Floor Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With that I urge defeat of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4942) to establish a capability and office to promote cooperation between entities of the United States and its allies in the global war on terrorism for the purpose of engaging in cooperative endeavors focused on the research, development, and commercialization of high-priority technologies intended to detect, prevent, respond to, recover from, and mitigate against acts of terrorism and other high consequence events and to address the homeland security needs of Federal, State, and local governments, as amended.

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, I proudly rise in support of H.R. 4942. This is really legislation whose time has come. Let me at the very outset commend Ranking Member Thompson, Chairman Reichert of the Emergency Preparedness Subcommittee, and my good friend from New Jersey, Mr. Pascrell, for their tremendous cooperation and leadership on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a battle for survival. There is a war against international terrorism. It is a war in which we must know who our allies are, who our friends are. We have to know those who will stand with us through the tough times. We must know those who are willing to work with us and take risks with us.

The purpose of H.R. 4942 is to codify the right to assist in the sharing and developing of technologies, sharing of technologies between and among countries who share common values and who are dedicated to defeating international terrorism.

This legislation refers to certain specific allies in the global war on terrorism, such as Israel, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Singapore. They have extensive experience with and technical expertise in homeland security, and we can benefit from them and they can benefit from us.

Really, the time has come for us to break down artificial barriers, artificial walls, and use the commonality of our cultures, of our traditions, of our beliefs, and use the benefit of our technological expertise to form a common bond as we go forward to defeat international terrorism.

This bill has a wide variety of support, as I believe it should. It is an aggressive step forward. It is a commonsense step forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just concur in what the gentleman from New Jersey said about the bipartisan cooperation; and I want to especially thank him and the ranking member for the tremendous cooperation he gave us on this legislation.

I yield as much time as he may consume to the author of the legislation, the Chairman of the Emergency Preparedness Subcommittee, Sheriff Reichert from the State of Washington.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we stated, H.R. 4942 will enable us to work with certain allies, Israel, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Singapore, to engage with them in cooperative endeavors, focus on research, development, the commercialization of high-priority technologies, and enable us to prevent acts of terrorism and address the homeland security needs of Federal, State and local governments.

The gentleman from New Jersey referenced the $25 million for each of the fiscal years from 2007 to 2010. That money is to be matched in each instance by the foreign partner organizations who participate in this international cooperative activity. This is very significant legislation. It is very vital. I would certainly urge the passage of the bill.

But before I yield back my time, I would like to include for the Record letters exchanged between the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Science regarding jurisdiction over H.R. 4942. I certainly thank the Science Committee and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for their input on this bill and thank my colleagues for their bipartisan support.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, September 22, 2006.

Hon. Sherwood Boehlert,

Chairman, Committee on Science,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter

expressing the Science Committee's jurisdictional interest in

H.R. 4942, the ``Promoting Antiterrorism Capabilities Through

International Cooperation Act.'' The Committee on Homeland

Security acknowledges your claim to jurisdiction over

provisions contained in this bill, as amended, and

appreciates your agreement not to request a sequential

referral. The Committee on Homeland Security understands that

nothing in this legislation or your decision to forgo a

sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the

jurisdiction of the Science Committee, and that a copy of

this letter and of our response will be included in the

Committee report and in the Congressional Record when the

bill is considered on the House Floor. The Committee on

Homeland Security will also support your request to be

conferees during any House-Senate conference on this

legislation.

Thank you for your cooperation as we work towards the

enactment of H.R. 4942.

Sincerely,

Peter T. King,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5092 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE).

We have been granted the right to bear arms; however, this right is granted to those who can operate safely and responsibly within the auspices of the law. Those who cannot operate within the law should not be given greater opportunities to obtain weapons. Rather than address this problem, this legislation actually weakens our current law, and makes it easier for dangerous weapons to get into the hands of criminals. Instead of weakening current law, we should be giving law enforcement better tools to combat gun trafficking.

According to a 2000 ATF report, corrupt gun dealers are the number one source of illegal firearm trafficking. With that information, we should be working to impose tighter measures and better law enforcement, so that we can protect innocent Americans who often fall victim to crimes caused by firearm abuse. Instead, H.R. 5092 does just the opposite by sympathizing with the gun dealer and adding obstacles to law enforcement.

Under current law, the ATF can punish gun dealers for illegal gun sales. H.R. 5092 makes punishment more difficult. In addition, this bill would prohibit the ATF from considering large amounts of ``lost'' firearms as a violation of law. It is this same type of ``lost inventory'' that armed the DC sniper.

It is important that we give our law enforcement agents the proper tools to end gun trafficking, not make it more difficult. It is unthinkable to me to support any type of legislation that favors the rights of criminals over the protection of our friends and family. Finally, I would like to commend Mayor Mike Bloomberg for his dedication to this issue and his opposition to this legislation. I also oppose H.R. 5092, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I am very proud to stand today in support of H.R. 5664. I was very proud to introduce the resolution. And I want to thank Mr. Israel, my colleague from New York, for the strong support that he has given me on this resolution and also for the strong support that he has given to the Kenney and Fletcher families.

Mr. Speaker, it has been discussed what Jacob Fletcher achieved during his life, what he achieved in his death. And he was an exceptional, exceptional human being and a young man. As was stated, he grew up in Long Island, but he dreamed about joining the military even as a young boy.

In fact, the story, it is a true story, that he actually submitted an application to join the Army when he was only 8 years old. And his mother had to explain and turn away the enlistment officers when they came to the house that Jacob was too young to join the Army. She had a tougher job of actually explaining it to Jacob that he was too young to join the Army.

But his patriotic passion cannot be extinguished, and after the September 11 attacks against our country which killed so many New Yorkers and so many Americans and also claimed a family friend, Jacob joined the Army and fulfilled his life-long calling to serve his Nation.

Jacob came from a military family. His father, his stepfather served in the Armed Forces during the Vietnam War, and Jacob's grandfather was a veteran as well.

As Congressman Israel and Ms. Foxx mentioned, Jacob completed his basic training and his airborne school at Fort Benning, and he was among the very first Americans to land in Iraq, parachuting under the cover of darkness during the first week of the war.

