[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 52 (Thursday, May 4, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H2107-H2153]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SECURITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EVERY PORT ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 789 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4954.
{time} 1020
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4954) to improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced
layered defenses, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Capito in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall not exceed 1 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.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) each will control 20 minutes, and the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. KING of New York. 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.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, first, I would like to thank Chairman King and
Chairman Lungren for working with me and other members on the committee
to produce the bill before us today.
I especially want to commend my colleagues, Ms. Loretta Sanchez and
Ms. Harman, for their hard work on this bill and on port security in
general. Many provisions in this bill came from legislation they have
introduced over the last 2 years, and for that I thank them. They have
been leaders on this issue, and we need to give them credit before we
discuss the full ramifications of this bill.
Madam Chairman, this bill represents an important step toward
improving our port security, but it is only a step. We need to do more
to get it right. I could talk about the good things in the bill; but
with this limited time, I would like to focus on what is not in the
bill. These are the things that are going to keep us up at night after
today's votes are over.
Yesterday during Rules, it was said by folks on the other side that
we need to look at where threats exist and do something that makes us a
little safer. ``A little safer'' is simply not good enough after 9/11,
and the threats left undone by this bill are significant.
I worry that unsecured nuclear materials, and there is a lot of that
wandering around the Russian countryside, will be shipped here hidden
in a cargo container that sails into Miami, New York, Houston, New
Orleans, Los Angeles or Oakland. From there, the cargo container will
be put on a train or truck headed to places like Chicago, St. Louis,
Austin, Milwaukee, or Detroit. As the train or truck passes by our
schools, homes, or who knows what else, what is going to stop a
terrorist from detonating it. If this happens, what will my colleagues
across the aisle recommend Congress tell Americans, we didn't know it
would happen?
After 9/11 when terrorists surprised us by using our own airplanes
against us, we cannot say we did not expect the unexpected. We must do
better. It is our job to prevent disaster from happening, not react
after the fact. We had the opportunity to do that today.
We could have voted on my amendment increasing the number of Customs
and Border Patrol officers at our ports, but the amendment was not
allowed on the floor. All the talk on border and port security means
little if we do not have the boots on the ground to check what is
coming into our Nation before it arrives here or before it leaves a
foreign port.
And we could have ensured that more than the 5 percent of our cargo
entering the country is scanned by voting on
[[Page H2108]]
the Markey-Nadler amendment on cargo screening.
Madam Chairman, 5 percent does not make America a little safer; but
the 95 percent of cargo left unchecked leaves us a lot less safe. This
is not rocket science, Madam Chairman. Technology exists to scan cargo.
It is being used in Hong Kong as we speak. It can be bought over the
counter, and the amendment offered by my colleagues would have given
DHS up to 5 years to get it right.
This bill is a good first step, but we need to start making giant
steps to keep up with the terrorists.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. 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.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.
Hon. Peter T. King,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of
Representatives, HOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman King: In recognition of the desire to
expedite consideration of H.R. 4954, the ``SAFE Port Act,''
the Committee on the Judiciary hereby waives consideration of
the bill. There are a number of provisions contained in H.R.
4954 that implicate the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee
on the Judiciary.
The Committee takes this action with the understanding that
by forgoing consideration of H.R. 4954, the Committee on the
Judiciary does not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter
contained in this or similar legislation. The Committee also
reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate
conference on this legislation and requests your support if
such a request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your
including this letter in the Congressional Record during
consideration of H.R. 4954 on the House floor. Thank you for
your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.
Hon. Bill Thomas,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding the
Ways and Means 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 Ways and Means Committee
does not waive any of its jurisdictional prerogatives it may
have over H.R. 4954. I also acknowledge my commitment
regarding conference proceedings as reflected in your letter.
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.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.
Hon. Peter T. King,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Adams Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman King: I am writing concerning H.R. 4954, the
``SAFE Port Act,'' which the Committee on Homeland Security
reported on April 28, 2006.
As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has
jurisdiction over trade and customs revenue functions. A
range of provisions in H.R. 4954 affects the Committee's
jurisdiction, including provisions that specifically mandate
the use of customs duties for port security grants; authorize
the Secretary of Homeland Security to ban certain imports of
containerized cargo; establish protocols for resuming
international trade; require changes to government
international trade data systems; authorize the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) to lessen requirements for continuous
entry bonds to secure customs duties and the scoring of
imports for inspection for customs duties; establish new
confidentiality and advance filing requirements for trade
import data; and impose new U.S. requirements and call on the
Secretary of Homeland Security to establish international
standards regarding imports shipped in containers. All of
these provisions significantly impact the trade and customs
revenue missions of DHS.
I am pleased to acknowledge the agreement between our
Committees to address various issues, including changes you
have included in the Manager's Amendment to the bill. I would
like to specifically highlight and confirm your commitment
that in the conference on this legislation: (1) Any language
related to the use of customs duties to fund programs will be
stricken from the bill; (2) language in section 202 of the
bill or any similar language authorizing DHS to refuse to
accept cargo will be modified to clarify that DHS's existing
``do not load'' authority would be used to enforce the
provision; and (3) the Committee on Ways and Means will be
represented in all conference activities and discussions on
the provisions noted in this letter and all others related to
trade and customs revenue functions.
Thus, in order to expedite this legislation for floor
consideration, the Committee on Ways and Means agrees to
forgo action on this bill based on the agreement reached by
our Committees. This is being done with the understanding
that it does not in any way prejudice the Committee with
respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional
prerogatives on this or similar legislation.
I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 4954, and would ask
that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be
included in the Congressional Record during floor
consideration.
Best regards,
Bill Thomas,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.
Hon. Tom Davis,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding the
Committee on Government Reform's jurisdictional interest in
H.R. 4954, the ``SAFE Port Act,'' and your willingness to
forego consideration of H.R. 4954 by the Government Reform
Committee.
I agree that the Government Reform Committee has a valid
jurisdictional interest in certain provisions of H.R. 4954
and that the Committee's jurisdiction will not be adversely
affected by your decision to not request a sequential
referral of 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.
Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this
response in the Congressional Record during the floor
consideration of this bill. Thank you again for your
cooperation.
Sincerely,
Peter T. King,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.
Hon. Peter King,
Chairman, House Committee on Homeland Security, Ford House
Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On April 28, 2006, the House Committee
on Homeland Security reported H.R. 4954, the ``SAFE Port
Act.'' As you know, the bill includes provisions within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform.
In the interests of moving this important legislation
forward, I agreed to waive sequential consideration of this
bill by the Committee on Government Reform. However, I did so
only with the understanding that this procedural route would
not be construed to prejudice the Committee on Government
Reform's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on this
bill or any other similar legislation and will not be
considered as precedent for consideration of matters of
jurisdictional interest to my Committee in the future.
[[Page H2109]]
I respectfully request your support for the appointment of
outside conferees from the Committee on Government Reform
should this bill or a similar bill be considered in a
conference with the Senate. Finally, I request that you
include this letter and your response in the Congressional
Record during consideration of the legislation on the House
floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Tom Davis.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, April 28, 2006.
Hon. Sherwood Boehlert,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter
regarding the Science Committee's jurisdictional interest in
H.R. 4954, the ``SAFE Port'' Act. The Bill was introduced on
March 14, 2006, and referred solely to the Committee on
Homeland Security. The Committee on Homeland Security marked
up the Bill and ordered it reported on April 26, 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 Science Committee does not
waive any jurisdiction it may have over H.R. 4954. In
addition, I agree that if any provisions of the Bill are
determined to be within the jurisdiction of the Science
Committee, I will support representation for your Committee
during conference with the Senate with respect to those
provisions.
As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter
and this response as part of the Committee on Homeland
Security's Report and 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.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC, April 28, 2006.
Hon. Peter T. King
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Ford House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Science Committee in matters
being considered in H.R. 4954, the Security and
Accountability for Every Port or SAFE Port Act. The Science
Committee has particular jurisdictional interest in the
sections listed below based on the Committee's black letter
jurisdiction over the ``National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) and the standardization of weights and
measures.'' (Rule X(o)(7). In addition, the Department of
Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate (``DHS
S&T'') facilitates and funds the development of standards for
container security. The Science Committee has jurisdiction
over both the S&T Directorate and other DHS research and
development based on the plain language of Rule X(o)(14)
which grants the Science Committee jurisdiction over
``Scientific research, development, and demonstration, and
projects therefore.''
1. Title I, Subtitle B, Section 112, Port Security Training
Program--Section 112 adds a new section 802 to the Homeland
Security Act of 2002. The Science Committee is interested in
Section 112 but has particular interest in the language
dealing with National Voluntary Consensus Standards which
directs the Secretary to ``support the development,
promulgation, and regular updating as necessary of national
voluntary consensus standards for port security training''
and to ensure that training provided is consistent with such
standards.
2. Certain Items Contained in Title I, Subtitle C, Section
201--Section 201 adds a new title to the Homeland Security
Act of 2002. Within that title (Title XVIII), the Science
Committee is interested in the following:
a. Section 1801, Strategic Plan To Enhance the Security of
the International Supply Chain--Subsection 1801(d) on
International Standards and Practices encourages the
Secretary, as appropriate, ``to establish standards and best
practices for the security of containers moving through the
International Supply Chain.''
b. Section 1803, Plan To Improve the Automated Targeting
System--Section 1803 requires the Secretary to develop and
implement ``a plan to improve the Automated Targeting System
for the identification of high-risk containers moving through
the International Supply Chain.'' This section contains a
number of research and development pieces with the clearest
example being the language on the ``Smart System,'' which
requires the incorporation of ``smart features, such as more
complex algorithms'' instead of relying solely on rule sets.
Such an effort to move away from a system solely based on
rule sets would necessitate the need for research,
development, testing and evaluation of these ``smart
features,'' including the more complex algorithms mentioned,
This is clearly DHS research and development and would be
carried out in coordination with DHS S&T.
c. Section 1804, Container Standards and Verification
Procedures--Section 1804 requires the Secretary ``to review
the standards and procedures established'' and ``enhance the
security standards and procedures, as appropriate, based on
tests of technologies as they become commercially
available.'' In addition, the Secretary ``is encouraged to
promote and establish international standards for the
security of containers.''
d. Section 1831, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Efforts in Furtherance of Maritime and Cargo Security--
Section 1831 directs the Secretary to conduct maritime and
cargo security research, development, test, and evaluation
activities and to consider demonstration projects. It also
specifies that the Secretary, acting through the Under
Secretary for Science and Technology, will coordinate these
efforts within the Department.
e. Section 1832, Grants Under Operation Safe Commerce--
Section 1832 directs the Secretary to provide grants ``to
test physical access control protocols and technologies'' and
``establish demonstration projects.''
f. Section 1833, Definitions--Section 1833 provides
definitions and other administrative language relating to the
prior sections.
3. Title II, Subtitle C, Section 202, Next Generation
Supply Chain Security Technologies--Section 202 directs the
Secretary to ``evaluate the development of nuclear and
radiological detection systems and other inspection
technologies'' and to ``determine if more capable
commercially available technology exists'' and meets
technical requirements.
4. Title II, Subtitle C, Section 206, Study and Report on
Advanced Imagery Pilot Programs--Section 206 directs the
Secretary to ``conduct a study of the merits of current
container inspection pilot programs'' and to conduct ``an
assessment of the impact of technology.'' The test and
evaluation of technologies required to fulfill this section
are an element of technology development and a responsibility
of DHS S&T.
5. Title III, Directorate for Policy, Planning, and
International Affairs--This title amends the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 and establishes a new directorate at the
Department, the position of Under Secretary for Policy and
several Assistant Secretary positions. Several provisions in
this title are of particular interest to the Science
Committee, including language directing the Under
Secretary for Policy ``to analyze, evaluate, and review
the completed, ongoing, and proposed programs of the
Department.'' In addition, the Under Secretary for Policy
is directed to promote ``the exchange of information on
research and development on homeland security
technologies,'' ``to plan and participate in international
conferences [and] exchange programs (including the
exchange of scientists, engineers and other experts),''
and ``to represent the Department in international
negotiations, working groups, and standards-setting
bodies.''
6. Title IV, Office of Domestic Nuclear Detection--This
title amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and authorizes
the Office of Domestic Nuclear Detection (``DNDO'') at the
Department. This amendment transfers from the Under Secretary
of Science and Technology to the Director of DNDO ``all
Department programs and projects relating to nuclear and
radiological detection research, development, testing and
evaluation.'' These activities remain within the Science
Committee's jurisdiction.
The Science Committee acknowledges the importance of H.R.
4954 and the need for the legislation to move expeditiously.
Therefore, while we have a claim to jurisdiction over at
least the sections of the bill listed above, I agree not to
request a sequential referral. This, of course, is
conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this
legislation or my 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 your
response will be included in the Committee report and in the
Congressional Record when the bill is considered on the House
Floor.
The Science Committee also expects that you will support
our request to be conferees on any provisions over which we
have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference on this
legislation.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Sherwood Boehlert,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, April 28, 2006.
Hon. Joe Barton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter
regarding the Energy and Commerce Committee's jurisdictional
interest in H.R. 4954, the ``SAFE Port'' Act. The Bill was
introduced on March 14, 2006, and referred solely to the
Committee on Homeland Security. The Committee on Homeland
Security marked up the Bill and ordered it reported on April
26, 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 Energy and Commerce Committee does
not waive any jurisdiction it may have over H.R. 4954. In
addition, I agree that if any provisions of the Bill are
determined to be within the jurisdiction of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, I will support representation for your
Committee during conference with the Senate with respect to
those provisions.
[[Page H2110]]
As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter
and this response as part of the Committee on Homeland
Security's Report and 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.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, April 28, 2006.
Hon. Peter King,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman King: I understand that you will shortly
bring H.R. 4954 as reported by the Committee on Homeland
Security, the SAFE Port Act, to the House floor. This
legislation contains provisions that fall within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
I recognize your desire to bring this legislation before
the House in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, I will not
exercise my Committee's right to a referral. By agreeing to
waive its consideration of the bill, however, the Energy and
Commerce Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R.
4954. In addition, the Energy and Commerce Committee reserves
its right to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill
that are within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate
conference that may be convened on this or similar
legislation. I ask for your commitment to support any request
by the Energy and Commerce Committee for conferees on H.R.
4954 or similar legislation.
I request that you include this letter in legislative
report and the Congressional Record during consideration of
H.R. 4954. Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Joe Barton,
Chairman.
Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), chairman of the Subcommittee on
Investigations.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman
King, Ranking Member Thompson, and Representatives Lungren and Harman
for their hard work in bringing this vital and bipartisan piece of
legislation to the floor.
I rise today in support of this crucial bill that will build upon
existing initiatives to improve port and cargo security both abroad and
here at home.
In my home State of Texas, the Port of Houston operates as the United
States' top port for foreign tonnage and our second largest for total
tonnage, so I know how important this bill is for the protection of the
American people.
Madam Chairman, the House of Representatives has repeatedly supported
measures that provide for risk-based funding for homeland security. The
SAFE Port Act does just that. It will create a risk-based strategy for
securing America's ports and will make sure that we are using the best
technology available to law enforcement today.
{time} 1030
Equally important, this bill will provide $400 million per year in
risk-based funding through a dedicated Port Security Grant Program to
harden U.S. ports against terrorist attacks. This kind of funding
strategy is smart, effective and responsible for our national security
because it gets the required funding to the ports that are most at risk
for terrorist attack.
Unfortunately, right now, it is economically impossible for Customs
and Border Protection to inspect every container entering U.S. ports.
However, the SAFE Port Act would require DHS to deploy nuclear and
radiological detection systems at 22 U.S. seaports by the end of fiscal
year 2007. This means that 98 percent of all incoming maritime
containers would be screened without stopping our economy in its
tracks.
In addition to securing ports in our homeland, we must also look
overseas at what we can do to prevent dangerous or threatening cargo
from ever reaching American soil. The SAFE Port Act will do this by
improving our tracking system for shipping containers overseas and by
requiring DHS to examine high-risk maritime cargo at foreign seaports.
If we can catch them before they reach our shores, we can begin to
ensure 100 percent security at America's ports.
The SAFE Port Act is a commonsense, responsible and effective piece
of legislation that is needed for the security of our Nation, and I
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking member
of the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection and
Cybersecurity, who did a lot of work on this bill, particularly the
section improving the C-TPAT process. Many of the provisions in this
bill also come from a provision introduced by the gentlewoman, H.R.
4355, introduced in the 108th Congress.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chairman, I thank Mr.
Thompson for yielding me the time; and I would like to thank Chairman
King and you and also Chairman Lungren for working with me and the
other members of the Committee on Homeland Security to develop this
SAFE Port Act, to move it through the committee, and to bring it to the
floor in a very bipartisan manner. It shows that we can accomplish many
things when we work together.
I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act, a product
of years of work on the issue of port security; and I am proud that
many of the important reforms that were originally in the SECURE Coast
Act that I introduced in the 108th Congress are in this legislation
that we are considering today.
The SAFE Port Act will make a number of significant port security
enhancements and reforms. We had somebody before our committee, retired
Chief Cunningham of the port system out there in Los Angeles, and he
said we really need to worry about two things in particular, one, who
has access to our ports; and, two, what is in the box, what is in the
container.
The SAFE Port Act has requirements for issuing Transportation Worker
Identification Cards, or TWICs, regulations and implementing the cards
by the end of 2008, so we will know who is at our ports.
It also has standards for container seals. It has a pilot program to
examine the security of empty containers at the port.
It requires Customs and Border Patrol to review and update, if
necessary, the minimum requirements for participation in Customs-Trade
Partnership Against Terrorism program, or the C-TPAT, at least once a
year.
And it establishes a pilot program to allow C-TPAT member companies
to use DHS-approved third-party validators in the validation process.
What is in the box? These are all issues important to what is in the
container that goes through your city on that truck.
I am pleased that all these items are included in the bill. But still
more needs to be in this port bill.
I am disappointed at several amendments offered by my Democratic
colleagues that were not made in order today. These included providing
adequate staffing levels at the ports, we can't catch things if we
don't have people doing that work; modernizing the Coast Guard fleet
through the Deepwater program; and increasing the acquisition of
radiation portal monitors for seaports.
It is my hope that our committee will continue to work on these
issues as this bill moves forward and as we move forward in this year.
In addition, I will be offering an amendment today to make a critical
improvement to the C-TPAT program by stopping the current practice of
granting C-TPAT member companies risk score reductions, letting them
cut to the front of the line to get their cargo through before their
security measures have been validated.
We should not give these companies a free pass to our ports unless we
have validation that the security measures they told us they were going
to do are actually in place.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment today which will make
this great bill even better.
Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) who is one of the original co-
authors of this bill and has worked tirelessly to get us to the floor
here today.
Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
want to praise him for his enormous leadership on this issue and praise
Ms. Sanchez, the ranking member on the
[[Page H2111]]
subcommittee, for her contributions to the issue of port security.
I also want to thank the chairman for letting me speak out of order.
I think that is what he just did, and express my gratitude to him and
to the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Lungren, for their enormous effort.
I am the co-author of this bill with Mr. Lungren. It is a bipartisan
product through and through. In fact, it is a bicameral, bipartisan
product. Many of the ideas came from the House and many of the ideas
came from the other body.
One of its grandparents no longer serves here, Representative Doug
Ose, who contributed the notion that we should dedicate a portion of
Customs revenues to fund multi-year port security improvements. The
reason he felt this way, and I surely agree, is that Customs revenues,
or most of them, are collected at our ports. Should our ports close,
our ability to collect those revenues ends. So I thought his was an
inspired idea.
I co-sponsored the Ose bill some years back. It became an integral
part of this bill, as did Ms. Sanchez's ideas, as did Mr. Lungren's,
and as did some of the ideas of Senators Susan Collins and Patty
Murray, who are the coauthors of the GreenLane bill in the Senate.
Their bill is moving. Our bill is moving. Within months, just maybe
we will accomplish what I would call a legislative miracle in this
session of Congress which has only met 27 days since the beginning of
the year. We have had 125 days or so of this year, but only 27 days of
legislative business on the floor of Congress. And this, I would
proclaim, is the best day, by a lot, that we have had.
Let me mention that even before the legislation is passed, one of the
critical issues we address is already generating action. The Department
of Homeland Security is moving ahead with name checks against terrorist
and immigration lists of individuals with access to our ports and with
the transportation worker identification credential, so-called TWIC.
These are critical ways we can make our ports safer, and it is a good
thing that the administration is listening. In addition, as Ms. Sanchez
said, to knowing what is in the box, we need to know who is at our
ports.
It has been said over and over again, but let me stress one more
time, that this bill provides a strategy as well as dedicated funding
for the critical issue of port security.
The ports of L.A. and Long Beach, where my district is, handle over
14 million 20-foot containers annually, representing almost half of the
Nation's total. That port complex is the fifth busiest in the world,
the first in the Nation. In addition to containers, the complex handles
over 1 million cruise passengers, half a million autos and over 50
percent of California's oil each year.
At a time of incredibly rising oil and gas prices, let us understand
that Southern California will run out of oil in 2 weeks if those ports
close. One out of 24 jobs in southern California relates to the ports.
So, Madam Chairman, the two most important things about this
legislation are that it outlines a layered strategy for port security
and that it creates dedicated, multi-year funding for port security
projects.
Let's just look at Katrina. This speaks to an issue all of us worry
about. We didn't have a plan before. We didn't respond during, and we
are still struggling to recover now. This bill calls for protocols on
the resumption of trade if our ports are attacked. A shutdown of West
Coast ports would cost between 1 to $2 billion a day. We saw that 2
years ago.
Since 9/11, the L.A.-Long Beach port complex has only received $58
million in port security grant funding out of $220 million requested.
This bill provides the funding, the strategy, the bipartisan,
bicameral support. I urge its passage. This is the first great day of
the 2006 legislative calendar.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. KING of New York. 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.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support
of H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act. And first I would like to commend the
gentleman and the gentlewoman from California, Mr. Lungren and Ms.
Harman, for their leadership on this strong, bipartisan bill.
Also, thanks to the effective leadership of Chairman King, the
committee passed this bill on April 26 by a vote of 29-0.
Madam Chairman, this bill is a comprehensive proposal and helps
safeguard our ports, all without disrupting commerce. For example, the
bill authorizes the Container Security Initiative. This effort would
identify and examine high-risk containers at foreign ports before they
are loaded onto ships bound for the U.S.
The bill also contains provisions which would help track and protect
containers on the way to our shores.
The bill also establishes a new Directorate for Policy, Planning and
International Affairs at DHS.
This provision, which is a product of my subcommittee, implements one
of the findings of Secretary Chertoff's top-to-bottom review. In
particular, the new Directorate would, A, review all departmental
cargo, security programs, policies and initiatives; B, develop
department-wide cargo security policies; and, C, coordinate
departmental cargo security programs with other Federal departments and
agencies.
Madam Chairman, port security is especially critical in my home State
of Alabama, where the Port of Mobile has an economic impact of at least
$3 billion per year on my State. It is the 12th busiest port in the
U.S. and employs more than 118,000 Alabamians. Last year alone, this
facility imported and exported 42,000 containers and 50 million tons of
cargo. It is also the largest coal import terminal in the country and
is expected to process 144,000 cruise ship passengers this year alone.
The SAFE Port Act is a good bill. It is a bipartisan solution for
helping strengthen the security of our country, and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chairman, there have been a lot of acronyms thrown
around on the floor this morning, C-TPAT, CSI, TWIC. But there is no
real technology based security being applied to containers being
shipped to the United States of America. Less than 5 percent are
inspected. No one is going to shoot a missile at us, but if they can
get ahold of a nuclear weapon they will put it in a container and ship
it here.
Let's look at the great C-TPAT program they are waxing on about. It
is an honor system. You fill out an on-line form and your containers
automatically are ranked less of a threat.
Now, sometime, 1 to 3 years later, the U.S. might send an inspector
by, with prior notice, 1 day to look at your factory. That day you shoo
all the al Qaeda people out and say don't come in tomorrow; the U.S. is
sending a guy by for 1 day. And then you go back to business. This is
an incredibly ridiculous program that does not provide real security.
Is there a threat? Well, I think there is a threat because the Deputy
Secretary of Homeland Security says the goal of this administration and
the Republican majority is not to inspect containers before they leave
foreign ports. His goal, at home, our goal is to have 100 percent
inspection of all containers as they depart a U.S. port headed into our
country. The ports are sacrifice zones is what they are telling us
here, because they might contain a threat. So we have to inspect them
before they go from Seattle inland to somewhere in the Pacific
Northwest but not before they get to Seattle.
{time} 1045
The place to inspect is on the other side of the ocean, and it can be
done without disturbing commerce. It has been proven in Hong Kong. They
will say it is not technologically feasible. If that is so, then why do
we endorse this same technology, these same bureaucracies, for the CSI
program and the Megaports program? The Bush administration's
bureaucracy says the technologies do work.
[[Page H2112]]
They say the technologies do not work. They say they will delay
cargo. They are being used in Hong Kong. You can drive a truck past at
10 miles per hour.
They say, well, no one is reading the data. Why is no one reading the
data? Because the U.S. will not assign people to read the data.
This is incredible. This loophole-ridden system has to stop. We need
real security. You should have allowed an amendment. Why are you afraid
to vote on an amendment for 100 percent screening?
Mr. KING of New York. 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.
Mr. LINDER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
thank the subcommittee chairman for bringing this to the floor with Ms.
Harman.
I rise in support of H.R. 4954. While this legislation contains many
important provisions, it also includes the language of H.R. 5029, a
bipartisan proposal I introduced earlier this year to authorize the
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. DNDO is tasked with the job of
developing a multi-layered global nuclear detection architecture
designed to detect and prevent a nuclear attack before it gets here.
Madam Chairman, this is not an easy task. Despite claims by some to
the contrary, we have heard numerous times in hearings and briefings by
experts that existing technologies do not fully or effectively detect
nuclear material. It is not available yet. And yet we are trying to
insist that 100 percent of them be checked for nuclear material. The
technology we have today will detect bananas, kitty litter, and tile,
just as it does low-level radioactive material. There is new technology
on the scene.
This bill includes support for a transformational research and
development program to bring major improvements in the technology
detection and the cost and ease of use. I also want to point out that
this bill directs DNDO to deploy successfully tested technologies to
ports of entry within 1 year of certification.
The key to next-generation systems is the likelihood that they will
produce lower false alarm rates, thus minimizing disruptions to port
operations. Rather than disrupting the flow of commerce to pull open a
container of kitty litter, we ought to have the new technology, and we
have got to be patient for it to be here.
I want to reiterate that this legislation takes a significant step
forward in our Nation's efforts to counter nuclear and radiological
threats. As such, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I rise in support of the SAFE Port Act, and I applaud Mr. Daniel E.
Lungren of California, Ms. Harman, Ms. Loretta Sanchez for their
tireless work on this critical endeavor. I also want to commend my good
friends and their kind remarks this morning, Chairman King and Ranking
Member Thompson, for the exemplary leadership they have displayed in
navigating this bill through the legislative maze that is Capitol Hill,
and it is a maze.
The urgency of securing our ports cannot be overstated. As the 9/11
Commission noted in their report: ``While commercial aviation remains a
possible target, terrorists may turn their attention to other models.
Opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater, in maritime or
surface transportation.''
Let us heed the warning. Let this quote linger in our minds as we
proceed with our debate today.
While this measure wisely addresses a variety of concerns that others
have noted, there are several provisions within the bill that are of
particular interest, I think. For example, in March, Congressman Frank
LoBiondo and I introduced H.R. 4880, the Maritime Terminal Security
Enhancement Act. Components of our bill are now included in the SAFE
Port Act. We require a port security operator to resubmit a facility
security plan for approval upon transfer of ownership or operational
control of that facility. Remember that debate a few weeks ago? This is
significant. Having this in place will afford the Coast Guard the
needed opportunity to question entities, foreign and domestic, on any
changes in security they intend to put into effect at the terminals
they intend to purchase.
Likewise, we have included the requirement that facility security
operators and officers are United States citizens, unless the Secretary
offers a waiver based on a complete background check and a review of
terrorist watch lists. The FSO, the facilities security officer, is the
individual with the legal responsibility for all aspects of security at
each port. We need to do everything we can to make sure that we have
the right people in place for these enormously important and sensitive
positions. This language helps in this regard.
I am pleased that two amendments I offered with Congressman Dave
Reichert were accepted when the Homeland Security Committee marked up
this legislation last week. This bill now requires the Department of
Homeland Security to establish a training program for local port
employees on seaport security force operations, security threats and
trends, and evacuation procedures.
We have also required DHS to establish an exercise program to test
and evaluate the capabilities of Federal, State, local, and foreign
governments. Both provisions will enhance our safety and strengthen our
security.
This legislation by and large is an enormous step in the right
direction. The unfortunate part of it, and we have talked to the Chair
and we have talked to the ranking member about this, is what happened
to the Markey-Nadler amendment mandating 100 percent screening.
I hope in the near future that we can come to agreement on this
issue. It is sensitive enough, it is important enough that we bring the
same bipartisanship that we worked with on this bill to a conclusion
and resolution of that most important and specific thing.
I hope we can get a commitment from the chairman that we will try to
work to that end.
Mr. KING of New York. 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.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the
gentleman for yielding me the time.
Madam Chairman, this day is the reason that I decided to come back to
the Congress. An effort to work together on a bipartisan basis to solve
one of the great challenges affecting America, that is what this place
is all about. There are a lot of cynics and skeptics out there who say
that the Congress of the United States is incapable of doing the work
that it should do. This day is a refutation of that suggestion. Today
is an indication that we can work together. And I want to thank
Chairman King for the work that he has done and the broad flexibility
that he granted to our subcommittee to put this bill together. I want
to thank my ranking member, Loretta Sanchez, for the work she has done;
the ranking member on the full committee, Mr. Thompson; and, of course,
Jane Harman, my chief co-author on this bill.
This is the best of bills: legislation written to make a law, not to
make a political statement. Yes, there are political statements that
will be made about this bill, but the fact of the matter is we are
moving forward in an effective way to solve a challenge that is out
there that the American people recognize and that we recognize.
In response to 9/11, the natural response was for us to look at where
we were attacked and to focus most of our attention and energy in that
direction. That is why we have had, if you will, a heavy response in
the area of aviation safety. But that does not mean we can ignore the
other areas.
As I said on the floor yesterday, the greatness of our ports as an
integral part of our international trade, the fact that we are leaders
in the world in international trade, the fact that we benefit from it
more than anybody else, but we do so because it is so different than it
was 30, 40, 50 years ago.
[[Page H2113]]
The instantaneous communication. The ability to deliver products within
a short period of time. The fact that inventory is carried on rail, on
trucks, in ships, rather than sitting static in a warehouse somewhere.
The world has changed and we have been the leaders in changing the
world, and we should be pleased and proud of the tremendous
contribution that our ports make to our economy and to our everyday
living.
But the very things that make that possible make us vulnerable to
those who would destroy everything we stand for. The terrorists do not
want to see international trade. The terrorists do not want to see an
exchange of ideas. The terrorists do not want to see cultures mixing
together. The terrorists do not want to see America shown at its best.
