Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I recognize myself for as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset, let me express my deep admiration for Chairman Thompson and for the bipartisan spirit he has shown in his running of the committee, both as chairman and during the previous 2 years as ranking member.

This is one committee of the House which I believe functions very affirmatively in a bipartisan manner because, as Chairman Thompson has said, that when the terrorists come, they don't care whether you are Democrat or Republican, they want to kill all of us. That's why I commend him again for the spirit of bipartisanship.

It was that spirit of bipartisanship that resulted in H.R. 1684 being passed out of committee by a unanimous 26-0 vote. It was a bipartisan effort, there was hard work on both sides, there was compromise on both sides, innovations on both sides. We came together, I believe, with a very strong package.

I am, however, very concerned about the manager's amendment, which is going to be coming up for a vote today, because of the 86 provisions in the bill, 42, 49.8 percent, of the provisions of the bill have either been eliminated or changed dramatically.

Some of the key ones on the issue of interoperability, in our legislation, the committee legislation, we provided that $1 billion in grants for interoperability could be used for training exercise, for training as well as for the purchase of hardware. This was demanded, strongly requested by local law enforcement, local law authorities. It is essential to interoperability. Yet that has been stricken from the legislation.

On the ``sense of Congress'' language which has been so strongly recommended by the 9/11 Commission, that the Committee on Homeland Security be the focal point for oversight of the Department of Homeland Security and for being the central committee on the issue of homeland security, just the ``sense of Congress'' language was eliminated from the bill. We go down the list, as far as authorization for Secret Service, especially considering the increased amount which will be necessary in this year to protect Presidential candidates. So many other amendments, so much other language, even, for instance, on the issue of employees who leave the Department, lobbying restrictions, which quite honestly was proposed by a Democratic Congressman, Mr. DeFazio, that has been stricken out.

Now, I realize what has happened here; I went through this during the time that I was chairman, but I think we approached it a little differently. There are other committees which are objecting to the jurisdiction of Homeland Security. There are others which are defying the wish of the 9/11 Commission, which is to have power vested in the Committee on Homeland Security. And, unfortunately, it appeased it at every juncture where objection was raised; those provisions were taken out.

Now, in the last Congress, we adopted the Port Security Bill. That was a long, hard fight. We had jurisdictional battles with other committees; but we stayed with it, and the final package tremendously increased the position of the Committee on Homeland Security and resulted in very strong legislation. On the restructuring of FEMA, that also caused severe conflicts with other committees of jurisdiction. We stayed with it, and the final product enhanced the position of the Committee on Homeland Security. On the issue of chemical plants security, similarly, there were severe conflicts with other committees. We worked with the leadership at the time, Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner, and that resulted also in ultimate legislation which significantly enhanced the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security.

By acquiescing so quickly to the objections or the positions of other committees, I think we have weakened our committee. And that to me is not a turf battle or not a power struggle; the issue of life and death is too important for that. But the fact is, we did not stand firm in fighting for jurisdiction of the committee.

I know the chairman has mentioned that there was not an authorization bill passed by the House last year. I agree with that. We did pass one out of committee, there was one passed in 2005. The Senate has never passed an authorization bill.

I made the judgment last year that we had an opportunity, a window of opportunity to pass significant legislation which could be brought to the House floor, which could be brought to

the Senate floor, and which could pass, and that was port security, chemical plants and FEMA restructuring, and we did that. As far as this year now, we do have the H.R. 1, which still has not moved; it hasn't even gone to conference yet, and we have this legislation today, which was a fine product of the committee, but unfortunately, it has been dramatically weakened with, I must say, no input at all from the Republican side. And considering the extent to which Chairman Thompson does reach out at the committee level and there is such a bipartisan level of cooperation at the committee level, I would have hoped that we would have at least had something to say when it went to the Rules Committee when the manager's amendment was being constructed. Instead, this was done totally behind closed doors, totally to the exclusion of any Republican input. Again, perhaps it would be fine if we were an adversarial type committee, but we are not. This is a collegial committee. It is a bipartisan committee, and everything we do, every word of every provision both during the time when Chairman Cox was chairman, when I was chairman and certainly now under Chairman Thompson, it has been bipartisan. I regret that has not been the situation in bringing the legislation before the House today. So I will be later urging a vote against the manager's amendment.

But I again want to express my regard for Chairman Thompson, and hope that when this is over, when this is resolved today or tomorrow or whenever the final vote comes, we can go forward from there and work in a bipartisan way at the committee level the way we have done for the last 3\1/2\ years.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the majority leader for his kind words. And would just add that this was genuinely bipartisan, and it did increase spending by $2.1 billion more than the President of our party was recommending, and yet we as Republicans did that because we wanted to act in a bipartisan way, which makes the fact that we were shut out of the manager's amendment much more painful.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. Chairman, to demonstrate the bipartisanship of the committee, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) for the free advice he just gave me.

With that, I recognize the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown- Waite) for 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to recognize for 4 minutes the gentleman from Florida who has done such an outstanding job in a brief time on the committee, Mr. Bilirakis.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) who did such an outstanding job as chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee in the previous conference.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from Texas, the ranking member of the Emerging Threat Subcommittee, Mr. McCaul, for 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as we leave general debate and begin to debate the amendments, I would again say I commend the gentleman from Mississippi, the chairman, for the bill that was put forth in the committee which came out of the committee.

I am, again, disappointed by the product that came here today. I understand the realities of politics and the realities of governing, but I just wish we could have made more of an effort to move the committee product further along, rather than make the concessions that were made. There are just so many important matters that were either dramatically revised or eliminated, which weakens the thrust of where we're going.

We will be debating amendments for the next several hours. The debate will be in good faith, just as our efforts on the committee are in good faith, but I just wish the leadership of the House would do more to improve and to enhance and to further the position of the Homeland Security Committee so we can do the job that we have been chartered to do and we can do the job the 9/11 Commission wants us to do, to do the job that the 9/11 families want us to do, and do the job that the memory of those who were murdered on 9/11 really command that we do.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the upcoming debate. I am disappointed in the product that is before us. Having said that, I remain enthusiastic about the job that we as a committee can do under the chairmanship of Chairman Thompson and with the strong cooperation from the minority on the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the manager's amendment.

I recognize myself for as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the chairman's dilemma. The bottom line is we did pass a very strong bill out of committee. And let's just again delineate some of those provisions which were unanimously agreed to and have been agreed to: Language on maritime alien smuggling; language which would have monitored the activities of foreign students and visitors; biometric identification of illegal aliens; expanding the use of interoperability grants, which is so much needed by our local law enforcement and first responders; authorizing the Secret Service and its functions; increasing the authorizations of the Secret Service to provide security to Presidential candidates; prohibiting grants to universities which bar Coast Guard recruiters. It eliminated a report on Secret Service training facilities. And, as Mr. McCaul said before, it eliminated the provision providing for a National Bio and Agro Defense facility.

Also, more significantly, if we go to the heart of the 9/11 Commission, it eliminated the language calling for a sense of Congress that the homeland security be in fact the focal point and the central point when it comes to legislation on homeland security and also when it comes to overseeing the Department of Homeland Security.

Now the chairman has gone back in history to talk about what happened in the past. The fact is, this is a growing committee, and we all have to make decisions. We have to make value-based decisions. We have to make prudent decisions.

I was the chairman last year; and I did not go for an authorization bill

early on in the year because I thought it was important, in establishing the jurisdiction of the committee, that we go forward and adopt the most far-reaching port security bill ever enacted and, in doing so, confronting jurisdictional impediments thrown at us by other committees.

We did that. It was a long, hard fight. It began early spring and wasn't concluded until September, but we did conclude it. And not only did we enact solid legislation, but, as importantly, we were able to establish our jurisdiction at the expense of competing committees. And I say that not as part of a turf battle, but if we are going to have real homeland security, we have to have a real Homeland Security Committee.

Similarly, when it came to restructuring FEMA, which was a mammoth fight here in the Congress last year, we stood strong through May and June and July and into September; and when the final product came out, it again enhanced the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security Committee.

Also, on the issue of chemical plant security, we fought hard on that. We fought hard for our language, and we got it in. It was part of the omnibus appropriation, and that language again established the Committee on Homeland Security as the primary committee on that issue.

So these were all solid steps forward made by the committee.

Now, I understand the chairman's dilemma. I am not here to take cheap shots. I realize how tough this can be. But my point is, when we had such a solid vote, a unanimous vote coming out of committee, I think more should have been done in resisting the efforts of the other chairmen and of the Democratic leadership to strip so many of the provisions. Almost half of the provisions have been stripped out altogether or dramatically modified. So I do see this, unfortunately, as a step backwards. Certainly not a step forward.

