To require the House of Representatives and the Senate to each establish a Subcommittee on Intelligence in the Committee on Appropriations, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for your important leadership on this committee and to the ranking member. It's been a pleasure for me to work cooperatively in a bipartisan way.

I rise in strong support of the conference report which will make us safer by increasing the amount of risk-based homeland security grants, screening 100 percent of maritime and aviation cargo and improving intelligence collection and information-sharing capabilities.

I would also like to highlight the title on interoperability grants which completes the three-pronged interoperability proposal I put forward following September 11.

The dedicated grant program will significantly enhance the ability of public safety agencies to plan, build, and maintain communications networks as they will no longer have to make impossible decisions such as whether to purchase personal protective equipment or radios. It will ensure that first responders will have more advance resources than those used by Paul Revere.

This bill is a great victory for first responders.

I rise in strong support of the conference report, which implements many of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, actions that should have been taken years ago.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee and the conference committee that resolved differences with the Senate, I know that many of us put a great deal of work into creating this legislation. I would like to thank Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King for their tireless work. I would also like to thank our leadership for making this the House's top priority.

I would like to briefly outline a few of the many reasons why this bill makes our country safer. First, it mandates 100 percent scanning of all maritime cargo before it enters the U.S. The current system of scanning only some cargo when it has already entered the U.S. is inadequate. AI Qaeda and other terrorist organizations must be prevented from using a maritime cargo container to conceal a nuclear weapon.

Many have stringently opposed this provision and have stated that they will not support the conference report because of the perceived impact on business. I would respond to this argument by stating the job of Congress is to protect the American people, not stand in the way of commonsense security measures to make it easier for the business community to ship containers. The cost to scan each container is minimal compared to the cost of value of goods shipped in each container. And the cost is nothing compared to the consequence of what would happen if terrorists were able to detonate a nuclear weapon in the U.S.

Second, the bill greatly enhances aviation security efforts. Today, a great deal of cargo is placed on commercial aircraft without being screened. The bill closes this security loophole. It also authorizes $450 million per year for in-line explosive detection systems and provides a process for passengers who have been misidentified and placed on the ``no-fly'' or ``selectee'' lists to clear their names.

Third, it augments intelligence collection and information sharing. The bill properly organizes intelligence gathering agencies within the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to enable them to better communicate potential threats with local first responders. One of the best ways to prevent an attack is to increase our intelligence gathering capabilities. This bill will help to provide assistance to State and local fusion centers and counter-terrorism officials. The excellent work of the New York Police Department's counter-terrorism division to detect and prevent potential terrorist plots exemplifies what can be accomplished by local law enforcement agencies.

Fourth, the bill advances our efforts to identify and protect critical infrastructure, one of the fundamental purposes of the Department of Homeland Security. The conference report includes provisions I proposed to review and update the National Asset Database and the subset National At-Risk Database. It also requires the Department to conduct annual critical infrastructure vulnerability assessments.

These are only four of the many examples of how the bill makes our country more secure. I would like to detail two particular provisions which have been two of my highest priorities since the September 11 attacks--interoperability grants and the first responder funding formula for homeland security grants.

Title III of the conference report completes the three-pronged interoperability proposal I first put forward following September 11. The Department of Homeland Security now has an office that coordinates first responder emergency communications efforts. It is in the process of implementing a national communications strategy, and this bill creates an interoperability grant program.

Communications problems have plagued first responders in every major emergency in the last 15 years. We witnessed this 12 years ago in Oklahoma City. It resurfaced at Columbine in 1999. It slowed our response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. On September 11, it proved to be a deadly problem.

Of the 58 firefighters who escaped the North Tower of the World Trade Center and gave oral histories to the Fire Department of New York, only three heard radio warnings that the North Tower was in danger of collapse. We will never know how many of the 343 firefighters who died that day while heroically rescuing thousands of workers were in the North Tower. Nor will we know how many of these lives would have been spared if they had had effective, interoperable communications equipment to receive the evacuation order.

The provisions in the emergency communications grant title are long overdue. More than 10 years ago, the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee stated that, ``unless immediate measures are taken to promote interoperability, public safety agencies will not be able to adequately discharge their obligation to protect life and property in a safe, efficient, and cost effective manner.''

The 9/11 Commission included interoperability as one of its recommendations and the Public Discourse Project found that the Federal Government had made minimal progress on this priority. This legislation finally responds to the widely acknowledged vulnerabilities posed by poor communications capabilities.

A dedicated grant program, which I first proposed following September 11, will significantly enhance the ability of public safety agencies to plan, build, and maintain communications networks as they will no longer have to make impossible decisions such as whether to purchase personal protective equipment or radios.

This bill will not solve all of our interoperability problems. However, it will help to ensure that in the next emergency, our first responders are not left to the same strategies used by Paul Revere in 1775, which was sadly the case during Katrina just 2 years ago. This is a great victory for first responders.

A second item which I have been fighting for years to improve is the first responder funding formula. Title I of the conference report increases the percentage of DHS grants that are allocated on the basis of risk. For far too long the Department has awarded 40 percent of formula grants to State governments without any consideration of risk. The conference report will eventually lower this amount to 18.52 percent in 5 years.

On four occasions, the House passed legislation to increase the amount of risk-based

funding, including an amendment that I added to the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization bill. The compromise we are considering today, while far from perfect, is the product of several years of negotiations between the two chambers. Even with the conference report, I will continue my efforts to improve the manner in which grants are awarded.

As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. After September 11, we experienced the cost of not being adequately prepared--the loss of almost 3,000 lives and tremendous economic impact. We must distribute homeland security funding on the basis of risk now so that areas most at risk have the resources to prevent and effectively respond to any potential attacks.

Attacks against New York, Madrid, London, and Mumbai illustrate that terrorists target the areas in which they can inflict the most damage. The Federal Government's efforts to prepare and respond to terrorism should reflect this reality. In addition, Hurricane Katrina highlighted the need to allocate resources to the areas most vulnerable to any type of emergency situation. We cannot afford to use homeland security funding as a type of revenue sharing.