And that is what we do, as we Americans live every single day with the
benefits of the trade. It is not the totality of what we do, but it is
an essential part of what we do. And this bill responds to the attack
that those would have on us through this very much shining star in our
constellation of America. So I thank the Members for work on this.
I would say we are going to have a debate about 100 percent
inspection, and I would say we all would hope for that day. But I would
just direct people's attention to the National Journal of this last
Friday on the inside page where they have something called the
``Reality Check'' and they refer to this effort to have 100 percent
container inspection. They say, and this is the National Journal, that
``it is a nice idea but not very feasible with current technology.
Eleven million containers are shipped to U.S. ports each year. Of
those, U.S. Customs and border protection personnel physically screen
only about 6 percent, 660,000. `It is a noble impulse, but as a
practical matter, it can't be accomplished right now,' said Jack Riley,
homeland security expert with RAND.''
The key to being able to carry this out in the future is better
equipment that stands faster; and that requirement, that impulse, is in
this bill as a result of an amendment adopted that was presented by the
gentlewoman from Florida. We are attempting to make us safer. Let us
rejoice in this day and let us support this bill.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
I rise in support of H.R. 4954, the Security and Accountability for
Every Port Act.
Let me commend the sponsors for their hard work: Representative
Harman; Representative Daniel E. Lungren of California; Representative
Loretta Sanchez, ranking member; and the chairman for their foresight
in the drafting of this piece of bipartisan port security legislation.
Although it is a good start, this bill does not go nearly far enough
to protect our ports. I am very disappointed that the leadership has
denied the American people the opportunity to debate and vote on an
amendment that requires the scanning of 100 percent of the containers
entering this country. This outrageous high-handedness by the
Republican leadership endangers Americans by continuing the wink-and-
nod approach of container inspection.
I will vote for H.R. 4954 because it makes modest progress toward
safer ports in America. Every farmer, every business person, and every
consumer in America relies on the products that come through our
Nation's ports. And it is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that
our country's maritime commerce is cost-effective; efficient; and above
all, safe. I hope, as this legislative process moves forward, Congress
can take a more meaningful action to strengthen our port security.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. KING of New York. 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. REICHERT. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Madam Chairman, as a member of the Homeland Security Committee and
cosponsor of H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act, I am pleased to rise in
support of this bipartisan legislation.
My district is home to two of our Nation's most critical seaports,
the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. Ensuring their security is one of my
highest priorities. The SAFE Port Act is a comprehensive approach that
strikes a balance between security and commerce. Unlike other
approaches to port security, the SAFE Port Act does not impose
technically impossible solutions and mandates.
{time} 1100
I was pleased that during committee markup of this legislation, the
two amendments that I offered were included in this legislation. These
amendments, which were drafted with my good friend from New Jersey, Mr.
Pascrell, will create a Port Security Exercise and Training Program.
As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, I have
repeatedly heard from first responders across our Nation about the
importance of conducting exercises and training. The exercise portion
of this legislation requires that the Secretary of Homeland Security
establish a Port Security Exercise and Training Program for the purpose
of testing and evaluating emergency capabilities of personnel at our
Nation's ports.
The value of exercises cannot be understated. The success or failure
of our response to acts of terrorism or catastrophic natural disasters
depends on effective coordination and cooperation. As a former law
enforcement officer of 33 years, I know the importance of training. The
Port Security Training Program will use multiple mediums to provide
validated training at the awareness, performance and planning levels to
first responders and commercial seaport personnel and management to
ensure that they are able to do those things and more.
I would like to thank Chairman King, Ranking Member Thompson,
Chairman Lungren, Representative Harman and Ranking Member Sanchez for
their bipartisan work on this important legislation.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. KING of New York. 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.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the bill before us, the SAFE
Port Act.
As a Member from Florida, I am extremely conscious of our Nation's
vulnerability in the area of port security. As a former New Yorker, I
still am concerned about the ports there. I have several friends who
worked for at that time just Customs, who had always expressed a
concern about the security at the ports.
The SAFE Port Act certainly pushes us leaps and bounds beyond our
current security system. We fund port of entry inspection offices, a
port security grant program and port worker identification cards.
I was especially proud to contribute an amendment in committee that
does require DHS to aggressively pursue new technology out there for
screening within 1 year. Once that is there, the Secretary must 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. When the technology is in place,
everyone wants to use it. Members of both sides of the aisle want to
make sure that we do have it there.
In the meantime, it would be very imprudent to waste taxpayer dollars
on an unproven technology. Instead, this bill does require the
Department of Homeland Security to implement realistic technology to
increase our overseas cargo screening. The bill is the starting line in
the race that we are running faster than ever to secure America with
realistic technology for real results.
I certainly want to thank Chairman King as well as Congressman
Lungren
[[Page H2114]]
and Congresswoman Harman for the opportunity to work with them on this
very significant legislation. I urge all Members to support the SAFE
Port Act.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to enter into
a colloquy with the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.
Chairman King, I support your efforts to enhance security at our
Nation's seaports. The Port of Wilmington in my home State of Delaware
is among our Nation's busiest terminals, and this legislation truly is
a comprehensive approach for improving port security. I commend your
determination in taking on this challenge.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we still have not had success in
developing a comparable strategy for securing our nation's rail
systems. In the wake of attacks on rail lines in London and Madrid, it
is clear that terrorist organizations are intent on disrupting surface
transportation and mass transit systems around the world.
Despite these continuing threats, we have not made adequate progress
in developing a comprehensive national rail security plan. The Federal
efforts to bolster rail security have been sporadic and unfocused,
while funding for rail and transit security grants in the annual
Homeland Security Appropriations bill have remained stagnant.
Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, our government's transportation
security efforts have consistently been described as ``fighting the
last war.'' Clearly, Congress must change course and get a few steps
ahead, rather than constantly reacting to incidents and attacks once
they have already occurred. We are very lucky that an attack on rail
systems has not taken place in this country, and we now have a great
opportunity to be proactive and pass real rail security legislation
before it is too late.
I have introduced legislation to begin the process of addressing rail
security in this country, and I know we share an interest in fixing
this extremely inconsistent and flawed system.
I would appreciate the chairman's thoughts on this.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. KING of New York. 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. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from New York for his comments. I appreciate his consideration of these
very important and timely concerns and obviously share his
determination to pass effective rail security legislation.
Since becoming chairman, the gentleman from New York has demonstrated
strong support for surface transportation security; and I look forward
to working with him on this matter.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the SAFE Port Act. As
a member of the Homeland Security Committee and an original cosponsor
of this legislation, I understand that port security is national
security.
Nearly all the foreign imports that enter this country come through
our seaports and we must know who is handling cargo and what goods are
being shipped. The port of Providence is located in my district in
Rhode Island, and every year a wide variety of goods come through the
port, including machinery, lumber and steel products. It is essential
to my constituents that our port is secure to prevent unauthorized
materials from being smuggled into our country. The SAFE Port Act adds
the needed protections and resources to keep us safe.
I am pleased that this bipartisan legislation requires the Secretary
of Homeland Security to develop a strategy for cargo and maritime
security. This plan will help us prepare for any scenario, as well as
create a plan for quickly resuming commerce in the event of an attack.
The legislation doubles the authorized level of port security grants
to $400 million. By creating a dedicated funding stream, our ports will
no longer be competing with other critical infrastructure for scarce
resources.
The bill also establishes new security standards for all cargo
containers entering the U.S. Unfortunately, the bill does not go as far
as I would like in this area. I am disappointed that the Nadler-
Oberstar-Markey amendment was not made in order the rule.
I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit to ensure the
scanning of every cargo container at foreign ports and make this good
bill even better.
As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of
Nuclear and Biological Attack, I'm pleased that this legislation
authorizes the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office for the first time.
This important office will oversee the country's global nuclear
detection efforts and ensure that the best technology is deployed to
find nuclear materials before they enter our borders.
I still believe there is more work to be done, and I will continue
working with my colleagues to ensure that DNDO has the funds needed to
fully deploy radiation detectors at our borders and ports as soon as
possible. We cannot afford to wait any longer.
Overall, this bipartisan legislation is an important step towards
securing our ports, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting
the SAFE Port Act.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my
time to the author of the Markey amendment, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a champion for 100 percent cargo screening
here in this Congress.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
This bill has a fatal flaw. It relies upon paperwork checks. If you
went to the airport with your bags, showed up, showed the person your
ticket and your ID, and then the person just waived you on to the plane
with another 150 people and all the bags went on as well, with no
scanning, no screening, you would sit petrified in your seat.
Well, that is what is going to happen, unless the recommittal motion
which Mr. Nadler and I are going to make later on today is in fact
voted upon successfully.
The Republican leadership has refused to allow a debate on 100
percent screening of cargo containers coming into the United States.
Now, why is that important? It is important because of all of the
unsecured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union that al Qaeda can
purchase, take to a port in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, and then, with
a piece of paper and an ID, waive on a 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 pound
container and, with the nuclear bomb inside of it, send that ship, that
container, right to a port in the United States, to New York, to
Boston, to California, to any other city in America, without being
screened.
President Kennedy took on the Soviet Union technologically in the
1960s. He put a man on the moon in 8 years. The Republicans are saying
they can't figure out in 8 years, 8 years, from 2001 to 2009, how to
screen cargo containers coming into the United States and how to put
tamper-proof seals on them, knowing that al Qaeda has said that
bringing a nuclear weapon into the United States is their highest goal,
to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.
So this vote that we have later on today will decide whether or not
this fatal flaw in the Republican bill is allowed to stand, if the Bush
administration is allowed to turn a blind eye to
[[Page H2115]]
the number one threat that al Qaeda poses to our country.
Mr. KING of New York. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment Mr. King in
the efforts here and Mr. Lungren and, yes, even the minority in this
case, on working on this legislation.
I was somewhat taken back by the comments even made by the gentleman
from Massachusetts, because this should not be a partisan issue. This
should not be railing against the Republicans or should not be railing
against Bush. If you want to make headlines, go outside and stand on
your head. That is the best way to make headlines.
What we are trying to do, as Mr. King said, is try to make our ports
secure and we are trying to make them secure in a proper time fashion.
We have already done some of this work that should have been done
through the Transportation Committee. The Maritime Transportation
Security Act does a lot of what is in this bill, and we are
implementing it right now. The ports are more secure than what people
will say and what you read in the newspapers.
Yes, we can do better and we will. But Members keep in mind that what
we are faced with today is how do we do it and do it in a fashion which
continues to allow us to have a commerce circle. Without commerce, this
country will fail.
Now, I can suggest respectfully that there is a way and we will
continue to do it, if the ports wish to do so, that they will unload
their ships that have been screened thoroughly 100 percent overseas at
point of origin.
{time} 1115
It will not take long for those shipping companies to make sure that
the containers are screened 100 percent. Keep in mind what I said, that
which has been screened will be first unloaded. I guarantee it will
happen in the very near future.
But what we have done here under this bill is try to make the right
step forward, a good step forward, and to accomplish I believe what is
correct, that is, eventually total security for our ports.
I have some concern in the bill, and I have expressed to Mr. Lungren
and Mr. King there are, and I understand why; but I hope as we go
through this conference that there will be a recognition that the
smaller ports will be recognized as much as the larger ports.
Because under this legislation it primarily concentrates on the
larger ports. And I do not believe that is what we are seeking. I think
we should consider all ports that receive cargo containers from
whatever origin they may be. And if they are not screened, they should
not be allowed in.
So I am saying the smaller ports should also be recognized. They are
not under this bill. And we have to, as time goes by through the
conference, try to recognize that those smaller ports have equal
concern as well as the larger ports.
And, lastly, I would suggest I have a deep concern about the grant
program. We already have a grant program for port security. It is
already on the books. It is already down in Homeland Security. And I
will say in defense of the committee, the Homeland Committee, that
there is in fact a lack of action through the Department itself.
But I am hoping that we do not duplicate, that we do not do something
that costs more money but gets less results. We can work this out
through the conference, so we will have an opportunity to make sure
either the Port Security Act itself, Maritime Transportation Security
Act, which has a grant program in it, that if it is not being
implemented correctly, that we rectify that, or in fact we might
eliminate that so there are not two bills on top of one another causing
more confusion and less real security within our ports.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat comfortable with this legislation
in the sense that it has been well thought out. Again, I want to
compliment the minority side and Mr. Lungren, Mr. King, for bringing
this to the floor in time. I wish to say, if I can, I am a little
concerned. I have been here probably longer than eight other people,
and I do not like what I hear in these debates. Because it seems like
everybody is saying the other guy is the bad guy, and we are the good
guys. I thought we were here to solve some problems. This is a problem.
I think this bill does it. I think we ought to keep our eye on the ball
and protect our people and provide a flow of commerce, which is
necessary.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the people to consider this bill in total. If
there would be a recommit, vote against the motion to recommit, and let
us get forward and get this job done.
If you only listen to the press outcry over the Dubai Ports World
now-aborted takeover of certain U.S. port operations, you would not
know that significant actions have been taken since 9/11 to improve the
security of U.S. ports.
Nonetheless, congress and the administration have taken important
steps towards making our ports safer. These port security initiatives
may not be as thorough and complete at this point as we would hope, and
the press may choose to only cover the remaining gaps, but significant
progress has been made.
In 2002, congress enacted the Maritime Transportation Security Act
(MTSA). This legislation originated in the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee and significantly strengthened our ability to
prevent and respond to maritime security incidents.
MTSA required U.S. port facilities and the vessels calling at those
facilities to prepare and submit detailed security plans to the Coast
Guard. Those plans have been submitted and approved by the Coast Guard.
This is the first nationwide effort to assess the state of port
security and plan for improvements in that security. These plans are
required for each and every U.S. port facility and each and every
vessel that visits those facilities.
Recently the administration has also completed the long awaited
National Maritime Transportation Plan which was mandated by MTSA. In
conjunction with the national strategy for maritime security, there is
now a meaningful framework for assessing, planning for, preventing and
responding to maritime transportation security incidents.
Of course, all the planning in the world is worthless unless real
assets are put in place to back up and carry out those plans. Such
assets are being put in place, some more quickly than others.
The Administration estimates that spending on maritime security has
increased 700 percent since 2001. The Coast Guard has dramatically
increased their security-related patrol hours and established 13
maritime safety and security teams as authorized in MTSA.
Congress and the administration have committed to a 20 year
rebuilding of the Coast
[[Page H2116]]
Guard's ships, planes, and communications infrastructure. These new and
upgraded assets will greatly improve the service's ability to carry out
its maritime law enforcement missions, including port security.
There are still portions of MTSA that have not been implemented in as
timely a manner as I would wish. Transportation worker identity cards
are still a work in progress, and virtually no progress has been made
by the government on implementing long range vessel tracking.
H.R. 4954, the Safe Port Act, makes some improvements to MTSA. At the
request of the Coast Guard sub-committee chairman, Mr. LoBiondo, and
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the bill requires that
the facility security officers identified in the security plans be U.S.
citizens and that facility security plans be resubmitted when
facilities change ownership.
The bill also sets up a temporary system for verifying the identity
of individuals with access to secure areas of seaports, and develop
timelines for the implementation of transportation worker
identification credentials. Perhaps most importantly, it authorizes
maritime security command centers. These interagency facilities which
already exist at several ports are crucial to coordinated Federal,
State and local port security prevention and response efforts.
Concerns remain about the safety of cargo entering the United States.
We can all agree that the cargo must be secured at the earliest
possible time and monitored throughout its journey.
By the time it reaches our shores, it is too late to find out what is
in a container and decide whether it is safe. Much of the Safe Port Act
is designed to address these cargo supply chain safety concerns, and I
comment Chairman King for his efforts in this area.
There is one are in which I strongly disagree with the Safe Port Act.
The bill removes the existing port security grant program from the
Maritime Transportation Security Act and replaces it with a less
focused grant program that is accessible only to very few ports--
ironically those that have the greatest resources available to pay for
port security improvements.
The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA), established
a grant program to make Federal funding available to assist ports,
terminal facilities, and State and local governments meet maritime
security requirements imposed by the act.
This port security grant program is designed to address
vulnerabilities that are identified through Coast Guard inspections,
area maritime transportation security plans, and facility security
plans that are all carried out under the MTSA.
The Safe Port Act removes the port security grant program from the
MTSA port security framework. If any changes are made to the program,
those changes should enhance the connection between the existing
maritime security framework under the MTSA and federal assistance.
I hope that as we move towards conference on this bill that we will
continue to work together to strengthen the existing port security
grant program.
I also disagree with the bill's proposal to restrict federal port
security grants to only select ports or select projects.
I do agree that we need to have criteria and a competitive process to
determine which ports and projects should receive the funding; however,
I object to the idea that any of our ports should be excluded outright
from competing for this federal funding.
Each of our Nation's 361 ports is connected to every part of this
Nation through our intermodal transportation system.
If we fail to implement real port security at any of our ports, we
are failing in our efforts to secure our Nation from threats in the
maritime domain.
Under the MTSA, each port is required to operate under the same
maritime security standards regardless of size or location.
As a result, dedicated funding in the form of federal port security
grants should be available to address security vulnerabilities at each
of our Nation's 361 ports.
In order to allow this important bill to move on an expedited
schedule, I have decided not to offer an amendment that would return
fairness, equity and effectiveness to the port security grant program.
However, I look forward to working with Chairman King and the other
conferees to make these necessary changes as we move to conference on
this important bill.
We can improve the grant program without reinventing the grant
program.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I concur in the remarks of the distinguished chairman
of the full committee of Transportation and Infrastructure, the
gentleman from Alaska. He has got his eye on the ball, his eye on the
mark. We need more cooperation. We need more sharing and mutual
understanding than finger- pointing and sloganeering.
I think left up to him, the Rules Committee would have made in order
an amendment. It seems to me that the Rules Committee, maybe the House
leadership, fears more our amendment than a container loaded with a
potential bomb. What harm is there in debating an amendment that we did
debate, we had discussion with in the Transportation Committee?
Why could we not have a debate on it? That does not mean it is going
to be accepted. We ought to at least put it in play and have a
discussion on it. So now we will put this into the motion to recommit
and have a debate there, which is less satisfactory than having a much
broader debate.
I am concerned about security in our ports in the maritime arena
because of the years that I have spent on aviation security. Eighteen
years ago, Pan Am 103 was blown out of the sky nearly on Christmas Eve,
December 21, 1988.
I served on the Pan Am 103 Commission, requested by President Bush I,
along with our former colleague John Paul Hammerschmidt, Senators
Alfonse D'Amato and Frank Lautenberg, and three public members.
As we stood at the abyss in Lockerbie, a trench 14 feet deep, 20 feet
wide, 40 feet long, 259 people aboard the aircraft and 11 people on the
ground were incinerated in a fire ball that went 10,000 feet into the
sky, we vowed we would make aviation safe.
And all it took to bring a 747 down was that much Semtec, stored in a
cassette tape recorder, in a suitcase that should never have been
forwarded on to the 727 in Frankfurt, after it left Malta, and then on
to London. It should never have gotten on the 747. But it did. And with
a barometric pressure device and a timer, it blew up over land in
Lockerbie, Scotland.
The threat is, yes, to our ports; but it is also to our inland
cities. The bomb that could be similarly contained in a TEU could be
timed to go off in Boise, Idaho or St. Louis, Missouri.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) control the remaining amount
of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Putnam). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Alaska?
There was no objection.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have left on our
side?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey has 5\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
legislation. I want to thank Mr. King, Mr. Lungren, Mr. Oberstar, Mr.
Thompson, all of those involved in helping to make this happen. I think
it is a very good step in the right direction.
Mr. Chairman, it makes several additions to our Nation's maritime
security program that enhances the law that we passed a couple of years
ago. I am very pleased that the bill in the manager's amendment
includes several provisions that I and Representative Pascrell from New
Jersey worked on that will help enhance maritime security.
These provisions will amend the law to require American citizens to
be in charge of security at each of our ports, require the Coast Guard
to reexamine each port terminal security plan when the facility
undergoes a change in ownership, and require the periodic reevaluation
of security at foreign ports. This will also establish deadlines for
the implementation of important maritime security programs that we
included in the original bill, including the Transportation Worker
Identification Credential program, which the Department has been
woefully behind on.
It enhances identification credentials for foreign mariners calling
on U.S. ports and also a long-range vessel tracking system to improve
our awareness of activities.
These programs will dramatically enhance our ability to protect our
ports, will help the Department, and help the Coast Guard. I want to
again thank all of the Members responsible.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H2117]]
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very tepid support of this bill.
It is a very nice bill. It has some nice provisions. None of it matters
very much if we do not at least electronically scan every container
before it is put on a ship bound for the United States. All it would
take is one atomic bomb, one radiological bomb, to make 9/11 look like
a fire cracker, to kill hundreds of thousands of people, to cost
hundreds of billions of dollars, to bring commerce to a total halt for
weeks or months while every ship, every container is not scanned, but
searched, inspected by hand before they are allowed to proceed into
this country, because that is what will happen if there is, God forbid,
a disaster in this country.
We have no protection against that now. Even with this bill, we
depend on risk-based analysis, on paper as Mr. Markey said, to defend
us. What the motion to recommit does is to say that no container can be
put on a ship bound for the United States until it is scanned for
radiation and for density, until the result of that scan is transmitted
electronically in real-time to American inspectors in the United
States, and until a tamper-proof seal that will tell us whether that
container has been tampered with after it is scanned is put on that
container.
We are told this is not feasible. Mr. King says the technology does
not exist. But it is done in Hong Kong today. It is done in Hong Kong
today. The two biggest terminals in Hong Kong have this. Of course,
nobody bothers reading the scans because the Department of Homeland
Security cannot be bothered. They are on a hard drive in Hong Kong.
It is relatively cheap, $6.50 per container, 10 seconds per
container, no delay. But the DHS has no urgency. Mr. Gingrey, a
Republican of Georgia at the Rules Committee, said that he had a
company in his district that makes those tamper-proof seals that can
talk to the global positioning satellite; but he cannot get DHS to talk
to them, they are not interested.
The motion to recommit we are told is irresponsible and partisan. It
is, in fact, word for word identical as the amendment that was agreed
to by the chairman of the Transportation Committee and adopted
unanimously by a bipartisan vote in the Transportation Committee. But
suddenly when it comes to the floor, it is a partisan amendment.
The Republicans on the Transportation Committee understood the
necessity for protecting our homeland. The Republicans on the Homeland
Security Committee apparently do not, nor does the Republican
leadership, because they will not agree to this obvious thing to do
that everyone, bipartisan, on the Transportation Committee agreed to
do.
Mr. Chairman, the main risk comes from the so-called low-risk
containers, not the high-risk containers. Wal-Mart ships a shipment of
sneakers from a factory in Indonesia. And on the truck on the way to
the port, the truck driver goes to lunch. And while he is at lunch,
someone takes out a package of sneakers and puts in an atomic bomb. The
bill of lading is fine. It is a reliable company. It is low-risk, and
there is an atomic bomb on that container, and no one sees it because
that container is not scanned.
Maybe it is scanned under this bill in Boston or in Los Angeles. It
is too late to look at it in Los Angeles if there is an atomic bomb on
board.
Mr. Chairman, this motion to recommit, which I hope Members will vote
for on the merits, not vote party line against it because it is a
procedural motion or some such nonsense, makes this a worthy bill, and
makes this a bill that will really protect Americans.
Without the motion to recommit, despite what Mr. King says, this bill
does a number of things that are nice, but does nothing really to
protect the United States.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining on our
side?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the SAFE
Port Act, and I commend Chairman King and Chairman LoBiondo, Chairman
Lungren, Chairman Young for all of their work, and certainly the
ranking member.
Members of Congress from New York and New Jersey know better than
most the horrors of September 11, 2001. We would hate to ever have that
wrought again on so many of our citizens who lost their lives. So it is
important we get about supporting this legislation.
The SAFE Port Act authorizes programs that will protect the safety of
American ports, the personnel literally, hundreds of thousands of
people who operate those ports, and the goods that move through them.
In our home State of New Jersey, the Port of New York and New Jersey
is literally the commercial gateway to the east coast. This bipartisan
legislation takes steps to make sure that the ports security
initiatives are as strong as its economic stability.
This bill recognizes the importance of implementing the
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and recommendations of the
President and Department of Homeland Security, and, finally,
legislation I introduced that port security grants be distributed based
on risk.
This legislation is an important step to achieving that version, to
ensure port resources are spent wisely and efficiently. This
legislation adheres to the need to create a risk-based or a threat-
based port security grant program.
This grant program will distribute over $400 million a year to the
most strategically significant and economically important ports facing
the greatest threats.
Thanks to a 700 percent increase, and I serve on the House
Appropriations Committee in port security funding since 9/11, our U.S.
Customs and Border Protection offices are now using several
interlocking initiatives and new cutting-edge technology to better
defend our homeland and protect our citizens.
The SAFE Port Act puts in place a multi-layered port and cargo
security strategy that builds upon these programs which Congress has
already established. I urge strong support for this bill.
{time} 1130
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.
I spoke earlier about our experience with Pan Am 103, the report that
the Commission issued, the 63 recommendations of the Commission that
did not sit on a shelf gathering dust but were enacted into law by the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
We wanted all checked bags to be screened for explosives, but we did
not get it. We did not get it worked out in the operation of the law.
So, over the next 13 years, under both Democratic majority in the
committee and Republican majority in the committee, we passed bill
after bipartisan bill requiring that all checked baggage be screened
for explosives, but we did not impose statutory deadlines.
FAA tried to move ahead with the requirements we imposed upon them
through the law, but the airlines interceded again and again and again
to effectively kill implementation: Technology was too expensive, too
high a false alarm rate, caused delays in the baggage handling.
So on the eve of September 11, 2001, there was only limited screening
of checked baggage. There was only limited requirement and prohibition
on types of materials permitted to board aircraft, such as box cutters.
The red flags were gone.
Then came September 11, and no one wanted to get aboard an airplane
unless we had better security, and it did not take long for legislation
to be passed requiring that all checked luggage be screened. It did not
take long for us to get a Federal screener workforce in place. It was a
matter of months to get it done.
It was not partisan. It was bipartisan. This was American. This was
American security that we were all seeking to improve.
By December 28, 2004, all checked and carry on baggage was screened
going
[[Page H2118]]
aboard aircraft, tougher standards, higher standards.
What we have in this bill, pilot project, studies, exhortations, is a
slow road to good security. The lesson of Pan Am 103, of aviation
security in general, was to push the borders of protection further out
from our shores overseas, to check airplanes, passengers, luggage
before it goes on the plane so that does not come into this country to
destroy us, harm us here at home.
The same principle is included in our port security act that our
committee and the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman, who was part
of shaping that bill, moving it through conference, getting it to
signature by the President 3 years ago, well, we did not have in that
bill the one element that is missing that we want to include in, and
that is mandatory screening.
The Democratic motion to recommit will require that all screeners be
scanned before loading. Vote for this. This is your only opportunity.
Vote for it.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, whatever the merits of the
recent controversy surrounding the proposed acquisition of American
port terminals by Dubai Ports World, one very good thing came out of
that controversy, and that was an enhanced focus on the needs to better
defend America's ports.
We recognize that the incredible amount of cargo that passes through
our ports could serve as an entry point to be used by terrorists to
smuggle in weapons to harm Americans. Of particular concern are nuclear
or radiological substances or devices.
During the DP World debate, many came to the erroneous conclusion
that we were actually outsourcing port security. Nothing could be
further from the truth.
Let me just tell you about a company in my district called Burtek.
This is an American company and American workers who are doing great
work to enhance our port security.
Burtek is producing something called Mobile Radiation Portal
Monitors, the first of which they delivered to the Customs and Border
Protection Agency just last week. These devices will be placed at our
ports and allow CBP to scan containers quickly and efficiently for any
radioactive cargo.
An American company and skilled American workers supplying a very
important device to American security personnel to protect America's
ports. We are not outsourcing this job to anyone, Mr. Chairman, and the
great workers of my district are doing their part to defend our Nation.
I urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation and
to continue the effort to better secure our Nation's ports.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, in closing, again, I would like to thank
Chairman King for being so open to so many ideas and Congressman
Lungren also, to again thank Mr. Oberstar for all of his help and Mr.
Young of Alaska for the hard work in putting this together.
These are serious issues that we are making great progress on, and
there is not a Member in this House that would not like to guarantee
the American public that we can completely assure everyone that
everything is totally 100 percent safe. It is an impossibility to do
that.
We are moving forward. This is an extremely good bill. We should move
forward with it, and I am asking every Member to please support it.
Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
SAFE Port Act.
My colleagues, this bill is a good start, and I will support it, but
it is not a comprehensive solution to port security.
Last year, customs officials screened only five percent of the 11
million cargo containers entering the United States. That rate is both
unacceptable and dangerous to our national and economic interests.
I represent the Port of Philadelphia, and I know firsthand the
important role that ports play in the national and global economy. I
have also seen how simple accidents can have devastating impacts on the
port system.
Just 24 days after I was elected to the House of Representatives, an
oil tanker struck a submerged object and spilled 265,000 gallons of oil
into the Delaware River. This spill halted commerce, temporarily shut
down a nuclear power plant, and put area drinking water at risk. All of
this was caused by an inanimate and rusty anchor sitting at the bottom
of the river.
All told, this incident cost an estimated $150 million. In contrast,
the damage and destruction caused by smuggling a weapon of mass
destruction into a port could cost as much as $1 trillion.
Democrats have a proposal that would prevent such a devastating
device from ever entering U.S. waters or a U.S. port. Under our plan,
every cargo container--100 percent--would be screened prior to arrival
in the United States.
We put this proposal on the table months ago and, today, the
Republican Leadership has refused to embrace it--jeopardizing security
at 361 U.S. ports and putting at risk 75 percent of the international
trade entering our country.
But we must take a step forward, and the bill under consideration
will improve many elements of security at our ports, which I have
actively supported such as establishing a risk-based port security
grant program and setting deadlines for a mandatory security
identification card for port employees.
For this reason, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill. And, I will keep
working to ensure security at all American ports.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, as a co-sponsor of H.R. 4954, I rise
today to express my support for the security improvements that this
measure would require.
In particular, this bill would require the Department of Homeland
Security to develop a strategic plan to resume trade in the event of
some type of terrorist attack that disrupted international shipping to
the United States.
In addition to providing for national planning, this measure would
also strengthen the Coast Guard's oversight of port facility security
plans by requiring the Coast Guard to verify the effectiveness of each
port's plan at least twice each year.
Further, this measure would significantly increase funding for the
federal grants that ports use to meet federal requirements for physical
security on terminals, including perimeter security.
Since 9/11, more than $20 billion in federal funding has been
directed to aviation security while just over $630 million has been
directed to port security. I am therefore pleased that H.R. 4954 would
also increase the funding for port security grants by $200 million per
year.
Unfortunately, despite the improvements it would make, H.R. 4954 does
not do all that could or should be done at this point to increase
security at our ports.