I realize the significance of getting the authorization bill done. I am not trying to minimize that. But the fact is, considering the progress we made last year in such significant areas as port security, chemical plant security and the restructuring of FEMA, we could have done better on this authorization bill this year.

Again, I will have to urge a ``no'' vote on this manager's amendment because of the damage which I believe it does to the Committee on Homeland Security. And also, Mr. Chairman, to send a signal, not to Chairman Thompson but to the leadership of the House, that we did come forward on our side. We were willing to stand up to the administration and increase spending by over $2 billion more than the administration requests and wants. We did that unanimously on the Republican side. We also again worked with Chairman Thompson on the language that he wanted. He worked with us. So we did make that effort at the committee level.

I just wish the same level of bipartisan cooperation was shown at the leadership level of the House of Representatives rather than having the minority excluded altogether, which was never done at the committee level, either under myself or now under Chairman Thompson.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I will rest on the eloquence of my previous remarks and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Castle, and all of the others in the House who support this amendment. Because 9/11 changed our lives in many ways, but one of the most dramatic ways is that it made our first responders and our volunteer firefighters front-line warriors in the war against Islamic terrorism. That is why it is essential that they receive the same protections as our warriors fighting overseas. They are at the front line and deserve our support. I am proud to support the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume, and I would say at the outset that my understanding is that this is already factored in by the Department of Homeland Security, the whole issue of tourism. Also, similar language is included in H.R. 1 and S. 4 which currently are ready to go to conference.

Having said that, no harm, no foul. I have no objection to the language. I think it is unnecessary, but having said that, I will not oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Florida. I support his amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize myself for as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan for this amendment and for bringing his law enforcement expertise to the Congress in so many ways for so many years. I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding. I commend him for this amendment, and I strongly urge its adoption

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, can you tell us the current status of the Committee of the Whole, what is being considered at this time?

Mr. Chairman, can you just tell me what amendments have gone by and what amendments are coming up now?

Mr. Chairman, I will ask to be the designee of Mr. Mica.

Mr. Chairman, I am introducing the Mica amendment as his designee.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds the Secretary of Transportation to a study to increase incentives for the sharing of critical infrastructure information with the Department of Homeland Security.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 included the Critical Infrastructure Act in title II. All agencies will benefit from this study. I know that Congressman Mica has put effort into it. It has, my understanding, bipartisan support.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the author of the amendment, Mr. Mica.

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

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

I don't intend to oppose the amendment. My only concern is, as I understand it, this is an amendment expressing the sense of Congress. The language, which is actually my language in the bill which passed the full committee, actually would have called for the implementation and not just the sense of Congress; and this, to me, is another deficiency in the bill and that we are taking, at best, a half step forward. We could have taken the full step.

Having said that, I certainly agree in spirit with the amendment. Certainly this is better than nothing. And with that, I will urge the adoption of the amendment.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time from the gentlelady from Texas, I always admire her eloquence and her kind words.

And, as I said, I appreciate what the gentleman is doing. I support it. I just wish we could have had the stronger language that was in the initial legislation.

But, having said that, I commend the gentleman from California and urge the adoption of his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

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

I would just say to the gentleman from Michigan, my good friend, that I agree that the time for study is over and the time for delay is over.

I believe the original legislation that passed our committee would have moved it forward much more quickly. This is a sense of Congress. We actually were going to demand action.

But, having said that, this is a significant step, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, I do not intend to oppose the amendment. I just would say to the gentleman, he is addressing a legitimate concern. One question I would have, and ask this be resolved as the process goes forward, it just says all funds that are necessary from the $39.8 billion. Since Homeland Security funding is stretched as it is, since every dollar is essential to be spent for the right purpose, I would ask, as the process goes forward, we try to find a way to specify the amount necessary. I am just raising that as a point with the gentleman. I would certainly work with the gentleman as we go forward and with the chairman.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will not oppose the amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, even though I do not oppose the amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida for her amendment and urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of the time just to say that we have no objection to the gentleman's amendment. I commend him on it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I urge adoption of the motion to recommit.

The time has come for the majority party to follow through on its commitment to carry out the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. This is a basic recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. They have said it again and again. This an essential component.

Just as many provisions of the base bill were stripped out, now the majority, apparently, is opposing this, again, basic component of the 9/11 Commission.

The time has come. You stand with the Civil Liberties Union or you stand with the 9/11 Commission. We stand with the 9/11 Commission and urge the adoption of the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. Speaker, can the gentleman from Mississippi explain the nature of his unanimous consent request?

Mr. Speaker, regrettably, not being told in advance, I would have to object to the unanimous consent request.

No one I am aware of has received notice. I am not trying to be disagreeable. This is the first I have heard of it.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first I have heard. All I heard from leadership staff several minutes ago was that there might be a unanimous consent request. We were not told any of the details of it whatsoever. I have not seen the language that is proposed to be put back in. And, again, regrettably, at this time, I would have to continue reserving the right to object.

Again, we had almost 20 minutes in the motion to recommit, and if someone would have shown it to us, we could have looked at it. We have not seen it. I have no idea what the language is.

I will yield, yes.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object. This is the first time we have seen a copy.

Again, I object, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Bob Beckwith on the upcoming celebration of his 75th Birthday on April 16th. Bob personifies the very best of the FDNY and has been a source of strength for so many grieving Americans, whether he was standing with President Bush at Ground Zero just days after September 11th or traveling across the country to raise funds for the New York Firefighters Burn Center Foundation. I wish him all the best and I am proud to call him my friend!

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding. And I stand here today, first, to commend the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Thompson, for the bipartisanship he has shown, the level of

cooperation he has demonstrated in bringing this bill through the committee process and to the House floor today. This was work that was begun in the last Congress, and now it has been brought to its fruition, and I commend the gentleman for that.

As Mr. Diaz-Balart indicated, there were serious rail attacks in Britain in 2005, in Spain in 2004 and, of course, in India. And there is no doubt that terrorists certainly would be considering to use rail and transit as a base for future attacks here in this country. So this legislation is needed. It is constructive and on balance, it is very positive. For instance, it authorized the use of VIPER teams. It does base funding on threat and risk. And it addresses very, very key areas of vulnerability.

Having said that, I wish the same spirit of bipartisanship that had prevailed at the committee level had prevailed in the Rules Committee, because there are a number of amendments which were not ruled in order. In fact, there was no amendment ruled in order which was offered by a member of the Homeland Security Committee, specifically, an amendment by Mr. Daniel E. Lungren, which would have, I believe, addressed deficiencies in the whistleblower language which would have protected classified national security information.

The amendment by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite, who will be speaking on it herself in a few moments, would have certainly prevented the disclosure of sensitive security information on Freedom of Information requests, and two amendments by Mr. Dent as far as screening travelers entering the U.S. and interdicting terrorists at the border. All four of these amendments would have been very constructive. I supported them strongly. At the very least, they deserved a full debate here on the House floor today. So for that reason I will oppose the rule.

Having said that, I do support the underlying legislation, and I do commend Chairman Thompson for his efforts and certainly subcommittee ranking member and former chairman, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren, for the efforts that he put into this in the previous Congress.

This is legislation whose time has come. Unfortunately, it was not allowed the opportunity to even be better than it is.

So having said, while I support the underlying legislation, I must reluctantly oppose the rule today.

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

At the outset, let me thank Chairman Thompson not only for his work on this bill in particular but for the spirit of cooperation that prevailed throughout this entire period leading up to today.

I also want to commend Mr. Lungren, who was chairman of the subcommittee in the previous Congress which did much of the groundwork for this legislation and for the dedication that he has shown and continued in his efforts as subcommittee ranking member.

Mr. Thompson had pledged, upon becoming chairman of the full committee, that will be a main priority for him, and he has delivered. There are certain parts of the bill that I would have problems with. But having said that, I certainly commend him for the effort he has put into this and, again, for level of cooperation not only between him and me but between other members of the committee, between majority staff and the minority staff.

Mr. Chairman, September 11 changed all our worlds, and we have attempted in various ways to meet the threat that is presented to us by international Islamic terrorism. Much work has been done at the airports. Last year, we adopted very extensive and expansive port security legislation, chemical plant security legislation.

Some strides have been made towards rail and transit security. But today's bill, today's legislation is very much needed to take a more significant step down that road.

