers and detect and record unauthorized intrusion of containers'', and then goes on to say, such devices shall have false alarm rates that have been demonstrated to be below 1 percent.

In the letter that we received from the Coalition for Secure Ports, they were concerned that the 1 percent false alarm rate may be unacceptable, in that we have between 11 and 12 million containers coming into the United States per year. If you had this device on all of them, a 1 percent false alarm rate would create as many as 120,000 false security alarms in U.S. ports.

My concern is whether we are strait-jacketing the Secretary into accepting a device, if, in fact, it reached that 1 percent false alarm rate, or whether it would be at least 1 percent false alarm rate that is the intention of the author.

Secondly, the question is whether or not the gentlewoman's language requiring this to be a, ``device that positively identifies containers,'' whether that would restrict this to RFID, or Radio Frequency Identification, systems and not allow, for instance, optical character recognition or similar systems.

If that is the gentlewoman's intent and if that is, in fact, the impact of this amendment, I would have to oppose it, because it seems to me it would restrict us to one particular type of device. And I don't have the technology background to understand whether that one device is the silver bullet in this area.

I understand that one manufacturer, GE, uses it. They think it works well. But, as I understand, there are other manufacturers that are trying to work in other areas.

So those are the concerns I have.

And with that, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

So your intent in using the language ``positively identify containers'' is not to eliminate the possibility of optical character recognition or similar systems in meeting this particular demand.

I would just say that, with that understanding that they do not have those limitations of which I have concern, I would not object to this amendment. But I want to make it clear that the record reflect, number one, that if the Secretary believes we have to have a standard that is more precise than a 1 percent false alarm rate, that he have the discretion to do that.

And, secondly, that we are not limiting this to RFID systems or similar systems to RFID, that other systems of technology could also meet the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to obtain the time in opposition even though I do not oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentlewoman from Southern California for working with us to modify the language of her original amendment so it achieves the purpose to which she intends and is not objectionable in any way.

There is no doubt that we want to make sure that we have layers of security, starting at the foreign ports,

through the period of time in which the containers are shipped, to just outside our ports, in our ports, and then as the containers leave our ports.

One of the things we have to do in this entire effort is to insert a notion of uncertainty in the minds of would-be terrorists. One the ways we do that is having layers of security all across the globe.

The gentlelady has suggested that we be explicit in our language with respect to the possibility of utilizing another tool in our toolbox, as she suggests, where we might be able to devise certain programs that utilize facilities that may exist just outside the port for purposes of looking at trucks for safety purposes, and we might be able to incorporate the terrorist security review at that point as well. If in conjunction with the authorities, local and state authorities, this kind of a grant request is made, we want to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security can, in fact, take a look at it. If it seems to serve the purpose to which we are all dedicated, then it would be allowed under this bill.

So I congratulate the gentlelady for introducing the bill. I also congratulate her for representing my hometown, the place I was born and lived in for 42 years.

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

Madam Chairman, I just say in response to the gentleman from Arizona, we have taken into consideration concerns that he has expressed. We have implemented in this bill an at-risk, that is a risk-based, assessment for grant programs. Not everybody gets something.

Secondly, I would assure the gentleman that Apache Junction will not get a grant under this program, nor any landlocked city in Kentucky. This is a port bill.

The third thing I would say is this is based on the assessment by the Coast Guard of what is necessary for the capital investment improvements from a security standpoint for all the ports in the United States. As a matter of fact, we only provide funds for half of the amount that has been identified by the Coast Guard.

This is not one of those grant programs that lasts forever. We have a 6-year sunset on this, and we have a specified revenue stream in this bill to take care of it. So I would suggest that we have looked at the complaints that the gentleman has, but this is a particular area of national security.

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

Madam Chairman, with all due respect, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Ms. Sanchez and I have worked together on this bill. We have reached accommodations on a number of different issues. We support the idea of the C-TPAT program. I certainly support her efforts to try and strengthen the C-TPAT program. I certainly have supported and incorporated in my bill the recommendation on her part that we allow for third-party validators so that we can get the manpower necessary to do the validations that are necessary in this program. However, I do oppose her amendment because I think it would cut down on the participation in this program.

