Identity Theft Protection for the Deceased Act

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for a very instructive motion to instruct.

I would say to the chairman that we have worked together on this committee as best that we could in a bipartisan manner.

But let me tell you why I think this motion to instruct is particularly important. And I was drawn to the floor, I had a bill on the floor and several meetings, at the same time as several committee hearings that had to do with rail security. I believe the Committee on Homeland Security, of which I am a member, knows that this is an important issue. But we are operating against a backdrop of a Department that questions whether or not this is an important challenge that we have to face.

I respect, Mr. Thompson, the fact that the leadership of our Department may have a different view from us.

But the Secretary recently said in the last year that the truth of the matter is that a fully loaded airplane with jet fuel, a commercial airliner, has the capacity to kill 3,000 people, but a bomb in a subway may kill only 30. I do not know how many of us are experts on the type of bomb or the type of transit that may be impacted, but I think that narrow view of rail security brings us to where we are today. That is why this motion to instruct is so important, because we have an atmosphere and a sense at the Homeland Security Department that rail security or the devastation that could occur by attacking, whether it is Amtrak or whether it is a subway or some other form of rail, that it is not serious.

Let me tell you why it is serious. I live in Houston, Texas, and the symbol for Houston is the crossing of two railroads. We are a railroad town, and that means that all throughout my district and all throughout my neighborhoods are railroad tracks that then have the opportunity for a cargo train or a passenger train to travel right next to a residential house. My husband might not care for me to say it, but he says he went to sleep with the railroad ring in his ears because his original home was near the railroad tracks.

So this motion to instruct is crucial to save lives, because it would authorize $3.5 billion for a mass transit security grant program and $1.2 billion for freight and passenger rail security.

Why can't we take the Senate bill? There are large populations that are impacted by rail transportation and/or cargo. The Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security told Congress just in March of this year that aviation security by law is a Federal responsibility. That is not the case with transit security. And he ends it at that.

But homeland security is a Federal responsibility; and, therefore, I would argue that the reasonableness of the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi's motion to instruct is an important step towards recognizing that rail and mass transit can be vulnerable. And I cite which has already been cited: Worldwide terrorist attacks on trains average 30 per year. The 9/11 Commission noted that rail and mass transit are particularly vulnerable, and our workers on mass transit are saying that as well.

So I simply want to applaud the gentleman and ask that my colleagues support this and realize that we have a challenge and that the reason why Congress has to act is because we need to instruct the Executive that we do have a problem because leadership at the Homeland Security Department has

said, one, ``It's not my job.'' We have heard that. And, two, ``Don't worry about it; only two or three are going to be lost.''

Well, I would simply say to my good friends at the Homeland Security Department, come to Houston, Texas, and weave your way through neighborhoods that are at the high economic level and low, and you will find that it would result in a terrible, horrific tragedy, Mr. Speaker, if there was a rail catastrophe.

I ask my colleagues to support the motion to instruct to provide real rail security.

I rise in strong support of the Motion to Instruct Conferees to accept the Senate amendments to H.R. 5494 the ``SAFE Port Act.'' I particularly wish to thank the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee, for introducing this important and much needed motion.

The SAFE Port Act, H.R. 4954, was reported out by the Homeland Security Committee and passed by the House in May of this year. On balance, the SAFE Port Act is a good bill but it only addresses port and shipping container security. The Senate bill contains similar port security provisions, but also includes several provisions which will have the salutary effect of substantially enhancing the safety and security of America's rail, subway, buses and trucking systems. The Senate bill also strengthens aviation security, border security, and creates a National Warning and Alert System which provides first responders with post-disaster health monitoring.

Mr. Speaker, the House Republican Leadership has had many opportunities to address these security issues, but it has failed to do so. The time for action has long since passed. We need a new direction. We need a new approach. It is time for action and a new approach. The Senate bill is a bipartisan step in the right direction. We should take advantage of this opportunity to strengthen security and assist first responders. The final Conference Report should reflect the Senate's positions on rail, mass transit, and border security; and warning and alert systems.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the House, the Senate approved an amendment that would authorize $3.5 billion for mass transit security grant programs and $1.2 billion for freight and passenger rail security. This is reason alone to instruct the Conferees to accede to the Senate position on mass transit and rail security.