We saw from the attacks on March 11, 2004, in Madrid; the attacks of July 7 in London in 2005; and the attacks in India on commuter lines, that terrorists certainly are targeting our rail and transit for terrorist attack, one of the reasons being that it is so much more difficult to secure transit than it is airports.

Certainly, looking at it very parochially, from my own perspective in New York, the New York City subway system, it has more than 400 subway stations. It has over 1,500 exits and entrances to those stations. In addition to that, we have many, many tens of thousands of commuters coming in from the suburbs of Long Island, upstate New York and New Jersey every day.

It is not just a New York issue, by any means. This is an issue which affects rail and transit throughout the country, but it is an issue that must be addressed.

We have to look at the possibility that the next terrorist attack, like London, Madrid and India, will be launched from the suburbs. It is not just the inner city subways, big city commuter systems, but it is all of them. All of them have to be protected to the extent that we can.

We also have to support those systems which we believe can work, such as the VIPER system, which I believe is essential.

We have to have training for the security personnel. I wish that the legislation had also provided that the funding could go directly to the police, who provide security. It won't be you will have to go through the intermediary carriers, which I think is not a step in the right direction, but I also understand the realities of what has to be done. I think that certainly the police and the transit workers are the front line of defense when it comes to securing our mass transit, and it is essential that they receive the training that they need.

It is also essential that there be capital improvements, that, for instance, the tunnels leading into main terminals be reinforced, that the escape precautions be improved upon, that the first responders have access to tunnels and terminals in times of terrorist attack.

So these are all issues which I believe are addressed to a significant extent in the legislation.

As we said during the previous debate on the rule, there are parts of the legislation, though, which would have been very, very essential, I think, to have had amendments ruled in order. Mr. Lungren, I am sure, will be addressing some of these issues, but I am concerned about the whole issue on the whistleblowers as to what we do to protect national security secrets and top secret materials and why the government will be, in effect, precluded from asserting the State secret defense. That is, to me, a very, very significant issue, and it is one where I believe the legislation does not give us adequate protection.

Also, on the issue of Freedom of Information, which Ms. Ginny Brown- Waite will discuss as to how we can protect top secret and classified information, all of this to me is important.

But, having said that, this legislation is a very, very significant step forward. It is a major step forward, and it is an area where, again, we realize in a bipartisan way that more had to be done. While significant, more has to be done in the future, because we have an enemy which is constantly adapting, an enemy which is vicious and deadly. As has been proven on 9/11, they can use any number of means at their disposal.

We have to think outside the box. We have to try to anticipate what they are going to do. If, God forbid, there is an attack, we want to make sure our people are able to respond as quickly and as effectively as possible. I believe that this legislation addresses much of that.

I want to thank the chairman for, again, the open-mindedness that he has had on this in accepting many of our suggestions and also negotiating and working with us and, again, just developing and showing a spirit of bipartisanship, which I think is really essential.

Homeland Security should not be a partisan issue. We will and we do have

honest differences, but I think the overwhelming majority of the issues affecting Homeland Security can and should be addressed in a bipartisan way.

On those issues that we cannot resolve, we can have honest, intelligent differences on them without in any way questioning the motives of either side and also realizing that sometimes very pragmatic decisions have to be made. We can't allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

I thank Chairman Thompson. I certainly thank Ranking Member Lungren both for his efforts in the last Congress and in this Congress for all that he has done and also the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the former sheriff of King County in Washington State and current ranking member of the Intelligence Subcommittee, Mr. Reichert.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me again commend Chairman Thompson for his very high level of cooperation, for the dedication he has shown to this, and again thank Mr. Lungren, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for his efforts in the previous Congress and this Congress, and also the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her efforts.

Mr. Chairman, the country was caught unaware on September 11. We could perhaps say that we did not anticipate the ferocity of the attack or the nature of the attack or the nature of our enemy, but we no longer have that excuse. September 11 certainly made us fully aware of how deadly our enemy is. Since then, whether it be intelligence reports or whether it be the attacks in London, Madrid or Mumbai, we realize also that mass transit is a favorite target of Islamic terrorists.

So we have no excuses. We have to move forward, and that is what this legislation does. It sets a coordinated national policy toward dealing with attacks on our public transportation system. It coordinates at the national level with the State and local officials what has to be done. It provides a level of training to our transit workers and to our police.

As I mentioned before, in New York, as Ms. Clarke knows well, there are more than 5 million riders on our mass transit system every day.

As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) mentioned, he and I and a number of other members of the committee last year visited London and we visited Madrid. We saw the extent of the carnage and the destruction that was caused. We full well realize that the next terrorist attack may very well be launched from the suburbs. It could be brought in on a commuter train to our cities. The subway systems themselves, the mass transit systems themselves are extremely vulnerable to attack.

We can never be 100 percent secure. We can probably never reach the same level of protection on a subway system or mass transit system, for instance, that we can at our airports.

We do a great deal. And that is what this bill does, it moves us forward. It provides levels of protection that we do not currently have. And it is going to be an ongoing work in progress. It is going to be something that requires our continued dedication, our continued effort. It is going to require continued bipartisan effort, bipartisan support.

So I look forward to working with the chairman at least for the next 21 months in his role as chairman and, whatever happens after that, continue to work with him. Because this is, again, an issue, it is a threat that goes far beyond any type of partisan divide. It is something that should bring us all together as Americans. There is so much that we have in common where our values and principles are shared, are in common that, as Democrats and Republicans and, most importantly, as Americans, we can work together. This bill goes very far in that direction.

Again, I commend the chairman. I commend all of the members of the committee on both sides for their efforts.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute; and I reluctantly oppose the manager's amendment.

The first basic reason is, when the original legislation was passed out of our committee, we would have had funding going directly to police agencies, the police departments who actually do security work. Now the money will have to go through the carriers, and the police will have to seek reimbursement from them. This is an added level of bureaucracy we don't need. It will impede a well-coordinated and structured security response. For that reason alone, I have to oppose it.

Also, by having a bifurcated rent distribution system between DOT and DHS, to me this goes against the letter and the spirit of the 9/11 Commission. For those basic reasons, I reluctantly oppose the manager's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

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

Mr. Chairman, I would claim the time in opposition, even though I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman from New York, I commend him for his amendment and I appreciate his concerns. My only thought is that these seem to be primarily safety concerns, as opposed to security, and there are already so many reporting requirements on the Department of Homeland Security that I am reluctant to request another report from the Department of Homeland Security.

Having said that, as this legislation goes forward, I would just ask the gentleman to work with us as it goes to conference in the event that after speaking with the Secretary and the Department that they do consider this a burden and perhaps refine it.

With that, I have no objection to it. I just would ask the gentleman if he would work with us as the process goes forward.

I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just make two points.

There is nobody on our committee who is more dedicated to this issue than Mr. Rogers. There is also no one in the Congress who I know that is more dedicated to contracting out than Mr. Rogers, his dedication on this issue and the fact that we have to realize that it is more important to know the value of something rather than just the price. The fact is, this is a situation where both the price and the value call for us to go forward with this program. This is an issue of Homeland Security. We can trivialize it. We can have some fun with it. But the fact is it is a very, very important issue. So I ask for defeat of the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Madam Speaker, in its present form.

Madam Speaker, all our lives changed on September 11. The government tried to react the best that it could; all levels of government have tried to come forward. But one of the most important things we have done is ask our local citizens, to ask the average person to do what they can to avoid a terrorist attack. We have asked them, for instance, there are signs at trains and subways and means of transportation all over the country which say, if you see something, say something.

Yet we saw the incident this past November in Minnesota where passengers on a US Airways flight reported what they saw as suspicious activity. That resulted in six imams being removed from the plane. Now, that is a matter that is going to be in litigation between US Airways and those six imams.

But what is absolutely disgraceful is to find out that lawyers are coming forward and advocacy groups are coming forward to represent those imams and suing, attempting to find the identity of those passengers, those citizens who acted in good faith, who responded to their government and reported what they deemed to be suspicious activity.

Madam Speaker, that is absolutely disgraceful. What this motion to recommit would do would be to provide immunity for any citizen, any individual that comes forward and reports suspicious activity in good faith. If they do, they will be indemnified. This is the very least we can do, to stand by good people who come forward and report suspicious activity.

I mean, just think if we had citizens who had seen what was happening on September 11, who saw people sitting not in their assigned seats, who had seen them being disruptive, who had seen them asking for extended seatbelts when they didn't need them and yet, somehow, those people didn't come forward because they were afraid of being sued.