The recent discussion over the proposed sale of a terminal operating
firm working at several U.S. ports--including the Port of Baltimore--to
a firm owned by the government of Dubai has raised awareness across our
nation of the inadequacy of our current regime for inspecting cargo--
particularly containerized cargo.
At the present time, our nation physically inspects only 5% of the
nearly 11 million containers that come into our nation each year. This
means that more than 10,400,000 containers enter the U.S. without
having been physically inspected--and without any physical proof that
the contents of the container are truly those described on the
container's manifest.
The motion to recommit that will be offered by my Democratic
colleagues would require that all containers destined for the U.S. be
scanned before they are loaded on a ship--and that they be sealed in a
way that would immediately show if the container had been tampered with
prior to its arrival in the United States.
The adoption of this motion to recommit would immeasurably enhance
the underlying bill--and would close one of the most significant gaps
in our homeland security regime that we have continued to leave open
since 9/11.
I therefore urge my colleagues to adopt the Democratic motion to
recommit to ensure that H.R. 4954 will truly make our ports SAFE.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of
this comprehensive, bipartisan legislation which will address one of
the most significant challenges identified by the 9/11 Commission: an
attack at our ports. I commend my colleagues for working together to
bring forth this important piece of legislation that will enhance our
security, improve the efficiency of trade and provide necessary funding
for the critical missions of our Coast Guard, Customs and Border
Agents, and others involved in the maritime industry.
The Puget Sound region has a long maritime history. As we've moved
towards a global economy, Washington state had responded accordingly
and has become an important global partner in facilitating and
improving international commerce. It is estimated that 95 percent of
U.S. trade flows through the nation's 361 ports, equaling almost $1
trillion annually.
[[Page H2119]]
As trade with Asia continues to grow, west coast ports, like the Port
of Tacoma, are playing an ever larger role. I am proud to have the Port
of Tacoma located in my district. It is the nation's sixth largest port
by cargo container volume, it handled over 2.1 million containers last
year and continues to be a major economic engine in the South Sound
region. In addition to its growing capacity, the Port of Tacoma is also
one of the nation's strategic military ports, helping to transport Fort
Lewis-related cargo overseas in support of our troops. I commend the
Port of Tacoma for taking the necessary steps to tighten facility
security and continue to serve the vital role in the national homeland
security efforts.
With the Port of Seattle to the north and the Port of Olympia to the
south, the Port of Tacoma works collaboratively with its sister ports
and takes a regional approach to improve the security in and around the
facilities. In fact, the Port of Tacoma and Port of Seattle worked
together in Operation Safe Commerce, a federal program designed to
create the knowledge base required for international standards for
containerized shipping. Both ports are actively working with private
and public entities to identify supply chain vulnerabilities and
develop improved methods and technologies to ensure the security of
cargo entering and leaving the United States. Many lessons were learned
in working with manufacturing and shipping partners and this knowledge
will help us improve our efficiency while protecting our citizens and
critical infrastructure. I am pleased to see that additional funds are
available in this legislation to continue this important program.
The SAFE Port Act takes many critically important steps to prevent
another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. This bill strengthens our
domestic and international security efforts by making improvements to
high-risk cargo targeting and tracking systems. The bill requires the
Department of Homeland Security to deploy nuclear and radiological
detection systems to our major ports by the end of next year. Ports
will also have the much needed resources they need through the Port
Security Grant Program to improve facility security.
Screening containers prior to its arrival at our U.S. ports is
critical and I am pleased to see that the Department of Homeland
Security is working to evaluate new radiological and other detection
devices for use at foreign seaports. I believe these new technologies
will arm our security officers with improved information and allow us
to better protect our critical infrastructure. The bill also includes
improvements to our international screening programs: the Container
Security Initiative (CSI) and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against
Terrorism (C-TPAT).
The important role that our ports play in security and commerce has
too often not received the appropriate level of priority. As a result,
funding for the security of our ports has been sorely inadequate. This
legislation moves forward in the right direction. We must do all we can
to protect our communities, our critical infrastructure and our
homeland. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the SAFE Port
Act today.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act, falls far
short of what's needed. Because the Republican majority operates
largely as a subsidiary of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, they refuse to
take the only step that will ensure the safety of our ports: 100
percent scanning of containers. Instead, this bill mandates more
reports that will tell us what hundreds of experts already have: you
can't ensure safety if you don't verify the contents of every
container. The studies, further reorganization of the Department of
Homeland Security, and micromanaging of port operations in this
legislation are a paltry substitute for real security.
Apparently the Majority feared that common sense would prevail, as
they won't even allow a vote on a Democratic amendment to scan 100
percent of containers within five years, following the model set by
Hong Kong's successful Integrated Container Inspection System, which
has operated since 2005 without significantly increasing costs or
causing delays. The shipping industry itself admits that the maximum
cost of 100 percent scanning would be $125 per container. It could be
as low as $6.50 per container. Either way, it's a small price to pay
for security when compared to the $4,000 cost of shipping a container
from Asia.
I will vote in favor of this bill because it is an improvement over
the current system and sends more federal money to ports to improve
their security. However, unlike my Republican colleagues, I will not
claim ``mission accomplished'' on port security until we know what's in
every container entering this country.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the
ongoing debate of whether our port system can accommodate 100 percent
screening of shipping containers headed through United States ports.
The case for 100 percent screening is not hard to make. Approximately
95 percent of our nation's trade, worth nearly $1 trillion, enters or
leaves through our seaports. Foreign vessels carry the bulk of the
approximately 800 million tons of goods that come into our country. In
fiscal year 2005 alone, more than 11 million containers arrived on
American soil by sea, and this number is growing at a rate of over 10
percent a year. Given this enormous amount of traffic the need to
ensure our nation's security is considerable.
Any assertion that technology does not exist to screen 100 percent of
the cargo coming to the United States is simply incorrect. For several
years, innovative small businesses have been busy improving upon
existing technology. Just this month in my district, TMC Services, a
small company located in Los Alamos, unveiled a prototype of an
advanced spectroscopic radiation detection system. This mobile platform
is designed to provide for 100 percent screening without unduly
affecting port operations. The mobile and versatile system provides
drive-through or drive-over inspection of containers and is intended
for integration into the global detection network connected to a
centralized nuclear data analysis center which is being developed by
the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) at the Department of
Homeland Security.
Mobile Point of Needs Detector System (MPONDS) is a unique systems
engineered solution to the container screening problem and ahead of its
time in terms of looking at all the pieces necessary to put together a
coherent and effective port protection system. I saw first-hand a
demonstration of the technology and believe this technology has the
potential to contribute to our goal of detecting cargo which would harm
the United States.
I believe we should not be focusing on whether 100 percent screening
is achievable, as it clearly is, but rather on how rapidly we can
deploy this new, existing, advanced technology at all U.S. ports. I was
greatly disappointed to learn that the restrictive rule for today's
debate of H.R. 4954 did not make in order an amendment offered by
Representative Nadler to require that every shipping container be
scanned and sealed before being loaded onto a ship destined for the
U.S. It is unfortunate that the majority leadership of the Rules
Committee continues to ignore the strong need for debate and action on
this issue, and I would strongly urge my colleagues to take the
responsible step of insisting that the U.S. government protect its
citizens by screening all of the cargo entering the United States
ports.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Armed Services
Committee and a representative of a coastal district in South Texas, I
rise in support of the SAFE Port Act.
I also want to make a particular point today. This Congress has
promised all manner of border security and port security to the tune of
billions of dollars . . . yet we have--to date--funded our promises for
port security at only $900 million. That's quite a distance between
what we say and what we actually do.
I'm for the bill before us today; but more than that, I am for
actually spending the bill's $7.4 billion for port and cargo security
programs. Many members, including myself, are disappointed that the
bill did not contain language to have 100% of port cargo screened. I
will support the amendment to add the requirement to screen 100% of
port cargo.
Over the last five years, the Administration and the majority in
Congress have appropriated less than $900 million for port security
grants--despite the Coast Guard's determination that $5.4 billion is
needed over 10 years. Over the last five years, the Presidential budget
has never requested dedicated funding for port security.
In South Texas, we understand how vital port security is and we fear
the day a weapon of mass destruction could be brought into a U.S. port
in a container and cause hundreds of thousands of casualties. We cannot
continue to tolerate the vulnerabilities in our port system. U.S.
seaports handle more than 95 percent of our nation's foreign trade--
with millions of containers arriving in our ports each year.
We should include a comprehensive global container scanning system
that scans the contents of every single container bound for the United
States before it leaves an overseas port. The proposal of 100% scanning
of containers is not unrealistic; it is endorsed by two experts in port
security--Stephen Flynn, a former commander in the Coast Guard, and
Adm. James Loy, the former head of the Coast Guard.
Two of the busiest terminals in the world--both in Hong Kong--scan
100% of cargo containers. Cmdr. Flynn and Adm. Loy wrote in an op-ed in
the New York Times
[[Page H2120]]
in February saying, ``This is not a pie-in-the-sky idea. Since January
2005, every container entering the truck gates of two of the world's
busiest container terminals, in Hong Kong, has passed through scanning
and radiation detection devices. Images of the containers' contents are
then stored on computers so that they can be scrutinized by American or
other customs authorities almost in real time. Customs inspectors can
then issue orders not to load a container that worries them.''
If Hong Kong terminals can do it, certainly America can require other
terminals to do it. The Hong Kong pilot program has shown that 100%
scanning can work without slowing down commerce. If two of the busiest
terminals in the world have been successful at 100% scanning, it is
time that Congress insists on it for those who wish to ship to our
ports--it is what we must do to protect the lives of all Americans.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Security and
Accountability for Every Port (SAFE Port) Act, H.R. 4954. In the wake
of the Dubai Ports World controversy, it is long past time to seriously
address the issue of port security.
The ports of the United States are an economic gateway to the rest of
the globe. They are vital to our economy and to our national security.
Today, seaports handle 95 percent of our nation's foreign trade valued
at over $1 trillion. This is an issue that is important to my
constituents and to all citizens of New Jersey. The security of Port
Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal, which is the 15th busiest port in the
world, is something we need to address.
Yet, five years after the terrible attacks of September 11th, our
nation's seaports remain remarkably vulnerable and real security
concerns persist. Only 5 percent of the cargo containers that enter the
United States are inspected despite the potential presence of dangerous
cargo, including nuclear weapons. This national security risk is a
result of the failure of the current Administration to seriously
address this essential issue. This bill takes important steps necessary
to help secure out nation's ports and prevent dangerous materials from
entering our country.
However, the bill is far from perfect. The Republican Majority wants
to play word games with port security rather than provide real security
to all Americans. Today they will try to convince Americans that 100
percent of all cargo containers are screened. But, it is important to
notice that they are only talking about screening, meaning a review of
the paper manifest of the cargo container--not a physical inspection. I
support the inspection of 100 percent of all containers, and tragically
we only inspect 5 percent of all cargo containers entering the United
States today. That means that 95 percent of the cargo containers
entering our country could contain nuclear, biological or chemical
weapons but because we have not inspected them we would never know.
This needs to change.
Hong Kong has successfully implemented a 100 percent inspection
program at its ports. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues denied
Democrats the opportunity to offer an amendment that would require the
United States to implement a similar program with 100 percent
inspection of containers coming in to our country. Americans want real
security, not word games.
The 9/11 Commission recently gave the Administration and Republican-
controlled Congress a ``D'' for cargo screening. Still, the Congress
has only appropriated a total of $883 million for port security despite
the Coast Guard's stated need of $5.4 billion over 10 years to
adequately secure our seaports. Last year, I voted for the Democratic
Homeland Security substitute that would have appropriated an additional
$400 million for port security funding for Fiscal Year 2006, but it was
rejected by the Republican Majority, who is more interested in giving
tax breaks the wealthiest Americans. We can and must do better for the
security of the American people.
That is why I am glad that the SAFE Port Act would authorize $400
million annually for port security grant programs to be distributed
based on risk. This money is desperately needed by our nation's ports
to ensure that terrorist do not smuggle dangerous materials in to our
country. Further, this bill requires the Department of Homeland
Security to hire an additional 200 port-of-entry inspectors every year
for the next six years. These additional employees will help ensure
that high risk containers are actually inspected.
The SAFE Port Act represents a bipartisan and thoughtful effort to
address the important issue of port security. I am pleased that this
bill authorizes approximately $5 billion over six years to improve port
and cargo security programs. This bill requires the Department of
Homeland Security to finally develop a plan to deploy radiation
detection systems at all American ports. It also strengthens the
Container Security Initiative. Further, it authorizes almost $2 billion
for the Coast Guard to upgrade and replace its deteriorating equipment
and ships.
The SAFE Port Act is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support
it. But we need more work remains to be done. We need to require 100
percent inspection of all cargo coming in to the United States.
Anything less jeopardizes the security of the American people.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4954, SAFE
Ports Act. Port Security has been on everyone's lips for the past two
months with the proposed sale of the six major U.S. ports to the Dubai
World Ports, a state-sponsored company backed by The United Arab
Emirates. However, we all realize that port security was not really
addressed by the outcome on that deal. What we still have at our ports
is the free movement of cargo from just about every place in the world.
Something must be done to establish security at our American ports.
Today, we have an opportunity to do just that by supporting, H.R. 4954,
SAFE Ports Act.
The major provisions of the bill address a number of issues that
became even more relevant after the Dubai debacle. One, the bill
establishes security standards for all cargo containers entering the
U.S. after six months of enactment. This is long overdue, since
containers represent the major device being handled by our Ports. The
Port of Los Angeles handled 7.3 million containers in 2005, and is
expected to handle even more this year, setting new records. The bill
also authorizes a study of the current radiation and nuclear detection
scanning technology. It came to light that this type of technology in
this country is not up to par with many of our trading partners.
Moreover, the bill creates a dedicated stream of funding for port
security, which is necessary to maintain the level of security
recommended by our own Coast Guard.
In addition, the bill would establish a Port security worker training
and exercise program. This would ensure the readiness of these workers,
particularly in a changing threat environment. Port security personnel
must be prepared for these threats. The bill also accelerates the U.S.
Coast Guard Deepwater program. Further, the bill established maritime
command centers to ensure a coordinated response to our Port security
needs.
Similar measures have advanced in the Senate, where Senators Stevens
and Inouye have introduced S. 1052, the Transportation Security
Improvement Act of 2005, and Senators Collins and Murray the Greenlane
Maritime Act, S. 2008. These bills require marine terminal operators to
comply with Coast Guard regulations to secure cargo and terminal
facilities at all of our nation's ports, regardless of who operates
them.
Inspections of all containers and security measures like the security
IDs are important to security. Port Security is a major issue in the
State of California, and of major concern to me is security at the Port
of Los Angeles, one of the nation's busiest ports. The Port of Los
Angeles is the largest container complex operating in the U.S., and the
8th busiest container port in the world. When combined with the Port of
Long Beach the two ports rank as the 5th busiest in the world. The Los
Angeles Port handles 162 million metric tons of cargo (7.3 million
containers) in 2005, representing approximately $150 billion.
What is astounding is that the Los Angeles Port covers 7500 areas,
8300--water and--4200 land. This means that the Port of Los Angeles has
43 miles of water front facilities to secure. The City of Los Angeles
cannot provide adequate security alone for the Port, but in cooperation
with the federal government we can begin to address the concerns of
workers, port and terminal operators, and others, by supporting this
bill.
Mr. KING of New York, Mr. Chairman, I have discussed this issue with
the ranking member, Mr. Thompson, and it is important to note today, as
we consider the SAFE Port Act, that the Committee on Homeland Security
is concerned that the list of criminal offenses that will initially
disqualify a worker from holding a maritime transportation security
card includes vague and overly broad crimes. The proposed list of
disqualifying offenses appears to go significantly beyond the already
existing mandate of exclusion and we hope that TSA and the Coast Guard,
as it finalizes its rules, will narrow and limit the list of
disqualifying criminal offenses to more accurately identify individuals
that pose a terrorism security risk and who are therefore unworthy to
hold a maritime transportation security card.
Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, 5 years after the
September 11th attack, our nation remains vulnerable to an attack, an
attack that could come through our ports. Our maritime system consists
of more than 300 sea and river ports with more than 3,700 cargo and
passenger terminals nationwide. Additionally, thousands of shipments to
the United States originate in the ports of nations that may harbor
terrorists. Although Customs and Border Protection analyzes cargo
[[Page H2121]]
and other information to target specific shipments for closer
inspection, it still physically inspects only a small fraction of the
containers under its purview.
We cannot allow the threat that our current port security system
allows to continue. Terrorists have already attacked our Nation once.
There is every reason to believe that they will try again--possibly
with a weapon of mass destruction; a weapon that could be smuggled into
our ports. That is why I support the three tiered approach H.R. 4954,
the ``SAFE Port Act of 2006'' takes to address port security.
We must secure our ports and the containers that travel through them
at home, abroad and in transit to the United States. H.R. 4954 takes
important strides to accomplish this by requiring the Department of
Homeland Security to deploy nuclear and radiological detection systems
at 22 important seaports by the end of FY07. Additionally, this
legislation puts an emphasis on training--a key component to readiness.
Our port police, local law enforcement, and longshoremen need an
established training program with set guidelines from Homeland Security
to deal with security breaches and terrorist attacks. This bill will
create one.
For containers in transit to our shores, this legislation requires
the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop standards for sealing
containers en route to the United States. The SAFE Ports Act boosts
private sector investment into security by devoting $25 million a year
to forge private/public partnerships to bring new technologies and
techniques to market faster.
For overseas ports, this bill realizes that our homeland security
does not end at our borders. Instead, we need to take a global approach
to the way we protect our nation, including our ports. This legislation
requires DHS to gather more information from cargo importers. It
codifies the existing Container Security Initiative which enables DHS
to examine high risk maritime cargo at foreign ports.
H.R. 4954 represents an important step in enhancing our homeland
security systems. As a representative from Southeastern Pennsylvania
whose lies within an hour's distance or less from the ports of
Philadelphia, and Newark. Additionally, my own district is home to a
deepwater port that is badly in need of enhanced security measures. I
am voting for this act so that my backyard and the backyards of my
constituents will not become the site of the next terrorist attack. I
call on my colleagues to support this legislation.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the bill we have on the
floor today is a good start to protecting our ports and waterways, but
until this Congress has the fortitude to demand total cargo scanning
and to dedicating real dollars to fully securing our ports, the
American people remain vulnerable to a terrorist attack via our ports.
This legislation should have been on the floor on September 12, 2001,
not May 4, 2006. Like so many other security needs of this country,
this is too little too late. If we're not scanning cargo before it gets
to this county, were closing the barn door long after the horse gets
out.
I hear the complaints that scanning all cargo will slow commerce, but
I would ask what these people think a nuclear bomb going off in a U.S.
port would do to the flow of commerce. The shipping industry would be
stopped in its tracks the way the aviation industry was after September
11th.
To me, nowhere is additional port security funding more important
than in my home state of Florida, whose 14 major ports are the gateway
to the United States. These ports play a crucial role in transporting
ammunitions, supplies, and military equipment to our men and women
fighting all over the world. In fact, ports serve as the main economic
engine for many of the areas in which they're found, making an attack
not only extremely dangerous for local citizens, but economically
disastrous for the local economy as well.
Unfortunately, the administration's concentration of terrorism
prevention funding on the aviation industry has jeopardized the safety
of other modes of transportation. Last year TSA spent $4.4 billion
alone on Aviation security, while spending only $36 million on all
Surface Transportation security programs. Even after the rail bombings
in Madrid and London we're still failing to provide adequate funding to
protect our rail infrastructure. I just don't understand why it takes a
tragedy in this county for us to react to security deficiencies.
I am hopeful that the Administration and this Congress will start to
provide real dollars for the protection of our port ,and waterways. The
citizens of this nation. deserve no less.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Putnam). All time for general debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 4954
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Security
and Accountability For Every Port Act'' or ``SAFE Port Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
TITLE I--SECURITY OF UNITED STATES SEAPORTS
Subtitle A--General Provisions
Sec. 101. Definition of transportation security incident.
Sec. 102. Protocols for resumption of trade.
Sec. 103. Requirements relating to maritime facility security plans.
Sec. 104. Unannounced inspections of maritime facilities.
Sec. 105. Verification of individuals with access to secure areas of
seaports.
Sec. 106. Clarification on eligibility for transportation security
cards.
Sec. 107. Long-range vessel tracking.
Sec. 108. Maritime security command centers.
Subtitle B--Grant and Training Programs
Sec. 111. Port security grant program.
Sec. 112. Port security training program.
Sec. 113. Port security exercise program.
Sec. 114. Reserve officers and junior reserve officers training pilot
project.
Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec. 121. Increase in port of entry inspection officers.
Sec. 122. Acceleration of Integrated Deepwater System.
Sec. 123. Border Patrol unit for United States Virgin Islands.
Sec. 124. Report on ownership and operation of United States seaports.
Sec. 125. Report on security operations at certain United States
seaports.
Sec. 126. Report on arrival and departure manifests for certain
commercial vessels in the United States Virgin Islands.
TITLE II--SECURITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CHAIN
Sec. 201. Security of the international supply chain.
Sec. 202. Next generation supply chain security technologies.
Sec. 203. Uniform data system for import and export information.
Sec. 204. Foreign port assessments.
Sec. 205. Pilot program to improve the security of empty containers.
Sec. 206. Study and report on advanced imagery pilot programs.
TITLE III--DIRECTORATE FOR POLICY, PLANNING, AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
Sec. 301. Establishment of Directorate.
TITLE IV--OFFICE OF DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION
Sec. 401. Establishment of Office.
Sec. 402. Nuclear and radiological detection systems.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Maritime vessels are the primary mode of transportation
for international trade and they carry over 80 percent of
international trade by volume.
(2) In 2004, maritime vessels carried approximately
9,700,000 shipping containers into United States seaports at
an average of 27,000 containers per day.
(3) The security of the international container supply
chain and the maritime transportation system is critical for
the prosperity and liberty of all countries.
(4) In its final report, the National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States noted, ``While
commercial aviation remains a possible target, terrorists may
turn their attention to other modes of transportation.
Opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater in maritime
or surface transportation.''.
(5) In May 2002, the Brookings Institution estimated that
costs associated with United States port closures from a
detonated terrorist weapon could add up to $1 trillion from
the resulting economic slump and changes in our Nation's
inability to trade. Anticipated port closures on the west
coast of the United States could cost the United States
economy $1 billion per day for the first five days after a
terrorist attack.
(6) Significant steps have been taken since the terrorist
attacks against the United States that occurred on September
11, 2001:
(A) Congress passed the Maritime Transportation Security
Act of 2002 on November 14, 2002.
(B) The Coast Guard issued a comprehensive set of port
security regulations on October 22, 2003.
(C) The International Maritime Organization adopted the
International Ship and Port Facility (ISPS) Code in December
2002.
(D) The White House issued Homeland Security Presidential
Directive-13 in September 2005 which lays out requirements
for a comprehensive maritime security policy.
(7) Through both public and private projects, the private
sector in the United States and overseas has worked with the
Department of Homeland Security to improve the security of
the movement of cargo through the international supply chain.
(8) Despite these steps, security gaps in the maritime
transportation system remain, resulting in high-risk
container systems not being
[[Page H2122]]
checked overseas or domestically and ports that are
vulnerable to terrorist attacks similar to the attack on the
U.S.S. Cole.
(9) Significant enhancements can be achieved by applying a
multi-layered approach to supply chain security, in a
coordinated fashion. Current supply chain programs within the
Federal Government have been independently operated, often
falling short of gains which could have been made if such
programs were operated in a coordinated manner with clear
system standards and a framework that creates incentives for
security investments.
(10) While it is impossible to completely remove the risk
of a terrorist attack, security measures in the supply chain
can add certainty and stability to the global economy, raise
investor confidence, and facilitate trade. Some
counterterrorism costs are integral to the price that must be
paid to protect society. However, counterterrorism measures
also present an opportunity to increase the efficiency of the
global trade system through international harmonization of
such measures. These efficiency gains are maximized when all
countries adopt such counterterrorism measures.
(11) Increasing transparency in the supply chain will
assist in mitigating the impact of a terrorist attack by
allowing for a targeted shutdown of the international supply
chain and expedited restoration of commercial traffic.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' has the meaning
given the term in section 2(2) of the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(2)).
(2) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of Homeland Security.
(3) International supply chain.--The term ``international
supply chain'' means the end-to-end process for shipping
goods from a point of origin overseas to and from the United
States.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Homeland Security.
TITLE I--SECURITY OF UNITED STATES SEAPORTS
Subtitle A--General Provisions
SEC. 101. DEFINITION OF TRANSPORTATION SECURITY INCIDENT.
Section 70101(6) of title 46, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after ``economic disruption'' the
following ``(other than economic disruption caused by acts
that are unrelated to terrorism and are committed during a
labor strike, demonstration, or other type of labor
unrest)''.
SEC. 102. PROTOCOLS FOR RESUMPTION OF TRADE.
(a) In General.--Section 70103(a)(2)(J) of title 46, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``(J)'' and inserting ``(J)(i)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(ii) The plan required by clause (i) shall include
protocols for the resumption of trade in the event of a
transportation security incident that necessitates the
suspension of trade through contingency and continuity
planning that ensures trade lanes are restored as quickly as
possible. The protocols shall provide for--
``(I) coordination with appropriate Federal, State, and
local agencies, the private sector, and appropriate overseas
entities in developing such contingency and continuity
planning;
``(II) coordination with appropriate Federal, State, and
local agencies and the private sector on law enforcement
actions, inter-modal rerouting plans, and identification and
prioritization of goods that may enter the United States; and
``(III) designation of appropriate Federal officials to
work with port authorities to reestablish the flow of cargo
by prioritizing shipments based on appropriate factors,
including factors relating to public health, national
security, and economic need.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
shall develop the protocols described in section
70103(a)(2)(J)(ii) of title 46, United States Code, as added
by subsection (a), not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 103. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO MARITIME FACILITY SECURITY
PLANS.
(a) Facility Security Plans.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security shall require that a security plan for a facility
required under section 70103(c) of title 46, United States
Code, shall be resubmitted for approval upon transfer of
ownership or operation of such facility.
(b) Facility Security Officers.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall require that the
qualified individual having full authority to implement
security actions who is required to be identified under
section 70103(c)(3)(B) of title 46, United States Code, for a
facility described in section 70103(c)(2) of that title shall
be a citizen of the United States.
(2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the requirement of
paragraph (1) with respect to an individual if the Secretary
determines that it is appropriate to do so based on a
complete background check of the individual and a review of
all terrorist watchlists to ensure that the individual is not
identified on any such terrorist watchlist.
(c) Facility Security Access.--Section 70103(c)(3)(C)(ii)
of title 46, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end before the semicolon the following: ``, including access
by individuals engaged in the surface transportation of
intermodal containers in or out of a port facility''.
SEC. 104. UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS OF MARITIME FACILITIES.
Subparagraph (D) of section 70103(c)(4) of title 46, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(D) verify the effectiveness of each such facility
security plan periodically, but not less than twice annually,
at least one of which shall be an inspection of the facility
that is conducted without notice to the facility.''.
SEC. 105. VERIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS WITH ACCESS TO SECURE
AREAS OF SEAPORTS.
(a) Implementation of Requirements.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall--
(1) not later than July 15, 2006, issue a notice of
proposed rulemaking for regulations required to implement
section 70105 of title 46, United States Code;
(2) not later than November 15, 2006, issue final
regulations required to implement that section; and
(3) begin issuing transportation security cards to
individuals at seaports facilities under subsection (b) of
that section in accordance with the schedule contained in
subsection (b)(2) of this section.
(b) Transportation Security Cards.--
(1) Management.--Final regulations issued under subsection
(a)(2) shall provide for Federal management of the system for
issuing transportation security cards.
(2) Schedule for issuing transportation security cards at
seaports.--
(A) Not later than May 15, 2007, the Secretary shall begin
issuing transportation security cards to individuals at the
first 25 seaport facilities listed on the facility
vulnerability assessment issued by the Secretary under
section 70102 of title 46, United States Code.
(B) Not later than November 15, 2007, the Secretary shall
begin issuing transportation security cards to individuals at
the next 30 seaport facilities listed on that assessment.
(C) Not later than November 15, 2008, the Secretary shall
issue transportation security cards to individuals at all
other seaport facilities.
(c) Interim Verification of Individuals.--
(1) Terrorist watch list comparison and immigration records
check.--Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall--
(A) complete a comparison of each individual who has
unescorted access to a secure area of a seaport facility (as
designated in an approved facility security plan in
accordance with section 70103(c) of title 46, United States
Code) against terrorist watch lists to determine if the
individual poses a threat; and
(B) determine whether each such individual may be denied
admission to the United States, or removed from the United
States, under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101 et seq.).
(2) Continuing requirement.--In the case of an individual
who is given unescorted access to a secure area of a seaport
facility after the date on which the Secretary completes the
requirements of paragraph (1) and before the date on which
the Secretary begins issuing transportation security cards at
the seaport facility, the Secretary shall conduct a
comparison of the individual against terrorist watch lists
and determine whether the individual is lawfully present in
the United States.
(3) Interim final regulations.--In order to carry out this
subsection, the Secretary shall issue interim final
regulations to require submission to the Secretary of
information necessary to carry out the requirements of
paragraph (1).
(4) Privacy requirements.--Terrorist watch list comparisons
and immigration records checks under this subsection shall be
carried out in accordance with the requirements of section
552a of title 5, United States Code.
(5) Restrictions on use and maintenance of information.--
(A) Restriction on disclosure.--Information obtained by the
Secretary in the course of comparing the individual against
terrorist watch lists under this subsection may not be made
available to the public, including the individual's employer.
(B) Confidentiality; use.--Any information constituting
grounds for prohibiting the employment of an individual in a
position described in paragraph (1)(A) shall be maintained
confidentially by the Secretary and may be used only for
making determinations under this section. The Secretary may
share any such information with appropriate Federal, State,
local, and tribal law enforcement agencies.
(6) Terrorist watch lists defined.--In this subsection, the
term ``terrorist watch lists'' means all available
information on known or suspected terrorists or terrorist
threats.
(d) Reporting.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report containing
information on--
(1) the number of matches made in conducting terrorist
watch list comparisons, and the number of individuals found
to be unlawfully present in the United States, under
subsection (c);
(2) the corresponding seaport facilities at which the
matches and unlawfully present individuals were identified;
and
(3) the actions taken as a result of the terrorist
watchlist comparisons and immigration records checks under
subsection (c).
(e) Treatment of Individuals Receiving Hazardous Materials
Endorsements.--
(1) In general.--To the extent the Secretary determines
that the background records check conducted under section
5103a of title 49, United States Code, and the background
records check conducted under section 70105 of title 46,
United States Code, are equivalent, the Secretary shall
determine that an individual does not pose a risk warranting
denial of a transportation security card issued under section
70105 of title 46, United States Code, if such individual--
(A) has successfully completed a background records check
under section 5103a of title 49, United States Code; and
(B) possesses a current and valid hazardous materials
endorsement in accordance with section 1572 of title 49, Code
of Federal Regulations.