One must understand that the C-TPAT program, Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program, is

one that leverages industry cooperation to increase the security of the global supply chain. It has three tiers: tier 1 being the lowest, tier 3 being the highest.

The gentlewoman suggests that any benefits that are recognized under tier 1 to someone who has begun to participate in the program is unnecessary and somehow undercuts the credibility of the program. I would suggest that that is not true.

The conditions for obtaining the C-TPAT tier 1 status include that prior to an importer being certified, the importer must complete a comprehensive self-assessment of their current security practices, gauged against the clearly defined and published minimum security criteria.

If the security self-assessment completed by the importer reveals any security deficiencies and requires a corrective action plan, admission to the program and no benefits whatsoever are obtained unless those deficiencies are addressed to the satisfaction of the Department.

Third, with the security self-assessment completed, and initially identified deficiencies addressed, the Department again reviews for sufficiency with the minimum security criteria and also vets the importer through the law enforcement and trade databases, as well as through the El Paso Intelligence Center, EPIC, for linkage to DEA and other law enforcement databases. If the importer's security profile demonstrates that the company is meeting the criteria, has positively passed vetting, and has a successful importing record, only then will the importer be certified as tier 1 and given a limited ATS score reduction.

In response to the concerns raised by the gentlewoman from California, we have incorporated into this bill penalties if, in fact, it is shown that they did not participate in the process completely and honestly; and, in fact, if they have had any misleading or false information in their application, they are mandatorily barred from participation in the program for 5 years. The reason why they get a small benefit in terms of the rating by beginning in the program with their application before they are fully certified is to give encouragement to get them into the program to begin with. It is more than just saying they are handing in a piece of paper. It is, in fact, a document that requires a good deal of work on their part; and we want to encourage participation in this program rather than discourage it.

C-TPAT is one of the layers, not the only one, but one of the layers that we have of security in our multi-layered approach, and so I would urge people to reject this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, again I would suggest that it is important for us to retain the program as it exists, for the Department to retain the discretion reward a small benefit to the Tier 1 members by reducing their ATS score. They do not move to the head of the line; they get to move up just a little bit. It is an encouragement to participate in the program.

The only way I can help the gentlewoman by suggesting that penalties do work is to suggest that deterrence does work. It is recognized in just about every other aspect of our lives, including the criminal justice system; and I don't know why she does not believe it will not work here.

As a matter of fact, in response to the GAO report that she referred to, the Department did reduce the amount of the ATS score reduction for Tier 1 members, so they have responded to some concerns that they were moving too far up the line. Not in front of the line, but too far up the line.

They get a small, small benefit at the present time. It is an incentive to participate in a voluntary program, which ultimately gives us more information, has more people working with greater security than they had before, and it helps us our a multi-layered approach.

Mr. Speaker, I came to this body with many of you to make sure that we did what was necessary to protect our constituents. I brought this bill to the floor, through the subcommittee, committee and to the floor with that promise in mind.

This is not, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, a Republican bill. This is, in fact, a bipartisan bill. Eighty cosponsors. Passed our committee 29-0.

There is a dispute with respect to this particular technology, and I might just refer you to the National Journal of this last week talking about this very issue. It said, nice idea, but not very feasible with current technology.

Eleven million containers are shipped to the U.S. ports each year. Of those, U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel physically screen, that means inspect, only about 6 percent, or 660,000.

It is a noble impulse, but, as a practical matter, it can't be accomplished right now, said Jack Riley, Homeland Security expert with Rand.

The key to being able to carry this out in the future is better equipment that scans faster. That is what our bill does. It asks us to accelerate our investigation into new technology. It mandates that the Secretary, if, in fact, he finds that to be usable, practical, adaptable, that he then negotiate with foreign countries to immediately put it into place and, if they refuse, gives our President and our Secretary the right to refuse to allow their cargo into the United States. We don't put a time limit on it. We said as soon as it is feasible to do it.

So as a great political philosopher, Don Meredith, once said, ``If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas.''

