[Pages H2058-H2066]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4954, SECURITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
FOR EVERY PORT ACT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 789 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 789

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4954) to improve maritime and cargo security
through enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Homeland Security and 20 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider
as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the
five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Homeland Security now printed
in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.
The structured rule provides for 1 hour of general debate with 40
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security, and 20 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

{time} 1745

It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and
provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended
by the Committee on Homeland Security now printed in the bill shall be
considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall
be considered as read.
This rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Homeland
Security and makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules
Committee report accompanying the resolution.
It provides that the amendments printed in the report accompanying
the resolution may be offered only in the order printed in the report
and may be offered only by a Member designated in the report. They
shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and opponent. They shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole.
Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments
printed in the report and provides the minority with one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this balanced rule
providing for consideration of the bipartisan Security and
Accountability for Every Port, or SAFE Port, Act. The rule, which makes
in order 10 Democrat amendments and five Republican amendments, will
allow the House to begin its consideration of this bill, which has 80
bipartisan cosponsors, was approved unanimously through its
subcommittee and full committee markups in the Committee on Homeland
Security, and represents a responsible and thoughtful approach to
providing security at our Nation's ports.
The SAFE Port Act improves cargo security first by enhancing security
at United States ports. It requires the Department of Homeland Security
to deploy nuclear radiological detection systems at 22 seaports by the
end of fiscal year 2007, covering 98 percent of all incoming maritime
containers. It provides risk-based funding through a dedicated Port
Security Grant Program and requires the Secretary of Homeland Security
to coordinate Federal, State, local, and private sector security
activities by establishing a streamlined, integrated network of virtual
and physical command centers.
Second, this legislation improves cargo security by tracking and
protecting containers that are en route to the United States. This
legislation will require the Secretary to develop uniform standards for
sealing containers entering the United States and provide for the
improved utilization of private sector advances in security, including
research and development of new technologies and applications. It also
improves the International Trade Data System and directs the Department
to conduct additional research and testing on technology integration,
access control, and data-sharing capacities.
Third, this legislation improves our port security by preventing
threats from ever reaching the United States. It improves the Automated
Targeting System by collecting enhanced cargo data from importers
bringing goods through U.S. ports. It codifies the existing Container
Security Initiative and requires the Secretary to refuse entry to high-
risk cargo that the host nation does not inspect. It also authorizes
the Department to lend detection equipment and provide training to host

[[Page H2059]]