This was one of the most prevalent recommendations from the 9/11 Commission. In 2005, the Commission gave the Federal Government an ``F'' for failing to allocate funding where it is needed. Had the provisions in the conference report been implemented prior to the date the report card was issued, this grade would have been better.

Regardless of the amount of the percentage of risk-based funds, the Department must do a better job calculating risk. In the Fiscal Year 2007 Homeland Security Grant Program allocation process, the Department made many decisions that resulted in awarding what were supposed to be risk-based funds to areas that do not face a high threat of being attacked. I plan on introducing legislation that would improve the manner in which DHS calculates risk and awards funds, strengthening the first responder funding formula provisions in this conference report.

In addition, I am disappointed that the conference report dropped the provisions that would have provided collective bargaining and other worker protections for Transportation Security Officers (TSOs). These provisions were included in both the House and Senate versions of the bill but were dropped from the conference report due to the President's misguided veto threat.

Transportation Security Officers are on the front lines protecting our airports and airplanes. They should be given the basic worker protections enjoyed by other DHS personnel. They perform a crucial and often grueling job that requires training, experience, and patience. We need workers who have mastered the job and will make a career of helping to protect the flying public and our skies.

That is why I am introducing stand-alone legislation today to provide the 42,000 screeners with basic worker protections. This would replace the increasing turnover and dissatisfaction with professionalism and a career path our screeners will pursue long-term. Highly trained and seasoned TSOs are part of our smart, comprehensive, and cost-effective efforts to prevent terrorist attacks and protect America's transportation system.

In its July 2004 report, the 9/11 Commission concluded that we are safer than we were prior to September 11, 2001, but we are not safe. The same is true today. While we will never be able to eliminate all threats or vulnerabilities, the implementation of this conference report is a substantial step forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to the woefully incomplete conference report that the Democrat majority is bringing to the House floor today.

Despite the repeated campaign promises made by Democrat leaders to the American people that they would take action on all of the remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations, that is not what is being done and not what is being brought to the floor of the House today.

It now appears that those claims were nothing more than just a hollow campaign promise because, as anticipated, they have failed to address a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.

While the Senate included a simple sense of Congress that congressional operations should be streamlined so that overlapping and duplicative oversight issues could be addressed, even this simple symbolic measure was dropped from the final legislation.

The 9/11 Commission stated: ``Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important. So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need.''

It went on further to say: ``Congress should create a single, principal point of oversight and review for homeland security.''

In the 109th Congress, House Republicans provided the responsible leadership needed on this issue by making the Committee on Homeland Security a standing committee, but there are still 10 other House committees that have overlapping and redundant oversight over the Department of Homeland Security.

House Democrats could have enacted this change with a simple rules change at the start of the 110th Congress. They failed to do so then; and with this legislation, they are once again ignoring this important issue entirely, including a campaign promise.

Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, this conference report is not a complete failure. Thanks to the leadership of President Bush and House Republicans, two important provisions were fixed in this conference report that will help keep Americans safe and improve our ability to combat terror at home.

First, this legislation wisely does not contain a mandate that collective bargaining rights be required for the Transportation Security Administration screeners. This dangerous provision was originally buried in the House Democrat leadership's version of this legislation; and thanks to President Bush's veto threat, it has been removed from the legislation that we are considering today.

The 9/11 Commission did not recommend collective bargaining for TSA screeners. In fact, to the contrary. The commission stressed the need to improve airport security and screening procedures. Collective bargaining would have prevented implementing fluid operations for protecting our country by requiring TSA management to consult with union bosses before making critical homeland security decisions.

As Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff explained, ``Marines don't collectively bargain over whether they're going to wind up being deployed in Anbar province in Baghdad. We can't negotiate over terms and conditions of work that go to the heart of our ability to move rapidly in order to deal with the threats that are emerging.''

Secretary Chertoff also noted that the proposed negotiations with unions would have seriously threatened operations such as the interception of the London bombing plot or a response to Hurricane Katrina. Thankfully, in what may be the first missed opportunity for increasing the power of labor bosses this year in the House, good sense prevailed and this provision did not survive the legislative process.

Additionally, good sense and Republican-proposed policy prevailed in this conference through the inclusion of a provision to protect vigilant observers who support suspicious terror-related activity. By including these John Doe provisions, my good friend, the Homeland Security Ranking Member Peter King, won a great victory on behalf of the American people.

As Congressman King recently noted, in a post-9/11 reality, vigilance is essential to security. Despite the Democrat opposition to this Homeland Security measure, common sense has prevailed and heroic Americans who report suspicious activity will be prevented and protected from frivolous lawsuits. The American people were heard, and our country is safer because of it.

I commend Congressman King and other Republicans that served on this conference committee for insisting that Congress not let trial lawyers and the fear of litigation get in the way of promoting one of our best and most dynamic lines of defense against domestic terrorism, having everyday Americans report potential threats and terrorist activities to the proper authority.

While the Democrat party may not trust American men and women to use their good sense in reporting suspicious activity, I know as Republicans that's what we will do, and I really do appreciate Pete's efforts for this hard work.

I also appreciate all the hard work that was put into developing the conference reports on both sides of the aisle. I am also pleased to note that this conference report represents the first time that labor bosses and trial attorneys have been denied their every wish on this House floor. Unfortunately, I am not confident that we will see another commonsense bill that puts the safety and well-being of the American people over these special interests any time soon.

I also appreciate the Democrat leadership's attempt at almost fulfilling one of their many unfulfilled campaign promises by bringing this legislation back to the House floor today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida, the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Mica.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the gentlewoman, if I can, since she is an expert on this important piece of legislation if she would. And the question I would like to ask the gentlewoman:

Republicans tried our very best, other than demanding, that the terrorist watch list would be applied to trains and passengers for people like on trains and Amtrak. And I wonder if the gentlewoman can tell me whether that was added in this conference report.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, people stand up and talk about what a great job they are doing to protect this country, but they fail to get the essence because it might be a privacy concern. The fact of the matter is that all the people that are on our trains, Amtrak, that we are spending billions of dollars that are being spent for more security officers; and yet the Democrats fail to do the simplest thing, and that is, at the time you buy a ticket, seeing if you are on the terrorist watch list.