[[Page H2123]]
(2) Limitations.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the
Secretary may deny an individual a transportation security
card under section 70105 of title 46, United States Code, if
the Secretary has substantial evidence that the individual
poses a risk to national security.
(3) Reduction in fees.--The Secretary shall reduce, to the
extent practicable, any fees associated with obtaining a
transportation security card under section 70105 of title 46,
United States Code, for any individual referred to in
paragraph (1).
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 to carry
out this section.
SEC. 106. CLARIFICATION ON ELIGIBILITY FOR TRANSPORTATION
SECURITY CARDS.
Section 70105(c)(2) of title 46, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``subparagraph (A), (B), or (D) of''
before ``paragraph (1)''.
SEC. 107. LONG-RANGE VESSEL TRACKING.
(a) Regulations.--Section 70115 of title 46, United States
Code is amended in the first sentence by striking ``The
Secretary'' and inserting ``Not later than April 1, 2007, the
Secretary''.
(b) Voluntary Program.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
may issue regulations to establish a voluntary long-range
automated vessel tracking system for vessels described in
section 70115 of title 46, United States Code, during the
period before regulations are issued under subsection (a) of
such section.
SEC. 108. MARITIME SECURITY COMMAND CENTERS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 701 of title 46, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 70122. Maritime security command centers
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an
integrated network of virtual and physical maritime security
command centers at appropriate United States seaports and
maritime regions, as determined by the Secretary, to--
``(1) enhance information sharing;
``(2) facilitate day-to-day operational coordination; and
``(3) in the case of a transportation security incident,
facilitate incident management and response.
``(b) Characteristics.--Each maritime security command
center described in subsection (a) shall--
``(1) be regionally based and utilize where available the
compositional and operational characteristics, facilities and
information technology systems of current operational centers
for port and maritime security and other similar existing
facilities and systems;
``(2) be adapted to meet the security needs, requirements,
and resources of the seaport and maritime region the center
will cover; and
``(3) to the maximum extent practicable, not involve the
construction of new facilities, but shall utilize information
technology, virtual connectivity, and existing facilities to
create an integrated, real-time communication and information
sharing network.
``(c) Participation.--The following entities shall
participate in the integrated network of maritime security
command centers described in subsection (a):
``(1) The Coast Guard.
``(2) U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
``(3) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
``(4) Other appropriate Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies.
``(d) Responsibilities.--Each maritime security command
center described in subsection (a) shall--
``(1) assist, as appropriate, in the implementation of
maritime transportation security plans developed under
section 70103;
``(2) implement the transportation security incident
response plans required under section 70104;
``(3) carry out information sharing activities consistent
with those activities required under section 1016 of the
National Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (6 U.S.C.
485) and the Homeland Security Information Sharing Act (6
U.S.C. 481 et seq.);
``(4) conduct short- and long-range vessel tracking under
sections 70114 and 70115; and
``(5) carry out such other responsibilities as determined
by the Secretary.
``(e) Security Clearances.--The Secretary shall sponsor and
expedite individuals participating in a maritime security
command center described in subsection (a) in gaining or
maintaining their security clearances. Through the Captain of
the Port, the Secretary may identify key individuals who
should participate. In addition, the port or other entities
may appeal to the Captain of the Port for sponsorship.
``(f) Security Incidents.--During a transportation security
incident involving the port, the Coast Guard Captain of the
Port designated by the Commandant of the Coast Guard in a
maritime security command center described in subsection (a)
shall act as the incident commander, unless otherwise
directed by the President.
``(g) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed to affect the normal command and control
procedures for operational entities in the Department, unless
so directed by the Secretary.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated $60,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 2007 through 2012 to carry out this section and
section 108(c) of the Security and Accountability For Every
Port Act.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 701 of title 46, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``70122. Maritime security command centers.''.
(c) Implementation Plan and Budget Analysis.--The Secretary
of Homeland Security shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a plan for the implementation of
section 70122 of title 46, United States Code, as added by
subsection (a), and a budget analysis for the implementation
of such section, including additional cost-sharing
arrangements with other Federal departments and agencies and
other participants involved in the maritime security command
centers described in such section, not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Subtitle B--Grant and Training Programs
SEC. 111. PORT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Title V of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (6 U.S.C. 311 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating the second section 510 (as added by
section 7303(d) of Public Law 108-458 (118 Stat. 3844)) as
section 511; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 512. PORT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM.
``(a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary shall establish a
grant program to allocate Federal financial assistance to
United States seaports on the basis of risk and need.
``(b) Prioritization Process.--In awarding grants under
this section, the Secretary shall conduct an assessment of
United States seaports to develop a prioritization for
awarding grants authorized under subsection (a) based upon--
``(1) the most current risk assessment available from the
Department;
``(2) the national economic and strategic defense
considerations of individual ports; and
``(3) any other factors that the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
``(c) Application.--
``(1) In general.--Any entity or facility subject to an
Area Maritime Transportation Security Plan required under
subsection (b) or (c) of section 70103 of title 46, United
States Code, may submit an application for a grant under this
section, at such time, in such form, and containing such
information and assurances as the Secretary may require.
``(2) Minimum standards for payment or reimbursement.--Each
application submitted under paragraph (1) shall include--
``(A) a comprehensive description of--
``(i) the purpose of the project for which the applicant
seeks a grant under this section and why the applicant needs
the grant;
``(ii) the applicability of the project to the Area
Maritime Transportation Security Plan and other homeland
security plans;
``(iii) the methodology for coordinating the project into
the security of the greater port area, as identified in the
Area Maritime Transportation Security Plan;
``(iv) any existing cooperation or mutual aid agreements
with other port facilities, vessels, organizations, or State,
territorial, and local governments as such agreements relate
to port security; and
``(v) a capital budget showing how the applicant intends to
allocate and expend the grant funds;
``(B) a determination by the Captain of the Port that the
project--
``(i) addresses or corrects port security vulnerabilities;
and
``(ii) helps to ensure compliance with the Area Maritime
Transportation Security Plan.
``(3) Procedural safeguards.--The Secretary, in
consultation with the Office of the Inspector General and the
Office of Grants and Training, shall issue guidelines to
establish appropriate accounting, reporting, and review
procedures to ensure that--
``(A) grant funds are used for the purposes for which they
were made available;
``(B) grantees have properly accounted for all expenditures
of grant funds; and
``(C) grant funds not used for such purposes and amounts
not obligated or expended are returned.
``(d) Use of Funds.--Grants awarded under this section may
be used--
``(1) to help implement Area Maritime Transportation
Security Plans required under section 70103(b) of title 46,
United States Code;
``(2) to remedy port security vulnerabilities identified
through vulnerability assessments approved by the Secretary;
``(3) for non-Federal projects contributing to the overall
security of a seaport or a system of United States seaports,
as determined by the Secretary;
``(4) 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 for a seaport area if
the Secretary--
``(A) increases the threat level under the Homeland
Security Advisory System to Code Orange or Code Red; or
``(B) raises the Maritime Security level to MARSEC Level 2
or 3;
``(5) for the cost of acquisition, operation, and
maintenance of equipment that contributes to the overall
security of the port area, as identified in the Area Maritime
Transportation Security Plan, if the need is based upon
vulnerability assessments approved by the Secretary or
identified in the Area Maritime Security Plan;
``(6) to conduct vulnerability assessments approved by the
Secretary;
``(7) to purchase or upgrade equipment, including computer
software, to enhance terrorism preparedness;
``(8) to conduct exercises or training for prevention and
detection of, preparedness for, response to, or recovery from
terrorist attacks;
``(9) to establish or enhance mechanisms for sharing
terrorism threat information;
``(10) for the cost of equipment (including software)
required to receive, transmit, handle, and store classified
information;
``(11) for the protection of critical infrastructure
against potential attack by the addition of
[[Page H2124]]
barriers, fences, gates, and other such devices, except that
the cost of such measures may not exceed the greater of--
``(A) $1,000,000 per project; or
``(B) such greater amount as may be approved by the
Secretary, which may not exceed 10 percent of the total
amount of the grant; and
``(12) to conduct port-wide exercises to strengthen
emergency preparedness of Federal, State, territorial, and
local officials responsible for port security, including law
enforcement personnel and firefighters and other first
responders, in support of the Area Maritime Security Plan.
``(e) Prohibited Uses.--Grants awarded under this section
may not be used to--
``(1) supplant State or local funds for activities of the
type described in subsection (d);
``(2) construct buildings or other physical facilities;
``(3) acquire land; or
``(4) make any State or local government cost-sharing
contribution.
``(f) Matching Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (A)
or (B) of paragraph (2), Federal funds for any eligible
project under this section shall not exceed 75 percent of the
total cost of such project.
``(2) Exceptions.--
``(A) Small projects.--The requirement of paragraph (1)
shall not apply with respect to a project with a total cost
of not more than $25,000.
``(B) Higher level of federal support required.--The
requirement of paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to
a project if the Secretary determines that the project merits
support and cannot be undertaken without a higher rate of
Federal support than the rate described in paragraph (1).
``(3) In-kind contributions.--Each recipient of a grant
under this section may meet the requirement of paragraph (1)
by making in-kind contributions of goods or services that are
directly linked with the purpose for which the grant is made,
as determined by the Secretary, including any necessary
personnel expenses, contractor services, administrative
costs, equipment, fuel, or maintenance, and rental space.
``(g) Multiple Phase Projects.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may award grants under
this section for projects that span multiple years.
``(2) Funding limitation.--Not more than 20 percent of the
total grant funds awarded under this section in any fiscal
year may be awarded for projects that span multiple years.
``(h) Consistency With Plans.--The Secretary shall ensure
that each grant awarded under this section--
``(1) is used to supplement and support, in a consistent
and coordinated manner, the applicable Area Maritime
Transportation Security Plan; and
``(2) is coordinated with any applicable State or Urban
Area Homeland Security Plan.
``(i) Coordination and Cooperation.--The Secretary--
``(1) shall ensure that all projects that receive grant
funding under this section within any area defined in an Area
Maritime Transportation Security Plan are coordinated with
other projects in such area; and
``(2) may require cooperative agreements among users of the
seaport and seaport facilities with respect to projects
funded under this section.
``(j) Review and Audits.--The Secretary shall require all
grantees under this section to maintain such records as the
Secretary may require and make such records available for
review and audit by the Secretary, the Comptroller General of
the United States, or the Inspector General of the
Department.
``(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
$400,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 to
carry out this section.
``(2) Source of funds.--Amounts authorized to be
appropriated under paragraph (1) shall originate from duties
collected by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 2135) is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 509
the following:
``Sec. 510. Procurement of security countermeasures for strategic
national stockpile.
``Sec. 511. Urban and other high risk area communications capabilities.
``Sec. 512. Port security grant program.''.
(c) Repeal.--
(1) In general.--Section 70107 of title 46, United States
Code, is hereby repealed.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 701 of title 46, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 70107.
SEC. 112. PORT SECURITY TRAINING PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Subtitle A of title VIII of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 361) is amended by adding at
the end the following new section:
``SEC. 802. PORT SECURITY TRAINING PROGRAM.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the
Assistant Secretary for Grants and Training and in
coordination with components of the Department with maritime
security expertise, including the Coast Guard, the
Transportation Security Administration, and U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, shall establish a Port Security Training
Program (hereinafter in this section referred to as the
`Program') for the purpose of enhancing the capabilities of
each of the Nation's commercial seaports to prevent, prepare
for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from
threatened or actual acts of terrorism, natural disasters,
and other emergencies.
``(b) Requirements.--The Program shall provide validated
training that--
``(1) reaches multiple disciplines, including Federal,
State, and local government officials, commercial seaport
personnel and management, and governmental and
nongovernmental emergency response providers;
``(2) provides training at the awareness, performance, and
management and planning levels;
``(3) utilizes multiple training mediums and methods,
including--
``(A) direct delivery;
``(B) train-the-trainer;
``(C) computer-based training;
``(D) web-based training; and
``(E) video teleconferencing;
``(4) addresses port security topics, including--
``(A) seaport security plans and procedures, including how
security plans and procedures are adjusted when threat levels
increase;
``(B) seaport security force operations and management;
``(C) physical security and access control at seaports;
``(D) methods of security for preventing and countering
cargo theft;
``(E) container security;
``(F) recognition and detection of weapons, dangerous
substances, and devices;
``(G) operation and maintenance of security equipment and
systems;
``(H) security threats and patterns;
``(I) security incident procedures, including procedures
for communicating with governmental and nongovernmental
emergency response providers; and
``(J) evacuation procedures;
``(5) is consistent with, and supports implementation of,
the National Incident Management System, the National
Response Plan, the National Infrastructure Protection Plan,
the National Preparedness Guidance, the National Preparedness
Goal, and other such national initiatives;
``(6) is evaluated against clear and consistent performance
measures; and
``(7) addresses security requirements under facility
security plans.
``(c) National Voluntary Consensus Standards.--The
Secretary shall--
``(1) support the development, promulgation, and regular
updating as necessary of national voluntary consensus
standards for port security training; and
``(2) ensure that the training provided under this section
is consistent with such standards.
``(d) Training Partners.--In developing and delivering
training under the Program, the Secretary shall--
``(1) work with government training facilities, academic
institutions, private organizations, employee organizations,
and other entities that provide specialized, state-of-the-art
training for governmental and nongovernmental emergency
responder providers or commercial seaport personnel and
management; and
``(2) utilize, as appropriate, training courses provided by
community colleges, public safety academies, State and
private universities, and other facilities.
``(e) Consultation.--The Secretary shall ensure that, in
carrying out the Program, the Office of Grants and Training
shall consult with--
``(1) a geographic and substantive cross section of
governmental and nongovernmental emergency response
providers; and
``(2) commercial seaport personnel and management.
``(f) Commercial Seaport Personnel Defined.--For purposes
of this section, the term `commercial seaport personnel'
means any person engaged in an activity relating to the
loading or unloading of cargo, the movement or tracking of
cargo, the maintenance and repair of intermodal equipment,
the operation of cargo-related equipment (whether or not
integral to the vessel), and the handling of mooring lines on
the dock when a vessel is made fast or let go, in the United
States or the coastal waters thereof.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 2135) is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 801
the following:
``Sec. 802. Port security training program.''.
(c) Vessel and Facility Security Plans.--Section
70103(c)(3) of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``the training,
periodic unannounced drills, and''
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) and (G) as
subparagraphs (G) and (H), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new
subparagraph:
``(F) provide a strategy and timeline for conducting
training and periodic unannounced drills for persons on the
vessel or at the facility to be carried out under the plan to
deter, to the maximum extent practicable, a transportation
security incident or a substantial threat of such a
transportation security incident;''.
SEC. 113. PORT SECURITY EXERCISE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Subtitle A of title VIII of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 361), as amended by section
112, is further amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``SEC. 803. PORT SECURITY EXERCISE PROGRAM.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the
Assistant Secretary for Grants and Training, shall establish
a Port Security Exercise Program (hereinafter in this section
referred to as the `Program') for the purpose of testing and
evaluating the capabilities of Federal, State, local, and
foreign governments, commercial seaport personnel and
management, governmental and nongovernmental emergency
response providers, the private sector, or any other
organization or entity, as the Secretary
[[Page H2125]]
determines to be appropriate, to prevent, prepare for,
mitigate against, respond to, and recover from acts of
terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies at
commercial seaports.
``(b) Requirements.--The Secretary, acting through the
Assistant Secretary for Grants and Training and in
coordination with components of the Department with maritime
security expertise, including the Coast Guard, the
Transportation Security Administration, and U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, shall ensure that the Program--
``(1) consolidates all existing port security exercise
programs administered by the Department;
``(2) conducts, on a periodic basis, port security
exercises at commercial seaports that are--
``(A) scaled and tailored to the needs of each port;
``(B) live in the case of the most at-risk ports;
``(C) as realistic as practicable and based on current risk
assessments, including credible threats, vulnerabilities, and
consequences;
``(D) consistent with the National Incident Management
System, the National Response Plan, the National
Infrastructure Protection Plan, the National Preparedness
Guidance, the National Preparedness Goal, and other such
national initiatives;
``(E) evaluated against clear and consistent performance
measures;
``(F) assessed to learn best practices, which shall be
shared with appropriate Federal, State, and local officials,
seaport personnel and management; governmental and
nongovernmental emergency response providers, and the private
sector; and
``(G) followed by remedial action in response to lessons
learned; and
``(3) assists State and local governments and commercial
seaports in designing, implementing, and evaluating exercises
that--
``(A) conform to the requirements of paragraph (2); and
``(B) are consistent with any applicable Area Maritime
Transportation Security Plan and State or Urban Area Homeland
Security Plan.
``(c) Remedial Action Management System.--The Secretary,
acting through the Assistant Secretary for Grants and
Training, shall establish a Remedial Action Management System
to--
``(1) identify and analyze each port security exercise for
lessons learned and best practices;
``(2) disseminate lessons learned and best practices to
participants in the Program;
``(3) monitor the implementation of lessons learned and
best practices by participants in the Program; and
``(4) conduct remedial action tracking and long-term trend
analysis.
``(d) Grant Program Factor.--In evaluating and prioritizing
applications for Federal financial assistance under section
512, the Secretary shall give additional consideration to
those applicants that have conducted port security exercises
under this section.
``(e) Consultation.--The Secretary shall ensure that, in
carrying out the Program, the Office of Grants and Training
shall consult with--
``(1) a geographic and substantive cross section of
governmental and nongovernmental emergency response
providers; and
``(2) commercial seaport personnel and management.
``(f) Commercial Seaport Personnel Defined.--For purposes
of this section, the term `commercial seaport personnel'
means any person engaged in an activity relating to the
loading or unloading of cargo, the movement or tracking of
cargo, the maintenance and repair of intermodal equipment,
the operation of cargo-related equipment (whether or not
integral to the vessel), and the handling of mooring lines on
the dock when a vessel is made fast or let go, in the United
States or the coastal waters thereof.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 2135),
as amended by section 112, is further amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 802 the following:
``Sec. 803. Port security exercise program.''.
SEC. 114. RESERVE OFFICERS AND JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICERS
TRAINING PILOT PROJECT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating (in this section referred to as
the ``Secretary'') may carry out a pilot project to establish
and maintain a reserve officers and a junior reserve officers
training program in locations determined by the Secretary.
(b) Criteria for Selection.--The Secretary shall establish
and maintain a training program under this section in each
Coast Guard District, preferably in a location that has a
Coast Guard district headquarters. The Secretary shall ensure
that at least one program is established at each of an
historically black college or university, an hispanic serving
institution, and a high school with majority-minority
population.
(c) Program Requirements.--A pilot program carried out by
the Secretary under this section shall provide students--
(1) instruction in subject areas relating to operations of
the Coast Guard; and
(2) training in skills that are useful and appropriate for
a career in the Coast Guard.
(d) Provision of Additional Support.--To carry out a pilot
program under this section, the Secretary may provide--
(1) assistance in course development, instruction, and
other support activities;
(2) commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast
Guard to serve as administrators and instructors; and
(3) necessary and appropriate course materials, equipment,
and uniforms.
(e) Employment of Retired Coast Guard Personnel.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
may authorize a selected college, university, or high school
to employ as administrators and instructors for the pilot
program retired Coast Guard and Coast Guard Reserve
commissioned, warrant, and petty officers who request that
employment and who are approved by the Secretary.
(2) Authorized pay.--
(A) In general.--Retired members employed pursuant to
paragraph (1) may receive their retired or retainer pay and
an additional amount of not more than the difference
between--
(i) the amount the individual would be paid as pay and
allowance if they were considered to have been ordered to
active duty with the Coast Guard during that period of
employment; and
(ii) the amount of retired pay the individual is entitled
to receive during that period.
(B) Payment to the school.--The Secretary shall pay to a
selected college, university, or high school an amount equal
to one half of the amount described in subparagraph (A), from
funds appropriated for that purpose.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out this
section there is authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal
years 2007 through 2010.
Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions
SEC. 121. INCREASE IN PORT OF ENTRY INSPECTION OFFICERS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
increase by not less than 200 the number of positions for
full-time active duty port of entry inspection officers of
the Department of Homeland Security for each of the fiscal
years 2007 through 2012.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out subsection
(a) the following amounts for the following fiscal years:
(1) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
(2) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
(3) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
(4) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
(5) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
(6) $120,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.
SEC. 122. ACCELERATION OF INTEGRATED DEEPWATER SYSTEM.
In addition to any other amounts authorized by law, there
is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland
Security $1,892,000,000 for the acquisition and construction
of vessels, aircraft, shore and offshore facilities and other
components associated with the Integrated Deepwater System in
accordance with the report required by section 888 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 2250).
SEC. 123. BORDER PATROL UNIT FOR UNITED STATES VIRGIN
ISLANDS.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish
at least one Border Patrol unit for the Virgin Islands of the
United States.
SEC. 124. REPORT ON OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF UNITED STATES
SEAPORTS.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to
the appropriate congressional committees a report that
contains--
(1) the name of each individual or entity that leases,
operates, manages, or owns real property or facilities at
each United States seaport; and
(2) any other information that the Secretary determines to
be appropriate.
SEC. 125. REPORT ON SECURITY OPERATIONS AT CERTAIN UNITED
STATES SEAPORTS.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
conduct a study on the adequacy of security operations at the
ten United States seaports that load and unload the largest
amount of containers.
(b) Report.--Not later than 270 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report on the results
of the study required by subsection (a).
SEC. 126. REPORT ON ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE MANIFESTS FOR
CERTAIN COMMERCIAL VESSELS IN THE UNITED STATES
VIRGIN ISLANDS.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to
the appropriate congressional committees a report on the
impact of implementing the requirements of section 231 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1221) (relating to
providing United States border officers with arrival and
departure manifests) with respect to commercial vessels that
are fewer than 300 gross tons and operate exclusively between
the territorial waters of the United States Virgin Islands
and the territorial waters of the British Virgin Islands.
TITLE II--SECURITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CHAIN
SEC. 201. SECURITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CHAIN.
(a) In General.--The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new title:
``TITLE XVIII--SECURITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CHAIN
``Subtitle A--General Provisions
``SEC. 1801. STRATEGIC PLAN TO ENHANCE THE SECURITY OF THE
INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CHAIN.
``(a) Strategic Plan.--The Secretary, in consultation with
appropriate Federal, State, local, and tribal government
agencies and private sector stakeholders responsible for
security matters that affect or relate to the movement of
containers through the international supply chain, shall
develop and implement, and update as appropriate, a strategic
plan to enhance the security of the international supply
chain.
``(b) Requirements.--The strategic plan required under
subsection (a) shall--
[[Page H2126]]
``(1) describe the roles, responsibilities, and authorities
of Federal, State, local, and tribal government agencies and
private sector stakeholders that relate to the security of
the movement of containers through the international supply
chain;
``(2) identify and address gaps and unnecessary overlaps in
the roles, responsibilities, or authorities described in
paragraph (1);
``(3) identify and make recommendations regarding
legislative, regulatory, and organizational changes necessary
to improve coordination among the entities or to enhance the
security of the international supply chain;
``(4) provide measurable goals, including objectives,
mechanisms, and a schedule, for furthering the security of
commercial operations from point of origin to point of
destination;
``(5) build on available resources and consider costs and
benefits;
``(6) provide incentives for additional voluntary measures
to enhance cargo security, as determined by the Secretary;
``(7) consider the impact of supply chain security
requirements on small and medium size companies;
``(8) include a process for sharing intelligence and
information with private sector stakeholders to assist in
their security efforts;
``(9) identify a framework for prudent and measured
response in the event of a transportation security incident
involving the international supply chain;
``(10) provide a plan for the expeditious resumption of the
flow of legitimate trade in accordance with section
70103(a)(2)(J)(ii) of title 46, United States Code;
``(11) consider the linkages between supply chain security
and security programs within other systems of movement,
including travel security and terrorism finance programs; and
``(12) expand upon and relate to existing strategies and
plans, including the National Strategy for Maritime Security
and the eight supporting plans of the Strategy, as required
by Homeland Security Presidential Directive-13 (September
2005).
``(c) Utilization of Advisory Committees.--As part of the
consultations described in subsection (a), the Secretary
shall, to the extent practicable, utilize the Homeland
Security Advisory Committee, the National Maritime Security
Advisory Committee, and the Commercial Operations Advisory
Committee to review, as necessary, the draft strategic plan
and any subsequent updates to the strategic plan.
``(d) International Standards and Practices.--In
furtherance of the strategic plan required under subsection
(a), the Secretary is encouraged to consider proposed or
established standards and practices of foreign governments
and international organizations, including the International
Maritime Organization, the World Customs Organization, the
International Labor Organization, and the International
Organization for Standardization, as appropriate, to
establish standards and best practices for the security of
containers moving through the international supply chain.
``(e) Report.--
``(1) Initial report.--The Secretary shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report that contains
the strategic plan required by subsection (a).
``(2) Final report.--Not later than three years after the
date on which the strategic plan is submitted under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees a report that contains an update of
the strategic plan.
``(f) Definition.--In this section, the term
`transportation security incident' has the meaning given the
term in section 70101(6) of title 46, United States Code.
``SEC. 1802. TRANSMISSION OF ADDITIONAL DATA ELEMENTS FOR
IMPROVED HIGH RISK TARGETING.
``(a) Requirement.--The Secretary shall require
transmission to the Department, through an electronic data
interchange system, of additional data elements for improved
high risk targeting, including appropriate security elements
of entry data, as determined by the Secretary, to be provided
as advanced information with respect to cargo destined for
importation into the United States prior to loading of such
cargo on vessels at foreign seaports.
``(b) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate
regulations to carry out this section. In promulgating such
regulations, the Secretary shall adhere to the parameters
applicable to the development of regulations under section
343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 2071 note),
including provisions relating to consultation, technology,
analysis, use of information, confidentiality, and timing
requirements.
``SEC. 1803. PLAN TO IMPROVE THE AUTOMATED TARGETING SYSTEM.
``(a) Plan.--The Secretary shall develop and implement a
plan to improve the Automated Targeting System for the
identification of high-risk containers moving through the
international supply chain.
``(b) Contents.--
``(1) Treatment of recommendations.--The Secretary shall
include in the plan required under subsection (a) a schedule
to address the recommendations of the Comptroller General of
the United States, the Inspector General of the Department of
the Treasury, and the Inspector General of the Department of
Homeland Security with respect to the operation of the
Automated Targeting System.
``(2) Information submissions.--In developing the plan
required under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider
the cost, benefit, and feasibility of--
``(A) requiring additional nonmanifest documentation for
each container;
``(B) adjusting the time period allowed by law for
revisions to a container cargo manifest;
``(C) adjusting the time period allowed by law for
submission of entry data for vessel or cargo; and
``(D) such other actions the Secretary considers beneficial
for improving the information relied upon for the Automated
Targeting System and any other targeting systems in
furthering the security and integrity of the international
supply chain.
``(3) Outside review.--The Secretary shall conduct, through
an independent panel, a review of the Automated Targeting
System. The results of this review shall be included in the
plan required under subsection (a).
``(4) Smart system.--The Secretary shall consider future
iterations of the Automated Targeting System, which would
incorporate smart features, such as more complex algorithms
and real-time intelligence, instead of relying solely on rule
sets that are periodically updated. The Secretary shall also
consider how the Automated Targeting System could be improved
through linkages with targeting systems in existence on the
date of the enactment of the Security and Accountability For
Every Port Act for travel security and terrorism finance
programs.
``(c) New or Expanded Information Submissions.--In
considering any new or expanded information submission
requirements, the Secretary shall consult with stakeholders
and identify the need for such information, appropriate
confidentiality requirements with respect to such
information, and appropriate timing of the submission of such
information, in the plan required under subsection (a).
``(d) Secure Transmission of Certain Information.--All
information required by the Department from supply chain
partners shall be transmitted in a secure fashion, as
determined by the Secretary, so as to protect the information
from unauthorized access.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 2007 through 2012 to carry out this section.
``SEC. 1804. CONTAINER STANDARDS AND VERIFICATION PROCEDURES.
``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish minimum
standards and verification procedures for securing containers
in transit to the United States relating to the sealing of
containers.
``(2) Deadline for enforcement.--Not later than two years
after the date on which the standards and procedures are
established pursuant to paragraph (1), all containers bound
for ports of entry in the United States shall meet such
standards and procedures.
``(b) Review and Enhancement.--The Secretary shall
regularly--
``(1) review the standards and procedures established
pursuant to subsection (a); and
``(2) enhance the security standards and procedures, as
appropriate, based on tests of technologies as they become
commercially available to detect container intrusion and the
highest consequence threats, particularly weapons of mass
destruction.
``(c) International Cargo Security Standards.--The
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is
encouraged to promote and establish international standards
for the security of containers moving through the
international supply chain with foreign governments and
international organizations, including the International
Maritime Organization and the World Customs Organization.
``(d) International Trade and Other Obligations.--In
carrying out this section, the Secretary shall consult with
appropriate Federal departments and agencies and private
sector stakeholders to ensure that actions under this section
do not violate international trade obligations or other
international obligations of the United States.
``SEC. 1805. CONTAINER SECURITY INITIATIVE (CSI).
``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary is authorized to
establish and implement a program (to be known as the
`Container Security Initiative' or `CSI') to identify and
examine maritime containers that pose a risk for terrorism at
foreign ports before the containers are shipped to the United
States.
``(b) Assessment.--Before the Secretary designates any
foreign port under CSI, the Secretary, in consultation with
other Federal officials, as appropriate, shall conduct an
assessment of the port, including--
``(1) the level of risk for the potential compromise of
containers by terrorists or terrorist weapons;
``(2) the volume of regular container traffic to United
States ports;
``(3) the results of the Coast Guard assessments conducted
pursuant to section 70108 of title 46, United States Code;
``(4) the commitment of the host nation to cooperating with
the Department in sharing critical data and risk management
information and to maintain programs to ensure employee
integrity; and
``(5) the potential for validation of security practices by
the Department.
``(c) Notification.--The Secretary shall notify the
appropriate congressional committees prior to notifying the
public of the designation of a foreign port under CSI.
``(d) Inspections.--
``(1) Requirements and procedures.--The Secretary shall--
``(A) establish technical capability criteria and standard
operating procedures for the use of nonintrusive inspection
and nuclear and radiological detection systems in conjunction
with CSI;
``(B) require each port designated under CSI to operate
nonintrusive inspection and nuclear and radiological
detection systems in accordance with the technical capability
criteria and standard operating procedures established under
subparagraph (A); and
[[Page H2127]]
``(C) continually monitor the technologies, processes, and
techniques used to inspect cargo at ports designated under
CSI.
``(2) Consistency of standards and procedures.--The
Secretary shall ensure that the technical capability criteria
and standard operating procedures established under paragraph
(1)(A) are consistent with such standards and procedures of
any other department or agency of the Federal government with
respect to deployment of nuclear and radiological detection
systems outside the United States.
``(3) Foreign assistance.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of State, the Secretary of Energy, and the heads of
other Federal agencies, shall identify foreign assistance
programs that could facilitate the implementation of cargo
security antiterrorism measures at ports designated under CSI
and foreign ports not designated under CSI that lack
effective antiterrorism measures.