During his time in Iraq, Jacob and his fellow soldiers spent much of their time in Iraq training police officers. And in conversations with his family, he spoke of how much he wanted to help these people as this was his calling. He very clearly felt that this was the right thing to do.

Unfortunately Jacob's life ended tragically before he could return home and before he could fulfill all of his dreams. On November 13, 2003, a roadside bomb exploded near the convoy he was in near the town of Samarra, and he died the next day, November 14. He was just 28 years young. He was awarded a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star, and he was also posthumously promoted to specialist.

Like Congressman Israel, I have had the privilege of working with his mother Dorrine, who, again, rather than curse the darkness, has done so much to help those who are in combat in Iraq, in Afghanistan, throughout the world. She has brought Brownies to my office, Girl Scouts. She is active on so many different issues involving the welfare of our solders. I admire her for having the strength that she does.

Congressman Israel and I were at a recent 9/11 commemoration at Farmingdale University. She was there at that, Dorrine was there. So she again has done so much in memory of her son.

Similarly, I have the privilege of having his father, Mo Fletcher, reside in my district. Mr. Fletcher is a Vietnam veteran. He is also a very courageous man who gives so much of his time to veterans, to the military. Whenever a soldier is killed in combat who is from Long Island and adjoining areas, Mo Fletcher goes to the wake, goes to the funeral, stays with the family. So he is a very, very decent human being. And you can see why Jacob turned out to be the outstanding man that he was.

In addition, Jacob is survived by his stepfather, his sister Tara, and his brothers Scott and Josh.

I just urge all the Members of this body to really cast their vote for a true American hero, Jacob Fletcher, who gave his life so that all of us could be free, and may he rest in peace, and, again, may God bless him and his entire family.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 6061. H.R. 6061, to me, addresses the most direct need of the American people, and that is to show that we can take meaningful action to secure our border.

I have never seen more of a disconnect between the American people and the elite in Washington, between the American people and the American media, because overwhelmingly the American people want us to secure the border. They want us to show that we can fulfill the most basic requirement of a government, and that is to ensure the sanctity and the security of our borders.

Now, we did pass comprehensive legislation last December by a large vote, including almost 40 Democrats, H.R. 4437, and I strongly stand by that. The fact is that right now is not moving as quickly as we would like it to, and, therefore, rather than saying we are going to wait until everything can be done before we do anything, I am saying, let's pick areas where there has been agreement.

The Senate has agreed to have a 370-mile fence along the border. We now have a 700-mile fence. This is something which clearly can be done. It will work. Is it the entire fence? Absolutely not. More has to be done. But, in the meantime, let's show progress. Let's get this done. Let's show the American people that we have listened to what they have said and we are going to do what they want.

Then we can deal in a comprehensive way, we can go issue by issue, we can go item by item, but let's focus on what we know will work. And this will work. You add this fence, in addition to the new Border Patrol agents which are in the FY07 bills which are going to result in a 40 percent increase since 2001, and we hope to double that by 2008.

Also the idea of having a fence, it can also allow better reallocation of Border Patrol agents because the fence will serve a security purpose which can actually allow Border Patrol agents to expand their own focus more.

So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I just strongly urge the adoption of this. The American people are watching. The American people have spoken loudly and clearly. We have responded to that in a responsible, effective way. And for the life of me, I don't know why people on the other side are saying, just because we can't do everything, we should do nothing.

Doing nothing is the worst thing Congress can do, and that is why we are doing something very meaningful. I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1002, I call up the bill (H.R. 6061) to establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the United States, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress return to their districts, as Members of Congress speak with the American people, it is obvious there is no more defining issue in our Nation today than stopping illegal immigration.

This is an issue which is absolutely essential if we are to gain the confidence of the American people, if we are going to show to the American people that we can perform the most basic obligation of any government, and that is to secure the Nation's borders.

Now, we passed very comprehensive legislation in December of last year, H.R. 4437, and I was a strong advocate and cosponsor of that, along with Chairman Sensenbrenner, but the reality is that legislation is right now bogged down. What we have to do is we have to prove to the American people and also we have to make substantial progress in combating illegal immigration.

One issue in which there appears to be a consensus between the United States Senate and the Congress is on the issue of building a secure fence. So rather than wait, and wait for God knows how long until comprehensive legislation is enacted, there is no reason whatsoever why we should not move forward on targeted legislation which is effective and meaningful. We have to bridge this disconnect between the American people and its government, between the American people and the elite, and we have to show we are responsive.

Now, the legislation today incorporates very much what was already passed by the House with significant Democratic votes back in December. It provides over 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing. It also mandates that the Department of Homeland Security achieve and maintain operational control over the entire border through a virtual fence, deploying cameras, ground sensors, unmanned aerial vehicles, integrated surveillance technology, and it also requires the Department of Homeland Security to provide the necessary authority to border personnel to disable fleeing vehicles, similar to the authority which is already held by the United States Coast Guard for maritime vessels.

We also realize there is concern at the northern border, and I want to especially thank my colleague from New York (Congressman Reynolds) for his efforts in homeland security, particularly on the northern border. With his help, we were able to enhance the Secure Fence Act to ensure that appropriate technology and infrastructure are being considered and that border security efforts are implemented in a manner that does not stop or deny commerce.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue where the American people are crying out for help. They are crying out for us to take meaningful action. There is, to me, no reason why, and I am trying to anticipate arguments coming against it, basically saying we need comprehensive legislation, and that is a debate we can have. We passed comprehensive legislation in December. But the fact is just because we cannot do everything today doesn't mean that we should do nothing.

So I am saying let us do something very, very positive. Let us pass this legislation, which will build a secure fence, which will build a virtual fence, and would also give the border personnel the assistance and the power that they need.

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

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 material on H.R. 6061.

Mr. Speaker, I would just make several references, one to my good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi, who is ranking member and does such an outstanding job on the Homeland Security Committee, that I don't think it is ever a waste of taxpayer dollars to go out and hold hearings and listen to what the American people have to say. Sometimes it is good to get away from just reading editorials in the New York Times and the Washington Post and actually hear what real people have to say.