It is incredibly arrogant that this Congress would stand up and say we are doing all we can do, and yet we do not even apply the terrorist watch list to people who would be on our trains.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes at this time to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to know how much we're protecting this country and what's included in this bill.

I think what the gentlewoman also forgot to say is that in committee they denied CBP the ability to even look at passengers' names who are coming in on rail from other countries to the United States. Once again, another failure from this Democrat Congress.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a recorded vote on the previous question for this rule. If the previous question fails, I will ask the House to amend the rule to provide for the separate consideration of H.R. 3138, which would amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to update the definition of electronic surveillance.

Mr. Speaker, our country is facing a serious problem that must be addressed before the House adjourns in August. And to date the Democrat majority has continued to shirk their responsibility

to keep America safe by ignoring the seriousness of this threat.

Today the Rules Committee met to pass a rule for the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act; however, this Democrat leadership cannot seem to find time to schedule consideration of legislation that clarifies one very simple and critical thing, and that is that the United States Government will no longer be required to get a warrant to listen to foreign terrorists who are not even located in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, repeatedly Members of this House have come to the floor for weeks and weeks and weeks asking for that ability to make sure we can get this done to protect the American people. The Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell, and the Director of the CIA, Michael Hayden, have testified to Congress that under current law their hands are tied. As Director McConnell recently testified, FISA is outdated and has been made obsolete by technology. I might also say, and the laws governing that. And today our intelligence community is forced to obtain warrants to listen to terrorists outside our Nation, and as a result we are actually missing, we are missing, a significant portion of what we should be getting. Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to be asleep; it is a different thing not to even wake up and see what you need to do.

If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are serious about facing down the threat, they will join me in defeating the previous question so the House will be able to address this very real and serious threat immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include my amendment and extraneous materials in the Congressional Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, the 9/11 Commission made a series of recommendations to Congress and the administration designed to ensure the safety of Americans while protecting the liberties that form the core of our democracy. This important legislation addresses issues that reach across all aspects of the lives of Americans.

The 9/11 Commission recommended that Congress ensure that first responders be able to communicate with each other across jurisdictions--firefighters with police officers, emergency medical professionals with State officials, local with State and Federal personnel. Title III, Ensuring Communications Interoperability for First Responders, establishes a grant program designed to achieve this important goal. As structured in this legislation, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grant program will complement the interoperability program already underway at the Department of Commerce.

Under statute, DHS's expert on all matters relating to emergency communications is the Director of Emergency Communications. Title III of this Conference Report recognizes this statutory directive by ensuring that the Director of Emergency Communications will design and implement the grant programs' policies and guidelines. The Director will be in charge of ensuring that grant program funds are used to establish a forward-looking, nationwide, interoperable system to ensure the safety and efficient functioning of all of our first responders as they respond to natural disasters and other calamities. The Committee on Energy and Commerce looks forward to overseeing this program and receiving continual updates from the Director on the progress of DHS towards achieving nationwide interoperability through this program.

I am also especially pleased that the legislation ensures that the overwhelming majority of the interoperability grant funds will be passed through to localities, because it is at the local level that our first responders are working to ensure our safety and well-being. Importantly, the legislation ties the grant funds to the implementation of statewide plans and a national plan that will act as a road map towards statewide and national interoperability. As we have learned, natural disasters and incidents do not recognize international borders. To help our first responders address trans-border incidents, Title III also establishes border interoperability pilot projects to help us ensure that our first responders are able to communicate with our neighbors to the north and south.

Title IV addresses credentialing workers involved in ensuring America's safety. The Conference Report states that the DHS shall consult with the Secretary of Health and Human Services when developing credentialing standards for healthcare personnel. It is imperative that the Secretary of Health and Human Services not only be involved but also have a leadership role in developing standards for credentialing of healthcare professionals. Failing to utilize the public health expertise of the Department of Health and Human Services to its fullest extent could jeopardize efficient care and support for Americans who have been exposed to a terrorist attack or natural disaster. I look forward to working with Chairman Thompson to ensure that the required consultation is to the degree and of the depth merited by the importance of the public health of all of America's people.

I want to thank the gentleman for some important clarifications that have been added to Title IX of the bill, which addresses voluntary national private sector preparedness standards. When we voted on this bill in January, I noted that Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act establishes a mandatory regulatory program regarding the accidental releases of hazardous chemicals. As part of that program, the owner or operator of a covered facility must prepare and implement a risk management plan to detect and prevent or minimize accidental releases and to provide a prompt emergency response to any such releases. I asked for clarification at that time that the bill's voluntary program was not intended to interfere with this mandatory Clean Air Act program. The conference report before us today provides that clarification. Rules of Construction, as well as requirements for consideration and coordination with other Federal agencies' preparedness programs or standards, have been included in the two new sections of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that address private sector preparedness. These provisions clarify that the private sector must continue to meet the Clean Air Act Section 112(r) requirements, and that the voluntary preparedness standards are not intended to supersede or interfere with the mandatory Clean Air Act program.

Another important area of concern addressed by this legislation is cargo screening. One of the major security vulnerabilities facing this Nation is the threat from the detonation of a nuclear device smuggled into a port through a cargo container loaded on a ship. It is a nightmare we must prevent. Section 1701 establishes a 5-year goal of 100 percent screening for radiological devices or material in cargo containers leaving foreign ports before they ever enter the waters of the United States. This is a worthy priority, and to ensure adequate flexibility, the DHS Secretary is given authority for 2-year waivers should there be major impediments to its implementation.

Section 1701 also authorizes the DHS Secretary to ``establish technological and operational standards for systems to scan containers; to ensure that the standards are consistent with the global nuclear detection architecture developed under the Homeland Security Act of 2002; and to coordinate with other Federal agencies that administer scanning or detection programs.''