We don't bring you a hope that cannot be fulfilled. We bring you a promise that can be fulfilled in this bill. Please vote down this motion to recommit.

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

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment Mr. King in the efforts here and Mr. Lungren and, yes, even the minority in this case, on working on this legislation.

I was somewhat taken back by the comments even made by the gentleman from Massachusetts, because this should not be a partisan issue. This should not be railing against the Republicans or should not be railing against Bush. If you want to make headlines, go outside and stand on your head. That is the best way to make headlines.

What we are trying to do, as Mr. King said, is try to make our ports secure and we are trying to make them secure in a proper time fashion.

We have already done some of this work that should have been done through the Transportation Committee. The Maritime Transportation Security Act does a lot of what is in this bill, and we are implementing it right now. The ports are more secure than what people will say and what you read in the newspapers.

Yes, we can do better and we will. But Members keep in mind that what we are faced with today is how do we do it and do it in a fashion which continues to allow us to have a commerce circle. Without commerce, this country will fail.

Now, I can suggest respectfully that there is a way and we will continue to do it, if the ports wish to do so, that they will unload their ships that have been screened thoroughly 100 percent overseas at point of origin.

It will not take long for those shipping companies to make sure that the containers are screened 100 percent. Keep in mind what I said, that which has been screened will be first unloaded. I guarantee it will happen in the very near future.

But what we have done here under this bill is try to make the right step forward, a good step forward, and to accomplish I believe what is correct, that is, eventually total security for our ports.

I have some concern in the bill, and I have expressed to Mr. Lungren and Mr. King there are, and I understand why; but I hope as we go through this conference that there will be a recognition that the smaller ports will be recognized as much as the larger ports.

Because under this legislation it primarily concentrates on the larger ports. And I do not believe that is what we are seeking. I think we should consider all ports that receive cargo containers from whatever origin they may be. And if they are not screened, they should not be allowed in.

So I am saying the smaller ports should also be recognized. They are not under this bill. And we have to, as time goes by through the conference, try to recognize that those smaller ports have equal concern as well as the larger ports.

And, lastly, I would suggest I have a deep concern about the grant program. We already have a grant program for port security. It is already on the books. It is already down in Homeland Security. And I will say in defense of the committee, the Homeland Committee, that there is in fact a lack of action through the Department itself.

But I am hoping that we do not duplicate, that we do not do something that costs more money but gets less results. We can work this out through the conference, so we will have an opportunity to make sure either the Port Security Act itself, Maritime Transportation Security Act, which has a grant program in it, that if it is not being implemented correctly, that we rectify that, or in fact we might eliminate that so there are not two bills on top of one another causing more confusion and less real security within our ports.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat comfortable with this legislation in the sense that it has been well thought out. Again, I want to compliment the minority side and Mr. Lungren, Mr. King, for bringing this to the floor in time. I wish to say, if I can, I am a little concerned. I have been here probably longer than eight other people, and I do not like what I hear in these debates. Because it seems like everybody is saying the other guy is the bad guy, and we are the good guys. I thought we were here to solve some problems. This is a problem. I think this bill does it. I think we ought to keep our eye on the ball and protect our people and provide a flow of commerce, which is necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the people to consider this bill in total. If there would be a recommit, vote against the motion to recommit, and let us get forward and get this job done.

If you only listen to the press outcry over the Dubai Ports World now-aborted takeover of certain U.S. port operations, you would not know that significant actions have been taken since 9/11 to improve the security of U.S. ports.

Nonetheless, congress and the administration have taken important steps towards making our ports safer. These port security initiatives may not be as thorough and complete at this point as we would hope, and the press may choose to only cover the remaining gaps, but significant progress has been made.

In 2002, congress enacted the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA). This legislation originated in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and significantly strengthened our ability to prevent and respond to maritime security incidents.

MTSA required U.S. port facilities and the vessels calling at those facilities to prepare and submit detailed security plans to the Coast Guard. Those plans have been submitted and approved by the Coast Guard. This is the first nationwide effort to assess the state of port security and plan for improvements in that security. These plans are required for each and every U.S. port facility and each and every vessel that visits those facilities.