nations so that our closest trading partners can utilize the best
technology available anywhere in the world. Obviously, that is meant to
keep America and our trading partners safe.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation takes a responsible and bipartisan
approach to protecting American citizens from the threat of terrorism
being brought to our shores through our ports. It includes a provision
that requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to continue his
aggressiveness and ceaseless efforts to evaluate emerging detection and
screening technologies and measure those technologies against real-
world performance metrics before deploying them in the field to ensure
that they are effective in protecting the American people.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation to improve our Nation's ports.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sessions), my friend, for yielding me the time; and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this restrictive
rule, which permits the House to consider only one half of the
amendments which were brought to the Rules Committee last night. Under
this rule, only 15 of the approximately 30 amendments offered by
Members are made in order, while the remaining half are blocked from
consideration.
I find it astonishing, though not surprising, that my friends in the
majority, who just in the last hour were preaching ethics reform and
civility here in the House, are coming to the floor again with a
restrictive rule.
The rule, which was reported out of the Rules Committee along a
straight party-line vote, mocks the public's call for reforming the way
we go about doing business in the people's House. Clearly, the majority
is good at talking the talk, but as the American people are beginning
to understand, they are failing miserably to walk the walk.
In blocking these amendments from being considered by the House
today, Republicans are sending a message loud and clear that protecting
their political majority in the House is more important than protecting
the American people in their own homes.
Dangerously, the rule prohibits the House from considering a
Democratic amendment offered by Representatives Nadler, Oberstar,
Markey, and others which requires that every single shipping container
be scanned and sealed before being loaded onto a ship destined for the
United States.
Today, barely 5 percent of all containers coming into the United
States through our ports are scanned. Unfortunately, Republicans, again
along a party-line vote, blocked this commonsense security-based
amendment from being debated and considered by the full House. In doing
so, they have signed their names on the dotted line that they do not at
this time support inspecting 100 percent screening requirements at
America's ports.
Mr. Speaker, as someone who represents a district which depends
greatly upon three major international ports for economic activity, I
take issue with the majority's not allowing this amendment being
considered today. I take issue with their conscious decision to block
the House from considering an amendment which will, without a doubt,
make my constituents and the American people safer.
Sadly, the rule also fails to make in order an amendment which was
offered by the ranking Democrat of the Homeland Security Committee, my
good friend and trusted advisor on homeland security issues,
Representative Bennie Thompson from Mississippi. The ranking member's
amendment recognizes that we cannot continue asking Customs officials
to do more with less.
I just had this, coming from an international flight, discussion with
a fine gentleman in the Customs Department. Thirty-two years he has
been there, and he indicates to me just how difficult it is for them to
do more with less.
The amendment that Mr. Thompson offered authorized funding for U.S.
Customs and Border Patrol to hire 1,600 more officers at America's
seaports.
Representative Langevin offered an amendment that authorized $117
million for the purchase of advanced radiation portal monitors at all
our ports to ensure that Customs officials have the most up-to-date
equipment to do their job.
I kept hearing all this stuff last night about they do not have this
technology and everything. Well, I have seen this technology in
Vilnius, Lithuania, as one example. In Rotterdam, I saw this
technology. It worked. At the very least, what we need is whatever the
state of art is at this point in the hopes that it will work and that
we can improve it as time progresses.
Under this rule, however, both of these amendments, Mr. Thompson's
and Mr. Langevin's, and so many others are blocked from consideration.
Mr. Speaker, as I previously mentioned, I am proud to represent a
region in our country which is home to some of our largest
international seaports, Port Everglades, the Port of Palm Beach, and
the Port of Miami, all within just minutes of my home. They have led
the way in security improvements in America. The three, Port Everglades
in particular, have all enjoyed national and international best-
practices recognition.
So when I come to the floor today and consider the underlying
legislation, I have to ask, does this legislation get our ports to
where they need to be regarding security? The answer to this question
is a resounding no.
I have traveled all over this world visiting international ports to
learn about their operations and how they secure their cargo. Among the
places that I visited have been Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo, Rotterdam,
Lisbon, and others. These are some of the largest ports in the world
outside of the United States, and all of them manage to inspect more
cargo than we do without slowing down their port operations.
It was interesting to me, in the run-up to the Singapore Trade
Agreement, we required in that agreement that Singapore inspect more of
their cargo than we do in our own country. So I ask, if they can do it,
why can we not?
The rhetoric from the other side of the aisle is at an all-time high.
They talk about bipartisanship, but they shy away from working
together. I give credit at least to the ranking member and Chair of
this committee for trying. We give them opportunities to make good
bills better, but then they block the House from considering our ideas.
They talk about securing America, but then balk when it comes time to
actually do something about it.
Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today to do something about a
real problem which we all know exists at America's seaports. This is
not about showing the terrorists our weaknesses, as some in the
majority have suggested. Rather, it is about giving our Customs and
Border Patrol officers the necessary tools and directives to do
everything that they possibly can to stop attacks from happening here
in the United States.
The sad thing is, Mr. Speaker, it may not be until an attack occurs
that we will actually get this right.
This rule and the underlying legislation fails to meet the needs of
our ports and the expectations of the American people, and I urge my
colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this fair and balanced rule is one that involves a bunch
of cosponsors of Democrats and Republicans. It has been well thought
out. It has required a lot of thought process. This afternoon you are
going to hear from a number of Members on the Republican side who will
articulate how balanced and wonderful and how we have taken time to
make sure that we dealt with the minority, that we dealt with the
administration, that we looked at other ports around the world, that we
are trying to do those things that are best that will secure our ports
and get them done as quickly as possible but will also present
something that can be done in a balanced and proper way. I think that
that is the argument you are going to hear today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear
friend, Mr. Sessions, for the time.
I rise today in strong support of the rule and the underlying
legislation.

[[Page H2060]]

{time} 1800

Chairman Peter King has worked in an extraordinary fashion to create
a piece of legislation with the help of his ranking member, Mr.
Thompson, and the entire committee, that is worthy of our support. They
are the first ones to admit it is not perfect, but it certainly moves
us forward in an important way toward further port security.
For example, in the community that I am honored to represent, Mr.
Speaker, the Port of Miami, that port alone, of course, is one of the
largest in the country and in the world, and its annual operating
security costs have increased from $4 million in 2001 to $16 million in
the last year.
This legislation, for example, authorizes $400 million annually to be
awarded to high-risk ports, such as the Port of Miami, in grants. It
will be used precisely for purchasing and upgrading security equipment
and enhancing terrorism preparedness.
There are amendments. We made 10 Democrat amendments in order and
five Republican amendments in order. It is a fair rule. It is a fair
rule that we bring forth today.
For example, the Bass amendment would allow State and local agencies
to apply for reimbursement for operational expenses and overhead costs,
such as, for example, waterborne patrols. Those are functions that used
to be carried out and paid for by the Coast Guard. Now the ports have
to pay for them. So it is taken care of by that amendment.
So it is a fair rule, bringing forth a very important piece of
legislation, making in order twice as many Democrat amendments as
Republican amendments. Nevertheless, it is still a good rule. I support
the rule. I strongly support the underlying legislation and would ask
all of our colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
My colleague from Florida says that they made 10 Democrat amendments
in order and five Republican amendments, and that is true. But not a
single one of those is more important than the three that you did not
make in order.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the SAFE Port Act,
because it is important for the security of our Nation, but I rise in
reluctant opposition to this restrictive rule.
As a member of the Homeland Security Committee and an original
cosponsor of the underlying legislation, I understand that port
security is national security. We need this bill, Mr. Speaker, to keep
America safe. However, this rule does not permit debate on an important
amendment that I attempted to offer.
My amendment would strengthen our security by requiring the Domestic
Nuclear Detection Office to develop a report back to Congress of a plan
to purchase and deploy radiation portal detectors at our ports of
entry. My amendment would also authorize additional funds to help pay
for these detectors.
Our intelligence analysts tell us one of the greatest risks our
country faces is the threat that a terrorist will smuggle nuclear
material across our borders or through our ports and detonate a dirty
bomb or a nuclear device in one of our cities. The technology, Mr.
Speaker, exists to scan cargo for this radioactive material, and DHS is
in the process of deploying it.
In addition, DHS is in the process of awarding a contract for the
next generation of detectors, which will cost at least twice as much as
the current generation. However, a recent GAO report determined that
DHS needs an additional $300 million to purchase and deploy the 3,000
current generation monitors.
The report indicated that with current funding, DHS will be unable to
deploy the monitors by its target date of 2009. In December I offered
an amendment to require the full deployment of these monitors within 1
year. This amendment passed the Homeland Security Committee with
bipartisan support. The amendment that I offered to the Rules Committee
is a less drastic step but goes a long way towards keeping us safe. By
requiring DHS to figure out what types of monitors they need at
different locations, DHS will provide us with a better assessment of
exactly how much this program will actually cost.
Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot afford to wait any longer. Defeating
the previous question will allow the House to consider both my
amendment and Ranking Member Thompson's important amendment to increase
the number of port inspectors over the next 5 years.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the
previous question, voting to protect our ports and border crossings
from nuclear material being smuggled across our borders and passing the
SAFE Port Act.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I spoke about this fair and balanced rule.
We have also spoken about how great the legislation is.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman who is the chairman of the Committee on Homeland
Security, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of New York. 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