The need for coordination between agencies is essential, particularly given the advanced work carried out by the Department of Energy (DOE) in setting up radiation portal monitors at ports, airports, and rail stations around the world. The DOE's ``Megaports'' program provides radiation detection equipment to key international seaports to screen cargo containers for radioactive materials, including Greece, Bahamas, Sri Lanka, Spain, Singapore, and the Netherlands. Approximately 70 ports worldwide are targeted for implementation, and installation efforts are underway at ports within Belgium, China, Dubai, Honduras, Israel, Oman, the Philippines, Thailand, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, and Taiwan. Additionally, the Megaports program is teaming with the ``Container Security Initiative'' to implement the ``Secure Freight Initiative'' pilot program at ports in the United Kingdom, Pakistan, and Honduras. The DOE's ``Second Line of Defense'' program installs radiation detection equipment at borders, airports, and feeder ports in Russia, former Soviet Union states, and other key countries. Approximately 350 sites have been identified to receive detection equipment installations.

Even though this legislation authorizes the DHS Secretary to set minimum container scanning technology standards, the Conference Report properly notes that DOE has inherent capabilities to assess, through its cooperative agreements with numerous countries and port authorities, the adequacy of technical and operating procedures for cargo container scanning.

To ensure the smooth continuation of DOE's cooperative relationships with numerous countries and the further expansion of the Megaports program, the Conference Report makes clear that these two agencies shall closely coordinate their activities, and requires that DHS shall consult with DOE prior to the establishment of technological or operational standards that would affect screening activities in foreign ports. As part of the coordination requirement in this section, the Conference Report directs that where the scanning technology standards affect the DOE's Megaports and SLD programs, the Secretary shall invite the DOE to participate in the development and final review of such standards, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall seek the concurrence of the Secretary of Energy. Should differences arise, I would expect that DOE and DHS would notify the relevant committees of jurisdiction in Congress. The American people are counting on the agencies carrying out cargo screening at our ports and borders to ensure that there are technically sound decisions in setting standards and selecting equipment, and that there is seamless coordination between agencies with responsibility and expertise.

Title XXII makes an important modification to the Department of Commerce's interoperability grant program by including strategic technology reserves as eligible for funding. This modification recognizes the importance of a resilient and redundant network of emergency communications. In Title XXII, Congress also recognizes the expertise of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with regard to the Nation's communications and information infrastructure and directs the FCC to conduct a vulnerability assessment. This title also establishes a joint committee and a pilot project to improve communications for emergency medical and public healthcare committee. Title XXII also requires an important report on the progress of the re- banding efforts in the 800 megahertz band. As such, this title recognizes Congress's clear intent that this process proceed as expeditiously as possible so that our first responders in border areas may effectively utilize the spectrum to which they are moving. I also support the changes in Title XXIII because I believe that it will enhance and expedite the ability of our Nation's 911 centers to be able to automatically locate callers whether they are using traditional land line or mobile phones.

I appreciate the Chairman's willingness to work with me, the members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and our staff as we have used our expertise to improve the legislation in this Conference Report.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished member of the Rules Committee for yielding.

I would like to say to my good friend the provision is simply a 2- year pilot that only indicates the amount of the Intelligence budget. We know how important intelligence is, but I think we need to look at the whole bill of H.R. 1. And many of us sometimes need to be reminded of the enormity of that day.

I am very glad to stand here and support the rule for H.R. 1, the 9/ 11 conference report, because it emphasizes unique and new approaches to security. How more comforted we are as travelers to know that cargo is being inspected in ports, consumers or those who understand how vulnerable ports are. I know it well. I have one of the larger ports in the United States in my community, the Houston port.

How many of us are more comforted about cargo being inspected in airlines. How many of us are more comforted by the fact that we will have transportation security grants that go directly to the transportation entities like buses, like airplanes, like subways, like mass transit, Amtrak, and others to focus on the traveling public.

How disappointed I am that we didn't recognize the hardworking people who

work for us every day that we could not give collective bargaining rights for the Transportation Security Administration workers. But we are getting better. We are going to do developmental training, professional training.

This is a bill to remind us of where we have come from and where we are going. Interoperability, incident command system.

And, finally, let me just say we lost lives on 9/11 because we were not prepared in terms of the intelligence community. We were not prepared in terms of supporting the law enforcement community. Today we are prepared. We shall never forget.

My appreciation to the leadership of our chairman, Chairman Thompson, who has taken the challenge of the 9/11 families, and the 9/11 Commission report more than to his heart. That is why we are here today.

I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. King, for working with us on many of these challenges and always raising the voice of bipartisanship as it relates to 9/11.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud, as the subcommittee Chair for Transportation Security in Critical Infrastructure, to have had the opportunity to see some of the elements that are under our subcommittee jurisdiction take a strong stand in the 9/11 conference.

I did this earlier today, but I know that sometimes we need to be reminded of the Pentagon and reminded of this tragedy so that we understand today is an enormously important step towards securing the homeland security.

One of those aspects of securing the homeland security clearly has to do with providing transportation security. I am very proud that in the course of providing transportation security, we now have jurisdiction to issue transportation security grants so that buses and trains, so that the Amtrak system, mass transit, so that highways and byways will have the opportunity for

these jurisdictions to seek out grants specifically to secure areas that might be subject to the acts of terrorists.

Might I also say that we have now interoperability, that we have the ability that so many of our colleagues have worked on to talk to each other. We know the front lines of fighting terrorism has to be that our law enforcement is able to communicate.

We are very glad that this bill emphasizes intelligence sharing, which was one of the downfalls of the tragedy of 9/11. I am more than grateful to know that our families, our families sanctioned this bill, who have been so strong, and I salute them.

Let me also say that in placing language in the bill to provide transportation security grants and training, I am very glad that Texas Southern University will have a center of excellence that I announce and enjoy with my colleague from Texas, and also will be able to train transportation officials in security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1), to provide for the implementation of the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission). As a Member of the Conference Committee that worked to reconcile the House and Senate versions of this legislation and to produce this report, I believe it represents a vital step toward securing the Nation. I wish to thank the Chairman of the Conference Committee, Senator Lieberman, as well as the distinguished chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, Congressman Bennie Thompson, for their visionary leadership in shepherding this important legislation through both houses of Congress. Unlike the previous Republican leadership, this Democratic Congress has wholeheartedly embraced the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, a body comprised of ten of the most distinguished citizens of this country.