Secondly, if we are going to show that we are genuinely against doing nothing, then let's do something and pass legislation which we know the overwhelming majority of the American people want, and that is to build this fence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my good friend from Texas that just a 14-mile fence in San Diego has brought about a significant decrease in crime. And also one of the reasons why we believe this fence is essential is for the humanitarian reason of not allowing so many people to die in the desert the way they do today because there is no fence.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my good friend from California, all of us agree no one provision is going to solve illegal immigration, but this is a significant provision going forward.

In addition, this year's appropriation bill provides for 1,200 new Border Patrol agents which will bring us up to 14,580, an increase of over 80 percent since September 11, 2001, and over 1,200 ICE officers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time both sides have?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the real gentleman from Iowa and the real Mr. King.

Could I inquire of my friend from Mississippi if he intends to use all his time with more speakers?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Actually, we have a pinch hitter. I yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes

to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to listen as carefully as I can to the debate, and the only real argument that I hear that really make any sense is that building a fence is not the only answer. I think all of us on this side agree. But we also believe it is a very

essential part of the answer, a significant step; and the fact that, again I repeat, that we can't do everything, does not mean we should do nothing. That is why it is, I believe, essential to go forward with the legislation today, since there is broad support for it; both here in the House and in the Senate, as well, there is support for it, and also among the American people.

Also, as far as the references made to terrorists coming across the southern border, there is no doubt that there have been captured al Qaeda documents which indicate the desire of al Qaeda to bring people across the southern border.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida, a member of the committee, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), who is the author of the original amendment on the wall.

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

At the outset let me commend and thank my friend Mr. Thompson from Mississippi both for, I believe, the high quality of debate certainly on his side and hopefully on our side today and also for the cooperation that he has given throughout the time that I have been chairman over the last year as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, there is no issue that is more on the minds of the American people than illegal immigration, and there is one part of the bill that we passed last December which has overwhelming support, and that is the construction of a fence along significant parts of the southern border, operational control of the balance of the border, and also to give Border Patrol agents the authority to stop vehicles, to use force to stop vehicles. But, again, the key part of this is operational control and significant control, including the use of a fence along the southern border.

We can tell the American people we have heard the message. We can tell the American people that we are willing to put aside political correctness and do the right thing.

It is legislation that is humane because it will save lives. It is legislation that will work as it was done in San Diego. It is legislation which would tell the American people that we are serious about combating illegal immigration. And rather than wait for everything, we will do what we can and we will just step up to the plate and get it done.

With that, I urge passage of H.R. 6061.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just state at the outset, again, the great regard I have for Mr. Thompson and also for Mr. Reyes. But in that context, I must say that I strongly disagree with their motion to recommit, primarily because even though this is the Secure Fence Act of 2006, the motion to recommit nowhere even mentions the word ``fence.'' And it is significant that they seem unwilling to address this fundamental issue.

We believe on our side and a solid majority of the House of Representatives believed last December, and indeed a majority of the United States Senate believed, that a fence is essential, that a fence is important. And that is why it was passed last December, that is why the overwhelming majority of the American people support it today, and that is why we are bringing it forward now.

The reality is that comprehensive legislation is not going to be moving. But, again, the American people are crying out; they are demanding that we take action. This is an issue which goes right to the heart of America today, whether you live on the border or whether you live in the north, the Northeast, Northwest, Midwest, it is an issue. As Members went back to their districts this summer, last spring, the one issue that resonated completely was the issue of stopping illegal immigration. One proven way is to build a fence and to get operational control over the entire border.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

If I could reclaim my time, I do believe that it is significant that in a fence act, even though fencing was mentioned in December legislation passed in the House, even though fencing was mentioned in the Senate bill, there is no reference to it, which to me is bowing to political correctness. We are up front about what we are asking for.

Also, I don't believe we should abdicate responsibility to the Department of Homeland Security. We should make it clear what we want, tell them what we want. If they want some variations within there, fine. But we feel so strongly about this, the American people feel so strongly about it, I believe it is essential that we make it loud and clear what we do want.

Now, having said that, on the issue, for instance, of Border Patrol agents, the appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007 will include 1,200 new Border Patrol agents. That will get us up to 14,580, an increase of almost 50 percent over the last several years. There are 1,012 new ICE officers, which will get us up to 11,500. This appears to be about as many as the system can absorb as we train new officers, and we are going forward with that. If more are needed, I pledge to the ranking member we will work to bring that about as we go into the next session.

But it is essential that we do this today to tell the American people that we have gotten the message, that we are willing to take the action that is needed, we are willing to go on the line this is needed, this is essential; and we are calling for it, we are demanding it, we are voting for it. The easiest way to say that we are going to do the right thing on illegal immigration, to stop illegal immigration, and also to be humane and stop the deaths in the desert.

I was at the desert with Speaker Hastert and Congressman Rush and Congresswoman Miller this past July, went to Yuma and Nogales in Arizona, we helicoptered across the desert. To me, a fence is absolutely essential in certain parts of that border. That is what this is about. Let's put aside political correctness, let's have the guts to do the right thing.

I urge defeat of the Democratic motion to recommit and passage of the underlying bill, H.R. 6061.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I in particular appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak on this issue, an issue which I believe is vital to the history of our Nation and indeed to the future of our Nation.

As the sponsor of the legislation and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, I took a special interest in doing all that I could to ensure that this resolution would reflect the thinking of the Congress and would not be at all provocative.

But the fact is, September 11 was the darkest day in our Nation's history. It was also a day of exceptional bravery and courage, and year after year since September 11, 2001, we have expressed this sense of the Congress, we have expressed the sense of the House. We have pointed to the tremendous bravery that occurred that day, the actions of the police and the fire and the emergency workers. We have certainly referred to the terrible suffering that occurred that day.

But also, it is essential we not just lament what happened that day, not just acknowledge the suffering of that day, but I believe we owe it to history to show what Congress has done. It is not enough just to say we feel sorry for what happened. It is important we show what we are doing, what we are doing as Members of Congress, to respond to the horrors of that day.

In putting together this resolution, the leadership on our side of the aisle reached out to the other leaders certainly. On my committee, we reached out to Democratic members of our committee trying to put together a resolution, and the fact is the gentleman from Massachusetts, who is a good friend of mine, he acts as if this resolution this year is so markedly different than what was passed in previous years.