[[Page H2061]]

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.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if we had made one amendment in
order, it would have been satisfactory on this side, the one that was
offered by my good friend Mr. Nadler, who I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this rule does not make in order an
amendment that was defeated 18-16 on a practically party-line vote and
is the key difference, and it is why this rule ought to be defeated.
The gentleman from New York says a risk-based strategy. Why should we
risk the lives of millions of people by assuming that we know which
container will contain the atomic bomb or the radiological bomb? We
don't know that. We can't know that.
The only safety we can have is to inspect 100 percent of the
containers, not in New York but in Hong Kong, before they are put on a
ship bound for the United States. That is the essence of the amendment,
the Nadler-Markey amendment that the Republicans won't accept and won't
permit us to debate on the floor.
They say the technology doesn't exist. The technology most certainly
exists. It is done in Hong Kong today. Mr. Gingrey spoke about a
company in his district that wants to sell the tamper-proof seals that
will tell us if the container, once scanned, is tampered with. But the
Department of Homeland Security is not interested.
This bill contains a study, an amendment by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite
that the Department of Homeland Security should study whether it is
feasible to have 100 percent scanning. We passed that amendment on this
floor 2 years ago. It was the Nadler amendment. It is in the law. It
said they should report back in 90 days, 90 days from 2 years ago. They
haven't bothered reporting back, because they are not interested in
this. This is another waste of time.
The fact is, a risk-based strategy, they will simply put the atomic
bomb or the radiological bomb in a low-risk container from Wal-Mart.
The greatest risk we face is that a good company will have a container
with sneakers in Indonesia on the way to the port, and the driver will
stop for lunch, and while he is stopping for lunch, some terrorist will
take out the sneakers and put in a bomb and the bill of lading will be
fine.
The people who say we can't do this are the same people who told us 2
years ago we couldn't get a bill of lading for every container 24 hours
in advance, and they told us we couldn't get every person searched
before he got on an airplane.
If we really want to make this country safer, we must debate on this
floor this amendment, the Nadler-Markey amendment, to say, before any
container gets put on a ship bound for the United States, it must be
scanned electronically to see what is in it; it should be sealed with a
tamper-proof seal that will tell us if it has been tampered with; and
the results of the scan should be transmitted electronically to people
in the United States who will look at that seal.
It is being done now in Hong Kong, except that because no one in the
Department of Homeland Security is interested, the results of those
scans are on tapes that are stored there because no one in this country
has time to read those tapes.
For shame.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, once again articulating this balanced rule
and fair and wonderful legislation, we continue to talk about what the
legislation stands for without attempting to scare people but rather to
give the substance of what the bill is about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Economic
Security, Infrastructure Protection and Cybersecurity Subcommittee, Mr.
Lungren.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that this is an
attempt to have a balanced bill. I have worked as hard as I can with
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and with the ranking
member on my subcommittee, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, to try and respond to a
true challenge that we have before us, and that is the challenge of
terrorists attempting to do harm to our country by going through our
ports.
The very nature of our ports, the very genius of our ports, which is
the just-in-time delivery, the inventory that is basically carried on
ships these days, instead of stationary in large buildings on land, the
very easy transfer of them from ships to trucks to be able to get into
the middle of our country within the shortest period of time, times
that would have been unimaginable just years ago, that very ingenuity,
that creativity, also creates the vulnerability.
It is true that, following 9/11, we focused, not exclusively but more
than any other area, on our aviation system. Now we have an opportunity
to try and put a greater emphasis on security for our ports.
I was gone from this place for 16 years; 9/11 was the event that
compelled me to return. I grew up in the shadows of one of the great
harbors of this country, Long Beach. I worked there one summer when I
was in college.