Today Mr. Speaker, we are here to consider a Conference report that will provide for the implementation of the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission). This Conference report closes many critical gaps identified by the 9/11 commission. In its final report, the 9/11 commission concluded that the United States Government had been unprepared for the 2001 terrorist attacks, and made numerous recommendations for how to safeguard the American people. The legislation passed by the House on January 9 and the Senate in mid- March will implement many of these important recommendations.

The 9/11 commission report noted the need for additional tools for first responders and emergency personnel. The lack of adequate equipment likely contributed to the deaths of 343 firefighters in New York City on September 11, 2001, when police could not communicate effectively with fire fighters prior to the collapse of the Twin Towers. Deficiencies in communication technologies also hindered the effective evacuation and rescue efforts after Hurricane Katrina. I am pleased to say that this legislation authorizes $1.6 billion over 5 years for a grant program to improve emergency communication capabilities for first responders. This legislation also requires States to submit statewide inoperability plans.

Additionally, this legislation calls for the allocation of Homeland Security Grants based on risk. High-risk areas will receive the crucial resources they need to protect their population and critical infrastructure. My home city of Houston, with its 5.3 million residents as well as the Port of Houston, a thriving petrochemical industry, the largest medical center in the world, and an extensive range of commercial assets, is just such an area. The allocation process put in place by this legislation ensures that those areas that face the highest risk of an attack receive adequate funding.

There are numerous other important provisions detailed in this Report. As Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection, I am extremely pleased with the provisions that will improve the security of our systems of transport. The 9/11 Commissioners gave a ``D'' grade to the Administration and Congress for their efforts on enhancing air cargo screening. To correct this deficiency, this legislation requires 100 percent screening of all air cargo carried on passenger planes. It also strengthens the explosives detection at passenger screening checkpoints. Additionally, this legislation requires the screening of 100 percent of U.S.-bound seaborne cargo containers loaded in foreign ports.

This legislation authorizes $4 billion over four years for rail, transit, and bus security grant programs, which will be administered under the Department of Homeland Security. In the Conference Committee, I stood by my conviction that DHS is in the best position to administer these grants, and I am pleased that the Department will be responsible for the distribution of these important transportation security grants. Specifically, this legislation provides training for rail and mass transit workers, and it requires security plans for high risk transit and rail companies.

This legislation enhances homeland security while protecting constitutionally enshrined civil liberties. It establishes the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight board as an independent agency, extends protection for whistle-blowers, and provides protection from lawsuits to individuals who report suspicious activities. We can protect our Nation without infringing upon the fundamental rights of Americans; we can provide security for our country without eliminating those freedoms that make the United States extraordinary. This legislation protects our rights as it protects our cities, borders, infrastructure, and population.

As I stand on the House floor today, 6 years since the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, my heart still grieves for those who perished that day. No one could have predicted that attack; when the sun rose on the morning of September 11, none of us knew that it would end in an inferno in the magnificent World Trade Center Towers in New York City, the Pentagon in Washington, DC, and in the grassy fields of Shanksville, Pennsylvania. We can, however, work to identify and correct the shortcomings in our national security structures, and to take the necessary steps to prevent another such attack on our Nation and its people.

I stand here remembering those who still suffer, whose hearts still ache over the loss of so many innocent and interrupted lives. Mr. Speaker, we can best honor the memory of those who perished on 9/11 by working to ensure that such an attack never happens again. I strongly urge the adoption of this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 567 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to myself, I yield to the gentleman from New York for a unanimous consent request.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 567 provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1, to provide for the implementation of the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and its consideration.

This is a typical rule for a conference report and was reported out by the Rules Committee by a bipartisan voice vote.

Mr. Speaker, when Americans decided last November that they were tired of the way business was being done in Washington, they elected Democrats to the majority.

We promised them that we would implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, and today we are fulfilling that promise in bipartisan fashion. We are showing that compromise can, indeed, yield good policy. Democrats have shown with this bill that that compromise can indeed be positive for America.

There were many who did not want to see Democrats succeed in completing work on this bill. They preferred political posturing over protecting the American public. For them, inaction is an acceptable solution, and obstructionism their plan to get back into the majority.

The American people should take great comfort in knowing that we will not allow them to succeed.

I commend my good friends, the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Bennie Thompson, and the ranking member for their tireless work on this conference report. It was not an easy job, but their diligence and commitment to protecting America persevered.

This product takes significant steps to further protect the American people. Democrats are leading in delivery while fixing the shortcomings in our homeland security network highlighted by the 9/11 Commission.

First, this conference report places a priority on providing homeland security grants based on risk and not political preference. This is especially important to my constituents, as south Florida has seen its recent homeland security grant allocations decreased as political consideration has increased in the process.

When it comes to first responders, the conference report includes $1.6 billion for a first responder interoperability grant program.

The report also invests in rail, transit and bus security, authorizing more than $4 billion for these crucial grants.

Further, this report requires the screening on all passenger air cargo within 3 years. This is, without doubt, the furthest that Congress has ever gone to ensure that the flying public is safe and protected.

Within the next 5 years, the conference report requires the screening of all container ships as they leave foreign shores and head to the U.S. This, too, was another of the 9/11 recommendations.

If America is going to be safe, Mr. Speaker, then Congress must do everything in its power to ensure that cargo coming into our ports has been screened and checked. As someone who represents a district which is within just miles of three major international seaports, I'm pleased that the committee included this provision in the bill. The safety and security of south Florida literally depends on it.

I'm also pleased that the Homeland Security Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, of which I'm a proud member, were able to reach an agreement regarding the public disclosure of total spending in the intelligence community. This was another key recommendation from the 9/ 11 Commission, and Democrats are again keeping their promise to turn those recommendations into law.