``(B) Acquisition.--The Secretary is authorized to loan or
otherwise assist in the deployment of nonintrusive inspection
or nuclear and radiological detection systems for cargo
containers at each designated CSI port under such terms and
conditions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate and
to provide training for foreign personnel involved in CSI.
``(e) Prohibition.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall issue a `do not
load' order to each port designated under CSI to prevent the
onload of any cargo that has been identified as higher risk
by the Automated Targeting System unless the cargo--
``(A) is scanned with a non intrusive imagery device and
nuclear or radiological detection equipment;
``(B) is devanned and inspected with nuclear or
radiological detection equipment; or
``(C) is determined to be of lower risk following
additional inquiries by appropriate personnel of U.S. Customs
and Border Protection.
``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to interfere with the ability of the
Secretary to deny entry of any cargo into the United States.
``(f) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees not later than March 1
of each year a report on the status of CSI, including--
``(1) a description of the security improvements gained
through CSI;
``(2) the rationale for the continuance of each port
designated under CSI;
``(3) an assessment of the personnel needs at each port
designated under CSI; and
``(4) a description of the potential for remote targeting
to decrease the number of personnel who are deployed at
foreign ports under CSI.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated $196,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 2007 through 2012 to carry out this section.
``SEC. 1806. INFORMATION SHARING RELATING TO SUPPLY CHAIN
SECURITY COOPERATION.
``(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
``(1) to establish continuing liaison and to provide for
supply chain security cooperation between Department and the
private sector; and
``(2) to provide for regular and timely interchange of
information between the private sector and the Department
concerning developments and security risks in the supply
chain environment.
``(b) Secure System.--The Secretary shall develop a secure
electronic data interchange system to collect from and share
appropriate risk information related to securing the supply
chain with the private sector entities determined appropriate
by the Secretary.
``(c) Consultation.--In developing the system under
subsection (b), the Secretary shall consult with the
Commercial Operations Advisory Committee and a broad range of
public and private sector entities likely to utilize the
system, including importers, exporters, carriers, customs
brokers, and freight forwarders, among other parties.
``(d) Procedures.--The Secretary shall establish uniform
procedures for the receipt, care, and storage of supply chain
security information that is voluntarily submitted to the
Department through the system developed under subsection (b).
``(e) Limitations.--The voluntary information collected
through the system developed under subsection (b) shall be
used exclusively for ensuring security and shall not be used
for determining entry or for any other commercial enforcement
purpose. The voluntary information submitted to the
Department through the system developed under subsection (b)
shall not be construed to constitute compliance with any
requirement to submit such information to a Federal agency
under any other provision of law.
``(f) Participants.--The Secretary shall develop protocols
for determining appropriate private sector personnel who
shall have access to the system developed under subsection
(b). Such personnel shall include designated security
officers within companies that are determined to be low risk
through participation in the Customs-Trade Partnership
Against Terrorism program established pursuant to subtitle B
of this title.
``(g) Confidentiality.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, information that is voluntarily submitted by the
private sector to the Department through the system developed
under subsection (b)--
``(1) shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of
title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the
Freedom of Information Act);
``(2) shall not, without the written consent of the person
or entity submitting such information, be used directly by
the Department or a third party, in any civil action arising
under Federal or State law if such information is submitted
in good faith; and
``(3) shall not, without the written consent of the person
or entity submitting such information, be used or disclosed
by any officer or employee of the United States for purposes
other than the purposes of this section, except--
``(A) in furtherance of an investigation or other
prosecution of a criminal act; or
``(B) when disclosure of the information would be--
``(i) to either House of Congress, or to the extent of
matter within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee
thereof, any joint committee thereof or subcommittee of any
such joint committee; or
``(ii) to the Comptroller General, or any authorized
representative of the Comptroller General, in the course of
the performance of the duties of the Comptroller General.
``(h) Independently Obtained Information.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to limit or otherwise affect the
ability of a Federal, State, or local, government entity,
under applicable law, to obtain supply chain security
information, including any information lawfully and properly
disclosed generally or broadly to the public and to use such
information in any manner permitted by law.
``(i) Penalties.--Whoever, being an officer or employee of
the United States or of any department or agency thereof,
knowingly publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes known in
any manner or to any extent not authorized by law, any supply
chain security information protected in this section from
disclosure, shall be fined under title 18, United States
Code, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, and shall be
removed from office or employment.
``(j) Authority to Issue Warnings.--The Secretary may
provide advisories, alerts, and warnings to relevant
companies, targeted sectors, other governmental entities, or
the general public regarding potential risks to the supply
chain as appropriate. In issuing a warning, the Secretary
shall take appropriate actions to protect from disclosure--
``(1) the source of any voluntarily submitted supply chain
security information that forms the basis for the warning;
and
``(2) information that is proprietary, business sensitive,
relates specifically to the submitting person or entity, or
is otherwise not appropriately in the public domain.
``Subtitle B--Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT)
``SEC. 1811. ESTABLISHMENT.
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary is authorized to
establish a voluntary program (to be known as the `Customs-
Trade Partnership Against Terrorism' or `C-TPAT') to
strengthen and improve the overall security of the
international supply chain and United States border security.
``(b) Minimum Security Requirements.--The Secretary shall
review the minimum security requirements of C-TPAT at least
once every year and update such requirements as necessary.
``SEC. 1812. ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.
``Importers, brokers, forwarders, air, sea, land carriers,
and other entities in the international supply chain and
intermodal transportation system are eligible to apply to
voluntarily enter into partnerships with the Department under
C-TPAT.
``SEC. 1813. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.
``An applicant seeking to participate in C-TPAT shall--
``(1) demonstrate a history of moving commerce in the
international supply chain;
``(2) conduct an assessment of its supply chains based upon
security criteria established by the Secretary, including--
``(A) business partner requirements;
``(B) container security;
``(C) physical security and access controls;
``(D) personnel security;
``(E) procedural security;
``(F) security training and threat awareness; and
``(G) information technology security;
``(3) implement and maintain security measures and supply
chain security practices meeting security criteria; and
``(4) meet all other requirements established by the
Secretary.
``SEC. 1814. TIER ONE PARTICIPANTS.
``(a) Benefits.--The Secretary may offer limited benefits
to C-TPAT participants whose security measures and supply
chain security practices have been certified in accordance
with the guidelines established pursuant to subsection (b).
``(b) Guidelines.--The Secretary shall update guidelines
for certifying a C-TPAT participant's security measures and
supply chain security practices under this section.
``SEC. 1815. TIER TWO PARTICIPANTS.
``(a) In General.--Not later than one year after a C-TPAT
participant has been certified under section 1814, the
Secretary shall validate, directly or through third party
entities certified in accordance with section 1817, the
security measures and supply chain security practices of that
participant. Such validation shall include assessments at
appropriate foreign locations utilized by the participant as
part of the supply chain.
``(b) Consequences for Failed Validation.--If a C-TPAT
participant's security measures and supply chain security
practices fail to meet the validation requirements under this
section, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection may--
``(1) deny the participant benefits under C-TPAT on a
temporary or permanent basis; or
``(2) suspend or expel the participant from C-TPAT.
``(c) Right of Appeal.--A C-TPAT participant described in
subsection (b) may file an appeal with the Secretary of the
Commissioner's
[[Page H2128]]
decision under subsection (b)(1) to deny benefits under C-
TPAT or under subsection (b)(2) to suspend or expel the
participant from C-TPAT.
``(d) Benefits.--The Secretary shall extend benefits to
each C-TPAT participant that has been validated under this
section, which may include--
``(1) reduced examinations; and
``(2) priority processing for searches.
``SEC. 1816. TIER THREE PARTICIPANTS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a third
tier of C-TPAT that offers additional benefits to C-TPAT
participants that demonstrate a sustained commitment beyond
the minimum criteria for participation in C-TPAT.
``(b) Additional Criteria.--The Secretary shall designate
criteria for C-TPAT participants under this section that may
include criteria to ensure--
``(1) cargo is loaded on a vessel with a vessel security
plan approved under section 70103(c) of title 46, United
States Code, or on a vessel with a valid International
Ship Security Certificate as provided for under part 104
of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations;
``(2) container security devices and related policies and
practices that exceed the standards and procedures
established by the Secretary are utilized; and
``(3) cargo complies with any other requirements determined
by the Secretary.
``(c) Benefits.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Commercial Operations Advisory Committee and the National
Maritime Security Advisory Committee, may provide benefits to
C-TPAT participants under this section, which may include--
``(1) the expedited release of tier three cargo into
destination ports within the United States during all threat
levels designated by the Secretary;
``(2) reduced or streamlined bonding requirements that are
consistent with obligations under other applicable provisions
of law;
``(3) preference to vessels;
``(4) further reduced examinations;
``(5) priority processing for examinations;
``(6) further reduced scores in the Automated Targeting
System; and
``(7) streamlined billing of any customs duties or fees.
``(d) Definition.--In this section, the term `container
security device' means a mechanical or electronic device
designed to, at a minimum, detect unauthorized intrusion of
containers.
``SEC. 1817. CONSEQUENCES FOR LACK OF COMPLIANCE.
``(a) In General.--If a C-TPAT participant's security
measures and supply chain security practices fail to meet any
of the requirements under this subtitle, the Secretary may
deny the participant benefits in whole or in part under this
subtitle.
``(b) False or Misleading Information.--If a C-TPAT
participant intentionally provides false or misleading
information to the Secretary or a third party entity during
the validation process of the participant under this
subtitle, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection shall suspend or expel the participant from C-TPAT
for a period of not less than five years.
``(c) Right of Appeal.--A C-TPAT participant described in
subsection (a) may file an appeal with the Secretary of the
Secretary's decision under subsection (a) to deny benefits
under this subtitle. A C-TPAT participant described in
subsection (b) may file an appeal with the Secretary of the
Commissioner's decision under subsection (b) to suspend or
expel the participant from C-TPAT.
``SEC. 1818. VALIDATIONS BY THIRD PARTY ENTITIES.
``(a) In General.--In conducting the pilot program under
subsection (f), and if the Secretary determines to expand the
use of third party entities to conduct validations of C-TPAT
participants upon completion of the pilot program under
subsection (f), the Secretary shall--
``(1) develop, document, and update, as necessary, minimum
standard operating procedures and requirements applicable to
such entities for the conduct of such validations; and
``(2) meet all requirements under subtitle G of the title
VIII of this Act to review and designate such minimum
standard operating procedures as a qualified anti-terrorism
technology for purposes of such subtitle.
``(b) Certification of Third Party Entities.--
``(1) Issuance of certificate of conformance.--In
accordance with section 863(d)(3) of this Act, the Secretary
shall issue a certificate of conformance to a third party
entity to conduct validations under this subtitle if the
entity--
``(A) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary the
ability to perform validations in accordance with standard
operating procedures and requirements (or updates thereto)
designated as a qualified anti-terrorism technology by the
Secretary under subsection (a); and
``(B) agrees--
``(I) to perform validations in accordance with such
standard operating procedures and requirements (or updates
thereto); and
``(ii) to maintain liability insurance coverage at policy
limits and in accordance with conditions to be established by
the Secretary pursuant to section 864 of this Act; and
``(C) signs an agreement to protect all proprietary
information of C-TPAT participants with respect to which the
entity will conduct validations.
``(2) Litigation and risk management protections.--A third
party entity that maintains liability insurance coverage at
policy limits and in accordance with conditions to be
established by the Secretary pursuant to section 864 of this
Act and receives a certificate of conformance under paragraph
(1) shall receive all applicable litigation and risk
management protections under sections 863 and 864 of this
Act.
``(3) Reciprocal waiver of claims.--A reciprocal waiver of
claims shall be deemed to have been entered into between a
third party entity that receives a certificate of conformance
under paragraph (1) and its contractors, subcontractors,
suppliers, vendors, customers, and contractors and
subcontractors of customers involved in the use or operation
of the validation services of the third party entity.
``(c) Information for Establishing Limits of Liability
Insurance.--A third party entity seeking a certificate of
conformance under subsection (b)(1) shall provide to the
Secretary necessary information for establishing the limits
of liability insurance required to be maintained by the
entity under section 864(a) of this Act.
``(d) Additional Requirements.--The Secretary shall ensure
that--
``(1) any third party entity under this section--
``(A) has no beneficial interest in or any direct or
indirect control over the C-TPAT participant that is
contracting for the validation services; and
``(B) has no other conflict of interest with respect to the
C-TPAT participant; and
``(2) the C-TPAT participant has entered into a contract
with the third party entity under which the C-TPAT
participant agrees to pay all costs associated with the
validation.
``(e) Monitoring.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall regularly monitor
and inspect the operations of a third party entity conducting
validations under this subtitle to ensure that the entity is
meeting the minimum standard operating procedures and
requirements for the validation of C-TPAT participants
established under subsection (a) and all other applicable
requirements for validation services under this subtitle.
``(2) Revocation.--If the Secretary finds that a third
party entity is not meeting the minimum standard operating
procedures and requirements, the Secretary shall--
``(A) revoke the entity's certificate of conformance issued
under subsection (b)(1); and
``(B) review any validations conducted by the entity.
``(f) Pilot Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a pilot
program to test the feasibility, costs, and benefits of
utilizing third party entities to conduct validations of C-
TPAT participants. In conducting the pilot program, the
Secretary shall comply with all applicable requirements of
this section with respect to eligibility of third party
entities to conduct validations of C-TPAT participants.
``(2) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the completion
of the pilot program conducted pursuant to paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report that contains--
``(A) the results of the pilot program; and
``(B) the determination of the Secretary whether or not to
expand the use of third party entities to conduct validations
of C-TPAT participants.
``SEC. 1819. REVALIDATION.
``The Secretary shall establish a process for revalidating
C-TPAT participants under this subtitle. Such revalidation
shall occur not less frequently than once during every 3-year
period following the initial validation.
``SEC. 1820. NON-CONTAINERIZED CARGO.
``The Secretary may consider the potential for
participation in C-TPAT by importers of non-containerized
cargoes that otherwise meet the requirements under this
subtitle.
``SEC. 1821. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated $75,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2012 to carry out this
subtitle.
``Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions
``SEC. 1831. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
EFFORTS IN FURTHERANCE OF MARITIME AND CARGO
SECURITY.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall--
``(1) direct research, development, test, and evaluation
efforts in furtherance of maritime and cargo security;
``(2) encourage the ingenuity of the private sector in
developing and testing technologies and process innovations
in furtherance of these objectives; and
``(3) evaluate such technologies.
``(b) Coordination.--The Secretary, in coordination with
the Undersecretary for Science and Technology, the Director
of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office of the Department,
and the heads of other appropriate offices or entities of the
Department, shall ensure that--
``(1) research, development, test, and evaluation efforts
funded by the Department in furtherance of maritime and cargo
security are coordinated to avoid duplication of efforts; and
``(2) the results of such efforts are shared throughout the
Department and other Federal, State, and local agencies, as
appropriate.
[[Page H2129]]
``SEC. 1832. GRANTS UNDER OPERATION SAFE COMMERCE.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide grants, as
part of Operation Safe Commerce, to--
``(1) integrate nonintrusive imaging inspection and nuclear
and radiological detection systems with automatic
identification methods for containers, vessels, and vehicles;
``(2) test physical access control protocols and
technologies to include continuous tracking devices that
provide real-time monitoring and reporting;
``(3) create a data sharing network capable of transmitting
data required by entities participating in the international
supply chain from every intermodal transfer point to the
National Targeting Center of the Department; and
``(4) otherwise further maritime and cargo security, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(b) Supply Chain Security for Special Container and
Noncontainerized Cargo.--In providing grants under subsection
(a), the Secretary shall establish demonstration projects
that further the security of the international supply chain,
including refrigerated containers, and noncontainerized
cargo, including roll-on/roll-off, break-bulk, liquid, and
dry bulk cargo, through real-time, continuous tracking
technology for special or high-risk container cargo that
poses unusual potential for human or environmental harm.
``(c) Competitive Selection Process.--The Secretary shall
select recipients of grants under subsection (a) through a
competitive process on the basis of the following criteria:
``(1) The extent to which the applicant can demonstrate
that personnel, laboratory, and organizational resources will
be available to the applicant to carry out the activities
authorized under this section.
``(2) The applicant's capability to provide leadership in
making national and regional contributions to the solution of
maritime and cargo security issues.
``(3) The extent to which the applicant's programs,
projects, and activities under the grant will address highest
risk priorities as determined by the Secretary.
``(4) The extent to which the applicant has a strategic
plan for carrying out the programs, projects, and activities
under the grant.
``(5) Any other criteria the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
``(d) Administrative Provisions.--
``(1) Prohibition on duplication of effort.--Before
providing any grant under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
coordinate with other Federal departments and agencies to
ensure the grant will not duplicate work already being
carried out with Federal funding.
``(2) Accounting, reporting, and review procedures.--The
Secretary shall establish accounting, reporting, and review
procedures to ensure that--
``(A) amounts made available under a grant provided under
subsection (a)--
``(i) are used for the purpose for which such amounts were
made available; and
``(ii) are properly accounted for; and
``(B) amounts not used for such purpose and amounts not
expended are recovered.
``(3) Recordkeeping.--The recipient of a grant under
subsection (a) shall keep all records related to expenditures
and obligations of amounts provided under the grant and make
such records available upon request to the Secretary for
audit and examination.
``(4) Review.--The Secretary shall annually review the
programs, projects, and activities carried out using amounts
made available under grants provided under subsection (a) to
ensure that obligations and expenditures of such amounts are
consistent with the purposes for which such amounts are made
available.
``(e) Annual Report.--Not later than March 1 of each year,
the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report detailing the results of Operation Safe
Commerce.
``(f) Definition.--In this section, the term `Operation
Safe Commerce' means the research, development, test, and
evaluation grant program that brings together private sector
shareholders, port officials, and Federal, State, and local
representatives to analyze existing security procedures for
cargo and develop new security protocols that have the
potential to increase the security of cargo shipments by
monitoring the movement and integrity of cargo through the
international supply chain.
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), there are
authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2007 through 2012 to carry out this section.
``(2) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall be effective
beginning on the date on which the Secretary submits to the
appropriate congressional committees a report on the
implementation and results of grants provided under Operation
Safe Commerce before the date of the enactment of the
Security and Accountability For Every Port Act.
``SEC. 1833. DEFINITIONS.
``In this title, the following definitions apply:
``(1) Automated targeting system.--The term `Automated
Targeting System' means the rules-based system incorporating
intelligence material and import transaction history,
established by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to target
high risk shipments of cargo.
``(2) Examination.--The term `examination' means a physical
inspection or the imaging and radiation screening of a
conveyance using non-intrusive inspection (NII) technology,
for the presence of contraband.
``(3) Inspection.--The term `inspection' means the
comprehensive process used by U.S. Customs and Border
Protection for assessing goods entering the United States to
appraise them for duty purposes, to detect the presence of
restricted or prohibited items, and to ensure compliance with
all applicable laws. This process may include screening,
conducting an examination, or conducting a search.
``(4) International supply chain.--The term `international
supply chain' means the end-to-end process for shipping goods
from a point of origin overseas to and from the United
States.
``(5) Nuclear and radiological detection system.--The term
`nuclear and radiological detection system' means any
technology that is capable of detecting or identifying
nuclear and radiological material or explosive devices.
``(6) Screening.--The term `screening' means a visual or
automated review of information about goods, including
manifest or entry documentation accompanying a shipment being
imported into the United States, to determine or assess the
threat of such cargo.
``(7) Search.--The term `search' means an intrusive
examination in which a container is opened and its contents
are de-vanned and visually inspected for the presence of
misdeclared, restricted, or prohibited items.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 2135) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``TITLE XVIII--SECURITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CHAIN
``Subtitle A--General Provisions
``Sec. 1801. Strategic plan to enhance the security of the
international supply chain.
``Sec. 1802. Transmission of additional data elements for improved high
risk targeting.
``Sec. 1803. Plan to improve the Automated Targeting System.
``Sec. 1804. Container standards and verification procedures.
``Sec. 1805. Container Security Initiative (CSI).
``Sec. 1806. Information sharing relating to supply chain security
cooperation.
``Subtitle B--Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT)
``Sec. 1811. Establishment.
``Sec. 1812. Eligible entities.
``Sec. 1813. Minimum requirements.
``Sec. 1814. Tier one participants.
``Sec. 1815. Tier two participants.
``Sec. 1816. Tier three participants.
``Sec. 1817. Consequences for lack of compliance.
``Sec. 1818. Validations by third party entities.
``Sec. 1819. Revalidation.
``Sec. 1820. Non-containerized cargo.
``Sec. 1821. Authorization of appropriations.
``Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions
``Sec. 1831. Research, development, test, and evaluation efforts in
furtherance of maritime and cargo security.
``Sec. 1832. Grants under Operation Safe Commerce.
``Sec. 1833. Definitions.''.
(c) Effective Dates.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
shall--
(1) submit to the appropriate congressional committees the
report required by section 1801(e)(1) of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, as added by subsection (a), not later
than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act;
(2) promulgate regulations under section 1802(b) of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, as added by subsection (a),
not later than one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act;
(3) develop and implement the plan to improve the Automated
Targeting System under section 1803(a) of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, as added by subsection (a), not later
than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
(4) develop the standards and verification procedures
described in section 1804(a)(1) of the Homeland Security Act
of 2002, as added by subsection (a), not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act;
(5) begin exercising authority to issue a ``do not load''
order to each port designated under CSI pursuant to section
1805(e) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as added by
subsection (a), not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act;
(6) develop the secure electronic data interchange system
under section 1806(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002,
as added by subsection (a), not later than one year after the
date of the enactment of this Act;
(7) update guidelines for certifying a C-TPAT participant's
security measures and supply chain security practices under
section 1814(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as
added by subsection (a), not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act;
(8) develop a schedule and update guidelines for validating
a C-TPAT participant's security measures and supply chain
security practices under section 1815 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, as added by subsection (a), not later
than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act;
(9) provide appropriate benefits described in subsection
(d) of section 1816 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as
added by subsection (a), to C-TPAT participants under section
1816 of
[[Page H2130]]
such Act beginning not later than two years after the date of
the enactment of this Act; and
(10) carry out the pilot program described in section
1818(f) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as added by
subsection (a), beginning not later than one year after the
date of the enactment of this Act for a duration of not less
than a one-year period.
SEC. 202. NEXT GENERATION SUPPLY CHAIN SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES.
(a) Evaluation of Emerging Technologies.--While maintaining
the current layered, risk-based approach to screening,
scanning, and inspecting cargo at foreign ports bound for the
United States in accordance with existing statutory
provisions, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall evaluate
the development of nuclear and radiological detection systems
and other inspection technologies for use at foreign seaports
to increase the volume of containers scanned prior to loading
on vessels bound for the United States.
(b) Emerging Technology.--Not later than one year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall,
having evaluated emerging technologies under subsection (a),
determine if more capable, commercially available technology
exists, and whether such technology--
(1) has a sufficiently low false alarm rate for use in the
supply chain;
(2) is capable of being deployed and operated at ports
overseas;
(3) is capable of integrating, where necessary, with
existing systems;
(4) does not significantly impact trade capacity and flow
of cargo at foreign or United States ports; and
(5) provides an automated notification of questionable or
high-risk cargo as a trigger for further inspection by
appropriately trained personnel.
(c) Contingent Implementation.--If the Secretary determines
the available technology meets the criteria outlined in
subsection (b), the Secretary, in cooperation with the
Secretary of State, shall within 180 days of such
determination, seek to secure the cooperation of foreign
governments to initiate and maximize the use of such
technology at foreign ports to scan all cargo possible.
(d) International Cooperation.--If the Secretary determines
that a proposed technology meets the requirements of
subsection (b), but cannot be implemented as a result of a
foreign government's refusal to cooperate in the phased
deployment, the Secretary may refuse to accept containerized
cargo from that port.
(e) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees on an annual basis a report on the
evaluation performed under subsections (a) and (b), the
status of any implementation initiated in accordance with
subsection (c), and a detailed assessment of the level of
cooperation of foreign governments, as well as any actions
taken by the Secretary under subsection (d).
(f) Definition.--In this section, the term ``nuclear and
radiological detection system'' means any technology that is
capable of detecting or identifying nuclear and radiological
material or explosive devices.
SEC. 203. UNIFORM DATA SYSTEM FOR IMPORT AND EXPORT
INFORMATION.
(a) Establishment.--The President shall establish and
implement a single, uniform data system for the electronic
collection, dissemination, and sharing of import and export
information to increase the efficiency of data submission and
the security of such data related to border security, trade,
and public health and safety of international cargoes.
(b) Private Sector Consultation.--The President shall
consult with private sector stakeholders in developing
uniform data submission requirements, procedures, and
schedules under the system established pursuant to subsection
(a).
(c) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the President shall transmit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report on the schedule
for full implementation of the system established pursuant to
subsection (a).
(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to prevent any Federal department or agency from
collecting import and export information under any other
provision of law.
SEC. 204. FOREIGN PORT ASSESSMENTS.
Section 70108 of title 46, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Periodic Reassessment.--The Secretary, acting through
the Commandant of the Coast Guard, shall reassess the
effectiveness of antiterrorism measures maintained at ports
as described under subsection (a) and of procedures described
in subsection (b) not less than every 3 years.''.
SEC. 205. PILOT PROGRAM TO IMPROVE THE SECURITY OF EMPTY
CONTAINERS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
conduct a one-year pilot program to evaluate and improve the
security of empty containers at United States seaports to
ensure the safe and secure delivery of cargo and to prevent
potential acts of terrorism involving such containers. The
pilot program shall include the use of visual searches of
empty containers at United States seaports.
(b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the completion of
the pilot program under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
prepare and submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report that contains--
(1) the results of pilot program; and
(2) the determination of the Secretary whether or not to
expand the pilot program.
SEC. 206. STUDY AND REPORT ON ADVANCED IMAGERY PILOT
PROGRAMS.
(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, shall conduct a study of the merits of current
container inspection pilot programs which include nuclear or
radiological detection, non-intrusive imagery, and density
scanning capabilities.
(2) Requirements.--The study required under paragraph (1)
shall include, at a minimum--
(A) an evaluation of the cost, personnel, and
infrastructure required to operate the pilot programs, as
well as the cost, personnel, and infrastructure required to
move the pilot programs into full-scale deployment to screen
all cargo imported from foreign ports;
(B) an evaluation of the cost, personnel, and
infrastructure required by U.S. Customs and Border Protection
to validate the data generated from the pilot programs;
(C) a summary of best practices and technological advances
of the pilot programs that could be integrated into the
Container Security Initiative and other container security
programs; and
(D) an assessment of the impact of technology or processes
utilized in the pilot programs on improving cargo operations
and security.
(b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report that contains--
(1) the results of the study required under subsection (a);
and
(2) recommendations to improve container security programs
within the Department of Homeland Security.
TITLE III--DIRECTORATE FOR POLICY, PLANNING, AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
SEC. 301. ESTABLISHMENT OF DIRECTORATE.
(a) Establishment.--The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating title VI as title XIX, and moving such
title so as to appear after title XVIII, as added by section
201;
(2) by striking the heading for such title and inserting
the following:
``TITLE XIX--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS''.
(3) by redesignating section 601 as section 1901; and
(4) by inserting after title V the following new title:
``TITLE VI--POLICY, PLANNING, AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
``SEC. 601. DIRECTORATE FOR POLICY, PLANNING, AND
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS.
``(a) Establishment.--There shall be in the Department a
Directorate for Policy, Planning, and International Affairs.
``(b) Under Secretary for Policy.--
``(1) In general.--The head of the Directorate shall be the
Under Secretary for Policy, who shall be appointed by the
President.
``(2) Qualifications.--No individual shall be appointed
Under Secretary for Policy under paragraph (1) unless the
individual has, by education and experience, demonstrated
knowledge, ability, and skill in the fields of policy and
strategic planning.
``(c) Responsibilities of Under Secretary.--
``(1) Policy responsibilities.--Subject to the direction
and control of the Secretary, the policy responsibilities of
the Under Secretary for Policy shall be as follows:
``(A) To serve as the principal policy advisor to the
Secretary.
``(B) To provide overall direction and supervision of
policy development for the programs, offices, and activities
of the Department.
``(C) To establish and implement a formal policymaking
process for the Department.
``(D) To analyze, evaluate, and review the completed,
ongoing, and proposed programs of the Department to ensure
they are compatible with the statutory and regulatory
responsibilities of the Department and with the Secretary's
priorities, strategic plans, and policies.
``(E) To ensure that the budget of the Department
(including the development of future year budgets and
interaction with the Office of Management and Budget and with
Congress) is compatible with the statutory and regulatory
responsibilities of the Department and with the Secretary's
priorities, strategic plans, and policies.
``(F) To represent the Department in any development of
policy that requires the Department to consult with another
Federal agency, the Office of the President, a foreign
government, or any other governmental or private sector
entity.
``(G) To supervise and oversee policy development
undertaken by the component agencies and offices of the
Department.
``(2) Strategic planning responsibilities.--Subject to the
direction and control of the Secretary, the strategic
planning responsibilities of the Under Secretary for Policy
shall be as follows:
``(A) To conduct long-range, strategic planning for the
Department.
``(B) To prepare national and Department strategies, as
appropriate.
``(C) To conduct net assessments of issues facing the
Department.
``(3) International responsibilities.--Subject to the
direction and control of the Secretary, the international
responsibilities of the Under Secretary for Policy shall be
as follows:
``(A) To promote the exchange of information and the
sharing of best practices and technology relating to homeland
security with nations friendly to the United States,
including--
``(i) the exchange of information on research and
development on homeland security technologies;
``(ii) joint training exercises of first responders in
coordination with the Assistant Secretary for Grants and
Training; and
``(iii) exchanging expertise and information on terrorism
prevention, response, and crisis management.
[[Page H2131]]
``(B) To identify any homeland security-related area in
which the United States and other nations and appropriate
international organizations could collaborate to improve
capabilities and to encourage the exchange of information or
sharing of best practices and technology relating to that
area.
``(C) To plan and participate in international conferences,
exchange programs (including the exchange of scientists,
engineers, and other experts), and other training activities
with friendly nations
``(D) To manage international activities within the
Department in coordination with other Federal officials with
responsibility for counterterrorism matters.
``(E) To oversee the activities of Department personnel
operating in other countries or traveling to other countries,
``(F) To represent the Department in international
negotiations, working groups, and standards-setting bodies.
``(4) Private sector.--
``(A) To create and foster strategic communications with
the private sector to enhance the primary mission of the
Department to protect the United States.
``(B) To advise the Secretary on the impact on the private
sector of the policies, regulations, processes, and actions
of the Department.
``(C) To create and manage private sector advisory councils
composed of representatives of industries and associations
designated by the Secretary--
``(i) to advise the Secretary on private sector products,
applications, and solutions as they relate to homeland
security challenges; and
``(ii) to advise the Secretary on homeland security
policies, regulations, processes, and actions that affect the
participating industries and associations.
