[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 147 (Thursday, November 14, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H8737-H8738]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1214, MARITIME 
                  TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ACT OF 2002

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 605 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 605

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (S. 1214) to amend the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, to 
     establish a program to ensure greater security for United 
     States seaports, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against the conference report and against its consideration 
     are waived. The conference report shall be considered as 
     read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it was my hope, I had actually assigned this rule for 
management to my colleague from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), and I have 
his prepared statement here, and I will go through his prepared 
statement, Mr. Speaker. I love Florida, and it is a great spot. My 
family actually has a home there, but I am a Californian; so I am just 
offering that as a bit of a warning as I proceed with the statement of 
the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
  During the consideration of the resolution, all time yielded will be 
for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 605 is a standard rule 
waiving all points of order against the conference report to accompany 
the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 and against its 
consideration.
  The underlying legislation is yet another integral part of our 
coordinated effort to provide the most effective and comprehensive 
homeland security plan possible. We are working to protect our citizens 
at home and abroad, we are working to protect our vital infrastructure, 
both physical and electronic, and we are working to improve our 
economic security. Today we will vote to protect our Nation's ports.
  Our maritime industry, including hundreds of ports nationwide, 
contributes $742 billion to the gross domestic product each year. The 
State of Florida has some of the largest ports in the country, and I 
should say I represent the Los Angeles area, which has the Ports of 
Long Beach and Los Angeles, which are even larger than the ones in 
Florida I should add. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) 
represents the Port of Miami and Port Everglades. Thousands of 
passenger and container ships pass through these ports every year. 
Industries from retail sales to the airline industries are effected by 
the business that is done at these ports in both my State and in the 
State of Florida and around the country.
  We must ensure that these ports are not only safeguarded from being 
used as a point of entry for dangerous elements, but also to protect 
them from an attack that could be devastating to our economy. The Port 
of Miami's impact on Miami-Dade County is estimated at more than $8 
billion and 45,000 jobs. In fiscal year 2001, the volume of cargo 
moving through the Port of Miami exceeded 8.2 million tons. Port 
Everglades' volume of business is equally impressive. In 2001, Port 
Everglades was host to over 3 million cruise passengers.
  Our Nation's ports are significant partners in the U.S. economy and 
we must employ every conceivable option to protect them. This 
conference report will work to this end by requiring the Coast Guard to 
conduct vulnerability assessments of our ports, authorizing grants to 
help with port security upgrades around the country, and by assessing 
the security systems of certain foreign ports that do business with the 
United States.
  Additionally, this legislation authorizes $6 billion for the Coast 
Guard in fiscal year 2003, including $550 million in additional 
resources to address longstanding budget shortfalls. The Coast Guard is 
charged with the tremendous duty of protecting our 95,000 miles of 
coastline. This legislation very appropriately addresses this reality.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the 
ranking minority member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), 
as well as the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. LoBiondo), for their work on this very important issue. This is 
truly a bipartisan piece of legislation. In fact, every member of the 
conference committee has signed the report.
  The conference report and the fair rule providing for its 
consideration deserve our support, and I would urge my colleagues to do 
this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield control of the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Miami (Mr. Diaz-Balart), who has arrived, and I know 
that he could have commented on Florida in a much better way than I, 
but I struggled to get through representation of his State if only on a 
temporary basis.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Florida will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules for 
yielding me time and I thank my colleague and neighbor from Florida for 
his comments.
  Mr. Speaker, this important legislation helps ensure the security of 
our Nation's ports by establishing a comprehensive national 
antiterrorism system to reduce the vulnerability of ports and waterways 
against a terrorist attack and a transportation security incident. 
Additionally, the conference report authorizes funding for these new 
antiterrorism fighting provisions as well as the planning and 
implementation of security plans and response efforts at all of our 
Nation's ports.
  It authorizes additional funding to the Coast Guard which is much 
needed, and it establishes a nationwide security ID program for all 
U.S. ports. Perhaps most importantly, the report outlines the 
responsibilities of various Federal agencies, local law enforcement, 
and private companies in the day-to-day security operations of ports in 
the case of any unforeseen event.

