Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4954) to improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes.

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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 789 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.

The structured rule provides for 1 hour of general debate with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security, and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Homeland Security now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read.

This rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Homeland Security and makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution.

It provides that the amendments printed in the report accompanying the resolution may be offered only in the order printed in the report and may be offered only by a Member designated in the report. They shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent. They shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides the minority with one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this balanced rule providing for consideration of the bipartisan Security and Accountability for Every Port, or SAFE Port, Act. The rule, which makes in order 10 Democrat amendments and five Republican amendments, will allow the House to begin its consideration of this bill, which has 80 bipartisan cosponsors, was approved unanimously through its subcommittee and full committee markups in the Committee on Homeland Security, and represents a responsible and thoughtful approach to providing security at our Nation's ports.

The SAFE Port Act improves cargo security first by enhancing security at United States ports. It requires the Department of Homeland Security to deploy nuclear radiological detection systems at 22 seaports by the end of fiscal year 2007, covering 98 percent of all incoming maritime containers. It provides risk-based funding through a dedicated Port Security Grant Program and requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to coordinate Federal, State, local, and private sector security activities by establishing a streamlined, integrated network of virtual and physical command centers.

Second, this legislation improves cargo security by tracking and protecting containers that are en route to the United States. This legislation will require the Secretary to develop uniform standards for sealing containers entering the United States and provide for the improved utilization of private sector advances in security, including research and development of new technologies and applications. It also improves the International Trade Data System and directs the Department to conduct additional research and testing on technology integration, access control, and data-sharing capacities.

Third, this legislation improves our port security by preventing threats from ever reaching the United States. It improves the Automated Targeting System by collecting enhanced cargo data from importers bringing goods through U.S. ports. It codifies the existing Container Security Initiative and requires the Secretary to refuse entry to high- risk cargo that the host nation does not inspect. It also authorizes the Department to lend detection equipment and provide training to host

nations so that our closest trading partners can utilize the best technology available anywhere in the world. Obviously, that is meant to keep America and our trading partners safe.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation takes a responsible and bipartisan approach to protecting American citizens from the threat of terrorism being brought to our shores through our ports. It includes a provision that requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to continue his aggressiveness and ceaseless efforts to evaluate emerging detection and screening technologies and measure those technologies against real- world performance metrics before deploying them in the field to ensure that they are effective in protecting the American people.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation to improve our Nation's ports.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this fair and balanced rule is one that involves a bunch of cosponsors of Democrats and Republicans. It has been well thought out. It has required a lot of thought process. This afternoon you are going to hear from a number of Members on the Republican side who will articulate how balanced and wonderful and how we have taken time to make sure that we dealt with the minority, that we dealt with the administration, that we looked at other ports around the world, that we are trying to do those things that are best that will secure our ports and get them done as quickly as possible but will also present something that can be done in a balanced and proper way. I think that that is the argument you are going to hear today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke about this fair and balanced rule. We have also spoken about how great the legislation is.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman who is the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, once again articulating this balanced rule and fair and wonderful legislation, we continue to talk about what the legislation stands for without attempting to scare people but rather to give the substance of what the bill is about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection and Cybersecurity Subcommittee, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. Speaker, once again continuing, the majority side, to present a fair and balanced rule with the substance of the bill, I yield 4 minutes to our next speaker, the gentlemen from Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

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

Mr. Speaker, the rule and the substance that we are debating here is very important and one which, to support the balance that we have, the committee heard many of the amendments that had been discussed in subcommittees and in full committee. They were voted down twice as a result of substantive debate and all of the members of the committee being together.

The Rules Committees was aware of that. We took testimony, we heard from people, and we made a decision. Our rule, the one we are putting together, is fair: 10 Democrat amendments, 5 Republican amendments. We feel good about what we are doing. The substance of the bill is strong, the substance of the bill is balanced, and the substance of the bill aims directly at what our national self-interest is as it relates to protecting our ports.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the gentleman from Florida that the majority does not have any additional speakers at this time and that I would welcome any opportunity that he would have to utilize his time up with the knowledge that I then would close as appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this point and would encourage the gentleman from Florida, if he would choose to close at this time, to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for articulating the Democrats' side this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, we understand what they are saying. We get it. As a matter of fact, there have been these debates now for several years, and this House, time and time again, has said that we support a risk-based funding approach. Risk-based.