If we are going to be serious, as a Nation, about fighting Islamic terrorism, then we have to stand by our people who come forward and report suspicious activity. So I think it is absolutely essential that this motion to recommit be passed. I can't imagine anyone being opposed to it.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) who has been a true leader on this issue.

Will the gentleman yield?

November 20 was the date of the incident in Minnesota where the passengers on the plane reported suspicious activity to the pilots and to the flight attendants.

If the gentleman will yield, a lawsuit is being commenced and John Does are being named in the complaints, the John Does for the purpose of finding out the identity of those passengers, those good-faith passengers who came forward to report the suspicious activity to make them defendants in the case.

This motion is only dealing with civil cases, which is why they would also be indemnified for their reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 884) to provide for the establishment of the Science and Technology Homeland Security International Cooperative Programs Office, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation, and insert extraneous material on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me thank the gentleman from Mississippi, Chairman Thompson, for his cooperation, not just in the previous Congress on putting this legislation together, but also today in his generosity in allowing me to go forward on it. To me, this is typical and symbolic of the bipartisanship which he has brought to the committee both as ranking member and now as chairman. I thank him for that. And more than his personal kindness and generosity, let me also say that it is so vitally important that on issues such as this that there be bipartisan cooperation working across the aisle because all of our lives changed on September 11. All of us realized we had to change the way we did business, whether it was creating the Department of Homeland Security, whether it was creating the law enforcement agencies at all levels of government to cooperate, whether it meant adopting specific legislation on chemical plants or port security, or any of the other areas included within the umbrella of Homeland Security.

But it also requires us to establish firmer relationships with our allies, finding areas of common ground among us and our allies, and that is what H.R. 884 will do. H.R. 884 is the Promoting Antiterrorism Cooperation through Technology and Science Act, PACTS.

It is an effort by us to have our Department of Homeland Security and our government work with our allies and friends around the world to find common ways to confront terrorism, to use technology to confront terrorism, and it does that initially by establishing the International Cooperation Programs Office within the Science and Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security.

It also authorizes $25 million a year in fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. So $25 million for each of the next four fiscal years. It specifies by name Great Britain, Singapore, Israel, Canada, and Australia as countries that we should especially work more closely with to exchange technology and research, and to work together on a common effort at the government level, at the university level, private foundations, to put aside any technical differences that may separate us, to try to work through any legal impediments there may be to the type of cooperation that we believe is absolutely essential.

This legislation did pass our committee in the last Congress and passed the House. Unfortunately, it was blocked in the Senate. We certainly hope that under the leadership of Chairman Thompson it will again pass the House this year, and hopefully the Senate will do the right thing this year and we can get this legislation to the President's desk.

The war on terrorism will involve many of us for many years. The more allies and partners and friends we can have working with us, the more we can share our expertise and technology that make us stronger and make the enemy weaker.

I urge the adoption of H.R. 884 and thank the gentleman from Mississippi for his cooperation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, first let me tell the gentleman from New Jersey that we miss him on the committee. We miss his charm and his insights and his lively personality and his dedication.

With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, let me again thank Chairman Thompson for his efforts and his cooperation and for his generosity as far as moving this bill forward, and I, again, thank him for that. I think it speaks volumes as to the quality of leadership that he has brought to the committee.

I would also be remiss if I did not thank staff on our side, Dr. Diane Berry, Colleen O'Keefe and Adam Paulson for their work in bringing this together, and again, bring it to fruition today.

Also, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing today is really a very important continuation of what our governments and other governments have been trying to do. Just several weeks ago, the Secretary of Homeland Security signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Israel's minister of public security, again pledging cooperation. This is codifying that and making clear we want to do more; we want to keep going forward on that.

Again, I thank the chairman for his support and his cooperation, and I urge the adoption of H.R. 884.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. Speaker, can you advise us as to how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 5 minutes to the good gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has made 15 visits to Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to work with the Speaker on this, and I recognize the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) for 8 minutes.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this resolution and in strong support of our troops and their mission.

This resolution is wrong in every respect. It is wrong constitutionally. Never before in our history has Congress attempted to control or restrict battlefield decisions. It is wrong as a matter of policy, and it will come back to haunt us for years to come.

Madam Speaker, wars must not be waged according to opinion polls or applause meters. For instance, just look at the battle of Iwo Jima, an island in the Pacific where in less than 6 weeks, more than twice as many Americans were killed as have been killed throughout the entire Iraq war, and yet Congress didn't jump in to question the policies of the President.

And look at the Korean War. There was no declaration of war. The United States and the overwhelming majority of coalition troops in the field, 36,000 Americans were killed and another 8,000 were missing. More than 70 percent of the American people opposed President Truman and his handling of the war. Yet today, President Truman is honored as one of our greatest Presidents, and the Korean War is looked upon as a key turning point in our struggle against communism.

Madam Speaker, Iraq cannot be looked upon or looked at in a vacuum. This war in Iraq is an absolutely essential component of the war against Islamic terrorism which must be fought in many places throughout the world, including right here at home.

As a Member of Congress who lost upwards of 150 friends, neighbors, and constituents on September 11, 2001, I have seen firsthand how evil this enemy can be. And al Qaeda itself has said that Iraq is a major battleground in this war.

Madam Speaker, we cannot allow ourselves to do anything which would undermine our troops who are the frontline soldiers in this war against Islamic terrorism.

I know that the resolution expresses support for the troops, but talk is cheap and actions have consequences. You cannot support the troops if you are undermining their mission and challenging their commander in the field. And that is what this resolution does.

Speaker after speaker in support of the resolution has said that the new policy in Iraq will not work. But General Petraeus, who is the author of this policy and who has just been unanimously confirmed by the Senate, has said this policy can work and that his troops can carry it out. By opposing this new policy, the supporters of the resolution are clearly undermining a new commander in Iraq at such a vital time in the conduct of this war.

As the national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars said earlier this week, ``When military decisions are second-guessed by opinion polls or overruled by politicians, it is the common soldier and their families who pay the price. The VFW is very concerned with the tone and timing of this debate. We need to send the message to our troops that America wants them to succeed in Iraq by giving the buildup a chance to succeed.''

Madam Speaker, what makes this worse is that we know today's resolution is only the first step to prevent General Petraeus and his troops from carrying out their mission. The Democratic leadership has admitted, indeed proudly acknowledged, that it is their goal to impose as many conditions as they can to prevent General Petraeus from getting the troops and the reinforcements he needs to win this war.

Madam Speaker, never in our history have the Speaker of the House or the House Appropriations Committee attempted to superimpose their policies on troop training or troop leave, and override the Commander in Chief and the commander in the field.

Madam Speaker, this is not the time for sunshine soldiers or summertime patriots. It is time for Members of this body to show at least a small percentage of the courage shown every day by our troops in Iraq.

If you want to cut off the funding for our troops who will be in the line of fire, don't be cute, don't try to sneak it through the back door. Have the guts to do it directly.

Madam Speaker, this debate is not about this President or this Congress or the next election. It is about our survival as a Nation and our survival as a civilization. Vote for our troops and against this misguided and dangerous resolution.

I thank the Speaker for his recognition and for his usual courtesy.

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

I rise today in opposition to the resolution. I have listened as carefully as I can for the past day and a half of debate, and it becomes clearer and clearer to me that those who were supporting this resolution, for whatever reason, are unwilling to accept the consequences of the words of this resolution, unwilling to accept the consequences of what could happen by the adoption of this resolution.

Yes, the resolution is meaningless. Yes, the resolution has no legal impact, but it does send a terrible message. It sends a terrible message to the world that the United States is losing a sense of resolution, if you will. It also sends a very cruel message, I believe, to the troops in the field, because while the resolution goes out of the way to say it supports the troops, at the very same time it is necessarily undermining the newly appointed commander of those troops. We hear from speaker after speaker who was speaking in support of the resolution that this is more of the same staying the course, this is a policy that cannot work.

But yet the newly designated commander, General Petraeus, who was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate, is one of the architects of this policy. General Petraeus has stated that this policy can work, that he believes it will work.

Those of us who have been to Iraq and seen the outstanding work that General Petraeus has done, the 101st Airborne, we realize how committed he is. To me it sends such a mixed message to, on the one hand, have him unanimously confirmed as the new commander in the field, and yet at the same time to be attacking his credibility or his competency.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say he is the best man for the job, we have faith in him, and yet say the policy is wrong and it cannot work, and he says it will work and he is the architect of that policy. Think of the message we are sending to the troops. Think of the message we are sending to our allies in our region. Probably most importantly, think of the message we are sending to the enemy of the region.