It is a new day in the House of Representatives. With honesty and transparency as our guiding principles, Democrats are working to strengthen and restore faith in our intelligence community. Even more, we are sending the message to the American people that this Congress will no longer allow the intelligence community to operate without proper oversight.

This conference report is another installment of how Democrats are working to protect the American people and hold the Bush administration accountable for its failures and shortcomings.

This is a good conference report and a good rule. I urge my colleagues to support both.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very privileged to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Committee of this House, my good friend from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I am very privileged to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who is the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and has worked actively and diligently for the security of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to Mrs. Maloney, who was directly affected in her district in New York during 9/11, I would just say to my friend from Florida that when he and his party were in charge, the question is, what did they do? Did they pass $250 million annually for airport checkpoint screening? Did they pass $450 million annually for baggage screening? Did they do 100 percent screening within 5 years? Did they protect from lawsuits people who in good faith report what they believe are terrorist activities around airplanes, trains, or buses? Did they do stronger security measures? No. They did none of that.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished lady from New York, who really knows about 9/11, Mrs. Maloney.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), who is the chairwoman of the Intelligence Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment. The gentlewoman and I served on the Intelligence Committee, and perhaps she might be able to educate my friend from Texas regarding watch lists and how difficult it would be in order to have watch lists, as Mrs. Maloney put it, for 800,000 people on one rail line in New York alone.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 3\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who is on the Committee on Homeland Security, and the chairman of the Select Committee on Global Warming.

Mr. Markey has fought diligently regarding airport screening. The gentleman from Florida isn't in here now that talked about screening as not being something that's important.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), who is chairman of the Science Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished new Member of the U.S. Congress from Pennsylvania who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight (Mr. Carney).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to another distinguished member of the Committee on Homeland Security, my very good friend from the Virgin Islands, Donna Christensen.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield at this time 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman has closed.

I would ask the Speaker how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, you do know and every Member of this body does know that the 9/11 Commission Report was published in the year 2004. Since that time an election has occurred. Before that time and even before this 9/ 11 Commission Report came into existence, President Bush did not even want to appoint a 9/11 Commission. He came kicking and dragging and screaming to even cause it to come into existence. And the extraordinary work that has been done by Lee Hamilton and Governor Kean and the other members of that committee recommended to this body in 2004 that we undertake these measures.

So now we come here, and I ask them, what did you do before that? The answer is nothing.

Mr. Speaker, this body has a responsibility today to pass this rule and the underlying legislation. We can't afford to continue to procrastinate, as my colleagues did since 2004.

Today this new Democratic majority is delivering another piece of our Six for '06 promises. Today this Democratic majority is passing and sending to the President for his signature the 9/11 Commission's outstanding recommendations.

The fact of the matter is that bad people who want to do bad things will always try to find a way to succeed. This conference report ensures that we are doing everything we can here in the United States and abroad to stop that from happening.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

I thank my colleague from Alaska for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to my friend and colleague from North Carolina's bill, the Lumbee Recognition Act.

My position on this bill is very straightforward and fair. All groups seeking Federal acknowledgment as Indian tribes should go through the administrative process of the Department of the Interior's Office of Federal Acknowledgment.

This office is staffed with expert historians, anthropologists and genealogists. Their focus is to evaluate data provided by petitioning groups and determine the merits of a group's claim that it is an Indian tribe. This includes whether the group existed since historical times as a distinct political entity.

In this case, the Department of the Interior said the 1956 Lumbee Act prevents the Lumbee from going through this process. Congress should act and lift that restriction. Like other groups, the Lumbees should have the opportunity to attain Federal recognition as a tribe. I agree with that.

However, I cannot support this legislation which will allow the Lumbee or any other group for that matter to circumvent the process. This would be unfair to already existing tribes like the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in western North Carolina who have a significant historical and cultural impact on my region of the State. They don't want to see their cultural identity undermined by legislation such as this.

Prominent genealogists have also raised serious questions about the tribal identity of the Lumbee.

Paul Heinegg, award-winning genealogist and author, whose work is recognized by the American Society of Genealogists, has concluded that the Lumbee are ``an invented North Carolina Indian tribe.''

Dr. Virginia DeMarce, former chair of the National Genealogical Society, has published her research on the history of the Lumbee, with findings that contradict H.R. 65, the bill we're debating today. Her research finds that many Lumbee families migrated to Robeson County, North Carolina, from other areas prior to 1,800.

Her research has been corroborated by other notable genealogists who refer to other self-identified Lumbee families as residing in other areas prior to any colonial settlement in Robeson County.

In fact, the name Lumbee is based, as the chairman mentioned earlier, on this group's proximity to the Lumbee River and is a modern creation that the group selected as its name in 1952. In fact, this Lumbee group has petitioned Congress numerous times under the names Cherokee, Siouan, Croatan and Cheraw, among others.

I, along with members of the North Carolina delegation, in bipartisan fashion, have sponsored legislation in this Congress and sponsored legislation in the last Congress that would fix this problem. They could actually have the Lumbee go through the normal process.

In fact, my colleague, Mr. Shuler, has authored legislation this time, which I'm a cosponsor of, that his predecessor sponsored as well, that would clear the way for the Lumbee to go through the normal process. I think we should accept that. In fact, Mr. Shuler, Mr. Walter Jones, as well as Mr. Shays and I offered the amendment that was ruled out of order by the Rules Committee. In fact, the Rules Committee would not let us offer that as an amendment here on the floor today. In fact, that's a responsible way to deal with the Lumbee issue.

Federal recognition matters get caught up in emotion, and let's face it, politics. So, rather than going through this legislative body, I think we should go through the regulatory process for the longstanding government-to-government relationships the United States has established with tribes.

We should take the politics out of Federal recognition and allow the experts at the Office of Federal Acknowledgment to do their jobs. I think that's a responsible way to deal with this issue.