We have already shown this where Democrats have voted. In the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, 44 Democrats voted for that; first responder authorization, 181 Democrats; Homeland Security appropriations bills, 194 Democrats; and then, on the conference report, 124 Democrats; and then in the 2004 intelligence reform bill, 183 Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, we do not say this bill is perfect. What we try and do is aim the resources, the precious resources combined with the technology and the desire that the United States of America has to support the efforts of protecting this country, not only in our ports, on our borders, in our cities, and in the intelligence that we do. And time in and time out, we have said we are going to be threat-based. Where the threat is, that is where we will put our resources. And a 100 percent check of all the cargo that goes in and out of our ports is simply unrealistic.

What is realistic, that overwhelmingly has been supported by this House, that I believe once again this House will be on record to support, is the thing that works, and that is to not chase our tail but to look at where the threat exists. That is what this committee has done. That is what the Rules Committee has done. I am proud to say that we have a fair and balanced rule. I am proud to say that the underlying legislation that has been supported by these two committees is threat- based, aims directly at a bipartisan approach and, more importantly, is something that will make us a little bit safer now and in our future.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of what we have done today, and I think this House will support that. I urge all my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation to give the Department of Homeland Security the tools and the direction it needs to keep America's shores free from the threat of terrorists.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 739--Rule on H.R. 4954--The SAFE Port Act

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution the two amendments specified in section 3 shall be

in order as though printed after the amendment numbered 15 in

the report of the Committee on Rules.

Sec. 3. The amendments referred to in section 2 are as

follows:

An amendment offered by Representative Thompson of

Mississippi or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable

for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled, by the

proponent and an opponent.

Amendment to H.R. 4954, as Reported Offered by Mr. Thompson of

Mississippi

Page 44, after line 9, insert the following new section:

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my friend, for yielding me the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this restrictive rule, which permits the House to consider only one half of the amendments which were brought to the Rules Committee last night. Under this rule, only 15 of the approximately 30 amendments offered by Members are made in order, while the remaining half are blocked from consideration.

I find it astonishing, though not surprising, that my friends in the majority, who just in the last hour were preaching ethics reform and civility here in the House, are coming to the floor again with a restrictive rule.

The rule, which was reported out of the Rules Committee along a straight party-line vote, mocks the public's call for reforming the way we go about doing business in the people's House. Clearly, the majority is good at talking the talk, but as the American people are beginning to understand, they are failing miserably to walk the walk.

In blocking these amendments from being considered by the House today, Republicans are sending a message loud and clear that protecting their political majority in the House is more important than protecting the American people in their own homes.

Dangerously, the rule prohibits the House from considering a Democratic amendment offered by Representatives Nadler, Oberstar, Markey, and others which requires that every single shipping container be scanned and sealed before being loaded onto a ship destined for the United States.

Today, barely 5 percent of all containers coming into the United States through our ports are scanned. Unfortunately, Republicans, again along a party-line vote, blocked this commonsense security-based amendment from being debated and considered by the full House. In doing so, they have signed their names on the dotted line that they do not at this time support inspecting 100 percent screening requirements at America's ports.

Mr. Speaker, as someone who represents a district which depends greatly upon three major international ports for economic activity, I take issue with the majority's not allowing this amendment being considered today. I take issue with their conscious decision to block the House from considering an amendment which will, without a doubt, make my constituents and the American people safer.

Sadly, the rule also fails to make in order an amendment which was offered by the ranking Democrat of the Homeland Security Committee, my good friend and trusted advisor on homeland security issues, Representative Bennie Thompson from Mississippi. The ranking member's amendment recognizes that we cannot continue asking Customs officials to do more with less.

I just had this, coming from an international flight, discussion with a fine gentleman in the Customs Department. Thirty-two years he has been there, and he indicates to me just how difficult it is for them to do more with less.