I just heard the previous gentleman say that those of us who oppose the resolution want to stay the course. I would say that those who are supporting the resolution are the ones who want to stay the course. This is a significant new policy. General Petraeus has said it is a new policy, and it is a new policy.

The gentleman also said that we don't really have to worry about Iraq becoming a haven for terrorists because terrorists can attack us anywhere. He basically said you can do it from an apartment in Hamburg.

I would suggest that if the proponents of the resolution cannot appreciate the distinction between a hotel room in Hamburg and a sovereign state such as Iraq being occupied by terrorists, then they don't realize the impact that Afghanistan had, the fact that the Taliban allowed al Qaeda to have a sanctuary in Afghanistan, how it gave them a strong base of operations to carry out and plot the attacks of September 11.

Now, truly there are terrorists everywhere, Islamist terrorists throughout the world. They are certainly throughout the Middle East, the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, they are here in the United States, we know that, in Canada. But the fact is you try to take as many sanctuaries away from them if possible.

Iraq, if we did leave Iraq, and that, I believe, has to be the necessary outcome, the only logical conclusion of where this resolution will ultimately lead us, then we have a situation where we are talking about confronting Iran. Well, the Shiites in Iran will certainly have enormous influence in Iraq. Al Qaeda will have a sanctuary among the Sunnis in Iraq, and then we will have the situation in the north between the Kurds and the Turks. So the fact is no one more than those of us who oppose the resolution realize this is not the only battlefield, but it is a main battlefield.

Certainly al Qaeda believes it is important. That is why we have al Qaeda in Iraq. That is why al Qaeda has been carrying out attacks, that is why al Qaeda was there. That is why we are engaging in Anbar province. By the way, of the 21,000 additional troops, at least 4,000 will be directly confronting al Qaeda in Anbar province.

These are all the issues I feel have not been in any way adequately or sufficiently addressed by the supporters of the resolution. Again, at a time when we have General Petraeus embarking on what I believe is a key turning point in the war, it is really irresponsible to even be considering voting for this resolution.

Now, another point, I know many speakers on my side want to be heard during the time that I will be controlling, but we, I think, have to address the issue of should Congress be getting involved in making strategic battlefield decisions.

I have researched this. I have not found one instance during the history of our country where the United States Congress has injected itself into battlefield decisions.

I was just thinking suppose we did this during World War II, and we had this situation with a small island in the Pacific, Iwo Jima, where almost 7,000 people were killed in less than 6 weeks, almost 26,000 casualties. If we had 24-hour cable news, if we had a sense of disunity in the country, we would be bringing a resolution in the second or third week of the battle saying we already lost 2, 3, 4,000 troops, this one island, how can we have 10 to 15,000 casualties just in the first 2, 3 weeks.

But the fact is we have allowed the President, as Commander in Chief, and that is his constitutional responsibility. We voted for the war in the House. We voted for the war in the Senate. Once we do that, the Commander in Chief, I believe, strongly believe, has the constitutional authority and the right to be deciding exactly the tactical and strategic decisions.

If the Members of Congress want to cut off funding for the war, the fact is some of them may, then the fact is they should say that, not be coming in through the backdoor.

So I would urge my colleagues to realize the consequences of their action. You know, I spoke on the House floor yesterday, and after I was finished the speaker who followed me said I wish that the opponents of the resolution would just stick to the resolution itself.

I am more than willing to debate the resolution. I believe I have. The fact is I can see why they don't want to look at the consequences beyond the narrow language of that resolution, because it will have horrific consequences for the United States. Actions have consequences, words have consequences, and the words of this resolution will have terrible consequences for the United States, terrible consequences for all of us who oppose Islamic terrorism, and terrible consequences for our allies in the region and with whom we need support in the future.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), who is a member of the Armed Services Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.

Madam Speaker, I would remind the supporters of the resolution that more than 70 percent of the American people, in opinion polls, opposed President Truman's policy in Korea, and that was one of the turning points in the Cold War.

Madam Speaker, I yield 6\1/6\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), who is a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I remind supporters of the resolution that the newly confirmed commander in Iraq says this is new strategy and it will work, and he is the expert on counterinsurgency.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Madam Speaker, I certainly acknowledge the passion of the former speaker on the floor.

I would just say, though, that all of us have suffered casualties and deaths in our districts. Certainly a gentleman from my former district was killed last week. He was a graduate of Duke University. He was offered scholarships to law school. He was an All American lacrosse player, volunteered to serve in the Army, was in his third tour. His family more than ever supports the effort in Iraq, and you can find families on all sides.

I think it is wrong to somehow suggest that those who died, somehow the families want us to vote for this resolution or against it. We can find sufficient numbers on both sides. Certainly in my experience, most of those would oppose the resolution. I certainly would not impose that on anyone else.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), a distinguished member from the Armed Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I would suggest to the gentleman, while he believes this plan has no chance of working and it is the same as previous plans, the fact is the newly confirmed general in Iraq, General Petraeus, who is by all accounts the most significant general we have had in Iraq, who is the author of the counterinsurgency policy, said it is a significant change and it will work. That is why I would say that while the resolution says it supports the troops, you are in effect undermining the new commander by challenging either his credibility or his competency. And that is a terrible message to the troops.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Reclaiming my time, I never suggested unpatriotic. I said you are questioning the competency or credibility of the commander in Iraq, who was just confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate.

Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Madam Speaker, I would just advise the supporters of the resolution that while Mr. Clay and others did oppose the war, and I certainly commend them for their consistency, the fact is the Democratic leader at the time and many of the Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate strongly supported the war resolution in October of 2002, both in the House and the Senate.

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Reclaiming my time, both former President Clinton and others have said that he saw the same intelligence as President Bush did.

With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis), a newly elected Member.

Madam Speaker, various supporters of the resolution can point to this general or that general. I would point to the general who was most recently confirmed and unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate, who is the author of this plan. I will stand by him.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the lives of our troops are in the hands of General Petraeus, and his credibility is undermined by this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

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

Madam Speaker, I would say to my good friend from American Samoa that one of the reasons why I do refer to General Petraeus is he is one of those who put this plan together and he says it will work, and for people to belittle his plan or to ridicule it or to adopt for the first time in history a resolution attacking his strategic plan is an attack on either his credibility or his competency. You can't have it both ways.

Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has been to Iraq 15 times.

Madam Speaker, again I would suggest to these supporters of the resolution that the President's key advisers, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace, and the new commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, strongly support this increase in troops.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to note that the Iraq Study Group specifically said the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops embedded in and supporting Iraqi units.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my good friend from New York, the message this resolution sends to the troops in the field is that the resolution challenges and opposes the mission that their group commander is asking them to carry out, and to me that has to undermine their morale.

I will yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, the reason I am saying that is, you are opposing the 21,000 troop increase, and that is the policy of General Petraeus, who is the new commander in the field. That is the policy he is asking his troops to carry out, and you are opposing the very policy the new commander says can work and will work.

With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I would say to supporters of the resolution that General Petraeus himself, in answer to a question from Senator Lieberman, he said that resolutions such as this will affect the morale of the troops that he has been asked to lead in battle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just comment on the remarks of my good friend, the gentleman from Kansas, as to troops that he has heard from. I know I have visited Iraq a number of times. I visit Reserves, National Guard, regular troops, active duty, and I have never seen morale higher in any Armed Forces.

I speak with troops when they come home to my district. I go to the wakes and funerals of those who die from my district. And I think we can pick and choose as to what we say. I would say the overwhelming majority I have spoken to do support and know exactly why they are there.

But again, I just lost a constituent the other day. His family certainly is honored by his service. It was his third tour. He went back for a third tour. So he certainly understood what was going on.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee, a member of the Homeland Security Committee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I was remiss before in not commending the gentleman from New Jersey on his knowledge of logic and philosophy. I should have known he would get us on that one.

With that, I also note that the Iraq Study Group said that the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana, a member of the Homeland Security Committee (Mr. Souder).

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate, which as my friend from New York (Mr. Rangel) said, isn't this a historic debate? It is part of our job. It is our obligation. It is a legal obligation; it is a moral obligation to be heard on this most pressing issue of our time.

I would also add at the outset, when we have talked about those who died in Iraq, and all of us go to the wakes of those who were killed in our district. Just the other day, if we are talking about the quality of the type of person, where they come from and who was killed in Iraq, there was a young man who was actually in what used to be the heart of my district, very affluent area, Manhasset. He was a graduate of Duke University, all-American Lacrosse player, was offered a scholarship to law school, but he turned it down to go in as an enlisted man, as an Army Ranger.