America's rail and mass transit systems remain vulnerable on the watch of the House Republican leadership. We need a new direction. Consider the following: Worldwide Terrorist Attacks on Trains Average 30 Per Year; The 9/11 Commission Noted That Rail and Mass Transit Are Particularly Vulnerable; International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) Found a Lack of Security Along Railroad Tracks and in Rail Yards Across the County; Mass Transit Becomes More Vulnerable to Terrorist Attack as Airline Security Improves.

Rail Security in the Senate Bill

The Senate bill also advances the ball on meaningful rail security by requiring the Departments of Homeland Security and Transportation to conduct vulnerability assessments for freight and passenger rail systems. The bill authorizes $5 million in FY 2007 to carry out this requirement.

Without any requirements that these agencies conduct comprehensive reviews of rail security, how can we move in a meaningful direction to protecting America's rail systems?

This bill also authorizes for fiscal years 2007-2010 critical fire and life-safety improvements to Amtrak tunnels on the Northeast Corridor in New York City, New York ($470 million); Baltimore, Maryland ($47 million); and Washington, DC ($32 million). This money will be spent specifically on communication, lighting, and passenger egress upgrades. If a terrorist attack were to occur in these cities, it is vitally important that riders be able to successfully leave the tunnels--this could mean the difference between life and death.

The Senate bill authorizes $350 million for FY 2007 for security grants to freight railroad, Alaska Railroad, hazardous materials shippers and AMTRAK. This is badly needed funding and not just lip- service about rail security.

This bill also requires that hazardous material shippers create and implement threat mitigation plans to be reviewed by the Departments of Homeland Security and Transportation.

Research and development is also important component in making sure that our rail systems are secure. This bill authorizes $50 million in fiscal years 2007 and 2008. The money will be used to test new emergency response techniques and technologies; develop improved freight technologies; and test wayside detectors.

Rail employees are the vital eyes and ears of the system. They will be the first ones to know if there is a problem. However, they must be protected. The Senate bill provides them with whistleblower protections in order to ensure that they won't be penalized for reporting problems.

These are just some of the reasons I support the Motion to Instruct Conferees to accede to the Senate position on the SAFE Port Act, H.R. 5494. I urge my colleagues to join me. I yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4954) to improve maritime and cargo security through advanced layered defenses, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct. But let me say at the outset that I commend the gentleman from Mississippi for the cooperation he has given throughout this legislative process.

I want to commend Ms. Harman, Ms. Sanchez, and certainly Mr. Lungren, who are the prime movers of this legislation at the subcommittee and committee level.

Several points have to be made. The first is port security bill is completed. None of the items referenced by the gentleman from Mississippi relate to port security. Port security matters have been resolved.

Among other things, the port security legislation will provide $400 million in grants for U.S. ports.

It requires scanning of all containers coming to the U.S. for radiation at the Nation's 22 top ports, which covers 98 percent of containers entering the United States.

It sets a firm timetable for implementing the Transportation Worker Identification Card, TWIC, and requires a pilot program to scan 100 percent of cargo at three foreign seaports. Using the results of this pilot, the bill requires a widespread implementation.

Mr. Speaker, many of the items or a number of the items referenced in the motion to instruct, taken by themselves, many Members on this side, including myself, would agree to. Also, for instance, with reference to title 6 in the National Alert System, we have reached agreement on that, and that will be included in the final legislation.

On matters such as 1103, that is redundant in certain respects with the FEMA reforms which have been already approved by the conference committee and are included in the Homeland Security appropriations bill. There are other matters such as section 1104, which I strongly support and I am still hoping can be included in the final package. We are working toward that, and we are negotiating. There are other items also that are still on the table and we are trying to find accord on.