And I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill so we can deal with this in a responsible and reasonable manner, going through the longstanding process that we have established as a Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very fair and simple motion to recommit. This takes the emotion of politics out of the Federal recognition process and allows the experts at the Office of Federal Acknowledgment to do their jobs.

This amendment, Mr. Speaker, is something very familiar to the chairman as well as all of the members of the Interior Committee. They've seen it before. It's very familiar to the members of the Rules Committee as well because they've seen it as well. It's the very same form and shape that my colleague, Mr. Shuler, has filed, along with myself as a cosponsor, with me as a cosponsor I should say, and a number of our colleagues from North Carolina. It's a bipartisan bill as originally constructed.

And what this motion to recommit does is allow us to have a vote on this issue here on the House floor. It's the very same text as the amendment, I said that Mr. Shuler offered, as well as Mr. Jones and Mr. Shays, that we offered through the Rules Committee, and it was not allowed by the majority party through the Rules Committee process. In fact, there was a partisan vote on that issue, eight Democrats voting ``no,'' two Republicans voting ``yes,'' even though it was a bipartisan amendment to the bill.

In simple terms, this motion will put the Lumbees in the front of the Federal recognition process, in the front of that line, and it removes the bar on the Lumbees and other groups described in the 1956 Lumbee Act from petitioning for recognition through the administrative process.

It extends recognition to the Lumbees under the terms and restrictions of H.R. 65, this bill, only when the Secretary makes a final positive determination on the Lumbee petition. It's a very fair and balanced way to allow the Lumbees to be recognized as a tribe.

The Lumbees oppose the motion because it does not allow them to circumvent the process. But it is fair to the other 561 federally recognized tribes, including the Eastern Band of Cherokee in western North Carolina; all of whom went through the proper rigors of the recognition process.

Now, what is important about this is that we have a vote on it. My colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Taylor, originally wrote this bill that my colleague, Mr. Shuler, has refiled again in this Congress.

This bill is bipartisan, as I said. And this motion to recommit is the very same language of that bipartisan bill.

Now, what was wonderful is that, over the last 10 years, Congressman Taylor, my friend and former colleague here in this body, was able to prevent this Lumbee recognition bill from being put forth and, in essence, made sure that the Lumbees went through the Federal process.

It's unfortunate this bill has come to the floor today. It's even more unfortunate that this motion to recommit was not allowed as an amendment to this bill. And so what this bill does is allow it to go back to committee so that the committee can actually go through the normal process of marking up this bill and to hear from outside groups as well but ensures that we go through the normal process that my colleagues from North Carolina, many of my colleagues from North Carolina, on a bipartisan basis, seek.

And I think, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that my colleagues vote for this motion to recommit because it is fair. It will be a bipartisan vote, I believe, and I'm very hopeful that it will be. And I think it's going to be the best thing for the Lumbees and the best thing for this process of Federal recognition of Native American tribes.

And I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit because it's the right thing to do. And it's the right thing to do on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

I thank my good friend from New York for the time.

Madam Speaker, the State of North Carolina formally recognized the Lumbee tribe in 1885. Since 1888, the Lumbee tribe has been waiting for full Federal recognition.

Over the years, many bills were introduced in Congress to provide the Lumbees with Federal recognition, but these bills never reached the President's desk for signature. Finally, the Lumbee Act of 1956 recognized the Lumbee as a Native American tribe but denied them the Federal aid that comes with full status as a federally recognized tribe.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs' recognition process is reserved for tribes whose legitimacy must be established. This, however, is not the case with the Lumbees.

The Department of the Interior since 1913 has studied the identity of the Lumbee Indians 11 times, and each report has concluded that the Lumbees are a Native American tribe descended from the Cheraw Indians.

Furthermore, the Lumbee Act of 1956 actually prohibited the tribe from going through the Bureau of Indian Affairs' recognition process. Congressional action is thus needed for Federal recognition so the Lumbee tribe can be eligible for the full benefits that they are entitled to.

I wish to express my thanks to Mr. McIntyre for his strong leadership really on many issues affecting Native Americans as well as other important issues before this Congress and specifically for his perseverance and the brilliance that he has shown in bringing this bill to the floor today.

Even though I support the underlying legislation, Madam Speaker, I must oppose the closed rule under which the majority brings forth this bill. One of the central tenets of our friends in the majority of their campaign in 2006 was that they would run Congress in a more open and bipartisan manner.

On December 6, 2006, the distinguished Speaker reiterated her campaign promise. She said, ``We promised the American people that we would have the most honest and open government and we will.''

Here we are 6 months later, 6 months later, considering the second closed rule of the day. It seems that the campaign promise was just that, a hollow promise. But this closed rule, the second of the day, is not an isolated incident, obviously. So far in the 110th Congress, we have considered a total of 25 closed rules, 25 closed rules in about 5 months. Compare that to the 109th Congress where at this point we had considered six closed rules.

Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle like to refute this fact by claiming that they have offered a number of open rules, but that's not the case. The former very distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Moakley, a Democrat, said, and I quote, ``Open rules are silent on the amendment structure.''

By that definition, the Democrats have offered only one open rule this Congress. The majority on the Rules Committee had the opportunity to increase the number of open rules to two yesterday. However, they denied a motion that I made to amend this rule and allow an open rule. Not only did they deny our proposal for an open rule, they even denied an attempt to allow a bipartisan amendment offered by Representative Shuler, that even though I opposed that amendment on the merits, it came to the Rules Committee where Mr. Shuler and Mr. Shays sat for a long, long period of time, and then they very diligently and respectfully explained their amendment.

I happened to disagree with it, but as I stated in the Rules Committee, as strongly as I disagree with their amendment, I think they should have the right to present it. Yet not only did our friends, the majority in the Rules Committee, decide to close the rule absolutely, they even disallowed the bipartisan amendment by Mr. Shuler and Mr. Shays from being considered today by the full House. I think the Democrats should live up to their campaign promises and offer a more open process.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this closed rule, while, again, on the underlying substance of legislation, expressing my support for it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure at this time to yield as much time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Dreier.

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

Madam Speaker, in a few minutes I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule to allow the House to consider a change to the Rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.