He served two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he was killed on his third tour of Iraq. His family was proud of what he did, what he accomplished, what he stood for. I think it doesn't really add to the level of debate to somehow be suggesting that those who go to Iraq because they cannot be anywhere else or somehow it is all driven by economic need, he was a young man with everything in front of him.

He had all the opportunity in the world, and he went, and he joined the Army, went in as an enlisted man, died as a sergeant, and he was on his third tour in Iraq. So I think it is important to put that in the Record. Also, I know there are any number of Members in this body who have had members of their families serving in Iraq.

I think if we are going to talk about the gentleman from New York who wants to bring back the draft, we can have that in a separate debate. But I don't think it should be part of this debate.

Now, when this debate was actually scheduled, I actually thought it would

serve a constructive purpose. But as I look at the resolutions being offered, if I could really, I guess, quote from Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, rather than a resolution, it is really a resolution of irresolution.

It is inherently contradictory, because it pledges support to the troops but also at the same time washes its hands of what the troops are attempting to do. I have heard speaker after speaker get up here today and say the new policy cannot work. The new policy is more of the same. This is the President's policy. He hasn't gotten the message from the American people.

Well the fact is, this policy is strongly supported by the new commander in Iraq, General Petraeus. As was pointed out, the Senate unanimously approved the appointment of General Petraeus by a vote of 81-0. Now, for people to come here today and say this is an inherently flawed policy, this is a policy that cannot work, this is a policy that is doomed to failure, to me, after General Petraeus has said that he believes the policy can work, that he supports the policy, is to attack directly either the credibility or the competency of General Petraeus, and that is a terrible message to be sending to our troops.

Actions do have consequences. I don't doubt the good faith of anyone on either side of the aisle when it comes to supporting the troops. The fact is, often you have to think beyond what the actual words are saying and realize the consequences those words have. For instance, my good friend, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who I have actually traveled to Iraq with in 2003, where we met with General Petraeus and others in Mosul and with others and troops in Baghdad, he said that Iraq is a mess, and we have to end the nightmare.

Does anyone really think by Americans pulling out the nightmare is going to end, that the Middle East will become stable if we leave? Certainly al Qaeda doesn't believe that. Certainly the mullahs in Iran don't believe that. And also our allies don't believe that.

Again, what are the consequences of our actions? Are we saying just draw down for the sake of drawing down? I heard the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives say our goal is to get our troops home.

Well, I would say our goal should be to have our troops come home after we have achieved a goal, a goal of at least a stable Iraq, an Iraq which is able to protect its borders against Iran, and an Iraq which is able to prevent al Qaeda from setting up a privileged sanctuary in Iraq, and an Iraq which is able to create a situation in the north where the Kurds and the Turks are not fighting with one another.

So these are all serious issues that have to be addressed. I regret to say this resolution does not address it in any way. If anything, it is a serious step backward.

Now, also we have heard that we have to listen to the polls. We have to listen to what public opinion has to be at any particular time. Well, if anyone wants to go back and look at the polls, in 1952, President Truman's popularity rating was 22 percent. War in Korea was amazingly unpopular, and yet today he is acknowledged as one of our greatest Presidents, and the war in Korea is looked upon as an absolutely indispensable step in the defeat of communism, because they drew the line in Asia at the 38th parallel.

I know my good friend Mr. Rangel served in Korea, he was wounded in Korea, and he performed valiantly in Korea. That war now is looked upon as one of the linchpins of the Cold War strategy, which, again, brought down the Communist menace.

Also I tried to research this. I am not aware of any time in the entire history of our country where the United States Congress has adopted a resolution questioning a particular battlefield strategy.

Like him or not, and I certainly support him, but the President is our Commander in Chief. I said the same thing when President Clinton was our Commander in Chief, and I was serving in this body at that time when there was tremendous criticism directed at him.

But the fact is, the President, no matter where he or she happens to be from, is the Commander in Chief. And we are at war. It was a war that was authorized by this Congress. And we should not be, I do not believe, setting the precedent of adopting resolutions questioning specific strategies.

Should we have adopted a resolution in the winter of 1944, 1945, questioning President Roosevelt's strategy in allowing the intelligence failures that brought about the Battle of the Bulge? We can go step by step. Certainly President Lincoln, during the Civil War when strategies were changed throughout the war and finally resulted in a victory.

Also we have to realize that the war in Iraq is part of an overall war against Islamic terrorism. As the former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, as ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, certainly we see that this is an enemy which is overseas and it is here. It is an enemy which is plotting every day to find ways to attack us.

I know later the distinguished ranking member of the Intelligence Committee will also speak to this part of the issue. But the fact is, we do not live in vacuums. We cannot isolate battlefields and silos and say this is Iraq, this is Afghanistan, and this is the Twin Towers.

The fact is, we are talking about actions having consequences. And I have been very critical of the Republican Party for 1983 when I believe we precipitously withdrew from Beirut. That had consequences. I was in this body when we precipitously withdrew from Somalia. I was also in this body when the Twin Towers were attacked the first time in 1993 and we took no action, or Khobar Towers when a constituent of mine was killed in 1996. We took no action.

The USS Cole in 2000 when we took no action. In 1998 the attacks on the African embassies, where we took very limited action. All of those had consequences. In fact, now we see after September 11, 2001, we find the historical record where Osama bin Laden said that when we saw that the United States was willing to withdraw from Somalia, how that emboldened Islamic terrorists throughout the world, how that showed them that we did not have the staying power, we did not have the guts to stick it out.

Listen, those who are really putting it on the line, those who have the guts are the men and women of the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. But also we as elected officials have to show some courage and not just give in to the zeitgeists, not just give in to the latest public opinion poll or to the latest election, because quite frankly we were not elected to win elections; we were elected to show leadership and to do what has to be done.

When future generations look back at this, will they really say that we helped the struggle against Islamic terrorism by pulling out of Iraq, by not continuing that fight? Does anyone really think that that will not embolden al Qaeda, that that will not embolden Iran? Can anyone honestly say that?

And so I believe that what disappoints me about this debate and this resolution is we are treating Iraq almost like it is a pinpoint. It is one issue standing by itself, and it is not. It is part of a mosaic; it is part of a worldwide struggle. As someone who lost more than 100 friends, neighbors, constituents on September 11, I have seen firsthand the evils of Islamic terrorism.

As ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee, I know how there are forces in this country who would take action against us. I know the connections between forces in this country and forces overseas. It is no secret. It should not cause us any confusion as to why al Qaeda wants us to lose in Iraq.

It should not cause us any confusion as to why al Qaeda encourages the enemy against us in Iraq, and in fact has al Qaeda in Iraq itself fighting against us.

So now we come to the question of, with our troops committed there, with this being an absolutely essential part of the war against terrorism, what do we do? I agree that there is a consensus that the current policy has not been successful. There have been successes, but the policy itself has not been fully successful.

That is true in almost every war in which America has been engaged. It was certainly true during World War II, it was certainly true during Korea, and even take a war like Kosovo, which is

probably almost as antiseptic as a war could be, even though every war when anyone's life is on the line is brutal and deadly.

But from a strategic point of view, we are talking about it should have been a simple war. We ended up bombing a Chinese embassy in Belgrade. So, I mean, mistakes are made. And for us to say because mistakes are made we should redeploy our troops, which really is a euphemism for withdrawal.

We are sending signals to the world. We are sending signals to our troops, we are sending signals to our allies, we are sending signals to our enemies. On the one hand if we are unanimously confirming General Petraeus who supports this policy, and on the other hand we are saying we know the policy cannot work and we are actually going for the first time in American history going on record opposing a particular strategic policy, then I would say, where are we getting this from?

People say that this is just the same policy as we have had all along. General Petraeus says it is not. And I do not believe it is. Can I guarantee the new policy will work? No, I cannot. But I have met with generals, I have met with military experts, and they give good reasons why it can work. And there are people of very good faith on the other side who say it will not work.

But as I look at this, our commander, who is looked upon as the expert in counterinsurgency, who is the general who has certainly achieved the most in Iraq, and anyone who has been to Mosul knows the job that he achieved there, if he says this policy should work, and can work, then I believe we have the moral obligation, we have the legal obligation, and we have the obligation to history and for our children and grandchildren that we not undercut General Petraeus, that we not tell our troops we do not have faith in their ability to carry out the mission which General Petraeus says can be carried out, and we do not embolden our enemies by saying just wait this out a few months, wait it out a few months and you will get it, wait us out a few months and we will pull out like we did in Beirut or Somalia.