``(D) To promote existing public-private partnerships and
develop new public-private partnerships to provide for
collaboration and mutual support to address homeland security
challenges.
``(E) To identify private sector resources and capabilities
that could be effective in supplementing functions of the
Department and State and local governments to prevent or
respond to acts of terrorism.
``(F) To coordinate among the Department's operating
entities and with the Assistant Secretary for Trade
Development of the Department of Commerce on issues related
to the travel and tourism industries.
``SEC. 602. OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established within the
Directorate of Policy, Planning, and International Affairs an
Office of International Affairs. The Office shall be headed
by an Assistant Secretary, who shall be appointed by the
Secretary.
``(b) Duties of the Assistant Secretary.--The Assistant
Secretary shall have the following duties:
``(1) To promote information and education exchange with
nations friendly to the United States in order to promote
sharing of best practices and technologies relating to
homeland security. Such exchange shall include the following:
``(A) Exchange of information on research and development
on homeland security technologies.
``(B) Joint training exercises of first responders.
``(C) Exchange of expertise on terrorism prevention,
response, and crisis management.
``(2) To identify areas for homeland security information
and training exchange where the United States has a
demonstrated weakness and another friendly nation or nations
have a demonstrated expertise.
``(3) To plan and undertake international conferences,
exchange programs, and training activities.
``(4) To manage international activities within the
Department in coordination with other Federal officials with
responsibility for counter-terrorism matters.
``SEC. 603. OTHER OFFICES AND OFFICIALS.
``(a) In General.--The Under Secretary for Policy shall
establish the following offices in the Directorate for
Policy, Planning, and International Affairs:
``(1) The Office of Policy, which shall be administered by
an Assistant Secretary for Policy.
``(2) The Office of Strategic Plans, which shall be
administered by an Assistant Secretary for Strategic Plans
and which shall include--
``(A) a Secure Border Initiative Program Office; and
``(B) a Screening Coordination and Operations Office.
``(3) The Office of the Private Sector, which shall be
administered by an Assistant Secretary for the Private
Sector.
``(4) The Victim Assistance Officer.
``(5) The Tribal Security Officer.
``(6) Such other offices as considered necessary by the
Under Secretary for Policy.
``(b) Director of Cargo Security Policy.--
``(1) In general.--There shall be in the Directorate for
Policy, Planning, and International Affairs a Director of
Cargo Security Policy (hereinafter in this section referred
to as the `Director'), who shall be subject to the direction
and control of the Under Secretary for Policy.
``(2) Responsibilities.--The Director shall--
``(A) advise the Assistant Secretary for Policy regarding
all aspects of Department programs relating to cargo
security;
``(B) develop Department-wide policies regarding cargo
security; and
``(C) coordinate the cargo security policies and programs
of the Department with other Federal departments and
agencies, including by working with officials of the
Department of Energy and the Department of State, as
appropriate, in negotiating international agreements relating
to cargo security.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 879 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 459) is repealed.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of such Act is amended--
(1) by striking the item relating to section 879;
(2) by striking the items relating to title VI and
inserting the following:
``TITLE VI--POLICY, PLANNING, AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
``Sec. 601. Directorate for Policy, Planning, and International
Affairs.
``Sec. 602. Office of International Affairs.
``Sec. 603. Other offices and officials.'';
and
(3) by inserting after the items relating to title XVIII
the following:
``TITLE XIX--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
``Sec. 1901. Treatment of charitable trusts for members of the armed
forces of the United States and other governmental
organizations.''.
TITLE IV--OFFICE OF DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION
SEC. 401. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE.
(a) Establishment.--The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new title:
``TITLE XX--OFFICE OF DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION
``SEC. 2001. DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE.
``(a) In General.--There shall be in the Department of
Homeland Security a Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.
``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the Office shall be to
protect against the unauthorized importation, possession,
storage, transportation, development, or use of a nuclear
explosive device, fissile material, or radiological material
against the United States.
``(c) Director.--The Office shall be headed by a Director
of Domestic Nuclear Detection, who shall be appointed by the
President from among individuals nominated by the Secretary.
``(d) Limitation.--This title shall not be construed to
affect the performance, by directorates and agencies of the
Department other than the Office, of functions that are not
related to detection and prevention of nuclear and
radiological terrorism.
``SEC. 2002. FUNCTIONS OF DIRECTOR OF THE DOMESTIC NUCLEAR
DETECTION OFFICE, GENERALLY.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall vest in the Director
the primary responsibility in the Department for--
``(1) administering all nuclear and radiological detection
and prevention functions and assets of the Department,
including those functions vested in the Department before the
enactment of the Security and Accountability For Every Port
Act; and
``(2) for coordinating such administration with nuclear and
radiological detection and prevention activities of other
Federal departments and agencies.
``(b) Transfer of Functions.--The Secretary shall transfer
to the Director the authority to administer, or supervise the
administration of, all functions, personnel, assets, and
liabilities of all Department programs and projects relating
to nuclear and radiological detection research, development,
testing, and evaluation, and nuclear and radiological
detection system acquisition and deployment, including with
respect to functions and assets transferred by section
303(1)(B), (C), and (E) and functions, assets, and personnel
transferred pursuant to section 2010(c).
``SEC. 2003. GLOBAL NUCLEAR DETECTION ARCHITECTURE.
``(a) In General.--The Director shall coordinate the
Federal Government's implementation of a global nuclear
detection architecture.
``(b) Functions of Director.--The Director shall, under
subsection (a)--
``(1) design a strategy that will guide deployment of the
global nuclear detection architecture;
``(2) implement the strategy in the United States; and
``(3) coordinate Department and Federal interagency efforts
to deploy the elements of the global nuclear detection
architecture outside the United States.
``(c) Relationship to Other Departments and Agencies.--The
authority of the Director under this section shall not affect
an authority or responsibility of any other department or
agency of the Federal Government with respect to the
deployment of nuclear and radiological detection systems
outside the United States under any program administered by
that department or agency.
``SEC. 2004. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
``(a) In General.--The Director shall carry out a research
and development program to achieve transformational and
evolutionary improvements in detection capabilities for
shielded and unshielded nuclear explosive devices and
radiological dispersion devices.
``(b) High-Risk Projects.--The program shall include
funding for transformational research and development
projects that may have a high risk of failure but have the
potential to provide significant benefits.
``(c) Long-Term Projects.--In order to reflect a long-term
commitment to the development of more effective detection
technologies, the program shall include the provision of
funding for projects having a duration of more than 3 years,
as appropriate.
``(d) Coordination With Other Federal Programs.--The
Director shall coordinate implementation of the program with
other Federal
[[Page H2132]]
agencies performing similar research and development in order
to accelerate the development of effective technologies,
promote technology sharing, and to avoid duplication,
including through the use of the interagency coordination
council established under section 2013.
``SEC. 2005. SYSTEM ASSESSMENTS.
``(a) In General.--The Director shall carry out a program
to test and evaluate technology for detecting nuclear
explosive devices and fissile or radiological material.
``(b) Performance Metrics.--The Director shall establish
performance metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of
individual detectors and detection systems in detecting
nuclear explosive devices or fissile or radiological
material--
``(1) under realistic operational and environmental
conditions; and
``(2) against realistic adversary tactics and
countermeasures.
``(c) Provision of Testing Services.--
``(1) In general.--The Director may, under the program,
make available testing services to commercial developers of
detection devices.
``(2) Fees.--The Director may charge fees, as appropriate,
for performance of services under this subsection.
``(d) System Assessments.--
``(1) In general.--The Director shall periodically perform
system-wide assessments of the global nuclear detection
architecture to identify vulnerabilities and to gauge overall
system performance against nuclear and radiological threats.
``(2) Included activities.--The assessments shall include--
``(A) red teaming activities to identify vulnerabilities
and possible modes of attack and concealment methods; and
``(B) net assessments to determine architecture performance
against adversary tactics and concealment methods.
``(3) Use.--The Director shall use the assessments to guide
deployment of the global nuclear detection architecture and
the research and development activities of the Office.
``SEC. 2006. TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION, DEPLOYMENT, SUPPORT, AND
TRAINING.
``(a) Acquisition Strategy.--
``(1) In general.--The Director shall develop and, subject
to the availability of appropriations, execute a strategy for
the acquisition and deployment of detection systems in order
to implement the Department components of the global nuclear
detection architecture developed under section 2003.
``(2) Use of available contracting procedures.--The
Director shall make use of all contracting procedures
available to the Secretary to implement the acquisition
strategy.
``(3) Determination of qualified anti-terrorism
technology.--The Director shall make recommendations based on
the criteria included in section 862(b) as to whether the
detection systems acquired pursuant to this subsection shall
be designated by the Secretary as anti-terrorism technologies
that qualify for protection under the system of risk
management set forth in subtitle G of title VIII. The
Undersecretary for Science and Technology shall consider the
Director's recommendations and expedite the process of
determining whether such detection systems shall be
designated as anti-terrorism technologies that qualify for
such protection.
``(b) Deployment.--The Director shall deploy detection
systems for use by Department operational units and other
end-users in implementing the global nuclear detection
architecture.
``(c) Operational Support and Protocols.--
``(1) Operational support.--The Director shall provide
operational support for all systems acquired to implement the
acquisition strategy developed under subsection (a).
``(2) Operational protocols.--The Director shall develop
operational protocols for detection technology acquired and
deployed to implement the acquisition strategy, including
procedures for alarm resolution and notification of
appropriate response agencies in the event that illicit
nuclear, radioactive, or fissile materials are detected by
such a product or service.
``(3) Technical reachback.--The Director will ensure that
the expertise necessary to accurately interpret detection
data is made available in a timely manner for all technology
deployed to implement the global nuclear detection
architecture.
``(d) Training.--The Director shall develop and distribute
training materials and provide training to all end-users of
technology acquired by the Director under the acquisition
strategy.
``(e) Solicitation of End-User Input.--In developing
requirements for the research and development program of
section 2004 and requirements for the acquisition of
detection systems to implement the strategy in subsection
(a), the Director shall solicit input from end-users of such
systems.
``(f) State and Local Support.--Upon request, the Director
shall provide guidance regarding radiation detection
technology acquisitions to be made by State, territorial,
tribal and local governments and emergency response
providers.
``SEC. 2007. SITUATIONAL AWARENESS.
``(a) Detection Information.--The Director--
``(1) shall continuously monitor detection information
received from foreign and domestic detection systems to
maintain for the Department a situational awareness of all
nuclear threats;
``(2) shall gather and archive--
``(A) detection data measurements taken of benign
activities in the normal flows of commerce; and
``(B) alarm data, including false alarms and nuisance
alarms.
``(b) Information Sharing.--The Director shall coordinate
with other governmental agencies to ensure that the detection
of unauthorized nuclear explosive devices, fissile material,
or radiological material is promptly reported to all
appropriate Federal response agencies including the Attorney
General, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Energy.
``(c) Incident Resolution.--The Director shall assess
nuclear threats communicated by Federal, State, tribal, or
local officials and provide adequate technical reachback
capability for swift and effective incident resolution.
``(d) Security.--The Director shall--
``(1) develop and implement security standards and
protocols for the control and protection of all classified or
sensitive information in possession of the Office; and
``(2) ensure that relevant personnel of the Office have the
required security clearances to properly handle such
information.
``SEC. 2008. FORENSIC ANALYSIS.
``The Director shall perform all research, development, and
acquisition activities of the Department pertaining to
forensic analysis and attribution of nuclear and radiological
attacks.
``SEC. 2009. THREAT INFORMATION.
``(a) Threat Assessments.--The Director shall utilize
classified and unclassified nuclear and radiological threat
assessments in designing the global nuclear detection
architecture under section 2003, prioritizing detection
system deployments, and testing and optimizing system
performance of that architecture, including assessments of--
``(1) smuggling routes;
``(2) locations of relevant nuclear and radiological
material throughout the world;
``(3) relevant terrorist tradecraft and concealment
methods;
``(4) relevant nuclear and radiological threat objects in
terms of possible detection signatures.
``(b) Access to Information.--The Secretary shall provide
the Director access to all information relating to nuclear
and radiological threats, including reports, assessments,
analyses, and unevaluated intelligence, that is necessary to
successfully design, deploy, and support the operation of an
effective global detection architecture under section 1903.
``(c) Analytical Support.--The Director shall request that
the Secretary provide to the Director, pursuant to section
201(d)(18), the requisite intelligence and information
analysis support necessary to effectively discharge the
Director's responsibilities.
``(d) Analytical Expertise.--For the purposes of performing
any of the assessments required under subsection (a), the
Director, subject to the availability of appropriations, may
hire professional personnel who are analysts with experience
in performing nuclear and radiological threat assessments.
``(e) Collection Requests.--The Director shall recommend to
the Secretary consultation that should occur pursuant to
section 201(d)(10) regarding intelligence collection to
design, deploy, and support the operation of the global
detection architecture under section 2003.
``SEC. 2010. ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES.
``(a) Hiring.--In hiring personnel for the Office, the
Secretary shall have hiring and management authorities
described in section 1101 of the Strom Thurmond National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (5 U.S.C. 3104
note; Public Law 105-261). The term of appointments for
employees under subsection (c)(1) of that section may not
exceed 5 years before granting any extension under subsection
(c)(2) of that section.
``(b) Detail of Personnel.--In order to assist the Director
in discharging the Director's responsibilities, personnel of
other Federal agencies may be detailed to the Office for the
performance of analytic functions and related duties.
``(c) Transfer of Science and Technology Functions,
Personnel, and Assets.--
``(1) Transfer required.--Except as provided in paragraph
(2), the Secretary shall transfer to the Director the
functions, assets, and personnel of the Department relating
to radiological and nuclear countermeasures, including
forensics of contaminated evidence and attack attribution.
``(2) Exceptions.--The Secretary shall not transfer under
paragraph (1) functions, assets, and personnel relating to
consequence management and recovery.
``(3) Elimination of duplication of effort.--The Secretary
shall ensure that to the extent there are complementary
functions vested in the Directorate of Science and Technology
and the Office with respect to radiological and nuclear
countermeasures, the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology and the Director coordinate the programs they
administer to eliminate duplication and increase integration
opportunities, particularly with respect to technology
development and test and evaluation.
``SEC. 2011. REPORT REQUIREMENT.
``The Director shall submit to the appropriate
congressional committees an annual report on the following:
``(1) The global detection strategy developed under section
2003.
``(2) The status of implementation of such architecture.
``(3) The schedule for future detection system deployments
under such architecture.
``(4) The research and development program of the Office.
``(5) A summary of actions taken by the Office during the
reporting period to counter nuclear and radiological threats.
``SEC. 2012. ADVISORY COUNCIL ON NUCLEAR DETECTION.
``(a) Establishment.--Pursuant to section 871 of this Act,
the Secretary shall establish within the Office an Advisory
Council on Nuclear Detection, which shall report to the
Director (in this section referred to as the `Advisory
Council').
[[Page H2133]]
``(b) Functions.--The Advisory Council shall, at the
request of the Director--
``(1) advise the Director on recommendations for the global
nuclear detection architecture developed under section
2003(a);
``(2) identify research areas for development of next-
generation and transformational nuclear and radiological
detection technologies; and
``(3) and have such additional responsibilities as the
Director may assign in furtherance of the Department's
homeland security mission with respect to enhancing domestic
and international nuclear and radiological detection
capabilities.
``(c) Membership.--The Advisory Council shall consist of 5
members appointed by the Director, who shall--
``(1) be individuals who have an eminent knowledge and
technical expertise related to nuclear and radiological
detection research and development and radiation detection;
and
``(2) be selected solely on the basis of their established
record of distinguished service; and
``(3) not be employees of the Federal Government, other
than employees of National Laboratories.
``(d) Conflict of Interest Rules.--The Advisory Council
shall establish rules for determining when one of its members
has a conflict of interest in a matter being considered by
the Advisory Council, and the appropriate course of action to
address such conflicts of interest.
``SEC. 2013. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION COUNCIL.
``The President--
``(1) shall establish an interagency coordination council
to facilitate interagency cooperation for purposes of
implementing this title;
``(2) shall appoint the Secretary to chair the interagency
coordination council; and
``(3) may appoint the Attorney General, the Secretary of
Energy, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and
the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies to designate
members to serve on such council.
``SEC. 2014. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title--
``(1) $536,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
``(2) such sums as may be necessary for each subsequent
fiscal year.
``SEC. 2015. DEFINITIONS.
``In this title:
``(1) The term `Director' means the Director of the
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.
``(2) The term `fissile materials' means materials capable
of sustaining a nuclear chain reaction.
``(3) The term `global nuclear detection architecture'
means a multi-layered system of detectors deployed
internationally and domestically to detect and interdict
nuclear and radiological materials intended for illicit use.
``(4) The term `nuclear and radiological detection system'
means any technology that is capable of detecting or
identifying nuclear and radiological material or explosive
devices.
``(5) The term `Office' means the Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office.
``(6) The term `radiological material' means material that
emits nuclear radiation.
``(7) The term `nuclear explosive device' means an
explosive device capable of producing a nuclear yield.
``(8) The term `technical reachback' means technical expert
support provided to operational end users for data
interpretation and alarm resolution.
``(9) The term `transformational' means that, if
successful, will produce dramatic technological improvements
over existing capabilities in the areas of performance, cost,
or ease of use.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 103(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 113(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) A Director of the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office.''.
(2) Section 302 of such Act (6 U.S.C. 182) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (2) by striking ``radiological,
nuclear,''; and
(B) in paragraph (5)(A) by striking ``radiological,
nuclear,''.
(3) Section 305 of such Act (6 U.S.C. 185) is amended by
inserting ``and the Director of the Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office'' after ``Technology''.
(4) Section 308 of such Act (6 U.S.C. 188) is amended in
each of subsections (a) and (b)(1) by inserting ``and the
Director of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office'' after
``Technology''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 2135) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``TITLE XX--OFFICE OF DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION
``Sec. 2001. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.
``Sec. 2002. Functions of Director of the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office, generally.
``Sec. 2003. Global nuclear detection architecture.
``Sec. 2004. Research and development.
``Sec. 2005. System assessments.
``Sec. 2006. Technology acquisition, deployment, support, and training.
``Sec. 2007. Situational awareness.
``Sec. 2008. Forensic analysis.
``Sec. 2009. Threat information.
``Sec. 2010. Administrative authorities.
``Sec. 2011. Report requirement.
``Sec. 2012. Advisory Council on Nuclear Detection.
``Sec. 2013. Interagency coordination council.
``Sec. 2014. Authorization of appropriations.
``Sec. 2015. Definitions.''.
SEC. 402. NUCLEAR AND RADIOLOGICAL DETECTION SYSTEMS.
(a) Deployment.--Not later than September 30, 2007, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall deploy nuclear and
radiological detection systems at 22 United States seaports.
To the extent feasible, the Secretary shall deploy the next-
generation radiation portal monitors tested in the pilot
program under subsection (d) at such United States seaports.
(b) Strategy.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the
Director of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office of the
Department, shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a strategy for the deployment of nuclear and
radiological detection systems at all remaining United States
seaports.
(c) Contents.--The strategy submitted under subsection (b)
shall include--
(1) a risk-based prioritization of United States seaports
at which nuclear and radiological detection systems will
deployed;
(2) a proposed timeline of when nuclear and radiological
detection systems will be deployed at each of the seaports
identified under paragraph (1);
(3) the type of systems to be used at each of the seaports
identified under paragraph (1);
(4) standard operating procedures for examining containers
with such systems;
(5) the Department policy for using nuclear and
radiological detection systems;
(6) a classified annex that details plans for covert
testing; and
(7) a classified annex that outlines the risk-based
prioritization of seaports used under paragraph (1).
(d) Safety Plan.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a plan that--
(1) details the health and safety impacts of nuclear and
radiological detection systems; and
(2) describes the policy of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection for using nuclear and radiological detection
systems.
(e) Pilot Program.--
(1) In general.--Not later than January 1, 2007, the
Secretary, acting through the Director of the Domestic
Nuclear Detection Office of the Department, shall initiate a
pilot program to deploy and test the operational performance
of next-generation radiation portal monitors at one or more
United States seaports with a high-volume of containerized
cargo.
(2) Report.--Not later than March 31, 2007, the Secretary
shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
report that contains--
(A) a description of the next-generation radiation portal
monitors deployed at United States seaports under the pilot
program;
(B) a description of the operational characteristics of the
pilot program at selected United States seaports; and
(C) an evaluation of the operational performance of the
next-generation radiation portal monitors, including nuisance
alarm rates, and a description of the standards used in such
evaluation.
(f) Deployment of Next-Generation Radiation Portal
Monitors.--
(1) In general.--If the Secretary, acting through the
Director of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office of the
Department, determines that the operational performance of
the next-generation radiation portal monitors under the pilot
program carried out under subsection (e) has met the
standards described subsection (e)(2)(C), the Secretary shall
deploy next-generation radiation portal monitors, in fixed or
other configurations, at all United States seaports with a
high-volume of containerized cargo to improve cargo screening
capabilities at such seaports not later than September 30,
2007.
(2) Congressional notification.--If any deployment of next-
generation radiation portal monitors is deemed by the
Secretary to be operationally infeasible or would result in
ineffective, inefficient, or otherwise wasteful use of
resources, the Secretary shall notify the appropriate
congressional committees and recommend alternative actions.
(g) Enhancing Overseas Detection Capabilities.--The
Secretary, acting through the Director of the Domestic
Nuclear Detection Office of the Department, shall work with
appropriate Federal departments and agencies to coordinate
the installation of nuclear and radiological detection
systems at foreign seaports.
(h) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Next-generation radiation portal monitors.--The term
``next-generation radiation portal monitors'' means non-
intrusive, containerized cargo examination technologies that
possess radionuclide isotope identification capabilities.
(2) Nuclear and radiological detection system.--The term
``nuclear and radiological detection system'' means any
technology that is capable of detecting or identifying
nuclear and radiological material or explosive devices.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in
order except those printed in House Report 109-450. Each amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable
for the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent of the amendment, shall not be subject to amendment and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. King of New York
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
[[Page H2134]]
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by
Mr. King of New York:
Page 6, after line 23, insert the following new
paragraphs:
(12) International trade is vital to the Nation's economy
and the well-being and livelihood of United States citizens.
(13) The Department of Homeland Security's missions,
including those related to United States and international
borders, involve both building security for United States
citizens and facilitating legitimate trade that is critical
to the Nation.
(14) In creating the Department of Homeland Security,
Congress clearly mandated in section 412(b) of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 212(b)) that the customs
revenue functions described in paragraph (2) of such section
shall not be diminished.
Page 9, strike line 11 and all that follows through line
5 on page 10 and insert the following new subsections:
(a) Facility Security Plans.--Section 70103(c)(3) of
title 46, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(H) in the case of a security plan for a facility, be
resubmitted for approval of each change in the ownership or
operator of the facility that may substantially affect the
security of the facility.''.
(b) Facility Security Officers.--Section 70103(c) of
title 46, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(8)(A) The Secretary shall require that the qualified
individual having full authority to implement security
actions for a facility described in paragraph (2) shall be a
citizen of the United States.
``(B) The Secretary may waive the requirement of
subparagraph (A) with respect to an individual if the
Secretary determines that it is appropriate to do so based on
a complete background check of the individual and a review of
all terrorist watchlists to ensure that the individual is not
identified on any such terrorist watchlist.''.
Page 16, after line 19, insert the following new section
(and redesignate subsequent sections of subtitle A of title I
of the bill, and conform the table of contents of the bill,
accordingly):
SEC. 107. ENHANCED CREWMEMBER IDENTIFICATION.
Section 70111 of title 46, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``The'' and inserting
``Not later than May 15, 2007, the''; and
(2) in subsection (b) by striking ``The'' and inserting
``Not later than May 15, 2007, the''.
Page 18, strike line 13 and all that follows through line
21 and insert the following new subsection:
``(c) Participation.--
``(1) Federal participation.--The following entities
shall participate in the integrated network of maritime
security command centers described in subsection (a):
``(A) The Coast Guard.
``(B) U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
``(C) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
``(D) Other appropriate Federal agencies.
``(2) State and local participation.--Appropriate State
and local law enforcement agencies may participate in the
integrated network of maritime security command centers
described in subsection (a).''.
Page 24, line 8, insert at the end before the semicolon
the following: ``or the vessel or facility security plans
required under section 70103(c) of title 46, United States
Code''.
Page 39, strike line 1 and all that follows through line
14 on page 41.
Page 42, strike line 9 and all that follows through line
18.
Page 44, after line 9, insert the following new section:
SEC. 127. CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR MARITIME DOMAIN AWARENESS.
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Homeland
Security shall establish a university-based Center for
Excellence for Maritime Domain Awareness following the merit-
review processes and procedures that have been established by
the Secretary for selecting university program centers of
excellence.
(b) Duties.--The Center shall--
(1) prioritize its activities based on the ``National
Plan to Improve Maritime Domain Awareness'' published by the
Department of Homeland Security in October 2005;
(2) recognize the extensive previous and ongoing work and
existing competence in the field of maritime domain awareness
at numerous academic and research institutions, such as the
Naval Postgraduate School;
(3) leverage existing knowledge and continue development
of a broad base of expertise within academia and industry in
maritime domain awareness; and
(4) provide educational, technical, and analytical
assistance to Federal agencies with responsibilities for
maritime domain awareness, including the Coast Guard, to
focus on the need for interoperability, information sharing,
and common information technology standards and architecture.
Page 51, beginning on line 4, strike ``appropriate
confidentiality requirements'' and insert ``provide
safeguards that ensure confidentiality''.
Page 51, line 6, insert ``identify'' before ``appropriate
timing''.
Page 52, line 23, strike ``to'' and insert ``and''.
Page 62, line 2, after ``carriers,'' insert ``contract
logistics providers,''.
Page 65, beginning on line 5, strike ``and related
policies and'' and insert ``, policies, or''.
Page 84, beginning on line 3, strike ``uniform data
system for import and export information'' and insert
``international trade data system''.
Page 84, line 6, after ``implement'' insert ``the
International Trade Data System,''.
Page 84, line 8, insert a comma after ``export
information''.
Page 90, after line 6, insert the following new
subparagraph:
``(H) To provide for the coordination and maintenance of
the trade and customs revenue functions of the Department.''.
Page 93, after line 17, insert the following new
paragraph:
``(5) Trade and customs revenue functions.--The Under
Secretary for Policy shall--
``(A) ensure that the trade and customs revenue functions
of the Department are coordinated within the Department and
with other Federal departments and agencies, and that the
impact on legitimate trade is taken into account in any
action impacting these functions; and
``(B) monitor and report to Congress on the Department's
mandate to ensure that the trade and customs revenue
functions of the Department are not diminished, including how
spending, operations, and personnel related to these
functions have kept pace with the level of trade entering the
United States.''.
Page 95, line 25, strike ``section'' and insert
``subsection''.
Page 96, after line 15, insert the following new
subsection:
``(c) Director of Trade Policy.--
``(1) In general.--There shall be in the Directorate for
Policy, Planning, and International Affairs a Director of
Trade Policy (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as
the `Director'), who shall be subject to the direction and
control of the Under Secretary for Policy.
``(2) Responsibilities.--The Director shall--
``(A) advise the Assistant Secretary for Policy regarding
all aspects of Department programs relating to the trade and
customs revenue functions of the Department;
``(B) develop Department-wide policies regarding trade
and customs revenue functions and trade facilitation; and
``(C) coordinate the trade and customs revenue-related
programs of the Department with other Federal departments and
agencies. ''.
Page 96, after line 15, insert the following new section:
``SEC. 604. CONSULTATION ON TRADE AND CUSTOMS REVENUE
FUNCTIONS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary and the Under Secretary
for Policy shall consult with representatives of the business
community involved in international trade, including seeking
the advice and recommendations of the Commercial Operations
Advisory Committee (COAC), on Department policies and actions
that have a significant impact on international trade and
customs revenue functions.
``(b) COAC Consultation and Notification.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall seek the advice and recommendations of COAC
on any proposed Department policies, initiatives, actions, or
organizational reforms that will have a major impact on trade
and customs revenue functions not later than 45 days prior to
the finalization of the policies, initiatives, actions, or
organizational reforms.
``(2) Exception.--If the Secretary determines that it is
important to the national security interest of the United
States to finalize any proposed Department policies,
initiatives, actions, or organizational reforms prior to the
provision of advice and recommendations described in
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
``(A) seek the advice and recommendations of COAC on the
policies, initiatives, actions, or organizational reforms not
later than 30 days after the date on which the policies,
initiatives, actions, or organizational reforms are
finalized; and
``(B) to the extent appropriate, modify the policies,
initiatives, actions, or organizational reforms based upon
the advice and recommendations of COAC.
``(c) Congressional Consultation and Notification.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall consult with and provide any recommendations
of COAC received under subsection (b) to the appropriate
congressional committees not later than 30 days prior to the
finalization of any Department policies, initiatives, actions
or organizational reforms that will have a major impact on
trade and customs revenue functions.
``(2) Exception.--If the Secretary determines that it is
important to the national security interest of the United
States to finalize any Department policies, initiatives,
actions, or organizational reforms prior to the consultation
described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
``(A) consult with and provide any recommendations of
COAC received under subsection (b) to the appropriate
congressional committees not later than 45 days after the
[[Page H2135]]
date on which the policies, initiative, actions, or
organizational reforms are finalized; and
``(B) to the extent appropriate, modify the policies,
initiatives, actions, or organizational reforms based upon
the consultations with the appropriate congressional
committees.''.
Page 97, after line 2, insert the following new section:
SEC. 302. STUDY AND REPORT ON CUSTOMS REVENUE FUNCTIONS.
(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a
study evaluating the extent to which the Department of
Homeland Security is meeting its obligations under section
412(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 212(b))
with respect to the maintenance of customs revenue functions.
(2) Analysis.--The study shall include an analysis of --
(A) the extent to which the customs revenue functions
carried out by the former U.S. Customs Service have been
consolidated with other functions of the Department
(including the assignment of non-customs revenue functions to
personnel responsible for customs revenue collection),
discontinued, or diminished following the transfer of the
U.S. Customs Service to the Department;
(B) the extent to which staffing levels or resources
attributable to customs revenue functions have decreased
since the transfer of the U.S. Customs Service to the
Department; and
(C) the extent to which the management structure created
by the Department ensures effective trade facilitation and
customs revenue collection.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall
submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report
on the results of study conducted under subsection (a).
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``customs
revenue functions'' means the functions described in section
412(b)(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
212(b)(2)).
Page 99, line 11, after ``implement'' insert ``Department
components of''.
Page 99, line 21, strike ``outside the United States''.
Page 101, beginning on line 12, strike ``commercial''.
Page 101, line 13, strike ``devices'' and insert
``technologies''.
Page 101, line 13, add at the end the following new
sentence: ``The results of the tests performed with services
made available under this subsection shall be confidential
and may not be disclosed to individuals or entities outside
of the Federal government without the consent of the
developer for whom the tests are performed.''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. KING of New York. 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. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time
in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from
Mississippi is recognized to control the 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. The provisions on trade and
maritime domain awareness it contains are strong improvements to the
bill.