Well, if you go back to 2004, the resolution referred to introduced by Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos, H. Res. 757, it goes through a long listing of what has been done since September 11, 2001. It refers to the war in Iraq as being part of the war against terrorism. It refers to port security and border security, to the Terrorism Threat Immigration Center. It talks about taking away the financial assets of terrorists. It goes on and on, listing a number of issues which apparently today would be considered extremely controversial.

We make no reference at all to Iraq in today's resolution, other than to mention the men and women of our Armed Forces who are in Iraq and Afghanistan. We make no mention of the NSA electronic surveillance program which enjoys the support of the overwhelming majority of American citizens. We make no reference to the SWIFT program, which is going after the terrorist finances, which was to me in violation of the Espionage Act released on the front page of the New York Times. Even though it is entirely legal and entirely effective, we make no reference to that, but we do talk about the PATRIOT Act because that was a response of Congress.

Now, history may judge that we did the wrong thing. I am absolutely convinced we did the right thing in passing the PATRIOT Act, and I think we owe it to the American people to let them know what we did. Also, maritime security, intelligence reform, port security, immigration reform, all of these are tied to the issue of international terrorism.

This is the way Congress responded, and I think it is not enough just to say it was a tragedy that happened on September 11. Let us talk about what we did.

The gentleman from Massachusetts says he objects to the language in here that we are safer since September 11. Okay. Maybe we can have an honest difference of opinion on that. The fact is, even the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission say we are safer today than we were on September 11. The junior Senator from my State has said we are safer now than we were on September 11. These are certainly not Republican apologists.

Quite frankly, while I understand the good faith on the other side, I as a person who lost almost 150 friends, neighbors and constituents resent the fact that by us introducing the resolution this is a campaign speech.

As I was going to commemoration after commemoration on Monday, I did not say this as being part of the campaign. To me, this is our way of responding. Again, you may be right, and maybe in the future people will say it was wrong to break down the wall between the FBI and CIA and it may be wrong to be going after terrorist assets and it may be wrong to listen in on terrorist conversations. So be it. Let history be our judge.

But let this resolution stand for what Congress has done, is doing and wants to do if we are serious about winning the war against international terrorism.

If we want to talk about campaigns, I would wonder where were you in 2004 when a resolution, if you want some partisan references, by your definition would be far more partisan than we are introducing here today or is it perhaps that the political party has been changed somehow, and now what was more than acceptable in 2004 is not even remotely acceptable today?

So, if we are going to inject politics into it, let us be honest who is raising the political issue. I know that our leadership and the Speaker of the House went out of his way and their way to try to make this a bipartisan resolution. I certainly did. When you compare what we are stating today and what we stated in 2004, to me there is no doubt over who is being partisan and who is trying to exploit this issue. I find that wrong.

I am saying I am proud to stand with this resolution. I am proud to support it. I urge the overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats to put aside partisanship, you do not have to agree with every word of our resolution, to say that Congress has responded and has done its best to respond to the attacks of September 11.

Again, let history be our judge. I am more than willing for history to be our judge, and I am proud to stand on the record of the Congress, Republicans and Democrats, and I urge the adoption of the rule and urge the adoption of the underlying resolution.

Mr. Speaker, as the designee of the majority leader and pursuant to H. Res. 996, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 994) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 994.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).

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

Mr. Speaker, 9/11, September 11, 2001, was a day unlike any in our history. It was a day which saw the worst tragedy befall our Nation. It was a day and the days thereafter which demonstrated the very best in America, the heroism, the courage, the willingness to fight back, the determination never again to allow ourselves to be attacked the way we were on that day.

Since that time, Congress has achieved a lot. The purpose of this resolution today was to show that we are not just going to lament what happened on September 11, we are not just going to mourn what happened on September 11, but we are going to lay the record out as to what has been done and what should be done. And, quite frankly, as the prime author of this resolution, we did not in any way attempt to make it contentious.

For instance, I really wonder why at this stage on the fifth anniversary of September 11 my friends in the opposition have chosen to draw the line on this resolution, when 2 years ago, in a bipartisan resolution which was overwhelmingly adopted, there were far more, if you want to call them, partisan matters included. I don't consider them partisan. But if they are applying the standard they are applying today to the 2004 resolution, where it went through so many items, as the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, Libya, port security, border security, Terrorist Threat Information Center, going after financial assets, all of those matters, very few of which are mentioned in our resolution today.

But for some reason, I guess with election day less than 60 days away, they have chosen to say what was nonpartisan 2 years ago is extremely partisan today.

I regret that, because there is a lot that we still have to do as a Congress, but there is much we achieved, and I believe it is important for us not to just talk about the horror of September 11, but to chronicle for history what we have done, what we intend to do and let history be our judge.

That is why we included the PATRIOT Act, that is why we included the Maritime Security Act, the intelligence reform and port security legislation, because we do believe they are significant achievements by Congress.

Now, maybe history will show it was not right to break down the wall between the FBI and CIA, or it was not right to have to have intelligence reform, but I am content and I think we have an obligation to lay that out and let the American people decide and let history decide.

If we wanted to make this partisan, we could have certainly put in about the NSA electronic surveillance, which the overwhelming majority of Americans support because they believe it makes common sense to listen to the conversations of foreign terrorists. But because of the controversy of that, it was not put in. Nor was the SWIFT Plan, which was illegally disclosed by the New York Times. Did we include that in our resolution, even though that has also been extraordinarily effective?

As far as the issue of whether or not we are safer today than on September 11, both the chairman and cochairman of the 9/11 Commission say we are, the junior Senator from New York says we are, any number of people say we are. We can debate that. But I think it is certainly fair comment to put that in this 9/11 resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I will end on this before I finish my remarks. But I just want to say no one has any monopoly on grief in this Chamber. I lost well over 150 friends, neighbors and constituents on September 11, 2001. I spent all day Monday at cemeteries and commemorations and meeting with families.