Recently the administration has also completed the long awaited National Maritime Transportation Plan which was mandated by MTSA. In conjunction with the national strategy for maritime security, there is now a meaningful framework for assessing, planning for, preventing and responding to maritime transportation security incidents.

Of course, all the planning in the world is worthless unless real assets are put in place to back up and carry out those plans. Such assets are being put in place, some more quickly than others.

The Administration estimates that spending on maritime security has increased 700 percent since 2001. The Coast Guard has dramatically increased their security-related patrol hours and established 13 maritime safety and security teams as authorized in MTSA.

Congress and the administration have committed to a 20 year rebuilding of the Coast

Guard's ships, planes, and communications infrastructure. These new and upgraded assets will greatly improve the service's ability to carry out its maritime law enforcement missions, including port security.

There are still portions of MTSA that have not been implemented in as timely a manner as I would wish. Transportation worker identity cards are still a work in progress, and virtually no progress has been made by the government on implementing long range vessel tracking.

H.R. 4954, the Safe Port Act, makes some improvements to MTSA. At the request of the Coast Guard sub-committee chairman, Mr. LoBiondo, and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the bill requires that the facility security officers identified in the security plans be U.S. citizens and that facility security plans be resubmitted when facilities change ownership.

The bill also sets up a temporary system for verifying the identity of individuals with access to secure areas of seaports, and develop timelines for the implementation of transportation worker identification credentials. Perhaps most importantly, it authorizes maritime security command centers. These interagency facilities which already exist at several ports are crucial to coordinated Federal, State and local port security prevention and response efforts.

Concerns remain about the safety of cargo entering the United States. We can all agree that the cargo must be secured at the earliest possible time and monitored throughout its journey.

By the time it reaches our shores, it is too late to find out what is in a container and decide whether it is safe. Much of the Safe Port Act is designed to address these cargo supply chain safety concerns, and I comment Chairman King for his efforts in this area.

There is one are in which I strongly disagree with the Safe Port Act. The bill removes the existing port security grant program from the Maritime Transportation Security Act and replaces it with a less focused grant program that is accessible only to very few ports-- ironically those that have the greatest resources available to pay for port security improvements.

The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA), established a grant program to make Federal funding available to assist ports, terminal facilities, and State and local governments meet maritime security requirements imposed by the act.

This port security grant program is designed to address vulnerabilities that are identified through Coast Guard inspections, area maritime transportation security plans, and facility security plans that are all carried out under the MTSA.

The Safe Port Act removes the port security grant program from the MTSA port security framework. If any changes are made to the program, those changes should enhance the connection between the existing maritime security framework under the MTSA and federal assistance.

I hope that as we move towards conference on this bill that we will continue to work together to strengthen the existing port security grant program.

I also disagree with the bill's proposal to restrict federal port security grants to only select ports or select projects.

I do agree that we need to have criteria and a competitive process to determine which ports and projects should receive the funding; however, I object to the idea that any of our ports should be excluded outright from competing for this federal funding.

Each of our Nation's 361 ports is connected to every part of this Nation through our intermodal transportation system.

If we fail to implement real port security at any of our ports, we are failing in our efforts to secure our Nation from threats in the maritime domain.

Under the MTSA, each port is required to operate under the same maritime security standards regardless of size or location.

As a result, dedicated funding in the form of federal port security grants should be available to address security vulnerabilities at each of our Nation's 361 ports.

In order to allow this important bill to move on an expedited schedule, I have decided not to offer an amendment that would return fairness, equity and effectiveness to the port security grant program.

However, I look forward to working with Chairman King and the other conferees to make these necessary changes as we move to conference on this important bill.

We can improve the grant program without reinventing the grant program.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) control the remaining amount of my time.

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

Madam Chairman, first, I would like to thank Chairman King and Chairman Lungren for working with me and other members on the committee to produce the bill before us today.

I especially want to commend my colleagues, Ms. Loretta Sanchez and Ms. Harman, for their hard work on this bill and on port security in general. Many provisions in this bill came from legislation they have introduced over the last 2 years, and for that I thank them. They have been leaders on this issue, and we need to give them credit before we discuss the full ramifications of this bill.