{time} 1815

I have been able to see the tremendous growth and the change in the
way our ports operate. I am proud of our ports. I would do nothing, I
would do nothing to try and put them at risk. And I would say this base
bill is a very good bill.
When I hear some of the discussion about the rule, it reminds me of
my prior service in the House when I served for 10 years as a minority
Member, where we did not have a right to a motion to recommit. We were
given an opportunity for a motion to recommit when the Rules Committee
decided they would give it to us.
Under the Republican rules of the House, a motion to recommit is
given to the minority on every major bill. So those elements of concern
that have been expressed by the minority side of substance of
amendments that are not allowed under this bill we know can be put into
a motion to recommit.
Now, that does not mean I am going to support it, because I think
good and sufficient arguments can be made against some of the
amendments that wish to be presented here in the floor and in the
substance of the motion to recommit. But I just hope in the discussion
on this rule and the discussion on the underlying bill we do not lose
that sense of bipartisanship that has really been a watchword of this
attempt to provide us with the response to a true challenge in this
country.
The very vote that we had, 29-0 coming out of our committee, the fact
that we have more than 80 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle,
gives the very indication of the bipartisan nature of this bill.
I get involved in partisan arguments from time to time, as you well
know. But this institution does itself proud when it responds to the
challenges that are out there facing our constituents. This committee,
the Homeland Security Committee, has served this House well by its
bipartisan approach under first our former chairman, Mr. Cox, and now
our current chairman, Mr. King.
The Members on the Democratic side have worked very hard I think to
work with us in a bipartisan way. So I hope the tenor of the debate
tonight does not mislead people who may be listening into thinking we
are not doing the peoples' business. We are doing the peoples'
business. I am proud of the work that we are doing here. This is a good
bill. We will debate some additional amendments. We will have a motion
to recommit. And whatever comes out of that, this will still be a good
bill.
Please support this rule and support this bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence,
my

[[Page H2062]]

good friend, Ms. Harman from California.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I commend him for his service on the Rules Committee and also on the
Intelligence Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule but also in support of
the comments that just were made by the bill's co-author, Mr. Lungren.
I support bipartisanship. To my marrow, I support bipartisanship. I
think that this bill, which he and I have co-authored, is an excellent
bill; and there will be plenty of time tomorrow to debate it. I hope
that debate will be in a true bipartisan spirit.
My opposition to the rule, Mr. Speaker, is that there are missed
opportunities. There are things we could have and should have done in
this rule that we did not do. What is wrong with this rule is that the
legislation will not have the benefit of several important provisions
which, in fact, were in bills before us. I want to explain what I mean.
The Homeland Security SAFE Port Act did include a provision to
accelerate the Coast Guard's Deepwater Program so that we can replace
outdated planes and boats sometime before my new baby granddaughter
graduates from college.
I doubt that a single Member of the House opposes modernizing the
Coast Guard fleet. All of us know that this Federal agency has done
more than any other, at least in my view, to defend America and stretch
scarce dollars to the breaking point after 9/11.
However, in the manager's amendment made in order under this rule, we
are deleting the Deepwater Program language. I think that is a mistake.
Secondly, we have already been talking about the issue of 100 percent
scanning and sealing of containers. It is something that I strongly
support. Identical language to language defeated in the Homeland
Security Committee and not allowed to be presented on the floor, was
included and reported in legislation by the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee.
My point here is that, on a bipartisan basis, at least one committee
of this House has already approved this language. Now it is not in the
version of the bill before us but also it is not made in order as an
amendment to this bill. That language would help make a good bill a
better bill.
The process to develop the bill is good. The process in the Rules
Committee was bad. I urge a no vote on the rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, once again continuing, the majority side,
to present a fair and balanced rule with the substance of the bill, I
yield 4 minutes to our next speaker, the gentlemen from Lehigh Valley,
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the rule
and in support of the underlying bill, H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act of
2006.
This is a bipartisan bill, as has been stated, that takes a
commonsense approach to improving the security of America's ports. The
bill authorizes $821 million annually for port security programs. It
requires the Department of Homeland Security to deploy nuclear and
radiological detection systems at 22 U.S. seaports by the end of fiscal
year 2007, an action that will cover 98 percent of incoming maritime
containers.
Further, it makes sure that the people working at our port facilities
are properly cleared and identified by forcing DHS to set deadlines for
the implementation of the Transportation Worker Information Credential
Program, or commonly called TWIC, a biometrically enhanced
identification card system designed to make sure that those who would
seek to commit acts of terrorism against us are not allowed to work
within the U.S. port system.
Mr. Speaker, I am also happy to see that the bill codifies in law the
establishment of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, or DNDO.
Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to visit the DNDO facility at
the Nevada test site.
Mr. Speaker, I am firmly convinced of the importance of maintaining
the vitality of this organization. The DNDO has been one of the most
important missions within the DHS, the detection and identification of
nuclear materials. During my visit, I observed firsthand the testing of
nuclear and radiological countermeasures, including detection devices
designed to identify vehicles transporting nuclear explosive devices,
fissile material, radiological material intended for illicit use.
The SAFE Port Act requires the DNDO to conduct testing of next-
generation nuclear radiological detection equipment and to put forth a
time line for completing installation of such equipment at all US
seaports.
Finally, I am grateful to Chairman King for his willingness to accept
my addition to section 1812 of the act, which appears in the manager's
amendment. My addition to section 1812 allows contract logistics
providers to be eligible for inclusion in the Customs-Trade Partnership
Act Against Terrorism, or commonly known as C-TPAT, an important tool
in the public-private sector alliance designed to make sure that goods
shipped by manufacturers internationally are safe.
Contract logistics providers manage the movement and warehousing of
goods and have access to critical information about the status of
shipments throughout the supply chain. Given our goal of securing the
entire supply chain, it is logical that companies providing services
critical to the overall movement of goods should be allowed to
voluntarily seek membership in C-TPAT.
For all of these reasons, I support the rule and underlying bill,
H.R. 4954.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to
advise each of us how much time remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings)
has 14 minutes remaining.
The gentlemen from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has 11\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), my good friend.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Florida for allowing me to speak against this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I do not support this rule as it flies in the face of
bipartisanship shown by the Homeland Security Committee. It is
inexcusable to not allow an up or down vote on many of the amendments
that appeared before the Rules Committee, including my amendment
increasing the number of Customs inspectors assigned at seaports, the
Nadler-Markey amendment advocating 100 percent phase-in screening of
cargo, and the Langevin amendment on radiation portal monitoring.
Silencing debate on port security and not allowing Republican and
Democrats of this House to consider those amendments on the floor keep
all of us from doing our jobs constituents put us here to do.
If those who refuse to allow these amendments to be considered by the
House did so because they were afraid that they were not going to pass,
then I ask them to think about this: maybe these amendments would have
passed because they are sound policy and the types of things that we
need to do, serve and protect the American people.
If they were refused because the majority did not want to take hard
votes that their constituents might disagree with, I implore those who
make these decisions to put America's safety first before politics. We
must remember that homeland security is not a Democratic or Republican
issue, it is an American issue; and those in this House must treat it
as so.
If our ports are attacked, if a cargo container is blown up, those
affected will be all stripes, colors and political affiliations. It is
about time this House started legislating as such.
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the amendments the Rules majority refused
to give an up or down vote on.
First, my amendment authorized $67 million for 400 Customs and Border
Patrol inspectors to be assigned at seaports over the next 4 years.
With all of the talk of how we need to shore up our ports here and
abroad, why not put our money where our mouth is and get enough people
to do the job? One of the major deficiencies of our port security is
that we do not have enough inspectors at U.S. and foreign seaports.
Second, the rule rejects Mr. Langevin's amendment which increases
radiation portal monitors, increases funding by $117 million. What is
the majority afraid of? That the American people may discover that this