I think it is really wrong to somehow attack this resolution as our attempt to be partisan. We could have found much more ways to be partisan if we wanted to. It was an attempt to come together. For whatever reason, the opposition has chosen to draw the line today on the fifth anniversary, when they could have done it 2 years ago. For whatever reason they decided now is the time. I think history will show they are wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to

the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

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

I would remind the gentleman from New Jersey that the resolution he voted for 2 years, the 9/11 commemoration resolution, specifically said that Iraq was part of the war on terrorism, that the capture of Saddam Hussein was part of the war against terrorism, all in the ``whereases'' clauses. It also cited the fact of port security achievements we had made there. It mentioned the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, all of which was there in that resolution 2 years ago, which for whatever reason they did not object to then.

And I would say one of the reasons we didn't put the immigration bill in the legislation 2 years ago, it was not passed until last year, and the 9/11 Commission specifically stated that addressing border security is a major element of homeland security

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Lungren.

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

I would remind my friend from Massachusetts, or at least suggest to him, that you don't have to agree with every word of every resolution to vote for it.

For instance, the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted for the 9/ 11 resolution 2 years ago, which specifically cited the war in Iraq as being an effective part of the war against terrorism. It also cited the arrest of Saddam Hussein and also cited the many accomplishments that had been made by Congress, and they voted for that then. For some reason they have now chosen to make this a very partisan issue.

Also, the gentleman said that Democrats have supported every recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. In fact, 152 Democrats voted against the REAL ID Act, which was supported by the 9/11 Commission.

And as far as the whole issue of the nuclear screening, even the Washington Post said that is nothing but a grandstand.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. Speaker, again I would remind my friends on the Democratic side that the resolution that the overwhelming majority of them voted for 2 years ago, for instance, on the issue of port security, in the whereas clauses specifically cited the innovative programs which have done so much to make our ports more secure and to screen cargo. And, again, we don't have to agree with every aspect of every bill, but if it was good enough 2 years ago for them to cite it, I don't know why it suddenly now becomes such an extreme partisan issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut, who I must say is an extremely strong and very independent voice and advocate for Homeland Security

Mr. Speaker, I would just again remind my friends on the other side that we are definitely safer than we were on September 11. It is not just me saying that or the Republican majority saying that. It is the chairman and cochairman of the 9/11 Commission, people such as the junior Senator from New York who was saying that.

As far as our resolution, it certainly goes out of its way, and appropriately so, to extend the deepest sympathies to all those who lost their lives, to their family members and friends. It honors the heroic actions of the first responders.

If we made a mistake in drafting this resolution, it was I guess laboring under the misconception that the people on the other side would adhere to the same standards and principles that we set for ourselves 2 years ago when we adopted the 9/11 resolution at that time, which again goes into far more detail than anything we mentioned at all today.

And I would also mention to the gentleman from California who said that we should speak to the families of those who lost relatives on September 11. I spent Monday morning to night with those families, and I can tell you, after speaking with them, I am more proud than ever to have introduced and sponsored this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a member of the committee.

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

I would just urge my friends on the other side to perhaps read the resolution instead of just reading Democratic talking points.

The fact is there was nothing in this resolution at all that talks about the war in Iraq other than to commend the soldiers who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the overwhelming majority of Democrats 2 years ago did vote for the resolution which said Iraq was an integral part of the war against terrorism. Again, I wonder why this disconnect between 2004 and 2006.

Also, the gentlewoman from California seems very concerned about the fact that bin Laden has not been captured. Yet, the leader of her party yesterday said that capturing bin Laden would have no impact on the security of the United States.

Also, talking of the families, as far as the impact this would have on the families, this resolution, I have talked to the families in my district, the Boyle family, the Haskell family, the Cain family, the Vigiano family, or the Howard family, or any of them, who I can assure you strongly stand behind this resolution

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

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

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly I have been both shocked and disappointed by the reaction we have seen on the House floor today. Not that we cannot have honest differences over the resolution, not that we cannot have honest differences about various whereas clauses. I have certainly voted for many resolutions where I did not agree with everything that was in there. I have also opposed certain resolutions because there was too much in there that I could not support, without questioning the motives and impugning the character of those who drafted the resolution.

Quite frankly, in working on this resolution and working with the Speaker and working with Members on the other side, the model that we tried to use in putting this resolution together was the resolution which was adopted 2 years ago which did have some contentious language in it, but quite frankly listed far more achievements, if you will, or far more actions taken by the Congress than ours did today.

What we did today was try to strike the balance by commemorating the memories of those who died, by honoring those who gave their lives, by expressing our deep sorrow and support and solidarity with the families who lost relatives on September 11 and lost friends on September 11.

And then also, not just rely on words but also to show actions, and lay out how we in Congress have tried to deal with the issues that involve homeland security and fighting terrorism.

We did avoid any reference to the war in Iraq, other than to say we support the men and women who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. No mention at all of Iraq being part of the war against terrorism. No mention at all of the NSA electronic surveillance program. No mention at all of the swift program.

What we did was try to lay out exactly what Congress has done so it would be out there for history to see what we have done, what we have tried to do, where we have succeeded, perhaps where we haven't. I am content to let history be our judge.

But to somehow say this is part of some conspiracy or campaign, to me, it really does cheapen the memory of September 11. As I said before, no one has a monopoly on grief. I certainly lost many, many friends and neighbors and constituents on September 11, as did other Members of this body. And probably everyone here at least knows someone who died that day, or knows someone who knows someone who died that day or suffered from the horrific events of September 11.

I really thought on September 11 and September 12, 2001 that we would try to work together. This resolution is an attempt to do that, an honest attempt from the heart to do it. I am proud of this resolution. I urge the adoption of this resolution so we can send a message not just to those who died on September 11, to the families of those who died on September 11, but indeed a message to the world that we are united against Islamic terrorism. We are united as one to prevent another attack from ever occurring in this country. And there has not been an attack for 5 years.

And, yes, there is much more that must be done, that has to be done. We are safer than we were on September 11, but not as safe as we should be. There is so much more that we can do, but we have made this start. Let us stand behind what we have done together. Those honest differences that we have, let us treat them as honest differences and not try to make shameful partisan attacks.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution, and I pray to God that we will find a way to come together and not resort to the type of cheap demagoguery that I think characterized the debate on the floor today

Mr. Speaker, I yield 28 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the International Relations Committee, who will do so much to elevate the level of rhetoric on our side than what we have seen in the last half hour from me; 28 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the chairman of the Intelligence Committee; and the balance of the time to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble); and I ask unanimous consent that each Member be allowed to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, this is a critical time in our Nation's history. Our Nation is at war, and we have seen serial leaks of very important classified top secret information. It is almost as if we are shadow boxing. We are talking about it in a moot court-type way or a theoretical way.