Madam Chairman, this bill represents an important step toward improving our port security, but it is only a step. We need to do more to get it right. I could talk about the good things in the bill; but with this limited time, I would like to focus on what is not in the bill. These are the things that are going to keep us up at night after today's votes are over.

Yesterday during Rules, it was said by folks on the other side that we need to look at where threats exist and do something that makes us a little safer. ``A little safer'' is simply not good enough after 9/11, and the threats left undone by this bill are significant.

I worry that unsecured nuclear materials, and there is a lot of that wandering around the Russian countryside, will be shipped here hidden in a cargo container that sails into Miami, New York, Houston, New Orleans, Los Angeles or Oakland. From there, the cargo container will be put on a train or truck headed to places like Chicago, St. Louis, Austin, Milwaukee, or Detroit. As the train or truck passes by our schools, homes, or who knows what else, what is going to stop a terrorist from detonating it. If this happens, what will my colleagues across the aisle recommend Congress tell Americans, we didn't know it would happen?

After 9/11 when terrorists surprised us by using our own airplanes against us, we cannot say we did not expect the unexpected. We must do better. It is our job to prevent disaster from happening, not react after the fact. We had the opportunity to do that today.

We could have voted on my amendment increasing the number of Customs and Border Patrol officers at our ports, but the amendment was not allowed on the floor. All the talk on border and port security means little if we do not have the boots on the ground to check what is coming into our Nation before it arrives here or before it leaves a foreign port.

And we could have ensured that more than the 5 percent of our cargo entering the country is scanned by voting on

the Markey-Nadler amendment on cargo screening.

Madam Chairman, 5 percent does not make America a little safer; but the 95 percent of cargo left unchecked leaves us a lot less safe. This is not rocket science, Madam Chairman. Technology exists to scan cargo. It is being used in Hong Kong as we speak. It can be bought over the counter, and the amendment offered by my colleagues would have given DHS up to 5 years to get it right.

This bill is a good first step, but we need to start making giant steps to keep up with the terrorists.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection and Cybersecurity, who did a lot of work on this bill, particularly the section improving the C-TPAT process. Many of the provisions in this bill also come from a provision introduced by the gentlewoman, H.R. 4355, introduced in the 108th Congress.

Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) who is one of the original co- authors of this bill and has worked tirelessly to get us to the floor here today.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the author of the Markey amendment, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a champion for 100 percent cargo screening here in this Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. The provisions on trade and maritime domain awareness it contains are strong improvements to the bill.

However, I must express my deep disappointment with one provision in the bill removed by this amendment. In committee, we included language that would have assured that the Coast Guard did not have to use bubble gum, bailing wire, and buckets in the coming years. This language was stripped out of the bill, meaning that we are going to have to make the Coast Guard spend the next two decades fighting a 21st century war on terror with assets built during the Vietnam War.

The Deepwater Program must be accelerated if our ports and coastlines are going to be safe. I know that if Chairman King had had his way this would have stayed in, and I thank him for that.

I am a strong supporter of this program. As a conferee on the last two Coast Guard authorization bills, I supported more funding for the Deepwater Program each year.

At one time during Hurricane Katrina, the Coast Guard used 78 Deepwater assets in Hurricane Katrina relief to save 33,000 people. One would think that the administration would be asking for more money for this type of equipment, not less.

The Commandant of the Coast Guard, ADM Thomas Collins, told me in February of this year that the Coast Guard can accelerate the completion of the Deepwater Program if given the funding, and that it would result in a large savings to the taxpayers.

I hope this Congress will reconsider accelerating Deepwater in the conference on this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. Chairman, in support of the amendment, I would like to compliment our chairman on really pulling together a good bill. Even though there were differences, we did the best we could to work those differences out in what I consider a very fair and reasonable manner; and I want to compliment him for that. I was able to in the course of this discussion go to New York and look at some of the fine things going there. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

The gentleman from New Jersey has indicated support for the Deepwater Program, additional monies for the assets. I look forward to supporting that effort.