We cannot allow that message to be sent. The burden is on us. And if we fail in this mission, and the mission I believe of standing with our troops, standing with our commander in the field, and standing with the policy that the overwhelming majority of Congress voted for in 2003, and also the pledge that all of us made on September 11, 2001, then we will have failed in our obligations as Members of the United States Congress and failed in our obligation to our oath of office to do what has to be done, which should be done, which is essential if we are going to win the war against Islamic terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Mississippi as to how many speakers he has?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset of the debate, I commend the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) on his elevation to the position of chairman. He is an outstanding Member of this House, and I look forward to working with him in a bipartisan manner throughout the next 2 years.

I must say, however, that I am deeply disappointed in the manner in which this bill was brought to the floor today and, indeed, with many of the provisions that are in this bill. I say that as someone who lost more than 150 friends, neighbors and constituents on September 11th, who has a number of staff members working for me who lost relatives on September 11th, so no issue is more important to me than getting homeland security right and making it work.

But during the previous 2 years, certainly during the 15 months that I was chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, it was bipartisan. Every bill that came to the floor went through subcommittee and went through the full committee. Port security legislation, FEMA restructuring, chemical plant security bill, all went through the subcommittee, full committee and were adopted by this House and were signed into law.

In addition to that, we had the risk-based funding bill which went through the committee and again passed on the House floor. It was blocked in the Senate. But the fact is, we got results, and we got them in a bipartisan basis. No bill came to the floor without full bipartisan cooperation from day one.

Now, unfortunately, for whatever reason, as part of the 100 hours show, the leadership refuses to allow any bipartisan input, no committee involvement at all, no subcommittee involvement and no amendments. And in doing that, it is not just a shot at us. We can survive that. We will be back in 2 years. But what I am concerned about is, what this does for the next 2 years and what it does to the Homeland Security Committee, because the 9/11 Commission specifically stated that a committee should be given primary jurisdiction. That should be the Homeland Security Committee.

The Democrats could have taken care of that in their rules package. They refused to do it. So the most important recommendation of the 9/11 Commission is not being enacted today. It is not being done at all. In fact, they are weakening the committee by bypassing the committee process.

I will use as one example what happens when a bill is rushed to the floor without the proper deliberative process. We talk about 100 percent scanning of all cargo coming into our ports. The fact is in the port security bill, which passed the House, passed the Senate and was enacted into law, we set up pilot projects around the world to find a scanning process that works.

The fact is there is no current technology that works at 100 percent. We don't have it. We want to find what works the best. Nowhere in the 9/11 Commission report do they call for 100 percent scanning. All of us want to have it. The fact is we are not going to be able to scan 11 million containers coming into our shores.

Now, last year when this was first raised by the Democratic Party, the Washington Post said it is a terrible idea. It is a slogan, not a solution. We hope lawmakers resist the temptation to use it in the election season to come.

Now, the Washington Post is not exactly an advocate of the Republican Party. Today in their editorial, they talk about what a tough job it is to bring about homeland security. They say it will not be done by wasting money on the kind of political shenanigans written into the sprawling Democratic bill introduced on the House floor today.

The Democrats don't offer a realistic cost estimate for the mandate they will propose, but the cost to the government and the economy is sure to be in the tens of billions of dollars and quite possibly hundreds of billions annually.

Luckily, the Senate will give more thought to its homeland security bill, the Washington Post says, but House Democrats can figure those odds as well as anyone, but why not score some easy political points in your first 100 hours.

Well, the fact is you shouldn't be scoring political points on the issue of homeland security. That is too important an issue to be trivialized the way you are doing it here today. Now I will, in the end, I will vote for this bill despite its faults, because I want to send a bipartisan message that the House stands behind homeland security.

But I will hope that in the future, we will have a Homeland Security Committee which is empowered the way it should be by the Democratic leadership, that a Homeland Security Committee, which I know the chairman wants to do, will work in a bipartisan way so we can address the scourge of Islamic terrorism as Republicans and Democrats and Americans and not having something rammed through to score cheap political points in the 100-hour circus.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to E. Ronald Durand, Jr., a longtime friend and true patriot who passed away on September 20, 2006.

I first met Ron Durand in the late 1960s when we were both students at the University of Notre Dame Law School. Ron had entered law school after serving 6 years in the United States Marine Corps. Rising to the rank of captain, Ron's service included a tour of duty as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam, where he was highly decorated and flew many rescue missions.

During our time together in law school Ron was a true leader--soft- spoken but strong. He and his wife Liz were close friends to me and my wife Rosemary and we remained in contact in the years that followed. During his professional career, Ron achieved much as an entrepreneur and as an airport executive. He was a true renaissance man.

With all his varied accomplishments, Ron Durand was first and foremost a true American patriot, exemplified by his heroic service in Vietnam. Ron's love of country, however, went beyond his military duty. He truly cared about our country and always maintained an acute and detailed knowledge, awareness and interest in national and international matters.

Ron Durand was admired, respected and loved by all who had the privilege of knowing him. It is fitting and appropriate that he will be interred at Arlington National Cemetery with military honors on November 22. No one is more deserving.

May he rest in peace. Go Irish.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. KING of New York: Committee on Homeland Security. H.R.

5814. A bill to authorize appropriations for the Department

of Homeland Security, and for other purposes, with an

amendment; referred to the Committees on Ways and Means, and

Energy and Commerce for a period ending not later than

November 17, 2006, for considerations of such provisions of

the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdication of

those committees pursuant to clause 1(t), rule X and clause

1(f), rule X, respectively (Rept. 109-713, Pt. 1). Ordered to

be printed

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 236, a resolution expressing Congressional support for a free trade agreement between the United States and Taiwan. As a cosponsor of this resolution, I join with over 65 of my colleagues in urging the Administration to begin these negotiations.

For more than 50 years, the U.S. and Taiwan have shared a close economic and security relationship resulting in more than 140 bilateral agreements. In 2005, trade between these countries totaled $56.9 billion as Taiwan became the 8th leading trading partner of the U.S. while the U.S. was Taiwan's 3rd leading trading partner. The Bush Administration has shown its commitment to expanding free trade in the region by signing FTAs with Singapore and launching negotiations with Korea and Malaysia recently. Now it is time to start discussions with Taiwan on a FTA that will further strengthen this relationship.

A 2002 report issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission found various sectors of the U.S. economy would increase significantly if the U.S. entered in to a FTA with Taiwan. While both the U.S. and Taiwan would benefit greatly from the elimination of trade and investment barriers, New York State stands to gain as well. Some of the largest U.S. companies whose headquarters are based in New York have invested in Taiwan. And over 300 Taiwanese companies specializing in computers, finance, and jewelry have invested in New York. In 2005 New York State exported over $1 billion worth of products to Taiwan. The reduction of these tariffs will certainly increase exports to Taiwan and create more jobs in New York. Finally, this FTA will allow New York companies to use Taiwan as a gateway for selling its products to China and the entire Asia-Pacific region.

A FTA between the U.S. and Taiwan has already been endorsed by 23 state legislatures. This important agreement will expand and greatly enhance the already close relationship between the U.S. and Taiwan.

Mr. Speaker, given these facts, I believe now is the time to begin negotiations on a free trade agreement between the United States and Taiwan.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with Chairman Rogers and Chairman Sensenbrenner. I would like to address the meaning of section 546 of the fiscal year 2007 Department of Homeland Security appropriations conference report regarding the Western Hemisphere Traveling Initiative, also known as WHTI.

I would like to establish the fact that the language proposed in the conference report does not require a delay in implementation; in fact, the date change does not prohibit the administration from complying with its original deadline of January 1, 2008.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Let me at the outset thank Chairman Rogers for the extraordinary work he has done and the extraordinary cooperation he has exhibited toward the Homeland Security Committee.

There are two key components of this appropriations bill which are in fact legislation passed by our committee and which Mr. Rogers has so generously moved forward for us: certainly FEMA reform, and chemical plant security.

On the issue of FEMA reform, let me also commend Chairman Reichert for the extraordinary work he did at the subcommittee and committee level; and on the chemical plant security legislation, let me commend Chairman Lungren for his work.

As someone coming from New York, let me point out the fact that this legislation includes a $30 million increase for the Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI, a grant program particularly important for the New York City and the metropolitan area.

On FEMA reform, this is real reform. This gives FEMA the leverage and the

power and the autonomy it needs within the overall perspective of homeland security.