However, I must express my deep disappointment with one provision in
the bill removed by this amendment. In committee, we included language
that would have assured that the Coast Guard did not have to use bubble
gum, bailing wire, and buckets in the coming years. This language was
stripped out of the bill, meaning that we are going to have to make the
Coast Guard spend the next two decades fighting a 21st century war on
terror with assets built during the Vietnam War.
The Deepwater Program must be accelerated if our ports and coastlines
are going to be safe. I know that if Chairman King had had his way this
would have stayed in, and I thank him for that.
I am a strong supporter of this program. As a conferee on the last
two Coast Guard authorization bills, I supported more funding for the
Deepwater Program each year.
At one time during Hurricane Katrina, the Coast Guard used 78
Deepwater assets in Hurricane Katrina relief to save 33,000 people. One
would think that the administration would be asking for more money for
this type of equipment, not less.
The Commandant of the Coast Guard, ADM Thomas Collins, told me in
February of this year that the Coast Guard can accelerate the
completion of the Deepwater Program if given the funding, and that it
would result in a large savings to the taxpayers.
I hope this Congress will reconsider accelerating Deepwater in the
conference on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Mississippi and assure him that we strongly support the acceleration of
the Deepwater Program, but we are very concerned with the way this
provision is written. As written, the language would require any new
ships, aircraft and communications equipment procured under the
Deepwater Program to be used to support the Coast Guard's homeland
security mission only.
As my colleagues know, the Coast Guard is a multimission service.
Their assets need to be multimission. If, in fact, there is a national
emergency that is unrelated to homeland security, they need to be able
to use their assets for that.
I assure my colleagues that when the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure meets to mark up the 2007 Coast Guard authorization bill
in a few weeks that I will be offering an amendment, as I have each
year since I have been subcommittee chair, to significantly increase
the funding for Deepwater.
This critical program needs to be accelerated. Current Coast Guard
assets are rapidly aging and failing, as has been noted, under intense
operation tempos. The Coast Guard is forced to sink more and more
funding into obsolete legacy assets. We need to increase funding and
get these critically needed new and more capable assets into the hands
of our men and women in the Coast Guard as soon as possible, but this
provision would tie their hands behind their back.
[[Page H2136]]
I look forward to working with my colleagues to accelerate Deepwater
as the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure moves forward
with the 2007 authorization bill, and I look forward to support from
all of my colleagues to see Deepwater accelerated.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Mississippi, the ranking member, for yielding, and I rise in support of
H.R. 4954 but to raise some concerns about this amendment.
I also want to thank him and the chairman of the Homeland Security
Committee, Chairman King, for their support of two amendments that I
proposed during consideration of this bill in the committee: One, the
establishment of a border patrol unit for the Virgin Islands; and the
other, a study for the impact of the Advanced Passenger Information
System on the owners and operators of small charter boats in the Virgin
Islands, which are very important to my constituents and to me.
While I am pleased that these two amendments continue to be in the
base bill, I am very disappointed that the third amendment that I
offered was removed from it by the Rules Committee and not in the
manager's amendment, even though it was approved by the Homeland
Security Committee by a voice vote.
{time} 1145
This amendment to authorize an additional $1.8 billion to accelerate
funding for the Coast Guard's integrated Deepwater program was
unfortunately not made in order under the rule. This program was
designed to replace the Coast Guard's aging fleet of cutters and
aircraft and enable them to operate with the speed and agility required
to protect our ports from terrorist attacks as well as better perform
their other missions.
Accelerating Deepwater would also strengthen the Coast Guard's
Homeland Security mission by giving those cutters and aircrafters the
surveillance capability needed to detect and intercept suspicious
vessels before they reach our shores and harm us.
America witnessed the heroism of the Coast Guard during Hurricane
Katrina. They should be rewarded for that heroism by ensuring that they
don't have to wait two decades or more to have modern cutters and
aircraft.
My amendment was removed from the bill and not made in order because
of questions raised about the ability of the Coast Guard to utilize
this additional funding. But, Mr. Chairman and Members, the Commandant
of the Coast Guard indicated in response to a question at a
subcommittee hearing that, based on this very comprehensive report to
the Congress of the feasibility of accelerating the integrated
Deepwater system, that they would be able to spend that additional
money if they received it as well as receive additional benefits and
savings through the acceleration.
I am also very concerned that the Markey amendment that would have
provided 100 percent of cargo screening within a time certain was not
adopted or made in order, and I am sure our fellow Americans share that
concern as well as the one about the funding on Deepwater.
In spite of this, it is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill. I
commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Lungren, and ranking
member, Ms. Sanchez, for crafting this bipartisan bill; and I urge
support of H.R. 4954.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is
remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Mississippi has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, in support of the
amendment, I would like to compliment our chairman on really pulling
together a good bill. Even though there were differences, we did the
best we could to work those differences out in what I consider a very
fair and reasonable manner; and I want to compliment him for that. I
was able to in the course of this discussion go to New York and look at
some of the fine things going there. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you very
much.
The gentleman from New Jersey has indicated support for the Deepwater
Program, additional monies for the assets. I look forward to supporting
that effort.
The Coast Guard, as we know, serves a wonderful purpose. We need to
make sure they have the assets to get the job done. So I look forward
to working with him on that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of the time.
Mr. KING of New York. 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.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. King).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Ruppersberger
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by
Mr. Ruppersberger:
Page 87, after line 12, insert the following new section:
SEC. 207. REPORT ON NATIONAL TARGETING CENTER.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
conduct a study to assess the activities of U.S. Customs and
Border Protection's National Targeting Center (NTC).
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report that contains--
(1) the results of the study conducted under subsection
(a); and
(2) recommendations to improve and strengthen the
activities of NTC.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 783, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I commend Chairman King, Ranking Member Thompson,
Congressman Lungren, and Congresswoman Harman for their hard work on
this legislation. Their work has brought this very important issue to
the forefront here in Congress.
This amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security to
conduct a study and to provide recommendations to make sure that the
National Targeting Center is doing all it can to protect our country. I
am a co-chair of the Congressional Port Security Caucus and represent
the Second District of Maryland that includes the Port of Baltimore.
The Baltimore Port is one of the biggest economic engines in the State
of Maryland. It employs more than 30,000 and generates more than $1.5
billion in revenue each year.
There are 539 ports in this country, and I believe Congress must work
to keep our Nation's ports safe while keeping commerce flowing.
In November, 2001, Congress created the National Targeting Center.
The NTC has been operating around the clock collecting and analyzing
intelligence information, everything from Customs logs to crew
manifests to preventing a terrorist attack. The NTC conducts
counterterrorism, it collects targets and identifies potentially
dangerous cargo at the ports of embarkation. The Center flags high-
threat cargo for further examination and physical inspection.
[[Page H2137]]
The NTC is also working on a demonstration project that will analyze
scanned images of cargo like the non-invasive screening that is under
way at the Port of Hong Kong.
I believe actually analyzing these images is an important step in
preventing a terrorist attack. Identifying potentially dangerous cargo
when it is loaded on a ship at the foreign port is one of the best ways
to protect our families and our communities.
The NTC is working well right now, but we live in a world where
threats change every day. This amendment requires the Department of
Homeland Security to conduct a study and provide recommendations to
make sure that the NTC is using all of its resources and manpower in
the most effective way to catch terrorists before they strike. We must
ensure that the NTC is using the latest in technology and employing the
best and brightest in the field.
The NTC goes a long way to protect our country and our Nation's
ports, but we could always do better. We must always keep improving our
security operations to be prepared for the future. I believe this study
and its recommendations will help us do that. I ask that my colleagues
support this amendment, and let us make sure the National Targeting
Center is ready for the threats of today as well as the threats of
tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
control the time in opposition to the amendment even though I am not
opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from New York
will control the 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. KING of New York. 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. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to
support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Ruppersberger
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by
Mr. Ruppersberger:
Page 17, line 12, after ``The Secretary'' insert ``, in
consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local
officials,''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This bill is a good start that will help America in securing their
ports. This amendment will strengthen the bill and make our seaports
safer.
The legislation before us today instructs the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security to create maritime security centers.
These centers will bring together the Coast Guard, Customs, and Border
Patrol and, in many cases, the Navy, National Guard, and State and
local law enforcement. These centers integrate the technologies and
personnel of these agencies into one system.
This amendment directs the Secretary to consult with Federal, State,
and local officials on where these centers should be placed and what
should be the appropriate level of coordination. This provides a
critical link and an open dialogue with DHS.
Historically, there has been a lack of communication not only between
government agencies and the private sector but between various levels
of government. We can't let the lack of communication stop us from
securing our ports.
My concern is that this bill allows the Secretary of DHS to solely
determine where and to what level coordination must occur. He alone
will decide where the command centers will be located and who should be
a part of that team. My fear is that DHS will treat our 539 ports the
same.
The Port of Baltimore, which has not had a naval presence, does not
need the same amount of coordination with the Navy as the Port of L.A.-
Long Beach, with their large military deployments. DHS must gather
input from Navy, Coast Guard, Customs, Border Patrol, National Guard,
and local and State law enforcement. This amendment provides for and
requires this coordination.
Mr. Chairman, these maritime security centers should be created, but
they should be organized in a way that makes sense. A blanket policy or
a one-size-fits-all approach is not the best solution. This amendment
will bring all of the critical players to the table to determine where
these centers should be placed and how integrated they should be. All
ports do not need the same level of integration.
Mr. Chairman, we should be asking the Coast Guard, the Navy, Customs,
Border Patrol, the FBI, and every other group with a hand in port
security how they currently interact with other agencies and how we can
make improvements for the future. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
control the time in opposition to the amendment even though I am not
opposed.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. KING of New York. 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. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Debbie Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, we cannot overestimate the
importance and vulnerability of the maritime domain. Maritime security
involves hundreds of ports, thousands of miles of coastlines, tens of
thousands of commercial and private craft, and millions of shipping
containers. In addition, many major population centers and critical
infrastructure are in close proximity to U.S. ports or accessible by
waterways.
In the 20th District of Florida that I represent, our ports,
including Port Everglade in Ft. Lauderdale and the Port of Miami, serve
as an entryway to millions of tons of cargo and people each year. It is
clear that our country still needs an adequate overarching approach to
the challenges of maritime security.
{time} 1200
That is why I am standing today in support of the Ruppersberger
amendment. Security command centers are vital to the protection of our
ports and to the safety of all Americans. This
[[Page H2138]]
amendment would help make these centers more efficient, better
organized, and promote better coordination among the various entities
responsible for security.
This amendment just makes sense. Why wouldn't the Secretary of
Homeland Security seek input and advice from those most intimately
familiar with the specific mission and needs of a seaport? We must have
a broad and comprehensive maritime security strategy, and this
amendment is one step to help us get closer to that goal.
I urge my colleagues to support the Ruppersberger amendment on
security command centers. I am pleased that the chairman of the
committee is in favor of it as well.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Putnam). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Ruppersberger
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by
Mr. Ruppersberger:
Page 8, line 12, insert after ``as quickly as possible.''
the following new sentence: ``The protocols shall be
developed by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate
Federal, State, and local officials, including the Coast
Guard Captain of the Port involved in the transportation
security incident, and representatives of the maritime
industry.''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of an amendment that requires
the Secretary of DHS to consult with State and local agencies to create
a system to reopen the port. Congress should do everything possible to
prevent an incident from occurring at our seaports.
A major event would endanger countless Americans and stop commerce
for weeks. An attack on a U.S. port would result in economic damages
ranging from $58 billion to $1 trillion. The U.S. Coast Guard estimates
that for every month just one American port is closed, $60 billion in
revenue could be lost. We must do everything in our power to prevent
accidents and attacks on our ports.
This amendment brings all of the parties involved, the State and
local governments, the U.S. Coast Guard and the maritime industry, to
the table to create a plan for how to get our ports up and running
again in the case there is a terrorist attack or at any time commerce
is stopped at our ports.
Historically, there has been a lack of communication between
government agencies and the private sector, and also between various
levels of government. The security of our ports is too important to
allow that kind of limited information sharing. Congress needs to
ensure that all critical players, those players who know their ports
best, have a say in how to get the ports back in operation.
The bill currently allows for protocols to be established to
determine how Federal, State, and local agencies should work together.
But DHS is the only agency in the room making those decisions. There is
no representation from any other Federal agency other than DHS, no
State or local input, no input from the Coast Guard or those whose
livelihoods depend upon this maritime industry.
Currently, all the agencies and organizations and industries will be
under the sole direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security. They
will have to rely on the Secretary and hope that he will know their
agencies and industries well enough to know how and when they should
work together.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to leave port security up to just the DHS
Secretary. It makes sense that all the partners who have a vested
interest in getting the ports up and running sit down and determine how
they should work together before a crisis occurs.
This amendment plays a critical role in ensuring that the Secretary
of Homeland Security works together as a team with the appropriate
Federal, State, and local officials. I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
control the time in opposition to the amendment even though I am not
opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on this
amendment and also the previous amendment offered by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), the co-chair of the Port Security Caucus.
I strongly believe that security command centers are a vital piece of
the blueprint for the future of port security for our Nation.
I am proud to represent the Port of Charleston, South Carolina. It is
the fourth largest port in the Nation, and it is growing every day.
Within the Port of Charleston, we have our own security command center
called Project Seahawk.
Project Seahawk has brought Federal, State, and local officials into
the process to work together for a common cause, which is the safety of
the Port of the Charleston. Project Seahawk has proven to be a
tremendous success, and has helped eliminate the turf wars between the
many Federal, State, and local officials that have jurisdiction over
port security.
I strongly encourage my fellow colleagues to vote in favor of this
amendment sponsored by the gentleman from Maryland. I believe that by
incorporating security command centers as part of a broader port
security policy, we will have a strong plan for the future of how we
secure our Nation's ports.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to acknowledge and
thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown) for his involvement
as the co-chair of the Port Security Caucus. I again urge my colleagues
to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I speak in support of this amendment as a
member of the Port Security Caucus.
There is a port in my district, the Port of Beaumont, that ships out
one-third of the military cargo that goes to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Also, that port is largely responsible for 11 percent of the refinery
capacity in the United States.
Due to those concerns and the expertise of the people that run the
refineries, the people that run the port facilities, I think it is
imperative that we have input from local officials on how to secure the
safety of our ports. So I support this amendment in its entirety.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Cuellar
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by
Mr. Cuellar:
Page 44, after line 9, insert the following new section:
SEC. 127. REPORT ON SECURITY AND TRADE AT UNITED STATES LAND
PORTS.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
conduct a study on the challenges to balance the need for
greater security while maintaining the efficient flow of
trade at United States land ports.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report on the results
of the study required by subsection (a).
[[Page H2139]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank the chairman of the
Homeland Security Committee and the ranking member, Mr. Thompson, for
allowing me to present this particular amendment. I believe this
amendment is acceptable to both gentlemen.
Ensuring national security and promoting economic trade is critical
to our Nation's future. Balancing security aspects while maintaining
the efficient flow of trade at the United States land ports is
critical.
My amendment provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security look at
the challenges for implementing border security programs while not
hindering or negatively impacting the flow of trade and business at
land ports. This is critical to land ports because in 2004, for
example, the top 10 U.S. land ports for land trade with Canada and
Mexico totaled over $635 billion. Land ports handle more than 20,000
containers coming through international ports of entry every day.
The Port of Laredo in my hometown, for example, is the fourth busiest
port overall in the United States, and the Nation's busiest inland port
with $131 billion worth of goods and merchandise processed in 2004
alone.
The Transportation Bureau of Statistics report for Laredo for 2004
reveals crossings of over 1.4 million commercial trucks, 3,400 trains
with 317,000 containers, 38,000 buses, 4.5 million pedestrians, and 6.7
million private vehicles that cross the Laredo area.
These statistics show the urgent need to examine and address the
unique security challenges faced at land ports. H.R. 4954 is a good
bill, and I certainly support this bill. I hope we can add this
amendment, which is acceptable to both the chairman and the ranking
member.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
control the time in opposition even though I am not opposed to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. KING of New York. 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.
Mr. CUELLAR. Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman King and
Mr. Thompson, also, for working in a bipartisan approach. I ask for
approval of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Ryun of Kansas
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by
Mr. Ryun of Kansas:
Page 82, line 12, add at the end the following new
sentence: ``In carrying out this section, the Secretary's
evaluation shall include an analysis of battery powered
portable neutron and gamma-ray detection devices that can be
inexpensively mass produced.''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that will help us
find ways to identify and stop shipping containers that contain nuclear
material.
Section 202 of this bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security
to evaluate emerging technologies for container security. My amendment
simply stipulates that as part of the Secretary's evaluation of
emerging technology, he should analyze portable battery powered nuclear
detection devices that can be mass produced inexpensively.
We have a clear need to know what is in the containers coming into
our country. Many of the available technologies to screen nuclear
devices, however, are difficult and are very expensive.
To my knowledge, the Department of Homeland Security has focused on
detection devices that are large, expensive, use a large amount of
energy, and cannot easily be placed in or on a shipping container.
These technologies may work, but it may not be easy for them to be
used, and it may not be possible to procure enough of these types of
devices to examine shipping containers headed into our ports. That is
why we need to review emerging technology, including portable devices.
I know this type of technology exists because Kansas State University
in my district is doing some exciting research in this area. In fact,
they have developed nuclear detection devices that are the size of a
dime which they believe they can produce for about $20 each. These
types of devices are easily placed in shipping containers, and can be
used to detect nuclear material before it enters any port.
For this reason, it is prudent to ask the Secretary to thoroughly
review this type of technology. We all know that rogue nations and
terrorist cells may try at some point in the future to send nuclear
materials to our shores. In fact, Iran's pursuit of nuclear materials
makes the need to secure our shipping containers even more urgent.
This is a simple amendment that only asks the Secretary of Homeland
Security to examine portable nuclear detection devices when he
evaluates emerging technology. I ask my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Again, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
control the time even though I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. KING of New York. 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.
{time} 1215
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
[[Page H2140]]
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Hooley
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by
Ms. Hooley:
Page 66, beginning on line 5, strike ``detect unauthorized
intrusion of containers.'' and insert ``positively identify
containers and detect and record unauthorized intrusion of
containers. Such devices shall have false alarm rates that
have been demonstrated to be below one percent.''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the
gentlewoman from Oregon and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon.
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member.
Container Security Devices, or CSDs, represent a ``today'' solution
to secure the 14 million containers in circulation worldwide. The
technology has been developed in conjunction with Customs and Border
Protection and has been extensively tested and determined to be
reliable.
Container Security Devices are a vast improvement over the bolt seal,
which is the low-tech guard against tampering used today.
In addition to guarding against unauthorized container intrusions,
many CSDs will be able to provide a wealth of additional data to U.S.
Customs and DHS officials at U.S. ports. They can provide data on where
a container has traveled from, the ports it has traveled through, and
provide a unique, encrypted container ID.
Throughout its journey, the status of a CSD, tampered with or not,
can be verified.
The amendment I am offering today is simple and straightforward.
Currently, the bill, as written, simply defines a Container Security
Device as a ``mechanical or electronic device designed to detect
unauthorized intrusion of containers.''
My amendment changes that definition of a Container Security Device
so it accomplishes three things. It will require a CSD positively
identifies the container; that it detect and record any unauthorized
intrusion of the container; have a false alarm rate that is
demonstrated to be below 1 percent. Now, this is a minimum requirement.
As written right now, this bill doesn't put a minimum requirement for
the performances of container security devices.
Over the past year, DHS has conducted tests on multiple technologies
from multiple vendors that would be capable of tracking, monitoring and
securing containers against compromise. The Department has been very
clear that, before incorporating these devices into government-
sponsored programs, the device must meet a strict 1 percent false-
positive threshold.
In addition to DHS, a coalition of industry groups supports this
minimum requirement. The group includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Worldwide Shipping Council, National Customs Brokers and Forwarders
Association of America, Business Alliance for Customs Modernization,
and the American Trucking Association.
In the comments the coalition submitted to Senator Collins and
Senator Murray of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security on the
GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act, the companion bill to the SAFE
Port Act, they explicitly state, ``Only Container Security Devices that
meet the Department of Homeland Security's 99 percent false-positive
and overall reliability requirements should be deemed qualified under
this legislation.''
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I seek to obtain
the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
reluctant opposition because of some lack of clarity on this amendment,
and perhaps I can be relieved of my concern.
The gentlewoman, in her comments, suggested that the World Shipping
Council and the Pacific Maritime Association were in support of this
amendment. And yet I have a letter with a contrary conclusion, not
based on the fact that they object to the objective of the
gentlewoman's amendment but rather some concern that the gentlewoman's
amendment would be too restrictive in bringing us to the point of
having the best technology available as soon as possible.
As I understand the gentlewoman's amendment, it changes the
definition of Container Security Device from ``a mechanical or
electronic device designed to, at a minimum, detect unauthorized
intrusions of containers'' to, ``a mechanical or electronic device
designed to, at a minimum, positively identify containers and detect
and record unauthorized intrusion of containers'', and then goes on to
say, such devices shall have false alarm rates that have been
demonstrated to be below 1 percent.
In the letter that we received from the Coalition for Secure Ports,
they were concerned that the 1 percent false alarm rate may be
unacceptable, in that we have between 11 and 12 million containers
coming into the United States per year. If you had this device on all
of them, a 1 percent false alarm rate would create as many as 120,000
false security alarms in U.S. ports.
My concern is whether we are strait-jacketing the Secretary into
accepting a device, if, in fact, it reached that 1 percent false alarm
rate, or whether it would be at least 1 percent false alarm rate that
is the intention of the author.
Secondly, the question is whether or not the gentlewoman's language
requiring this to be a, ``device that positively identifies
containers,'' whether that would restrict this to RFID, or Radio
Frequency Identification, systems and not allow, for instance, optical
character recognition or similar systems.
If that is the gentlewoman's intent and if that is, in fact, the
impact of this amendment, I would have to oppose it, because it seems
to me it would restrict us to one particular type of device. And I
don't have the technology background to understand whether that one
device is the silver bullet in this area.
I understand that one manufacturer, GE, uses it. They think it works
well. But, as I understand, there are other manufacturers that are
trying to work in other areas.
So those are the concerns I have.
And with that, I would reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to answer the
gentleman's question.
First of all, there is a definition in this bill.
Secondly, it doesn't have a minimum standard.
Now, the 1 percent is what the Department of Homeland Security asked
for, that it is 99 percent accurate. However, it can be more than that.
It can be 99.2, 99.5. That is the very minimum that has to happen. So
it can go well beyond that.
Again, it is trying to make sure that you can take into account
anything that has either been developed or on the market today or will
be on the market so you have some flexibility and some competition
amongst the companies.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HOOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. So your intent in using the
language ``positively identify containers'' is not to eliminate the
possibility of optical character recognition or similar systems in
meeting this particular demand.
Ms. HOOLEY. No, it doesn't mandate that it needs to be an RFID
device. It doesn't mandate that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would just say that, with that
understanding that they do not have those limitations of which I have
concern, I would not object to this amendment. But I want to make it
clear that the record reflect, number one, that if the Secretary
believes we have to have a standard that is more precise than a 1
percent false alarm rate, that he have the discretion to do that.
Ms. HOOLEY. Absolutely.
[[Page H2141]]
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. And, secondly, that we are not
limiting this to RFID systems or similar systems to RFID, that other
systems of technology could also meet the gentlewoman's amendment.
Ms. HOOLEY. Correct.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, with that I yield
back the balance of my time.
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
offer the Stupak amendment at this time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may rise as the designee for the
Stupak amendment.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi:
Page 25, beginning on line 10, after ``including'' insert
the following: ``communications equipment that is
interoperable with Federal, State, and local agencies and''.
Page 25, line 17, insert at the end before the semicolon
the following: ``and to ensure that the mechanisms are
interoperable with Federal, State, and local agencies''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment
which will ensure that port security grant funds be used by ports to
purchase communication equipment that is interoperable with Federal,
State and local communication systems.
I have been in countless hearings in the Department of Homeland
Security Committee where first responders have told us how year after
year they have not been able to communicate with each other.
I have also heard testimony from the operators of critical
infrastructure such as hospitals affected by Hurricane Katrina who also
still cannot communicate with government officials in an emergency.
We have not yet had a terrorist attack on a port in the United
States, but I do not want to wait until one occurs to find out whether
port operators face similar challenges.
Allowing port security grants funds to be used by ports to build
interoperable communication systems will ensure that if an attack does
occur at a U.S. port we are ready for it.
As a result, Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition to this amendment even though I am not opposed to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the Subcommittee of
Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology, I rise in support of
this amendment.
When I came here to Washington and first participated in one of many
hearings on interoperability and operability, I learned from one of
witnesses that this has been a struggle that Congress has been mulling
over and struggling with more 10 years. And I interrupted the witness
and said, this has been a problem that first responders have been
struggling with for over 30 years.
{time} 1230
As a new police officer in 1972, interoperability and operability was
a huge problem for us and still is today. It is intolerable that first
responders are still struggling with this issue.
The current language in the bill provides that grants may be used to
purchase or upgrade equipment and to establish or enhance mechanisms
for sharing terrorism threat information. This amendment supplements
that language by providing that all equipment purchased be
interoperable with Federal, State, and local agencies. Additionally,
this amendment ensures mechanisms for sharing terrorism threat
information, that they be interoperable with all Federal, State, and
local agencies.
The Department of Homeland Security has already spent $2 billion in
moving this country forward to become interoperable. It is time that we
make this commitment.
I congratulate Mr. Stupak for bringing this amendment to the floor,
and I support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of
making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Stupak).
(Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank both the subcommittee Chair and
ranking member for taking care of this matter for me as I was trying to
get here from a committee as we are dealing with high fuel prices,
energy prices, gas prices. I just did not make it in time, but I
appreciate the assistance of the ranking member and chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that would add to the
Congress's efforts to strengthen communications interoperability.
The SAFE Port Act creates a new Port Security Grant Program. These
grants may be awarded for twelve different purposes, including
purchasing equipment and creating threat information systems.
My amendment makes two simple improvements to the bill. The amendment
requires that communications equipment authorized for purchase under
the Grant Program is interoperable with local, state, and federal
governments.
Second, my amendment would require that the ``mechanisms for sharing
terrorism threat information'' funded under these grants are also
interoperable with local, state, and federal agencies.
We know that the problem of interoperability has plagued this country
for too long. The lack of interoperability contributed to the death of
121 firefighters on September 11th. It contributed to the chaos after
Hurricane Katrina.
Our ports are vulnerable targets for attack. As we work to give our
ports the tools they need to prevent and respond to attacks, we must
ensure that port systems are interoperable with the federal, state, and
local agencies that work everyday with these ports.
Adding an interoperable standard to the equipment and threat
information systems authorized under these grants is consistent with
efforts by the Administration and Congress.
An interoperable communications standard is already required under
the Urban Area Securities Initiative, the State Homeland Security, and
the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Grant Programs.
I fear without this amendment we may have every port in the United
States purchasing equipment that does not communicate with local,
state, and federal officials on the ground. What good does this do the
next time there is a terrorist attack or natural disaster involving a
U.S. port?
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to add an interoperable
standard to the equipment and threat information systems authorized
under these grants.
This is a good bill that would be made better with the adoption of my
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Shays
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by
Mr. Shays:
Page 87, after line 12, insert the following new section:
SEC. 207. INTEGRATED CONTAINER INSPECTION SYSTEM PILOT
PROJECT.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a
pilot project at an overseas port similar to the Integrated
Container Inspection System being tested at the port in Hong
Kong.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
[[Page H2142]]
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The amendment I have introduced would require the Department of
Homeland Security to conduct a pilot project at an overseas port
similar to the Integrated Container Inspection System, ICIS, in Hong
Kong.
In Hong Kong, the second busiest port in the world behind Singapore,
the ICIS program scans every container of cargo at the two terminals of
the facility with advanced radiation and gamma-ray screening.
In Hong Kong, container trucks pass under two giant portals. The
first portal scans for radioactivity. The second portal uses gamma-ray
imaging to check for odd-sized objects that might conceal weapons. An
optical scanner retrieves the ID numbers on the container while a
computer integrates data into a database that could be accessed by
ports worldwide.
Since late 2004, this program has generated 1.4 million digital
profiles of outbound containers at the port. The ICIS system can scan
nearly 400 container trucks an hour and provide real-time data to help
identify suspicious cargo, all the while keeping detailed records of
what passes through the port.
It is not my intention, I want to point out, to limit this pilot
program to one company. I understand that Science Applications
International Corporation designed the ICIS program currently being run
in Hong Kong, but other companies have begun to develop similar
technology. In the text of my amendment, the language states the
program must be similar to the ICIS program, but it does not mandate
that it be the program developed by Science Applications International.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
control the time in opposition even though I am not opposed to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized
for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Shays for offering his amendment, and I
support his efforts to enhance our Nation's ability to detect the
movement of illicit nuclear material at foreign ports before it reaches
the United States.
Also, like the gentleman, I believe in testing and validating a
detection system's performance before we fund a large-scale deployment,
as a great deal of money can be wasted on systems that do not work as
advertised.
I believe the gentleman's amendment could be improved if we stipulate
that the technology tested in the pilot program goes beyond that which
has been used in the ICIS program in Hong Kong. We should look to
validate the performance of other more advanced systems, which I should
note is the goal of the language for a radiation detection pilot
program for high-volume domestic ports, which is already in this bill.
My hope is that the foreign pilot program in this amendment will be
strengthened by incorporating next-generation technology and that
coordination of this amendment with the domestic pilot program will be
considered during conference. This approach would, I believe, build
confidence among our foreign partners in the technology and help us
expand our detection capabilities around the globe.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LINDER. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to thank him for his keen
work on the subcommittee that oversees a good part of the issue and to
say that it would clearly be the intention of this amendment to do
that. I certainly will be advocating that the conference committee do
it. I know the chairman would and the main sponsor of this whole bill.
So I think we all agree it needs to happen, and I thank the gentleman
for pointing that out.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Connecticut for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. Many Democrats on the Homeland
Security Committee have been asking for a long time why DHS is not more
seriously looking at the ICIS system, and we have never gotten an
answer from them.
The ICIS system proves that we can scan every container leaving for
the U.S. without interrupting the flow of commerce. The Markey-Nadler
amendment would exactly use technology like this if it had been allowed
to have been debated here today. Unfortunately, we could not.
We cannot accept anything less than 100 percent container screening
coming into this country. So I am in support of Mr. Shays's amendment.
This at least moves us forward. It is unfortunate that we have to take
baby steps rather than giant steps. But for the sake of moving forward,
we support the amendment, and I compliment the gentleman from
Connecticut for offering the amendment.
Mr. KING of New York. 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. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to thank Mr. King, the chairman of the committee, for working
with both sides of the aisle and even working with members within his
own committee who sometimes have disagreements. He has done an
extraordinary job.