The Coast Guard, as we know, serves a wonderful purpose. We need to make sure they have the assets to get the job done. So I look forward to working with him on that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer the Stupak amendment at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment which will ensure that port security grant funds be used by ports to purchase communication equipment that is interoperable with Federal, State and local communication systems.

I have been in countless hearings in the Department of Homeland Security Committee where first responders have told us how year after year they have not been able to communicate with each other.

I have also heard testimony from the operators of critical infrastructure such as hospitals affected by Hurricane Katrina who also still cannot communicate with government officials in an emergency.

We have not yet had a terrorist attack on a port in the United States, but I do not want to wait until one occurs to find out whether port operators face similar challenges.

Allowing port security grants funds to be used by ports to build interoperable communication systems will ensure that if an attack does occur at a U.S. port we are ready for it.

As a result, Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. Many Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee have been asking for a long time why DHS is not more seriously looking at the ICIS system, and we have never gotten an answer from them.

The ICIS system proves that we can scan every container leaving for the U.S. without interrupting the flow of commerce. The Markey-Nadler amendment would exactly use technology like this if it had been allowed to have been debated here today. Unfortunately, we could not.

We cannot accept anything less than 100 percent container screening coming into this country. So I am in support of Mr. Shays's amendment. This at least moves us forward. It is unfortunate that we have to take baby steps rather than giant steps. But for the sake of moving forward, we support the amendment, and I compliment the gentleman from Connecticut for offering the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlelady allowing me to speak in support of her amendment. We absolutely need to work with communities around ports. Those communities, just like other communities, are at risk, not only to what comes into those communities but also many of the people who live in the communities.

So we are happy to support the gentlelady's amendment. Citizen preparedness is what we should be about. It is absolutely important. We support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, allow me to offer my appreciation to the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member of the full committee and Ms. Sanchez, Ms. Harman and Mr. Lungren of California for the work that they have done on this legislation. My good friend, Mr. Reichert from Washington, let me thank you very much as we have had an opportunity to work together.

This bill is about port security. In securing the ports, the reason is to prevent a horrific tragedy from occurring similar to the tragedy of 9/11. We have come to understand that through containers, or ships that are carrying containers, weapons of mass destruction, nuclear materials, can be inserted into these particular items coming into our ports and a horrific act of terror can occur, killing thousands.

Mr. Chairman, this chart shows an example of the Nation's ports, a port that is surrounded by population, thriving neighborhoods, neighborhoods which understand that they are surrounding a local asset and a national asset. But they, too, deserve security and deserve protection.

My amendment today, which I urge my colleagues to support, includes communities in disaster preparedness by providing for an annual update to the Homeland Security Training Program described in this bill. The Port Security Training Program is designed for the purpose of enhancing the capabilities of each of the Nation's commercial seaports to prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate against and recover from threatened or actual acts of terrorism, natural disasters and other emergencies.

What I would say to you is, having visited a number of ports, including the port in Washington, I am aware of its treasure to the community and to the Nation, but I am also aware that it looks just like this, populations surrounding our ports. So a danger to ports and port security is a danger to our neighborhoods.

The amendment I offered today extends this training program to include communities and neighborhoods in proximity to the seaports by educating, training and involving populations at risk, neighborhoods around the ports, including training on an annual basis, and, of course, collaboration with our local authorities.

This is to include our neighborhoods in somewhat of a neighborhood watch concept, continuing the idea of the citizen corps. It is a moral public safety and public health imperative that we assist the public to prepare for disasters in order to help facilitate response and relief.

The point is to be prepared. Local responders are not the only ones who can help in time of need. They need help, and we are here to help with them in the idea of collaborating with the port and our local first responders.

While 44 percent of Americans say their neighborhood has a plan to help reduce crime, only 13 percent report that they have a neighborhood plan for disasters. Nearly two-thirds of respondents, 63 percent, believe it is important for neighborhoods to have a way to work together on emergency preparedness.

The Port of Houston, for example, is a 25-mile-long complex of public and private facilities located just a few hours sailing time from the Gulf of Mexico. The port is ranked first in the United States in foreign waterborne commerce and second in total tonnage and sixth in the world. The Port of Houston is made up of the Port Authority and the 150-plus private industrial companies along the ship channel. Altogether, the Port Authority and its neighbors along the ship channel are a large, vibrant community.