[[Page H2063]]

country spends 57 times the amount of money on a missile defense system
that does not work?
Finally, this rule does not include the amendment offered by
Representatives Nadler, Markey and Oberstar, requiring 100 percent
container scanning phased in over 5 years. Currently, only about 5
percent of that cargo is screened; 95 percent is not. This amendment
would have fixed that.
Let's stop playing politics with America's security. Let's have an
open exchange of ideas. It is about time that we stopped hiding behind
rules that leave America less secure.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the rule and the substance that we are debating here is
very important and one which, to support the balance that we have, the
committee heard many of the amendments that had been discussed in
subcommittees and in full committee. They were voted down twice as a
result of substantive debate and all of the members of the committee
being together.
The Rules Committees was aware of that. We took testimony, we heard
from people, and we made a decision. Our rule, the one we are putting
together, is fair: 10 Democrat amendments, 5 Republican amendments. We
feel good about what we are doing. The substance of the bill is strong,
the substance of the bill is balanced, and the substance of the bill
aims directly at what our national self-interest is as it relates to
protecting our ports.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
support of the rule for H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act.
For too long we have been content with minimal upgrades to port
security while vigorously bolstering our airports and borders. Do not
get me wrong. These areas of security are vital, but so are our ports.
As a Member from Florida, I am extremely conscious of the Nation's
vulnerability in this area.