The amendment that Mr. Thompson offered authorized funding for U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to hire 1,600 more officers at America's seaports.

Representative Langevin offered an amendment that authorized $117 million for the purchase of advanced radiation portal monitors at all our ports to ensure that Customs officials have the most up-to-date equipment to do their job.

I kept hearing all this stuff last night about they do not have this technology and everything. Well, I have seen this technology in Vilnius, Lithuania, as one example. In Rotterdam, I saw this technology. It worked. At the very least, what we need is whatever the state of art is at this point in the hopes that it will work and that we can improve it as time progresses.

Under this rule, however, both of these amendments, Mr. Thompson's and Mr. Langevin's, and so many others are blocked from consideration.

Mr. Speaker, as I previously mentioned, I am proud to represent a region in our country which is home to some of our largest international seaports, Port Everglades, the Port of Palm Beach, and the Port of Miami, all within just minutes of my home. They have led the way in security improvements in America. The three, Port Everglades in particular, have all enjoyed national and international best- practices recognition.

So when I come to the floor today and consider the underlying legislation, I have to ask, does this legislation get our ports to where they need to be regarding security? The answer to this question is a resounding no.

I have traveled all over this world visiting international ports to learn about their operations and how they secure their cargo. Among the places that I visited have been Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo, Rotterdam, Lisbon, and others. These are some of the largest ports in the world outside of the United States, and all of them manage to inspect more cargo than we do without slowing down their port operations.

It was interesting to me, in the run-up to the Singapore Trade Agreement, we required in that agreement that Singapore inspect more of their cargo than we do in our own country. So I ask, if they can do it, why can we not?

The rhetoric from the other side of the aisle is at an all-time high. They talk about bipartisanship, but they shy away from working together. I give credit at least to the ranking member and Chair of this committee for trying. We give them opportunities to make good bills better, but then they block the House from considering our ideas. They talk about securing America, but then balk when it comes time to actually do something about it.

Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today to do something about a real problem which we all know exists at America's seaports. This is not about showing the terrorists our weaknesses, as some in the majority have suggested. Rather, it is about giving our Customs and Border Patrol officers the necessary tools and directives to do everything that they possibly can to stop attacks from happening here in the United States.

The sad thing is, Mr. Speaker, it may not be until an attack occurs that we will actually get this right.

This rule and the underlying legislation fails to meet the needs of our ports and the expectations of the American people, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule.

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

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

My colleague from Florida says that they made 10 Democrat amendments in order and five Republican amendments, and that is true. But not a single one of those is more important than the three that you did not make in order.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, if we had made one amendment in order, it would have been satisfactory on this side, the one that was offered by my good friend Mr. Nadler, who I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, my

good friend, Ms. Harman from California.

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to advise each of us how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), my good friend.

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

My colleague, Mr. Sessions, my friend, related earlier that in full committee these matters were debated and were voted down. I would remind him that the Nadler amendment passed in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on a voice vote and that the Lungren amendment passed in the Homeland Security Committee, an appropriate jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend for that. Would the Speaker advise how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the most distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who has advanced this legislation in a meaningful way, whose amendment was not, I repeat, was not allowed.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rules so the House can vote on important amendments offered by Homeland Security Ranking Member Thompson and Representative Langevin to increase security at our Nation's ports. Rules Committee Republicans rejected these amendments when we met last night.

The amendment would add 1,600 new Customs and Border Protection Officers at our Nation's ports. We cannot conduct more container inspections at our ports if we do not have more people. The goal of the Langevin amendment is to make sure that these Customs officials working in our ports are using the best available technology. It authorizes funds to speed up the installation of radiation portal monitors in domestic ports of entry.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of these amendments and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, it just seems like common sense to me that if you want to make port facilities safer, you put more Customs officials on the ground and give them better equipment to detect and stop terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee has decided that the House is not going to debate these ideas, and in my judgment, that is a shame. Members should be aware that a ``no'' vote will not prevent consideration of the SAFE Port Act, and it will not affect any of the amendments that are in order under this rule. But a ``no'' vote will allow us to vote for these responsible amendments to increase security at our Nation's ports. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

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

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.