I say that, because of this vibrant community, there is a great need, if you will, to provide this nexus in this bill to ensure this kind of safety plan. I ask my colleagues to look and see this as a port in your neighborhood and to join me in supporting the Jackson-Lee amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the distinguished ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Reichert. Let me just say we want a seamless connection on security and port security, working with local law enforcement, working with the neighborhoods around the poverty and working with port security. I look forward to working with you to ensure that it is collaborative and that the resources are spent in a balanced way for the port personnel but also in very effective outreach methods that I have seen utilized around the country with effective neighborhood and citizens corps, local first responders, as you have served for a number of years, and, of course, port security. I ask my colleagues to support it.

We will work together. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment to protect the neighborhoods that surround our ports. Port security and secure neighborhoods.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support an amendment I am offering that includes communities in disaster preparedness by providing for an annual community update to the Homeland Security Training program described in this bill.

The Port Security Training Program is designed for the purpose of enhancing the capabilities of each of the Nation's commercial seaports to prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from threatened or actual acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies.

The amendment I offer today extends this training program to include communities and neighborhoods in proximity of the seaports by educating, training, and involving populations of at-risk neighborhoods around ports, including training on an annual basis to learn what to watch for.

Many communities across the country also have a ``Neighborhood Watch'' program that teaches citizens to watch for suspicious activity or other signs of danger. This amendment provides for a similar ``citizens corps'' preparation in anticipation of a national security threat. The intent is to mimic the Citizen Corps initiative begun by the White House and the Department of Homeland Security in 2002.

It is a moral, public safety and public health imperative that we assist the public to prepare for disasters in order to help facilitate response and relief.

The point is to be prepared. Local responders are not the only ones who can help in a time of need.

While 44 percent of Americans say their neighborhood has a plan to help reduce crime, only 13 percent report having a neighborhood plan for disasters. Nearly two thirds of respondents, 63 percent, believe it is important for neighborhoods to have a way to work together on emergency preparedness.

The Port of Houston is a 25-mile-long complex of public and private facilities located just a few hours' sailing time from the Gulf of Mexico. The port is ranked first in the United States in foreign waterborne commerce, second in total tonnage, and sixth in the world.

The Port of Houston is made up of the port authority and the 150-plus private industrial companies along the ship channel. All together, the port authority and its neighbors along the Houston Ship Channel are a large and vibrant component to the regional economy.

About 200 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston in 2005. A total of 7,057 vessel calls were recorded at the Port of Houston during the year 2003.

Economic studies reveal that ship channel-related businesses support more than 287,000 direct and indirect jobs throughout Texas while generating nearly $11 billion in economic impact. Additionally, more than $649 million in state and local tax revenues are generated by business activities related to the port. Approximately 87,000 jobs are connected with the Port of Houston itself, and over 80 percent of those people live in the Houston metropolitan area.

Centrally located on the gulf coast, Houston is a strategic gateway for cargo originating in or destined for the U.S. West and Midwest. Houston lies within close reach of one of the nation's largest concentrations of consumers. More than 17 million people live within 300 miles of the city, and approximately 60 million live within 700 miles.

The danger is very real that we may be escorting a weapon of mass destruction to its target. For every mile along the Houston Ship Channel that dangerous cargo passes, an additional 2000 people are at risk. Clearly, once the cargo reaches the city, the risk is greatest.

In 2002, the Department of Homeland Security established the Citizens Corps initiative, and in 2004, over 1,000 communities around the country, encompassing 40 percent of the U.S. population, had established Citizen Corps Councils to help inform and train citizens in emergency preparedness and to coordinate and expand opportunities for citizen volunteers to participate in homeland security efforts and make our communities safer.

Fifty-two States and territories have formed state level Citizen Corps Councils to support local efforts.

Maybe before the next disaster, our citizens can be aware and trained to react effectively and timely, and perform as local responders themselves. Support this amendment, and include the neighborhood in disaster preparedness.