Having said that, I think it is important to note, for instance, with the

transportation provisions that they even added on to the port security bill and yet in some cases they can be redundant. It should be noted, for instance, that through the transit security grant we have provided $375 million to the country's rail, mass transit, ferry, and inner city bus systems across the country and this year voted to appropriate $200 million in grants specifically targeting mass transit agencies. Since 9/11, we granted more than $11 billion, $11.5 billion, in homeland security assistance. Much of this has gone to transit.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, if there were more time, there are a number of these items which I could support, I know many members of the committee on our side could support, but we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

We have a port security bill. Those of us who went through the trauma of Dubai Ports know the way the country came to a fevered pitch, and rightly so, over the issue of our Nation's security. We have addressed that. We passed legislation on this floor by a vote of 421-2, legislation that was worked on at a tremendous pace by Mr. Lungren, Ms. Harman, Ms. Sanchez. That went through. It was a truly bipartisan effort.

We have now reached the one-half yard line on that legislation. Let us not allow other issues, as important as they may be, to stop us from getting across the goal line with port security, comprehensive port security legislation which the American people have asked for. They demand it.

We have satisfied that request. This is excellent legislation. It is bipartisan legislation. We should be all proud of it. Let us not allow other issues to impede that, especially when a number of those issues I believe still can be resolved. But we don't want to, again, put the final product in jeopardy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Speaker, I will just make several remarks before I reserve the balance of my time.

With reference to the gentleman from Massachusetts, unfortunately nothing he said in his statement relates to the motion to instruct. If he had read our bill and read the motion to instruct, he would know that nothing he said was germane to the motion to instruct.

Secondly, as to the issue of bipartisanship and 100 percent screening, I would also advise the gentleman that the language that is adopted in the SAFE Ports Act which is going to conference was the language proposed by Democrats in the Senate which provides for three pilot projects of 100 percent screening at three foreign ports. So we are adopting Democratic language. We had one in ours, and they had three in theirs. We are accepting the three. To me that is the essence of bipartisanship.

With that, I would have to dismiss the comments of the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close on our side very briefly.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the motion to instruct. I strongly support the underlying bill.

The bottom line is we are in full agreement on a port security bill and that is what this is all about. It is a port security bill which would provide $400 million in port security grants. It sets up a risk- based formula for those grants. It establishes a domestic nuclear detection office. It sets up three pilot projects overseas with 100 percent scanning. It is a bipartisan bill. The underlying bill passed this House by a vote of 421-2.

We have carried it this far. Let us not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I respect the gentleman. I respect his motion. But at this stage I say let us go on to the conference. Let us do what has to be done. Let us put an end to the entire crisis which resulted out of the Dubai Ports issue. Let us show the American people we can get the job done. Let us finish it. Let us go to conference.

With that I urge defeat of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this motion to instruct conferees. By passing this motion, we will ensure that the House conferees take seriously our Nation's efforts to secure the national transportation infrastructure.

We have seen a lot of piecemeal legislation coming out of the House of Representatives. Just last week, Republicans tried to shortchange the American people on border security by authorizing a fence without sufficient funds to build it. Some folks seem to think that piecemeal legislation will do just fine in time for the election. We have a chance here today to ensure that piecemeal and politics do not prevail over security and doing what is right by the American people.

We have the choice: we can partially secure or fully secure the national transportation infrastructure. This choice should be a no- brainer. That is why I encourage this body to support this motion to instruct. This motion incorporates many of the important security measures passed by the Senate, but neglected by the House.

Among other things, Mr. Speaker, this motion would instruct conferees to support improvements to security for America's seaports and mass transit and rail systems. We know about the very real threat to our rail and mass transit systems. We remember what happened in Tokyo, Mumbai, London, and Spain. We mourn the hundreds of innocent civilians that have been killed and wounded by terrorist attacks on a major rail system.

But despite all of this, Mr. Speaker, the 109th Congress has not adequately focused on rail and public transportation security. Similarly, the administration has not yet accepted that rail and public transportation is a Federal responsibility.

At a congressional hearing on March 29, Tracey Henke of DHS told Members of Congress that ``aviation security by law is a Federal responsibility. That is not the case for transit security.'' Quite simply, this administration has flawed vision of securing America.