{time} 1830

Florida has 14 ports, all of which are in desperate need of the grant
funding that this bill provides for infrastructure, technology and
security upgrades.
The SAFE Port Act pushes us leaps and bounds beyond our current
security. We fund port of entry inspection offices, port security
programs and port worker-identification systems.
I was especially proud to contribute an amendment in the Homeland
Security Committee to move DHS toward advanced technology. I beg to
differ with my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle. This is
not a study. As a matter of fact, the amendment requires the Secretary
of Homeland Security to aggressively pursue new cargo screening
technologies within 1 year. The Secretary must then work with foreign
governments within 6 months to deploy such technology.
This amendment, and the underlying bill, does not falsely promise
some fantastic pie-in-the-sky technology. Though the ICIS project of
100 percent screening in Hong Kong is promising, it is still too
unproven that we would ever consider demanding immediate implementation
of it. There are still density problems that exist. Cargo is being
screened at some of the terminals, but no one is analyzing this data
because of these problems prior to shipment. When the technology is in
place, of course we will use it.
Every Member of this body on both sides of the aisle wants to make
sure that our screening is adequate, more than adequate, that it is
state-of-the-art. And when that technology is here, we certainly will
use it.
In the meantime, I do not believe that we should waste taxpayer
dollars on pie-in-the-sky promises. Instead, the bill requires DHS to
implement realistic technology to increase our overseas cargo
screening.
Our constituents require and deserve a secure America, and this bill
pushes DHS further than ever to deliver that.
As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am committed to
never allowing DHS to become complacent. This bill is not the end of
port security legislation. Rather, it is a good starting line for us to
begin the race, running faster than ever to secure America with
realistic technology and real results.
I certainly want to thank Chairman King as well as Congressman
Lungren and Congresswoman Harman for the opportunity to work with them
on this very significant legislation.
I urge all Members to vote in favor of the rule and, of course, the
underlying bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
My colleague, Mr. Sessions, my friend, related earlier that in full
committee these matters were debated and were voted down. I would
remind him that the Nadler amendment passed in the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee on a voice vote and that the Lungren amendment
passed in the Homeland Security Committee, an appropriate jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson-Lee), my good friend.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from Florida for his leadership.
In this debate, I have listened to the encouragement and the
entreaties to be bipartisan, and let me say that I accept that call. In
fact, I believe that we have made a step toward national security, but
I am, like my good friend from Florida and a number of other of my
colleagues, somewhat frustrated and distraught that, based upon the
recent reflection of the former Inspector General of the U.S. Homeland
Security Department; I want to remind my colleague that the IG's office
is an independent office that is not to be tainted by any partisan
politics. They indict in a bipartisan way. They criticize without
partisanship. They call a spade a spade. They suggest what can be
fixed, and they try to create an atmosphere in which we can improve the
conditions in which that department operates.
The Inspector General of the U.S. Homeland Security Department has
said that the container security initiative is a complete failure; it
does not work. I think the American people need to know that.
So the frustration is that we were bipartisan in the committee, and I
know our good friends know that by supporting the gentlewoman from
Florida's amendment, but we could not get the Nadler-Markey amendment
that a number of us are cosponsors on. I am an original cosponsor of
that amendment.
The issue that Mr. Markey and Mr. Nadler have raised on a continuous
basis, but more importantly, forget about Members who may be described
as having some partisanship, if you will, underlying the backdrop, but
the Inspector General is saying that we are near the precipice of
another horrible incident, and that incident could include a tanker
full of weapons of mass destruction or a container full, which is what
the Nadler-Markey amendment suggests, 100 percent scrutiny and clearing
of the containers coming to our ports.
Let me just conclude by saying, let us see if we can find a way, vote
for the motion to recommit, but let me just say that, in addition, I am
grateful for an amendment that talks about including the congested
neighborhoods near ports in the disaster training, but I am
disappointed that an amendment that focuses on providing opportunity
for minority, women-owned and small businesses in doing this disaster
fix-up was eliminated.
Let us hope we can make a better bill, and let us hope we do that as
we move this bill forward.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on the significant step forward
toward national security and safety for our seaports that this bill
represents. I am proud of my colleagues who have crafted this bill to
be inclusive of many issues that Members of the Committee on Homeland
Security and other Members of the Congress have expressed over the last
few years, and more intensely over the last few months.
However, I remain distraught and angered by the fact that the rule
under which we consider this bill today prevents a true democratic
debate to take place, and limits participation in crafting this bill to
be relevant both to all stakeholders and all Americans.
There are 15 amendments accepted in order, and I am thankful that one
of my

[[Page H2064]]