As far as chemical plant security, this is extraordinary legislation because for the first time it gives the Department of Homeland Security rulemaking power over the chemical plant industry.

I could go on for great length about this legislation, but I would like to yield to Sheriff Reichert.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding, and we had the opinion of committee counsel on this, that it does not preempt States.

That is not the intention.

Mr. Speaker, let me just commend the gentleman for his many years of service to this House and wish him the very best in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1064, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4954) to improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act.

This is a night of a true success in the area of homeland security and port security. This is an issue which the country was focused on earlier this year with the whole Dubai Ports issue. It is an issue which the Homeland Security Committee addressed head on. We passed the bill out of committee. It passed the full House floor by a vote of 421- 2; and now we are here tonight, Mr. Speaker, for final passage.

Let me at the outset commend the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, for the tremendous cooperation that he gave throughout the committee process on this bill; Subcommittee Chairman Lungren on our side for his work, the leadership he demonstrated; and also Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Harman. This was definitely and truly a bipartisan effort, and we are here tonight because both parties came together, we worked together, we realized the importance of this. We realized that homeland security should not be a partisan issue.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go on at great length, but I will give just some of the highlights of the bill. It provides $400 million a year in dedicated port security grant programs, three pilot programs for 100 percent screening for nuclear and radiological material. It enhances the Container Security Initiative, CSI. It codifies and strengthens CTPAT. It also establishes the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. It also sets deadlines for TWIC.

Mr. Speaker, this is legislation which encompasses so much of the issues that we have to address with port security. It is legislation whose time has come. It is legislation which makes our country safer or makes our ports more secure. It will enable the commerce of the country to go forward. And it is a bill which distinctly addresses the concerns raised by the American people.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just note that I was listening very carefully to the gentleman's remarks, and I really heard nothing at all critical of the port security bill. We are talking about other bills that maybe should be covered or other items. The fact is, on the issue of port security, this is the port security bill. It did receive wide bipartisan support. And I think, rather than go on extraneous issues and talking and talking about fences, we are talking about port security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the prime sponsor of the port security bill, the gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).

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

Could I inquire of the gentleman from Mississippi how many speakers he has remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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

Let me first of all thank the gentleman from Michigan for his undying affection that he shows for me so often, especially tonight. It really warms my heart, and I want to thank him especially for it.

I would, however, just like to touch on a few things. First of all, this is the SAFE Port Act. I have listened as carefully as I possibly can. I have listened; I have asked Mr. Lungren to listen; I have asked staff to listen. I have not heard even one remote criticism of the port security aspects of this bill. This is a port security bill. We had staff negotiations going on day after day after day.

Now, the gentleman from Michigan raised the question of last night. Let us explain this right now. It was explained before. We will try again.

The fact is last night there was no legislative text incorporating the staff recommendations. The Senate assured us they would provide it. The Senate did not have it last night. The Senate refused to provide it. The first we saw it was 3 o'clock this afternoon. What is going on in the Senate is up to them, but that is where the final text was.

Now, if the gentleman is saying that when they came back in at 3 o'clock this afternoon, rather than take advantage of a bill which has been worked on for 6 months, which has gone through subcommittee, which has gone through committee and which has gone through the House floor, which was worked out so carefully with Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman and Senator Murray, which had strong bipartisan support, that because of the fact that the Senate language was not over here in time for the gentleman from Michigan, that we should put that aside, and taking the risk of not taking advantage of this moment, of not seizing the moment and passing this historic legislation to save our Nation, I have heard of people who cannot take ``yes'' for an answer.

We said last March, let us put together a port security bill. We did it. We put together a good bill and all we get tonight is begrudgery. Well, it is good, it is this, it is that, but it is not good enough because it does not cover rail, it does not cover transit or it does not cover this. Also, as the gentleman from California reminded me, it does not contain the cure for cancer either.

But the fact is it is a very good port security bill. As the gentlewoman from California said, it is the real deal. If you want to turn your back on the real deal, if you want to vote and say I really wanted something else, this is not good enough for me, the real deal should be good enough for me.

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

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

The Speaker pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Mississippi has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I would add that, again, I have been listening and listening, and there is no criticism at all of the port security. And again, rather than to take yes for an answer, we are talking about going around our committee process. The fact is, one of the reasons this bill is so good is because it was at the subcommittee level, the committee level, and then it went to the floor.

This was a long process on the port security aspect of it. Rather than just accept something coming over from the Senate at the last minute, I have enough respect for the integrity of the process of our committee that I want to replicate that when we are dealing with transit and when we are dealing with rail and working, of course, with Mr. Young. I don't want to get him nervous while he is sitting here. But it is essential that we do do it in a deliberative process.

Again, it is beyond me why, after a 6-month process where there was such bipartisanship, such working together, both here and in the Senate, that the begrudgers of the world have arrived on

the floor tonight and all they can say is there is something here that is good, though they are afraid to acknowledge it, and then they talk about something which was never part of our bill to begin with.

We dedicated ourselves to port security, and we got it done. We should be proud of that. And, again, there is a special place in life for begrudgers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his kind remarks about the bill, and I especially want to tell him how much it means to me that he commented on my great Irish singing voice as I was delivering my oration tonight. So, Mr. Pascrell, you are a man of great ethnic perspicacity and my admiration for you is unbounded.

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

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

Mr. Speaker will the gentlewoman yield?

First of all, I am not responsible for the germaneness rules in the Senate. Secondly, this is the bill that came back to us from the Senate.

I would just add, if the gentlewoman will yield, this is the bill that came back to us from the Senate, and I would remind the gentlewoman that unlike the transit and rail provisions, which never passed this House, the Internet gambling bill legislation did pass this House by a vote of 317-93. There was at least some nexus which was lacking with the others.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I was just trying to answer the gentlewoman's question. She thought I was giving her a break.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the matter under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I assure the House I will not use the 14 minutes.

I also at this stage would like to commend the staff for the tremendous work they have done throughout this process. I would like to thank Mandy Bowers, Matt McCabe, Amanda Halpern, Kevin Gronberg, Diane Berry, Sterling Marchand, Kerry Kinirons, Mark Klaassen, Mike Power, and also the people on the minority staff.

In saying that, let me just say, Mr. Markey brought us into the new day, his eloquence, his soaring rhetoric brought us into the new day, but he uses the same tired arguments of yesterday, the arguments we hear time and again, the tired metaphors, the lame similes, he goes on and on.

He says Democrats were kept out of the process. Democrats were involved every step of the way, every minute, until the Internet gambling came over, which we found out about for the first time at the same time he did. Now, he may want to talk to the minority leader in the Senate and ask him why he consented to this being in, why they wanted it in. That is not my problem.

But the fact is, it is really wrong to suggest that there was any moment at all throughout the past 10 or 12 days, when at every stage of the way we ensured that the Democratic staff was there reporting back to their principals, I don't know where the gentleman from Massachusetts was. Maybe he was out buying a dog. I don't know. But the fact is if he had spoken with his staff, if he had spoken to the committee staff, if he had spoken to the ranking member, he would have known what was going on.

Also, I waited patiently for 29\1/2\ minutes listening to the opposition trying to hear one person say one negative word about the port security bill. Finally, Mr. Markey came up with his argument and he was talking about detecting radiation overseas.

The fact is, again in the spirit of bipartisanship and bicameralism, we adopted the language put forth by Senator Lautenberg in the Senate to have three pilot projects. So there we are agreeing with the Senator from New Jersey, which I guess is not good enough for the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I would also say that this legislation goes right to the heart of the issues that we are trying to address. The gentleman from Massachusetts cannot accept that.

But I will say for the other Members, certainly Mr. Pascrell, for the contributions that he made to this bill, to the ranking member, to Mr. Langevin, who has really been a leader in the whole issue of radiation portal monitors, they have been there.

So I would again say let us celebrate the fact that we are passing historic port security legislation tonight. Let us respect the fact that our committee, which is only in its second year, has passed major legislation. Let us respect the fact and acknowledge the fact that our committee paved the way. We showed the way for the Senate. We passed a bill which has been virtually intact, from the subcommittee to the committee to the House floor and now here tonight with the conference report.

And rather than begrudging, rather than saying it could have been this or it could have been that, rather than let the perfect be the enemy of the good, let's accept this good legislation, let's go forward, let us realize we made the American people far safer. And we did it because of a bipartisan effort, which should have been bipartisan right to the last moment. Unfortunately, the naysayers tried to take this over. The fact is they cannot deny the reality. This is excellent legislation that makes our country safe. We should be proud.

I urge the adoption of the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.