The Senate has offered us a way to solve some of these issues, and the sensible thing to do is to support these solutions. It helps our communities for Congress to support vulnerability assessments for freight and passenger rail transportation.

It is good policy to require the submission of prioritized recommendations for improving rail security in a report to Congress. It makes good sense for the government to use this information as a basis for allocating grants and establishing security improvement priorities, and it makes sense to study the costs and feasibility of required security screening for passengers, baggage, and cargo on passenger trains.

It is also good for our Nation's security, Mr. Speaker, to create a rail security R&D program to improve freight and intercity passenger rail security. It makes sense to reduce the vulnerability of train stations and equipment to explosives and hazardous chemical, biological and radioactive substances.

Democrats, Mr. Speaker, offered many of these provisions in the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2006, and I am glad to see that they found their way to the floor today.

Another transportation mode that we should instruct conferees on is aviation security. London officials thwarted the terrorist plot to destroy 10 planes bound for this country. Next time we might not be so lucky. We know that aviation remains a major target for terrorists, so we should absolutely ensure that the House conferees do not ignore improvements to aviation security. Anything less would shortchange our communities and their safety.

This motion to instruct, Mr. Speaker, would instruct conferees to retain language adopted in the Senate that will ensure that TSA has enough screeners to keep our aviation system secure.

There is little justification for an arbitrary 45,000 screener cap. Such a cap ties the hands of TSA just as it is trying to expand its activities in the airport to include behavioral recognition and the checking of identification against boarding passes. TSA should not be boot-strapped by this arbitrary cap.

The Senate approach of dealing with this issue is an important one that we should accept.

In sum, Mr. Speaker, this motion instructs conferees to take a total and complete approach to transportation and maritime security. Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to piecemeal security legislation. Just as we can't secure our borders with a small fence, we can't secure our homeland without focusing on all major threats. But how can we go back to our constituents and say we didn't secure America's transportation system when we had a chance? This body can do better, and this motion will make sure we put America's security first. I urge all Members to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, an original person promoting port security, Ms. Harman.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the

gentlewoman from Orange County, California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

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

This motion to recommit with instructions is clearly intended to make the bill better. We clearly have rail and safety issues still outstanding. What I have tried to prepare for Congress is an opportunity to get it right. Piecemealing is not the way to go. We absolutely can fix it right here, right now with this motion to instruct. If we do it, we can all go home feeling that America will be safer. If we don't, we leave substantial work yet to be done.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his excellent work on this legislation.

I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees offered by Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission determined that the risk of maritime terrorism is at least as great if not greater than the risk of terrorism involving civilian aviation. We know that terrorists around the world want to obtain a nuclear bomb. We know that their plot includes an attempt to purchase a nuclear bomb in the former Soviet Union,

to transport that nuclear bomb to a port around the world, to place that nuclear bomb in a container on a ship, and then to bring that container on that ship to a port in the United States where that nuclear bomb can be detonated by remote control before that nuclear bomb is ever taken off that ship.

The majority is happy that they are going to screen once they reach the port in the United States. By then it is too late. The bomb can be detonated while it still is on the ship. That is our nightmare scenario. And that is something that the majority Republican Party has refused to put in place as a protection against this ultimate al Qaeda attack upon our country.

They support screening after it reaches the United States. They support having a demonstration project around the world. But as late as 2 days ago in the Homeland Security Committee hearing, Secretary Chertoff once again repeated the Bush administration policy, the Republican policy, that they do not support the mandatory screening of all cargo for nuclear bombs overseas, which is the 9/11 Commission report finding, that that is where the protection should be put in place.

So that is our problem. What we will do is we will have a ship with a container in Africa, in Europe, in Asia, and one of those containers will have had a nuclear bomb slipped into it. And then that ship, because there is no scanning for nuclear bombs around the world, that ship then heads for a port in the United States.

We would not be talking about losing 3,000 people or 5,000 people. We would be talking about losing tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans in that nuclear explosion.

If we don't scan for a nuclear bomb overseas, we can't be sure. If we don't scan and seal these containers overseas, then the United States will have to once again reinstitute a policy of duck and cover here in America with Americans learning how to protect themselves in the event of a nuclear bomb.