The fact is lives are at risk. The fact is in this particular situation, by the New York Times' own account it was a program that was working. It was a program for which the Times has raised no questions of illegality. It is a program under which the administration, the Secretary of the Treasury, the two cochairmen of the 9/11 Commission went to the New York Times and asked them, in the interest of national security, not to release the details of this program. But they went ahead and did it anyway. And that really, to me, casts a motive over why, questions the motive of the New York Times in doing this.

Back in December I strongly objected when they leaked the details of the NSA terrorist surveillance program. At least, in that instance, the Times raised what they thought were questions of legality. But that didn't even exist in this current situation which, to me, goes to the heart of an issue here, is what is the obligation of a newspaper, how absolute is the first amendment.

My belief in a democratic society, where there is always friction between freedom and responsibility, and while we give extensive rein to the first amendment, to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, no freedom can be absolute. With freedom comes responsibility. And to me the New York Times has clearly crossed that line of responsibility. Those who leaked the information, yes, they should certainly be prosecuted. To get to them is going to be very difficult to do, unless, as the gentleman from Kansas pointed out, reporters and editors are brought in before a grand jury and threatened with contempt if they do not disclose the names of their sources.

Then we will see if those who say they are so opposed to leaks will stand up and support that. Because reporters should not be sacrosanct. Newspapers should not be sacrosanct. It is fine to launch special investigations and hire special prosecutors to go after any other person in the country. But as soon as anyone focuses on the media, focuses on the New York Times, or the L.A. Times, or the Wall Street Journal, then panic sets in, as if special walls of protection must be set up around them. They are not entitled to that.

To me they have a responsibility. The New York Times has woefully failed in its responsibility. I say the jury might still be out on the L.A. Times and the Wall Street Journal as to whether or not, what their motives were. Did they only follow because the New York Times went first? I don't know. But no one should be immune from investigation here. They should be looked into very, very carefully. We should go after the leakers. And to me, the New York Times, is not just the facilitator of the leakers, they are coconspirators of the leakers because it was leaked to the Times and the Times leaked it to the American people and to the world. And because of that, our position as a Nation is weaker. Our people are at risk. Our people suffer and face the further suffering and death, and that will be on the hands of the New York Times. That blood will be on their hands.

I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the service of Jim Williams, the Director of the US-VISIT program at the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Williams is leaving his position in the coming weeks to become the Commissioner of the

Federal Acquisition Service at the General Services Administration. I want to thank him for his years of public service and his leadership at the Department of Homeland Security.

Since May 2003, Mr. Williams has managed a team to create and maintain the US-VISIT program, a critical border management program that collects point-of-entry and exit information on visitors traveling to and from the United States. The program uses biometric identifiers and digital photographs to aid legitimate tourists, students and business travelers entering the United States, while making it more difficult for those who might do harm to the United States or enter and stay in the country illegally. Though the job of completing the full installation of US-VISIT program is still underway, so far, in two and a half years, it has processed nearly 60 million visitors to date and denied entry to more than 1,100 criminals and immigration violators at our ports of entry, reduced wait times at several land border ports of entry, and provided information to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement leading to the apprehension of more than 200 aliens who overstayed their visas.

Mr. Williams has been a model public servant and leader. He has left a tremendous imprint on the US-VISIT program, and on the many people who work with him at US-VISIT and across the government.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you and our colleagues to join me in a salute to Jim Williams and the talented team at US-VISIT.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky who has been a leader in strengthening the Department and providing crucial oversight to its activities. I want to thank you and Ranking Member Sabo for your hard work on this bill, and of course join with you in commending Mr. Sabo in his many years of dedication to this Chamber.

This bill provides the necessary resources for the Federal Government's effort to protect the homeland. I rise to acknowledge a number of legislative provisions that are included in the bill and fall within the primary jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security. I do not seek to challenge the vast majority of these authorizing provisions, as I believe they are largely necessary to ensure the Department continues to improve its effectiveness. However, I do want to point out the strong jurisdictional interests of the Committee on Homeland Security.

As you know, the Committee on Homeland Security is actively working to advance much needed legislation specifically authorizing many of the activities of the Department, particularly in the areas of border security, cargo security, emergency management, and chemical site security. The Committee on Homeland Security will also in the near future advance a broad reauthorization bill for the Department.

A full list of my concerns is provided in a letter to the gentleman from Kentucky, which will follow my remarks.

Since I became chairman last year, we have had an excellent working relationship, and I appreciate the gentleman from Kentucky's efforts to include me and my staff as you develop the bill. In light of the ongoing authorization activities of the Committee on Homeland Security, I respectfully request your commitment to work together to ensure that the legislative provisions in the homeland security appropriations bill compliment and do not conflict with parallel authorizing legislation.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

I thank the gentleman for his commitment. And on a personal note, I want to thank him for the extraordinary cooperation he has given me during the 9 months I have been chairman of the authorizing committee.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, May 25, 2006.

Hon. Harold Rogers,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Committee on

Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rogers: The House of Representatives has

scheduled for consideration today, H.R. 5441, the Homeland

Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007. This

measure contains a number of legislative provisions that are

in violation of House Rule XXI, clause 2, which prohibits

legislation within a general appropriation bill. These

provisions fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee

Homeland Security. While I want to make clear the Committee

on Homeland Security's strong jurisdictional interests in the

legislative provisions summarized below, I do not intend to

assert procedural objections to the vast majority of these

provisions during House consideration of the Homeland

Security Appropriations Bill.

As you know, the Committee on Homeland Security is actively

working to advance legislation specifically authorizing many

of the activities of the Department of Homeland Security,

particularly in the area of border security, cargo security,

emergency management and chemical site security. The

Committee on Homeland Security will also, in the near future,

advance a broad reauthorization bill for the Department. In

light of the ongoing authorization activities of the

Committee, I respectfully request your commitment to work

together to ensure that the Appropriations Bill complements,

and does not conflict with, parallel authorizing legislation.