amendments has been included in this list, including neighborhoods in
at-risk areas surrounding a seaport.
However, this list should not be so exclusive. I find it hard to
believe that the other 19 amendments were baseless enough to warrant
exclusion from floor consideration.
I find it appalling that among the amendments declined was an
amendment to preserve consideration of women- and minority-owned
businesses in the Homeland Security grant program and an amendment that
removes the restriction on the use of funds received through the Port
Security Grant Program to pay for the salaries, benefits, overtime
compensation, and other costs of additional security personnel for
State and local agencies for activities required by the Area Maritime
Transportation Security Plan. Lastly, I am frustrated by the decision
by the Rules committee to not allow debate on an amendment by Mr.
Markey and Mr. Nadler that requires immediate attention and
consideration.
Their amendment requires 100 percent of packages entering our
Nation's ports to be scanned. We need to make sure the contents of a
package are indeed what the paperwork says they are. While I support
the Markey Amendment goal of 100 percent inspection of containers, I
think it is also important for us to consider and pursue innovative
technology and supplemental data gathering mechanisms to ensure that we
are as informed as possible about the packages entering our country.
Nonetheless, this amendment was an opportunity to bring a crucial
debate off the TV networks and out of the newspapers and onto the floor
of the House of Representatives. I am disappointed that the Rules
committee shut down this debate.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule which unfairly limits
the involvement of fellow Members of Congress in protecting our
seaports and preserving our homeland security.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the gentleman from
Florida that the majority does not have any additional speakers at this
time and that I would welcome any opportunity that he would have to
utilize his time up with the knowledge that I then would close as
appropriate.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend for
that. Would the Speaker advise how much time I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings) has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the most
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who has
advanced this legislation in a meaningful way, whose amendment was not,
I repeat, was not allowed.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Nadler, Mr. Oberstar and I requested an amendment to be put in
order, and the Republicans said no. In the former Soviet Union, there
is deadly nuclear weapons material that is still unsecured that al
Qaeda could purchase, bring to a port in Europe, in Asia, in Africa,
put it on a ship and bring it into the port of the United States and
detonate a nuclear weapon without ever having been inspected.
Now, the amendment which we asked the Republicans to put in order was
one that required all containers coming into the United States to be
screened overseas before they are put on ships to come into American
ports so that we can identify which ship has the nuclear weapon.
In the Homeland Security Committee, our amendment lost 18-16. The
Republican majority refuses to allow the coastal representatives to
vote on this issue.
We should have learned something from the Dubai debacle, the threat
to our container ships coming into our ports. Our amendment says no
deadly uranium bombs allowed in, no Dubais. The Republican majority
says, we are not going to screen any containers coming into the ports
of the United States.
It is dangerous. The least that we should be able to say when that
nuclear weapon goes off is that we tried, we really tried to prevent it
from happening. The Republicans are not only not trying to stop it from
happening; they are stopping us from having a debate on the floor of
Congress on this issue.
This is the issue that is at the top of the al Qaeda terrorist target
list, to bring a nuclear weapon into the port of an American city. And
instead of allowing for this debate to take place, they are saying they
cannot figure it out. They are going to study it for three more years.
So that will mean we went from 2001 to 2009 studying this issue.
When the Soviet Union threatened the United States in 1961 with
Sputnik, President Kennedy did not say, we are going to study it until
1969. He said, we will put a man on the Moon and bring him back to
Earth; we will control the heavens, not the Communists.
What the Republicans with the Bush White House say is, they are going
to study the issue of the greatest al Qaeda threat to our country, a
nuclear bomb in a container in a port in the United States. They are
going to study it for all 8 years, 2001 to 2009. President Kennedy
said, rocket science, we will master it. The Republicans say, we cannot
even figure out how to screen a container; we cannot even figure out
how to put a tamper-proof seal on a container.
The price our country will pay will be too high a price. It will be
the most horrendous event in the history of our Nation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my
good friend.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for the time.
This is ``let's pretend'' time. Let's pretend this is a fair process
when a meaningful amendment that lost only by two votes in committee to
screen 100 percent of the containers coming to America is not allowed.
Are we afraid of the democratic process here on the floor?
Let's pretend that the unverified paperwork certification of
shippers, C-TPAT and CIS, are meaningful and provide real security
despite the numerous reports we have about their extraordinary
failures, including the most recent one where a C-TPAT, CIS-based
company and port provided 15 Chinese in a container delivered to the
United States of America. That could have been 15 tactical nuclear
weapons in that container instead of people attempting to sneak into
the United States.
Here is how it works: you are a foreign company. You want to ship to
the U.S. You go online on your computer. You fill out a form online.
You immediately get the score of your products and your shipping
reduced to the United States of America. It no longer is as much of a
threat because you filled out a form online, whoever you might be; you
might be Osama bin Laden in a cave, we don't know.
Okay. Well, then we are going to send someone around to certify you
are who you said you are and you really have the paperwork plan you
told us you have. Unfortunately, we do not have enough people to do
that. It will be 1 to 3 years before either a U.S. inspector or a
contractor comes by for one day, one time, to make sure you are not a
bad guy and you might not ship bad things here.
That is quite a system. That is C-TPAT. It is a faith-based honor
system. Here it is: they will send us a manifest. Now a manifest says
100 concrete bird baths, but what if it is 99 concrete bird baths and
one tactical nuclear weapon? Well, they are in the C-TPAT program; they
would not phony up a manifest. Of course, again, you have 6 months to
adjust your manifest after your product arrives in the United States
because you know everybody says manifests are not accurate.
We do not know who the people are, and the manifests are not
accurate, but that's the security we have today.
The Deputy Secretary of TSA, Mr. Jackson, admits there is a risk. He
says, well, they do not want to screen all the containers on the other
side of the ocean, even though the technology exists. Despite what the
gentlewoman from Florida said, it exists, it works and it does not
unduly delay. You can drive by it at 10 miles per hour.
He says the vision of the Bush administration is, they are going to
screen ultimately, with technology, 100 percent of the containers
before they leave United States ports for the interior of the U.S., but
they might contain threats. Now, wait a minute. We are going to put
them in our ports, but we think they might have threats, but we will
inspect them before they go inland? I guess the ports are sacrifice
zones. I guess most of our ports are in

[[Page H2065]]

blue States. No, Florida was a red State. I am not sure why they want
to sacrifice those ports in those States.
This is extraordinary to me that we are not being allowed this one
simple amendment, and let us pretend that they are not under
unbelievable pressure from Wal-Mart and other shippers of goods to the
United States to not do anything meaningful because it will cost a
couple of bucks more per container.