                              {time}  1315

  Following September 11, as a member of the Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence and Committee on Rules, I was and remain an outspoken 
critic of the lack of coordination between Federal agencies in times of 
crises. I am happy to see that the conference had the foresight and 
wherewithal to provide guidance to the many agencies affected by 
increased port security. Perhaps our airports and the Transportation 
Security Administration could learn a few things from this report.
  Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that I find myself managing this rule with 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart). I think the gentleman 
would agree that there is no region in the country that is home to 
three major international ports in such close proximity as South 
Florida. And the rest of Florida, if we take into consideration the 
Tampa Bay area, the Pensacola Bay area, Jacksonville and Port 
Canaveral, then Florida obviously is critical when it comes to port 
security.
  Further, there are no ports that have done more security improvements 
in the last 18 months than Port Everglades, the Port of Palm Beach and 
the Port of Miami, all three of which are located in the counties the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and I represent.
  While the underlying report is good, it would be irresponsible of me 
to continue without noting two of the major flaws I believe still exist 
in the legislation.
  First, ports who had planned for or implemented new security measures 
prior to September 11, 2001, that bring the port into compliance with 
provisions of S. 1214 should be able to be reimbursed for their 
expenses. The underlying report does not allow for this to occur.

[[Page H8738]]

  Case in point, Port Everglades. As one of the largest cruise ships 
and container ports in the Nation, Port Everglades recognized the need 
to improve its security long before September 11, 2001. Nearly 2 years 
ago, the port invested millions of dollars into establishing a new 
security plan. In fact, in June of 1999, the Presidential Commission on 
Seaport Crime and Security visited Port Everglades and recognized many 
of the port's ``best practices'' as examples for ports throughout the 
country to follow.
  Prior to September 11, the Port Everglades security improvement plan 
was to be implemented over several years. However, in response to 
September 11, Broward County, Florida, made security at Port Everglades 
its top priority. The County is committed to spending more than $25 
million for security improvements at the port in fiscal year 2003 
alone, and the Ports of Palm Beach and Miami have similar investments 
in progress.
  Under the report, Port Everglades will be able to be reimbursed for 
the security improvements it has made since September 11, as well as 
those it will make in the following year. However, I am appalled that 
Port Everglades, as well as the Ports of Palm Beach and Miami, will not 
be eligible to be reimbursed for the planning and implementation of 
various security improvements that they made prior to September 11, 
2001. South Florida's three major ports and some others around the 
Nation were ahead of the game and made security improvements 18 months 
ago that Congress is just now getting around to requiring today.
  Specifically, Port Everglades is an example of the intuitive thinking 
that ports should have been doing a long time ago, and to penalize it 
for being ahead of the game is just plain wrong.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I have major reservations about the level 
of funding authorized in the report. Clearly, the amount authorized is 
not enough to meet the security needs of our Nation's ports. In the 
next 18 months, South Florida's three international ports will spend 
more than $60 million on security improvements. Under the 50/50 or 75/
25 cost-sharing agreements laid out in the report, Port Everglades, 
Port Palm Beach and Port of Miami could easily command nearly half of 
the total amount authorized in this legislation.
  Realistically, the $75 million authorized in the report just is not 
enough to fund security improvements for all U.S. ports. I encourage my 
colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations to consider this reality 
when appropriating funds over the next 6 years.
  In the end, Mr. Speaker, this rule is typical of one for a conference 
report, and I will be supporting it. Additionally, I will also be 
supporting the underlying conference report. I urge my colleagues to do 
the same, but, as I previously mentioned, the report has flaws and 
Congress must remain intent on revisiting these issues that are 
critical to our Nation's security.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) as 
well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for having initiated 
this discussion today on this very important rule.
  I think it is important that we realize that the conference report 
before us is a very important piece of legislation. I know of few 
pieces of legislation that have ever been flawless that I have voted 
on, and so I would simply tell my friend that perhaps this piece of 
legislation could be improved as well, as any human endeavor, because I 
have seen some things that are perfectible but very few that are 
perfect.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from 
Florida agree that Port Everglades and Port Miami are deserving of 
consideration?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Of course.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. And that the funding level, although we have 
problems in the Nation, may not be enough to cover the ports of the 
United States?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the gentleman. In 
the House bill before it went to conference we had a provision for 
reimbursement for ports for acts taken for security after September 11, 
and in the Senate there was no such provision. The inclusion of the 
House provision is something we should commend. We should keep in mind 
there are important provisions in this legislation which I think make 
it not only a conference report that we should support but that we 
should support with pride and enthusiasm.
  I thank the conferees and all of the Members who have worked so hard 
to bring this important piece of legislation forward, specifically the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), as well as the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) for their work on this critical issue of port 
security. This is a fundamental aspect of national security, of 
homeland security, to improve the protections for our ports that are 
obviously so important to our economy.
  Mr. Speaker, with that of mind, cognizant of the importance of the 
underlying legislation and the fairness of this rule, I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  The motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________