The provisions of interest to the Committee on Homeland

Security are as follows:

Title I, Departmental Management and Operations (Page 2,

Line 16-Page 3, Line 2); withholds $10,000,000 until the

Secretary of Homeland Security submits a comprehensive port,

container, and cargo security strategic plan to

Appropriations and Homeland Committees. This plan must

require screening of all inbound cargo, double the percentage

of inbound cargo currently inspected, set minimum standards

for security inbound cargo and includes the FY 2007

performance requirements for port, container, and cargo

security.

Title I, Departmental Management and Operations (Page 3,

Lines 2-15); provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security

must submit a multi-year strategic plan for the Secure Border

Initiative that includes a comprehensive mission statement,

an identification of long-term goals, an explanation of how

long-term goals will be achieved, schedule and resource

requirements, an identification of annual performance goals

and how they link to long-term goals, an identification of

annual performance measures used to gauge effectiveness

towards goal achievement by goal and an identification of

major capital assets critical to program success.

Title I, Departmental Management and Operations (Page 4,

Line 8-12); provides that $10,000,000 will be withheld until

the Office of Chief Financial Officer of the Department of

Homeland Security submits monthly budget execution report to

the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.

Title I, Departmental Management and Operations (Page 4,

Line 25-Page 5, Line 4); provides that none of the funds in

this section may be used for US-VISIT or ACE.

Title II, U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator

Technology (Page 6, Line 12-Page 7, Line 14); withholds

$312,494,000 until the Secretary of Homeland Security submits

a plan for expenditures to the House and Senate

Appropriations Committees that must

comply with the Department of Homeland Security and

procurement regulations, includes a certification by the

Chief Information Officer of the Department of Homeland

Security and is reviewed by the Department of Homeland

Security Investment Review Board and the Government

Accountability Office.

Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs

and Border Protection, Salaries and Expenses account (page 8,

Line 17-Page 9, Line 3); notwithstanding any other provisions

of law, this section requires that no funds may be provided

for Customs and Border Patrol overtime, from any source, if

the funds exceed the $35,000 cap, except for specific

circumstances determined by Secretary of Homeland Security or

his designee.

Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs

and Border Protection, Salaries and Expenses account (Page 9,

Line 6-10); requires the Border Patrol to relocate its

checkpoints in the Tucson sector at least once every seven

days.

Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs

and Border Protection, Automation Modernization account (Page

11, Line 8-Page 12, Line 9); withholds funds provided for the

Automated Commercial Environment until the Appropriations

Committee receives an expenditure plan on the program meeting

certain requirements and is reviewed by the Government

Accountability Office.

Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs

and Border Protection, Air and Marine Interdiction,

Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement account (Page 13,

Lines 2-11); prohibits the transfer of any Customs and Border

Protection aircraft or equipment to any other Federal agency

without approval of the House Appropriations Committee.

Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs

and Border Protection, Air and Marine Interdiction,

Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement account (Page 13

Lines 11-16); withholds $6.8 million until the House

Appropriations and Homeland Security Committees receive a

report on the April 25, 2006 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle mishap.

Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs

and Border Protection, Salaries and Expenses account (Page

14, Line 24-Page 15, Line 5); waives other laws and states

that no funds may be provided for Customs and Border

Protection overtime, from any source, if the funds exceed the

$35,000 cap, except for specific circumstances determined by

the Secretary of Homeland Security or his designee.

Title II, Transportation Security Administration, Aviation

Security (Page 17, Line 1-11); restricts the Government share

of costs of projects to 75 percent for medium or large hub

airport and 90 percent for any other airport.

Title II, Transportation Security Administration, Aviation

Security Account (Page 17, Lines 11-20); provides that no

funding shall be provided except for items such as air cargo

inspectors, canines and screeners until a detailed a detailed

air security action plan that includes the criteria outlined

in the Bill is submitted to the House Appropriations and

Homeland Security Committees.

Title II, Transportation Security Administration,

Transportation Security Support Account (Page 18, Line 23-

Page 19, Line 6); withholds $5 million until the Department

of Homeland Security submits a plan for explosive detection

systems deployment and spending plan.

Title III, Under Secretary for Preparedness (Page 28, Lines

12-17); withholds $4.4 million until the Secretary of

Homeland Security submits the final National Preparedness

Goal to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.

Title III, (Page 28, Line 18-Page 31, Line 19); provides

that ``notwithstanding any other provision of law,'' grants

to State and local governments for terrorism prevention

activities shall be allocated as follows: applications for

formula-based grants and law enforcement terrorism prevention

grants; no less than 80 percent of any formula-based grant

and law enforcement terrorism prevention grant awarded to a

State shall be made available by the State to local

governments within 60 days after the receipt of the funds;

discretionary grants for port security shall be limited to

$200 million and distributed based on risks and threat;

discretionary grants for high-threat, high-density urban

areas shall be limited to $750 million; grants under this

section shall be made available to states within 45 of the

enactment of this act. States shall submit applications

within 90 days of the grant announcement; no less than 80

percent of any discretionary grant awarded to a State shall

be made available by the State to local governments within 60

days after the receipt of the funds. The Committee Report

also directs the Department to guarantee a 0.75 percent

``base'' to States under the State Homeland Security Grant

Program and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program,

thereby eliminating the Department's discretion under the USA

PATRIOT Act to provide that guarantee as a ``true minimum.''

Title III, Infrastructure Protection and Information

Security (Page 32, Line 22-Page 34, Line 1); requires that

the methodology for collecting fees under this section be

fair and equitable and that such fees should reflect the cost

of the collection of such fees.

Title III, Infrastructure Protection and Information

Security (Page 33, Line 18-Line 22); withholds $10 million

until the Department of Homeland Security releases the

National Infrastructure Protection Plan.

Title III, Infrastructure Protection and Information

Security (Page 33, Line 22-Page 34, Line 2); withholds $10

million until the Department of Homeland Security has

released its national security strategy for the chemical

sector report.

Title IV, Research and Development, Training and Services,

Science and Technology, Management and Administration (Page

41, Lines 15-20); withholds $98 million until the Under

Secretary submits a detailed expenditure plan for fiscal year

2007 to the House and Senate Appropriations Committee.