The bomb is not going to be delivered by an airplane or some submarine attack. Al Qaeda doesn't have that kind of capacity. This is the way in which the nuclear bomb is most likely to come into our country. It is an opening that is too big. It should be closed. The Republican majority just wants to use paperwork screening. It is almost like saying that they are going to check everyone of us at an airport in the United States, but having checked our paperwork they say, Get on the plane, you don't have to let us look at your bags. You don't have to show us your bags, take off your shoes, go right on the plane. Get on the plane. Thanks for showing us your paperwork.

We in America will never be happy with that, but that is what their policy is for nuclear bombs. Show us the paperwork. We are not going to actually check the inside of the container. We are not going to screen; we are not going to scan. We are going to screen your paperwork; we are not going to screen the container.

Can you imagine that as a policy for airlines in the United States? We are going to screen your paperwork before you get on the plane, but not screen you or your bags or computer to make sure that you are not going to blow up the plane. It just won't happen post-9/11.

Here is the huge opening. This is something that the Republican administration continues to listen too closely to the cargo industry and the shipping industry rather than to the real security interests of the American people.

I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for his leadership on these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct, not because I disagree with the intent of the gentleman from Mississippi nor the other speakers on the other side, but rather, let's not screw up a good deal.

We have worked very hard on a bipartisan basis to bring forth a major piece of legislation dealing with an area of the country that needs to be addressed, and that is port security. The name of the bill is the Safe Ports Bill. The Senate retained our number, retained the name; the guts of our bill is in this conference report that I believe we will complete before the end of today. And if we instruct conferees in this regard, frankly, we complicate the effort to reach a final conclusion.

I am concerned about the area of rail and mass transit security. As a matter of fact, I held a hearing in our subcommittee today at the request of the ranking member, Ms. Sanchez, and the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Thompson. I thought it was a good bipartisan examination of a number of issues that are out there.

Some have suggested that the very fact that we had that hearing may have prompted some action on the part of DHS to put further attention to these areas. I was very proud of the fact that on a bipartisan basis we approached that issue, and we will continue to approach that issue, and I hope that we will continue in a bipartisan spirit to complete this action.

As the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the full committee, has said, we are close to the goal line right now. It has been a lot of hard work by a lot of people on a bipartisan basis, starting with our staffs about a year ago. We reached across the aisle, and when we reached across the aisle we were met with open hands by the other side. We have worked together to complete a comprehensive response to the threat that exists or the vulnerability that exists at our ports.

It is natural that, when you are attacked by air, that you initially respond to the area of attack. But we are 5 years after 9/11. We are 5 years past the time when we can say that we don't know or didn't know or don't know now of the vulnerabilities that exist with respect to our ports.

This is a major piece of legislation. This will be, when completed, a major achievement; and all I would say to my friends on the other side is, please join us ultimately in supporting this overall bill, as you have to this point.

We will ask for a defeat of this motion to instruct not because of the spirit in which it is offered but because of the complications that it will create and the difficulties that will ensue. If you want to have a viable response to the concerns that have been raised about port security, vote against this motion to instruct so that we can get to the business of completing our action during our conference later today, so we can bring to the floor of this House within the next 24 hours a completed bill, a bill that started in the House of Representatives, a bill that remains in the contours of what will be presented to the conference today, the guts of the bill that passed this House 421-2.

When you have something that passes the House 421-2 you ought to learn to accept ``yes'' for an answer. This is a great piece of work that is going to be presented. It doesn't answer all the questions, but moves us in the proper direction. It puts into law or will put into law many of the things that were first started with this administration but which are not in law, which are not mandatory, which are not permanent, and it extends those. And ideas from both sides of the aisle were put into this bill and will come out of this conference when we complete action.

So while I rise in opposition to the gentleman's motion to instruct, I do so in the spirit of cooperation that, once we get past this and once we get to the conference and once we come back with our completed conference report, we can all join together with another near unanimous vote for a safe ports piece of legislation.