{time} 1845

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this point
and would encourage the gentleman from Florida, if he would choose to
close at this time, to do that.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining
time.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rules
so the House can vote on important amendments offered by Homeland
Security Ranking Member Thompson and Representative Langevin to
increase security at our Nation's ports. Rules Committee Republicans
rejected these amendments when we met last night.
The amendment would add 1,600 new Customs and Border Protection
Officers at our Nation's ports. We cannot conduct more container
inspections at our ports if we do not have more people. The goal of the
Langevin amendment is to make sure that these Customs officials working
in our ports are using the best available technology. It authorizes
funds to speed up the installation of radiation portal monitors in
domestic ports of entry.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of these
amendments and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it just seems like common sense
to me that if you want to make port facilities safer, you put more
Customs officials on the ground and give them better equipment to
detect and stop terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee
has decided that the House is not going to debate these ideas, and in
my judgment, that is a shame. Members should be aware that a ``no''
vote will not prevent consideration of the SAFE Port Act, and it will
not affect any of the amendments that are in order under this rule. But
a ``no'' vote will allow us to vote for these responsible amendments to
increase security at our Nation's ports. I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
articulating the Democrats' side this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, we
understand what they are saying. We get it. As a matter of fact, there
have been these debates now for several years, and this House, time and
time again, has said that we support a risk-based funding approach.
Risk-based.
We have already shown this where Democrats have voted. In the PATRIOT
Act reauthorization, 44 Democrats voted for that; first responder
authorization, 181 Democrats; Homeland Security appropriations bills,
194 Democrats; and then, on the conference report, 124 Democrats; and
then in the 2004 intelligence reform bill, 183 Democrats.
Mr. Speaker, we do not say this bill is perfect. What we try and do
is aim the resources, the precious resources combined with the
technology and the desire that the United States of America has to
support the efforts of protecting this country, not only in our ports,
on our borders, in our cities, and in the intelligence that we do. And
time in and time out, we have said we are going to be threat-based.
Where the threat is, that is where we will put our resources. And a 100
percent check of all the cargo that goes in and out of our ports is
simply unrealistic.
What is realistic, that overwhelmingly has been supported by this
House, that I believe once again this House will be on record to
support, is the thing that works, and that is to not chase our tail but
to look at where the threat exists. That is what this committee has
done. That is what the Rules Committee has done. I am proud to say that
we have a fair and balanced rule. I am proud to say that the underlying
legislation that has been supported by these two committees is threat-
based, aims directly at a bipartisan approach and, more importantly, is
something that will make us a little bit safer now and in our future.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of what we have done today, and I think this
House will support that. I urge all my colleagues to support this rule
and the underlying legislation to give the Department of Homeland
Security the tools and the direction it needs to keep America's shores
free from the threat of terrorists.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:

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

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution the two amendments specified in section 3 shall be
in order as though printed after the amendment numbered 15 in
the report of the Committee on Rules.
Sec. 3. The amendments referred to in section 2 are as
follows:
An amendment offered by Representative Thompson of
Mississippi or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable
for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled, by the
proponent and an opponent.

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

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

SEC. 127. ADDITIONAL CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICERS
AT UNITED STATES SEAPORTS.

(a) In General.--For the period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act and ending September 30, 2010, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall hire approximately 1,600
additional Customs and border Protection officers for
assignment at United States seaports.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $67,617,200 for each of the fiscal years
2007 through 2010 to carry out this section.
An amendment offered by Representative Langevin of Rhode
Island or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable for
30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent.

Amendment to H.R. 4954, as Reported Offered by Mr. Langevin of Rhode
Island

Page 103, after line 11, insert the following new
paragraphs:
``(4) Additional Requirements.--The Director shall make the
following determinations in developing and executing the
acquisition strategy under this subsection:
``(A) A determination of the ports of entry at which the
detection systems will be deployed using a risk analysis of
all United States ports of entry.
``(B) A determination of the types of detection systems to
be deployed at the ports of entry determined under
subparagraph (A), including--
``(i) radiation portal monitors;
``(ii) advanced spectroscopic radiation portal monitors;
``(iii) mobile radiation detection systems; and
``(iv) human portable radiation detection systems.
``(C) A determination of the cost of the detection systems
described in subparagraph (B) and a timeline for the
deployment of such systems.
``(D) A determination of the cost to implement the
strategy.
``(5) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of the Security and Accountability For Every Port
Act, the Director shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a report that contains the
acquisition strategy developed pursuant to this
subsection.''.
Page 111, line 25, strike ``$536,000,000'' and insert
``$653,000,000''.

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March

[[Page H2066]]

15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule
resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a
member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry,
asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G.
Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been
refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had
asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is
entitled to the first recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have
substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools
for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to offer an
alternative plan.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the
underlying legislation.
We all know that port security has been news across the United States
in recent weeks, and it should be.
The U.S. ports are on the front lines of homeland security. My home
state of Texas has several major seaports, including Galveston,
Brownsville and Houston, that offer potential routes for dangerous
cargo and terrorist weapons.
This bill, the SAFE Ports Act of 2005, will help ensure that
Americans feel confident that the U.S. Government is protecting them
from yet another threat.
It does so by imposing security requirements on overseas shippers and
ports where cargo starts its journey to the United States, on cargo
transportation while enroute to the United States, and at the ports
within the United States--the last staging area before cargo makes its
way into the country.
Also, this bill requires the Department of Homeland Security
Secretary to employ standards for sealing all containers entering the
Unites States within two years of enactment. It also requires the
Secretary to deploy nuclear and radiological detection systems at 22
U.S. seaports by the end of fiscal year 2007.
These are good ways to ensure port security, and there are many more
included in the bill.
I thank Chairman King of Iowa, Chairman Daniel E. Lungren of
California, and ranking member Harman for their work on much-needed
legislation, and urge my colleagues to support the Rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________