Now, by defeating the previous question, we wouldn't be derailing consideration of this important legislation today. But we would be fixing an unfairness, rectifying an unfairness in the House Rules. And we believe very strongly in this.

At this time, Madam Speaker, and I had an opportunity in the Rules Committee yesterday to point out to Mr. Shuler and Mr. Shays that, as I've stated before, on the floor of this House today, I oppose the substance of the amendment that they brought before us, but I certainly support it and support, at this time, their right to be heard.

It's unfortunate that the rule, the closed rule bringing the legislation to the floor today, has closed out all of the Members of the House, including Mr. Shuler and Mr. Shays.

Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Madam Speaker, before closing, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut, who would like to make some other remarks.

Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.

Under the current rule, so long as the chairman or sponsor of a bill, joint resolution, conference report, or manager's amendment includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or report or a statement that there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress.

However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a question of consideration. But because the Democratic majority Rules Committee specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order, they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks on the rule. This was most recently discovered on the question of the Murtha earmark on the Intelligence authorization bill.

This amendment will restore the accountability and enforceability of the earmark rule to where it was at the end of the 109th Congress and provide Members with an opportunity to bring the question of earmarks before the House for a vote. Without these changes, the new earmark rule is nothing more than a fig leaf.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, at this time, while reiterating my support for the underlying legislation, which I think is worthy legislation and has been thoroughly studied, I think it is most unfortunate that it has been brought forth with a totally closed rule.

I ask my colleagues to join me in defeating the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me commend all the members of the Homeland Security Committee, especially Chairman Thompson, for the spirit of bipartisanship which did bring the floor to this moment right now, this conference report.

Having said that, I must take exception to a number of the statements that have been made here today, especially by the gentleman from Florida and his statements implying somehow that there has not been a significant amount of accomplishments since September 11, 2001.

Let me just recount some of them that were done prior to this. The enactment of the PATRIOT Act; the reauthorizing of the PATRIOT Act; the Intelligence Reform Act, which created the Director of National Intelligence; just last year, the adoption of the first-ever port security act; chemical plant security; restructuring FEMA; $1 billion for interoperability.

I really don't think it serves a purpose to somehow be suggesting that the Republicans, or any Member of this body for that matter, is holding back or in any way not doing all that is possible to protect our Nation against the threat of Islamic terrorism. For instance, the National Intelligence Estimate, when it was released last week, made a point of stressing that the greatly increased counterterrorism efforts over the past 5 years have constrained the ability of al Qaeda to attack the United States' homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11. These measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11.

So, Mr. Speaker, I don't think it does any purpose at all to downgrade the efforts made by this Congress and this administration. This should be a bipartisan effort, and I think a lot of the rhetoric today undermines that.

Having said that, I will be supporting this bill because, on balance, I believe there have been significant improvements made. I hope that next year and the year after and the year after that we continue to make improvements.

Now, there have been some failures. One of the main requirements, main recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was that jurisdiction be consolidated in one committee. That was not done. In fact, anyone who went to the first meeting of the conference committee, it was like the Tower of Babel. We had subcommittees and committees, and ranking members and committee chairmen. I think there were about over 60 people at a conference committee when there should have been four.

Having said that, I believe that this is something to work toward in the future. And I would hope that the Democrats, during the time that they still retain the majority, will work to consolidate that jurisdiction.

But some of the positive steps, on grant reform, I certainly agree with the gentleman from Mississippi on this, and I commend him for this. We did have long, involved preconferencing negotiations. And he worked with me and Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins to come up with a grant formula which is far more based on risk than it was before. It's still not perfect, it was still a minimum that's going to be in there, but having said that, it's a significant advance over what we've had in the past, and I applaud him for that. I applaud the other members of the conference committee, and the bipartisan membership of our committee which passed similar legislation in 2005 and 2006, and now it has been brought to fruition. And I give Chairman Thompson credit for that.

Also, on another issue, which I'm very pleased is in this bill, and that's upon the issue of giving immunity to those who come forward and report suspicious activity. I want to thank my good friend, Mr. Pearce, the gentleman from New Mexico who is here today, who was the first to initiate this legislation. Then we passed it here on the House floor in March. And so long as we're in a partisan mood today, I point out that a majority of Democrats voted against that. And last week, a majority of Democrats voted against it in the Senate. And to me it was unfortunate that we had to have 5 or 6 days of intense negotiations before the Democratic leadership finally intervened and brought about the insertion of that language into the conference report. But it is there; it gives immunity to those people who come forward and report what they see on good faith. And we learned on September 11, if you see something, say something.

We know that you cannot have enough FBI agents, you cannot have enough police officers to monitor the actions of Islamic terrorists. We need the eyes and the ears of millions of good Americans, and that's what this language protects.

Before I slow myself down, let me just say that at the conference committee from the other side, I want to commend Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins. This was a true bicameral effort. And again, Chairman Thompson, we went through a number of, over a period of weeks, preconference negotiations, all of which were conducted in good faith. And I think the product today, again, while not perfect, is another step in the right direction, building on the steps of the previous 5\1/ 2\ years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, the former Attorney General of California, a man who came back to Congress to combat terrorism, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the bipartisan nature of the majority leader's remarks. I thank him personally.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker of the House for her bipartisan comments, and I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) who is the initial author of the John Doe immunity legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) a former member of the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a member of the committee and an outstanding spokesman on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Staten Island, Brooklyn, who lost more residents than any other Member in Congress on September 11.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

And let me thank, again, Chairman Thompson for his bipartisan effort, thank Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins. Let me thank the Republican staff members, Matt McCabe, Kerry Kinirons, Sterling Marchand, Heather Hogg, Mike Power. A special thanks to Mark Klaassen who unfortunately is

going to be leaving the committee, but he has been a tremendous asset. Chad Scarborough, Joe Vealencis, Deron McElroy, Adam Paulson and Lauren Wenger of my staff.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good conference report. I urge its adoption. And, again, I thank the chairman for his cooperation and assistance.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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