Title IV, Research and Development, Training and Services,

Science and Technology, Management and Administration (Page

42, Lines 3-9); withholds $400 million until the House

Appropriations Committee receives and approves a report

prepared by the Under Secretary that describes Science and

Technology's progress in areas detailed in the bill.

Title IV, Research and Development, Training and Services

(Page 42, line 10-Page 43, line 3); provides $500,000,000 for

necessary expenses of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office,

but withholds funds from the Sodium-Iodide Manufacturing

Program until DNDO demonstrates that the Advanced

Spectroscopic Portals will significantly speed commerce,

reduce costs of secondary inspection, or significantly

increase sensitivity over current radiation portal monitors.

Section 513 (Page 49, Line 17-Page 51, Line 6); withholds

funds for Secure Flight until the Secretary certifies that

Government Accountability Office has reported on ten CAPPS II

points outlined in Sec. 522(a) in P.L. 108-334.

Section 518 (Page 52, Line 14-17); directs the Secretary of

Homeland Security in consultation with industry stakeholders

to develop screening standards and protocols to increase the

use of explosive detection equipment to screen air cargo.

Section 519 (Page 52, Line 18-Page 53, Line 4); directs the

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to use existing

explosive detection systems equipment to the greatest extent

practicable and to provide quarterly reports on amount of

cargo carried on passenger aircraft screened to the House

Appropriations Committee. Such reports must be submitted

within 45 days of the end of the quarter, each day the

reports are late, $100,000 of funding will be withheld from

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 material on H.R. 4954.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

House of Representatives

Committee on Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

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

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

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

and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security. The

Committee on Homeland Security marked up the bill and

reported it on April 28, 2006.

I appreciate your willingness to waive further

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

on this legislation. I agree that by not exercising your

right to request a referral, the Judiciary Committee does not

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

have requested, I will support your request for an

appropriate appointment of outside conferees from your

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

or similar legislation should such a conference be convened.

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

part of the Congressional Record during consideration of the

legislation on the House floor.

Thank you for your cooperation as we work towards the

enactment of H.R. 4954.

Sincerely,

Peter T. King,

Chairman.

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

Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset commend Ranking

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

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

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

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

No, I will not yield. I did not interrupt you.

Amazing how the truth hurts.

I don't need visual aids to remind me what happened on September 11. I can go to my district office and see a woman working at the front desk who lost two cousins. I can talk to another member of my staff who lost a son, or another member who lost two brothers on that day. I can go to church on Sunday and see 10, 15 families who lost people.

This is an issue where every Member on both sides of the aisle is committed to doing the right thing. And it is wrong when people on the other side say the Republicans are not trying to stop another nuclear attack. Do they really believe that? Do they so demean the process of debate in this House that they are willing to do anything to get elected, do anything to make points on evening news, the sound bites, the cable TV?

The fact is this bill is a real bill. It does not send a false or misleading hope. It is not a cruel hoax. It does what is real. It does what can be done, and that is why I am so proud of this bill.

We adopted amendments by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite, by Mr. Shays. And, by the way, the language in our bill is far similar to the amendment adopted on a bipartisan basis sponsored by a member of the opposition party in the Senate yesterday than anything Mr. Markey or Mr. Nadler have introduced today.

So I say, do what is right. Stand for real port security, stand for a really strong America. Vote down the motion to recommit and vote for the underlying bill that will bring about real safe ports in this country and we can all be proud of it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the rule providing for House consideration of the SAFE Port Act.

Mr. Speaker, none of us will ever forget what happened on September 11, 2001. Certainly in my district, there were well over 100 people were killed. My district is very close to the Port of New York and New Jersey, and many Members of this House suffered similarly on September 11.

When I was seeking the position of Homeland Security chairman last year, I made it a point to emphasize how important it was that we address the issue of port security. I am proud to say that prior to the whole Dubai Ports controversy, Chairman Dan Lungren, Congresswoman Jane Harman, Ranking Member Sanchez began work on this port security bill. So we were ready to move, and the Dubai Ports controversy gave us the window of opportunity to move forward.

As a result of that, with very close consultation and cooperation throughout this process, both at the subcommittee level and the full committee level, we have legislation which passed unanimously out of the subcommittee and then passed unanimously by a 29-0 vote last week out of the full committee.

In saying that, let me pay special thanks to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Thompson, who, again, both he and his staff were exceptionally cooperative as this process went forward.

Now, we operated on the presumption that significant progress has been made in port security since September 11. However, we need to finish the job, to ensure that these programs and others provide a robust, risk-based system for securing our vital international supply chain through point of origin of goods until arrival here in U.S. seaports.

The SAFE Port Act addresses port security enhancements in three main areas: strengthening security measures at foreign ports and improving risk-based targeting of suspicious cargo; improving security of cargo in transit; and making much needed security upgrades at U.S. ports.

I must point out also, Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill includes an amendment offered in committee by the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite, which requires aggressive evaluation and deployment of the best available technology to screen incoming cargo. This amendment, offered by Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite, passed by a vote of 33-0.

Mr. Speaker, since 9/11, the House has repeatedly voted to support risk-based funding decisions with respect to Homeland Security. This legislation enhances this risk-based strategy that ensures our dollars are spent in areas that provide maximum security benefits.

I want to emphasize also how there was the spirit of cooperation at the subcommittee level, the committee level, and I think it is safe to say, in fact I would emphasize the fact that everyone on the Homeland Security Committee feels very, very strongly about protecting every American life

by doing all we can to protect America's ports and indeed all of America from any future possible terrorist attack.

There can be differences about means. There can be differences about exactly how we achieve that. I feel very secure, very confident, very proud of the legislation that we passed. But it serves no purpose for anyone to be suggesting that there is anyone in the committee or House who is not absolutely dedicated to preserving every American life and doing all we can to enhance American security.

So I urge my colleagues to adopt this rule, reject any attempt to politicize the debate and move forward with this bipartisan bill.

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

[Filed on April 28, 2006]

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

4954. A bill to improve maritime and cargo security through

enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes, with an

amendment; referred to the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure for a period ending not later than May 1,

2006, for consideration of such provisions of the bill and

amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee

pursuant to clause 1(r), rule X. (Rept. 109-447, Pt. 1).

Ordered to be printed.