I also want to thank his staff that has been very patient in working
with all of us and then to particularly thank Mr. Lungren, who has kind
of taken this bill and marshaled it all along the way, has provided
opportunities for us to cosponsor and also to provide input into the
bill, to which he has allowed a tremendous amount of input, and I thank
him for that as well.
This is an excellent bill, and I think Congress should be proud of
it.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Bass
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 10 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by
Mr. Bass:
Page 26, after line 9, insert the following new subsection:
``(e) Reimbursement of Costs.--An applicant for a grant
under this section may petition the Secretary for the
reimbursement of the cost of any activity relating to
prevention (including detection) of, preparedness for,
response to, or recovery from acts of terrorism that is a
Federal duty and usually performed by a Federal agency, and
that is being performed by a State or local government (or
both) under agreement with a Federal agency. ''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the gentleman
from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank Chairman King and his staff of the Homeland Security
Committee and my own staff person, Jennifer Warren, for help on this.
[[Page H2143]]
This amendment would add another use of funds received under the new
port security grant program created in H.R. 4954. I fully support the
new grant program and want to emphasize that my amendment does nothing
to change the prioritization in which awards are granted for port
security that is based on risk and national economic strategic defense
considerations.
What my amendment would do is to allow a State or local agency to
petition the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to use
Federal funds from this program for any port security activity relating
to prevention, detection, preparedness, responsiveness, or recovery
from acts of terrorism that is a Federal duty usually performed by a
Federal agency.
Additionally, an agreement between the State and local organizations
and Federal agency would have to exist in order for the cost of
activities to be eligible for reimbursement. This proposed change would
allow State and local agencies to petition for reimbursement of
expenses such as salaries, overtime, maintenance, and other overhead
costs that a State or local agency is spending to perform the Federal
port security duties that would otherwise not be covered by the
existing language in the bill we have before us today.
I think it is really critical in ensuring that funds under this new
program will be eligible to go to more resources than just Federal
agencies. I will give you an example: in my home State of New
Hampshire, the Port of Portsmouth, it is a busy port. Although small,
it is busy. There is a nuclear power plant nearby, and the New
Hampshire Marine Patrol does a considerable amount of surveillance and
spends over $200,000 annually in additional costs relating to the port
security duties that would otherwise not have to be covered by the U.S.
Coast Guard. This is just one example.
The Port of Miami apparently has seen an increase in their
responsibilities of almost $12 million per year over the past 5 years
in annual operating security costs and has been advised by the U.S.
Coast Guard that they now may be responsible for waterborne
surveillance. So we do have situations in which those other than
Federal agencies do actually perform these responsibilities and should
be eligible for compensation under this bill.
So I hope that the committee will see fit to accept the bill and that
it will be made a part of this legislation. I urge the adoption of this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
control the time in opposition even though I am not opposed.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman will control
the time in opposition.
There was no objection.
Mr. KING of New York. 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.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman again for his
support, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 11 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by
Ms. Millender-McDonald:
Page 26, line 3, strike ``and''.
Page 26, line 9, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 26, after line 9, insert the following new paragraph:
``(13) to establish or enhance truck inspection stations
for seaports and communities with a high percentage of
container traffic in coordination with ports, States, and
local governments to enable seaport and highway security
around seaports.''.
Page 29, line 6, add at the end the following new sentence:
``Of the amount appropriated pursuant to the authorization of
appropriations under this paragraph for a fiscal year, up to
$20,000,000 is authorized to be made available to provide
grants for activities described in subsection (d)(13).''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Modification to Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
modify my amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
Modification Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald
Strike line 1 and all that follows and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
(13) for the purpose of enhancing supply-chain security at
truck inspection stations in or near high volume seaports in
coordination with States and local government.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
There was no objection.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, at this time let me thank
Chairman Lungren, the subcommittee Chair, as well as the full committee
Chair, Chairman King, for accepting this amendment and its
modification, along with the ranking member, Congressman Bennie
Thompson, for his guidance and advice during the process of all of
this.
{time} 1245
I am happy that this bill has language that was in a port security
bill that I had for the past 2 years that speaks to the multi-level
funding for larger port security projects.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment because I do represent the
region that has the largest port complex in the country and the third
largest in the world, and it is important that we enhance truck
inspection facilities located on trade corridors that lead to port
complexes that support a heavy volume of cargo containers.
In 2005, 11.4 million containers entered our country and traveled
along our interstate highway system. On average, that is an increase of
500,000 containers annually entering our country. In the Ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach, 80 percent of goods that come into this country
from the Pacific rim come through these ports, and 45 percent of
containerized goods come through these ports. So, Mr. Chairman, it is
important that we recognize the vital components in our efforts to
secure these ports, our trade corridors and our communities. It is
another layer of security. It is about securing the entire supply
chain.
In our ongoing efforts as a Nation to establish and maintain a
security infrastructure, this amendment does make sense. Truck
inspection facilities have the potential to integrate new technology
that will make our supply lines safer as well as more secure and
efficient. In short, truck inspection facilities have the potential to
be high-tech weight stations. More importantly, this is another tool in
the toolbox in ensuring that our ports and supply chains are secure.
Many of you have come out to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
and seen the Alameda Corridor. When trucks go down that Alameda
Corridor, we have to make sure they are secure and that the goods that
are being moved from that point to the point of distribution are safe
and secure. This is why this amendment is extremely important.
I will say that while I cannot go on as a cosponsor at this time,
given that I would have wanted to, this particular bill is
extraordinarily important for us and I support the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to obtain the time in opposition even though I do not oppose
this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Putnam). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to
congratulate the gentlewoman from Southern California for working with
us to modify the language of her original amendment so it achieves the
purpose to which she intends and is not objectionable in any way.
There is no doubt that we want to make sure that we have layers of
security, starting at the foreign ports,
[[Page H2144]]
through the period of time in which the containers are shipped, to just
outside our ports, in our ports, and then as the containers leave our
ports.
One of the things we have to do in this entire effort is to insert a
notion of uncertainty in the minds of would-be terrorists. One the ways
we do that is having layers of security all across the globe.
The gentlelady has suggested that we be explicit in our language with
respect to the possibility of utilizing another tool in our toolbox, as
she suggests, where we might be able to devise certain programs that
utilize facilities that may exist just outside the port for purposes of
looking at trucks for safety purposes, and we might be able to
incorporate the terrorist security review at that point as well. If in
conjunction with the authorities, local and state authorities, this
kind of a grant request is made, we want to make sure that the
Department of Homeland Security can, in fact, take a look at it. If it
seems to serve the purpose to which we are all dedicated, then it would
be allowed under this bill.
So I congratulate the gentlelady for introducing the bill. I also
congratulate her for representing my hometown, the place I was born and
lived in for 42 years.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, it is great to have my friend
who once served so admirably in the southern California area now being
a part and parcel of this bill that is just so vital. He knows, as I
know, that our California Highway Patrol commissioner is also amenable
to this bill as well.
Mr. Chairman, truck inspection stations will be a consolidation and
coordination of seaports, community and trade corridors, and both local
and state representatives are all in favor of this. I am very pleased
about this important amendment. I thank all of those, the chairmen and
the ranking members, for accepting this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), as modified.
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 32, line 11, strike ``and''.
Page 32, line 13, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 32, after line 13, insert the following new paragraph:
``(8) educates, trains, and involves populations of at-risk
neighborhoods around ports, including training on an annual
basis for neighborhoods to learn what to be watchful for in
order to be a `citizen corps', if necessary.''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, allow me to offer my
appreciation to the chairman of the full committee and the ranking
member of the full committee and Ms. Sanchez, Ms. Harman and Mr.
Lungren of California for the work that they have done on this
legislation. My good friend, Mr. Reichert from Washington, let me thank
you very much as we have had an opportunity to work together.
This bill is about port security. In securing the ports, the reason
is to prevent a horrific tragedy from occurring similar to the tragedy
of 9/11. We have come to understand that through containers, or ships
that are carrying containers, weapons of mass destruction, nuclear
materials, can be inserted into these particular items coming into our
ports and a horrific act of terror can occur, killing thousands.
Mr. Chairman, this chart shows an example of the Nation's ports, a
port that is surrounded by population, thriving neighborhoods,
neighborhoods which understand that they are surrounding a local asset
and a national asset. But they, too, deserve security and deserve
protection.
My amendment today, which I urge my colleagues to support, includes
communities in disaster preparedness by providing for an annual update
to the Homeland Security Training Program described in this bill. The
Port Security Training Program is designed for the purpose of enhancing
the capabilities of each of the Nation's commercial seaports to
prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate against and recover from
threatened or actual acts of terrorism, natural disasters and other
emergencies.
What I would say to you is, having visited a number of ports,
including the port in Washington, I am aware of its treasure to the
community and to the Nation, but I am also aware that it looks just
like this, populations surrounding our ports. So a danger to ports and
port security is a danger to our neighborhoods.
The amendment I offered today extends this training program to
include communities and neighborhoods in proximity to the seaports by
educating, training and involving populations at risk, neighborhoods
around the ports, including training on an annual basis, and, of
course, collaboration with our local authorities.
This is to include our neighborhoods in somewhat of a neighborhood
watch concept, continuing the idea of the citizen corps. It is a moral
public safety and public health imperative that we assist the public to
prepare for disasters in order to help facilitate response and relief.
The point is to be prepared. Local responders are not the only ones
who can help in time of need. They need help, and we are here to help
with them in the idea of collaborating with the port and our local
first responders.
While 44 percent of Americans say their neighborhood has a plan to
help reduce crime, only 13 percent report that they have a neighborhood
plan for disasters. Nearly two-thirds of respondents, 63 percent,
believe it is important for neighborhoods to have a way to work
together on emergency preparedness.
The Port of Houston, for example, is a 25-mile-long complex of public
and private facilities located just a few hours sailing time from the
Gulf of Mexico. The port is ranked first in the United States in
foreign waterborne commerce and second in total tonnage and sixth in
the world. The Port of Houston is made up of the Port Authority and the
150-plus private industrial companies along the ship channel.
Altogether, the Port Authority and its neighbors along the ship channel
are a large, vibrant community.
I say that, because of this vibrant community, there is a great need,
if you will, to provide this nexus in this bill to ensure this kind of
safety plan. I ask my colleagues to look and see this as a port in your
neighborhood and to join me in supporting the Jackson-Lee amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition to the amendment, even though I do not oppose it.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlelady for
offering this amendment during committee markup last week on the
underlying legislation. The committee added language that would
establish a port security training program.
Training is essential to our Nation's success in the war on terror.
It is imperative that our Nation's first responders, longshoremen,
seaport management and those in the private sector and others learn and
master the skills necessary to respond to a terrorist attack in our
Nation's ports, especially those involving weapons of mass destruction.
This current amendment will provide for the education and training of
persons in neighborhoods surrounding at-risk ports to learn what to be
watchful
[[Page H2145]]
for in order to be a citizen corps, if necessary.
As a former law enforcement officer for over 33 years and the current
Chair of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science and
Technology, I certainly appreciate the intent of this amendment.
While I generally support this amendment and am willing to accept it,
I do have a few reservations. I have concerns that this amendment could
potentially divert funds and training away from ports in favor of
establishing an ad hoc citizen corps. No determination has been made
that developing a citizen corps would be a more effective use of
resources. Moreover, unlike the port personnel, a proposed citizen
corps would not be a full-time service but only a used-as-necessary
service.
The amendment lends no guidance as to the level of training that
would be necessary, the function of the citizens corps or the
circumstances under which a citizens corps would be necessary.
While I believe port authorities should undoubtedly perform outreach
to affected neighborhoods, where appropriate, I am concerned about the
amendment that requires the training of citizens at the expense of most
crucial training for port personnel.
In addition, local law enforcement are currently responsible for
conducting outreach plans and for training and educating local
businesses and communities around our Nation's ports. While local law
enforcement currently work in coordination with our ports, this
amendment would take some authority away, I believe, from the local law
enforcement in conducting community outreach.
I therefore ask to work diligently with the gentlelady as we move
forward in this process to ensure communities surrounding our ports are
adequately involved without taking resources away from the training of
port personnel.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the distinguished ranking
member.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
gentlelady allowing me to speak in support of her amendment. We
absolutely need to work with communities around ports. Those
communities, just like other communities, are at risk, not only to what
comes into those communities but also many of the people who live in
the communities.
So we are happy to support the gentlelady's amendment. Citizen
preparedness is what we should be about. It is absolutely important. We
support the amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
ranking member, Mr. Reichert. Let me just say we want a seamless
connection on security and port security, working with local law
enforcement, working with the neighborhoods around the poverty and
working with port security. I look forward to working with you to
ensure that it is collaborative and that the resources are spent in a
balanced way for the port personnel but also in very effective outreach
methods that I have seen utilized around the country with effective
neighborhood and citizens corps, local first responders, as you have
served for a number of years, and, of course, port security. I ask my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the
gentlewoman, and certainly agree we need a seamless operation when it
comes to protecting this Nation's borders and ports. I think the
training and exercises in and around our port areas, including our
communities, is essential to the protection and the safety of the
citizens that live there, and again look forward to working with you
and appreciate you offering this amendment.
{time} 1300
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. We will work together. I ask my colleagues
to support this amendment to protect the neighborhoods that surround
our ports. Port security and secure neighborhoods.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support an
amendment I am offering that includes communities in disaster
preparedness by providing for an annual community update to the
Homeland Security Training program described in this bill.
The Port Security Training Program is designed for the purpose of
enhancing the capabilities of each of the Nation's commercial seaports
to prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from
threatened or actual acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other
emergencies.
The amendment I offer today extends this training program to include
communities and neighborhoods in proximity of the seaports by
educating, training, and involving populations of at-risk neighborhoods
around ports, including training on an annual basis to learn what to
watch for.
Many communities across the country also have a ``Neighborhood
Watch'' program that teaches citizens to watch for suspicious activity
or other signs of danger. This amendment provides for a similar
``citizens corps'' preparation in anticipation of a national security
threat. The intent is to mimic the Citizen Corps initiative begun by
the White House and the Department of Homeland Security in 2002.
It is a moral, public safety and public health imperative that we
assist the public to prepare for disasters in order to help facilitate
response and relief.
The point is to be prepared. Local responders are not the only ones
who can help in a time of need.
While 44 percent of Americans say their neighborhood has a plan to
help reduce crime, only 13 percent report having a neighborhood plan
for disasters. Nearly two thirds of respondents, 63 percent, believe it
is important for neighborhoods to have a way to work together on
emergency preparedness.
The Port of Houston is a 25-mile-long complex of public and private
facilities located just a few hours' sailing time from the Gulf of
Mexico. The port is ranked first in the United States in foreign
waterborne commerce, second in total tonnage, and sixth in the world.
The Port of Houston is made up of the port authority and the 150-plus
private industrial companies along the ship channel. All together, the
port authority and its neighbors along the Houston Ship Channel are a
large and vibrant component to the regional economy.
About 200 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston in
2005. A total of 7,057 vessel calls were recorded at the Port of
Houston during the year 2003.
Economic studies reveal that ship channel-related businesses support
more than 287,000 direct and indirect jobs throughout Texas while
generating nearly $11 billion in economic impact. Additionally, more
than $649 million in state and local tax revenues are generated by
business activities related to the port. Approximately 87,000 jobs are
connected with the Port of Houston itself, and over 80 percent of those
people live in the Houston metropolitan area.
Centrally located on the gulf coast, Houston is a strategic gateway
for cargo originating in or destined for the U.S. West and Midwest.
Houston lies within close reach of one of the nation's largest
concentrations of consumers. More than 17 million people live within
300 miles of the city, and approximately 60 million live within 700
miles.
The danger is very real that we may be escorting a weapon of mass
destruction to its target. For every mile along the Houston Ship
Channel that dangerous cargo passes, an additional 2000 people are at
risk. Clearly, once the cargo reaches the city, the risk is greatest.
In 2002, the Department of Homeland Security established the Citizens
Corps initiative, and in 2004, over 1,000 communities around the
country, encompassing 40 percent of the U.S. population, had
established Citizen Corps Councils to help inform and train citizens in
emergency preparedness and to coordinate and expand opportunities for
citizen volunteers to participate in homeland security efforts and make
our communities safer.
Fifty-two States and territories have formed state level Citizen
Corps Councils to support local efforts.
Maybe before the next disaster, our citizens can be aware and trained
to react effectively and timely, and perform as local responders
themselves. Support this amendment, and include the neighborhood in
disaster preparedness.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Weiner
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 13 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by
Mr. Weiner:
Page 29, after line 2, insert the following new subsection:
[[Page H2146]]
``(k) Quarterly Reports Required as a Condition of Homeland
Security Grants.--
``(1) Expenditure reports required.--As a condition of
receiving a grant under this section, the Secretary shall
require the grant recipient to submit quarterly reports to
the Secretary that describe each expenditure made by the
recipient using grant funds.
``(2) Deadline for reports.--Each report required under
paragraph (1) shall be submitted not later than 30 days after
the last day of a fiscal quarter and shall describe
expenditures made during that fiscal quarter.
``(3) Publication of expenditures.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than one week after receiving
a report under this subsection, the Secretary shall publish
and make publicly available on the Internet website of the
Department a description of each expenditure described in the
report.
``(B) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the requirement of
subparagraph (A) if the Secretary determines that it is in
the national security interests of the United States to do
so.''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Weiner) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I won't take the full balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we create in this bill a port grant program which
provides allocation to go to States and localities to take steps to
ensure homeland security around ports.
But frankly without this amendment, we will not really have any good
way of knowing how the moneys are being spent. We have learned through
grant programs in other elements of the homeland security bill that we
are finding that once States and localities get the money for these
grants, they are not spending them in a very wise way.
For example, when Converse, Texas, got funds for homeland security,
they used it to spend $3,000 for a trailer which was used to transport
lawn mowers to lawn mower drag races in that county.
We found that in Columbus, Ohio, over $7,000 was used to purchase
bullet-proof vests for dogs. In fact, when the Department of Homeland
Security Inspector General looked at one State, Indiana, to try find
out if the funds were being spent prudently, they found that the county
emergency preparedness coordinator had purchased a $30,000 emergency
hazardous material trailer truck that he was using as a commuter
vehicle back and forth to work.
We found out about a lot of these things not because the process was
transparent, but because often States and localities bragged about
them. My amendment would simply say, once we give the money, we have to
hear back from the States and localities how they spent it, allow
transparency to be the best disinfectant for boondoggles.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
control the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not
opposed.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Biggert). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. KING of New York. 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).
Mr. FOSSELLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will be very
brief in support of the amendment, but also the underlying legislation
which I think is a natural extension of where this country has gone
over the last several years as we seek to ensure the safety and
security of the American people.
We know that the most fundamental responsibility of our Federal
Government is to ensure the safety of its people and to protect and
ensure our National security. And clearly port security has been left
in limbo.
But not until today have we seen a more comprehensive and in a way
bipartisan approach that acknowledges that indeed we are vulnerable in
our ports. And events over the last couple of months obviously have
catapulted this to the top of the headlines, if you will.
But for someone who represents Staten Island and Brooklyn, proudly,
the mouth of New York-New Jersey Harbor, practically every cargo
container that comes and finds its way into the northeastern region
goes underneath the Verrazano Bridge. And I want to know, as much as I
can, that the people that I represent are safe and secure.
We recognize the importance of commerce. We recognize the importance
of jobs and what that cargo means to consumers across the country,
especially in New York and New Jersey and Connecticut and the
northeast. But that does not mean we have to keep safety at the door.
So I commend Chairman King and all of those Members who have worked
so diligently over the last couple of months to bring this bill to the
floor. I think, as I say, this is a natural extension to let those who
want to or are contemplating ways to wreak havoc on the American people
know that we are serious about protecting its people here, and that we
are going to do everything possible to ensure that cargo that comes
into our ports is safe and nonthreatening.
Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of our
time.
Mr. WEINER. Madam Chairman, I would point out to my colleagues that
under this legislation we are going to be considering, containers will
continue to come under all of the bridges in New York and the New
Jersey area unchecked, uninspected.
We had an opportunity in this House to have a discussion about
whether or not that was a desirable state of affairs, and we chose not
to have it. There is no reason, none whatsoever, why we should not have
it as the law of the land: any container, of the millions and millions
of containers that come here, should not be prescreened in their home
country before they arrive here.
We chose not to do it. We made a decision. It is not because the
technology does not exist. It is not because the desire does not exist.
It is not because of anything except our decision in this House not
even to have a discussion on it.
You know, there are concerns that have been raised. Is the technology
ready? The answer is, yes. Is it overly burdensome in cost? The answer
is, no. But that is what we have this Chamber for, to have a discussion
of these issues.
If there is one thing that makes Americans scratch their head about
port security, it is, are we leaving ourselves vulnerable to a
contaminated container with fissionable material, with nuclear
material, with just a bomb in there? And they say, check it. And we are
saying here, not only will we not do it, we will not even have a
discussion about whether we are going to do it.
And I think that is most regrettable. I think we should have had a
chance here today to vote up or down, should we screen containers or
not? And I think the answer would have been a bipartisan ``yes.''
But then again, the people who control this House say they will not
even debate it. So maybe there were going to be people on that side. We
have to assume then that they were going to vote ``no.''
But irrespective of that, this is too important an issue at least not
to debate in the context of this important bill.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
[[Page H2147]]
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 14 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by
Mr. Flake:
Page 21, line 5, insert ``REPEAL OF'' before ``PORT
SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM''.
Page 21, strike line 6 and all that follows through line 14
on page 29.
Page 29, strike line 15.
Page 29, line 16, redesignate paragraph (1) as subsection
(a).
Page 29, line 18, redesignate paragraph (2) as subsection
(b).
Page 37, strike line 23 and all that follows through line 2
on page 38.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, in 2005, the Ports of New York and New Jersey
received $6.7 million for port security. Seattle-Tacoma received $7.3
million, and the State of California received $33 million.
The Long Beach-L.A. port received $24.2 million alone from Homeland
Security. All of these came from Homeland Security grants. These funds
are also in addition to the funds raised by security fees charged by
these ports on shipping to pay for port homeland security costs.
This is a mechanism that the ports can use to cover their costs if
they need additional money. No major U.S. shipping port is not in
compliance with Coast Guard security requirements.
If $400 million is not to get them in compliance, I think we really
need to ask, what is it for? Now, the White House has some ideas on
this. They just released the ``Statement of Administration Policy.''
And the White House says: ``Given the significant resources dedicated
to port security today, and requested in the budget, the administration
believes that a new grant authorization would duplicate existing
authorities and may inhibit the administration's ability to target
resources most effectively to the sectors of the Nation's
infrastructure that face the highest risk.''
Rather than creating a new Federal homeland security grant program,
we need to first get control over the grant programs that we have. The
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) just listed some of the grants
that have been issued.
And it is simply appalling to see how this money is often being
spent. In Kentucky, an anti-terror grant was awarded to the State to
probe bingo halls. Over $500,000 was spent so that the Town of North
Pole, Alaska, could get security rescue and communications equipment.
In my home State of Arizona, the town of Peoria got a homeland
security grant to buy a tactical robot. In my own district, the City of
Apache Junction received nearly $300,000 for 19 traffic preemption
devices which are remote controls that change a street light from green
to red or red to green.
Madam Chairman, I am not saying that these things are not needed, but
I am saying that we ought to question whether it is the Federal
Government's responsibility to fund them or if this money ought to be
spent in areas with a greater threat.
I would submit that if we create this new program without first
getting ahold on the grant programs that we have, we are going to see
the same problems in port security. We are going to see grants
frittered away on things that we do not need, rather than things that
are truly a threat.
I simply do not believe there has been a clear case made as to why
the taxpayers should pay $400,000 for this new program given the
existence of all of the other programs as well.
Let me just restate. All major ports are in compliance with Coast
Guard security requirements. The President says that it is duplicative
and unnecessary and that $173 million has yet to be awarded from 2006
grants. The fiscal year 2007 budget includes $600 million for targeted
infrastructure protection grants which include ports.
Also I point out again that ports charge fees to the shippers. If
they believe and if they need to increase their security to come into
compliance, they can charge extra fees, as it should be. Then the users
are actually paying rather than the taxpayers as a whole and the money
will be far better spent.
Madam Chairman, I believe that we need this amendment. We ought to
have this amendment to have a little fiscal responsibility. Some may
say, this is just an authorization. It is not saying that we will
appropriate it. But as soon as we authorize it, then if we do not fully
appropriate for it, then we are accused of not fully funding the
program.
We are bitten by that all the time. I would say, let's step back now
and say, let's be as fiscally responsible as we can.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. 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).
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chairman, I oppose the Flake
amendment to eliminate the port security grant program in this bill.
The third largest port in the United States, Long Beach-Los Angeles, in
the first year after 9/11, the Federal Government actually spent $1.8
million to help them with their security.
The fact of the matter is that that local port, those two cities, put
up their money to fortify, to study, to think about, and to do
something about port security. The Federal Government basically was not
even there. $1.8 million.
Now I remind my colleagues in the House, we spend $1.5 billion a week
in Iraq. We have not stood up and done the right thing and protected
our critical infrastructure. That port when it is shut down, because we
have seen it, is about $2 billion worth of commerce a day. It is
thousands of jobs. It affects every city and every State in our Nation.
We need to have moneys directly going to port security.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, in response to that, the Long Beach Port
received $24.2 million, I believe, the following year from the Federal
Government. This is in addition to the moneys that they receive by
charging a fee on shipping.
The money that the Federal Government pays is minuscule compared to
that amount that comes charged by fee. What this amendment is about is
saying that as the President has said, as the White House has said, let
us target our homeland security money where it is actually needed.
When we continue to dole out money, these kinds of grants, the kind
of formula grants that we have, we continue to see the money spent in
ways like buying fitness facilities for fire departments or whatever
else.
We simply have higher priorities. And heaven knows, we have got a
tight budget and we ought to prioritize here.
{time} 1315
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Chairman, I just say in
response to the gentleman from Arizona, we have taken into
consideration concerns that he has expressed. We have implemented in
this bill an at-risk, that is a risk-based, assessment for grant
programs. Not everybody gets something.
Secondly, I would assure the gentleman that Apache Junction will not
get a grant under this program, nor any landlocked city in Kentucky.
This is a port bill.
The third thing I would say is this is based on the assessment by the
Coast Guard of what is necessary for the capital investment
improvements from a security standpoint for all the ports in the United
States. As a matter of fact, we only provide funds for half of the
amount that has been identified by the Coast Guard.
This is not one of those grant programs that lasts forever. We have a
6-year sunset on this, and we have a specified revenue stream in this
bill to take care of it. So I would suggest that we have looked at the
complaints that the gentleman has, but this is a particular area of
national security.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I like sunsets, everybody in Arizona likes
sunsets; but if we truly believe that this is really going to be
sunsetted,
[[Page H2148]]
then we are kidding ourselves, and if we spend $400 million on a grant
program that the President even says that we do not need here, then the
sun has set on fiscal responsibility.
Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the coauthor of the
legislation.
Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and
want to say to the amendment sponsor how much I admire him, how much I
agree with his point that growing debt and deficits are irresponsible;
but in this case, the dollars we are talking about are much smaller
than he may believe.
First of all, we are replacing an annual grant program that was
appropriated for $175 million last year. Second of all, we are using
existing Customs revenues, not new money, to fund what we are talking
about.
As he knows, our ports are vulnerable. Al Qaeda attacks us
asymmetrically. I admire his intent, I truly do, but I think he should
focus on programs that, in the end, will net out as less important and
will not cost America and American commerce the amounts of money that
it will cost if one of our ports has an explosion or one of our
containers contains a radioactive bomb.
I reluctantly oppose the amendment.
Mr. KING of New York. 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.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 15 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by
Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California:
Page 63, line 8, insert at the end the following new
sentence: ``Such benefits may not include reduced scores in
the Automated Targeting System.''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chairman, my amendment is a
very small and simple refinement to this piece of legislation, but I
think it is a very important refinement and will dramatically
strengthen the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program, or
what we call C-TPAT.
Currently, there are about 5,000 companies that have submitted
written security plans that Customs Border Protection has reviewed and
certified. This certification qualifies shippers to be fast-tracked
through our ports.
Here is the problem: of those 5,000 companies, only 1,200 have had
their plans validated, meaning that the Customs has actually gone to
those sites to ensure that what the company wrote they were doing about
security measures has actually been implemented.
Based on that practice, that means that there are 3,800 companies
whose security measures have not been validated, looked at, et cetera;
but they are receiving a lowered risk score, and this score is used to
determine whether containers will be subject to additional screening or
inspection.
There has been a lot of talk today about not giving ourselves and the
American people a false sense of security, but that is exactly what we
are doing. We are letting containers into our ports with a low
probability of inspection when we do not have the slightest idea that
the shipper has any real security measures in place.
The Sanchez amendment would stop the current practice of granting
risk score reductions for nonvalidated C-TPAT companies.
Now, some would argue that the C-TPAT members should receive a
benefit for just turning in a plan and that taking away the reduced
risk score for this nonvalidated member would take away their incentive
to participate in the program.
Well, think of it as you are driving along and you come to a toll
road and everybody's backed up to pay in cash and there is the fast
track. What is the incentive? You would definitely decide to purchase
if you are going to do this all the time every day, to take that lane.
So you would sign up for that program and put your money in the bank so
you can whiz by. It is the same thing. There is an incentive. The
incentive is that we get our Customs people to review your plan, and
then you get to go through the fast lane. We should not let these
companies have their cargo go through the fast lane when we have never
even checked if they have got a fence around, if they I have done
background checks on their people, if al Qaeda people are there or not,
et cetera. We need to go and take a look at that.
A reduction in their score is unacceptable until we have actually
visited and validated that their security measures are actually
happening. We need to trust C-TPAT companies; but as Ronald Reagan
always said, we must trust but we must verify.
C-TPAT is a security program, and security does not come from a
written rubber stamp plan. So I urge my colleagues to support this.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, with all due respect, I rise in opposition to this
amendment. Ms. Sanchez and I have worked together on this bill. We have
reached accommodations on a number of different issues. We support the
idea of the C-TPAT program. I certainly support her efforts to try and
strengthen the C-TPAT program. I certainly have supported and
incorporated in my bill the recommendation on her part that we allow
for third-party validators so that we can get the manpower necessary to
do the validations that are necessary in this program. However, I do
oppose her amendment because I think it would cut down on the
participation in this program.
One must understand that the C-TPAT program, Customs-Trade
Partnership Against Terrorism program, is
[[Page H2149]]
one that leverages industry cooperation to increase the security of the
global supply chain. It has three tiers: tier 1 being the lowest, tier
3 being the highest.
The gentlewoman suggests that any benefits that are recognized under
tier 1 to someone who has begun to participate in the program is
unnecessary and somehow undercuts the credibility of the program. I
would suggest that that is not true.
The conditions for obtaining the C-TPAT tier 1 status include that
prior to an importer being certified, the importer must complete a
comprehensive self-assessment of their current security practices,
gauged against the clearly defined and published minimum security
criteria.
If the security self-assessment completed by the importer reveals any
security deficiencies and requires a corrective action plan, admission
to the program and no benefits whatsoever are obtained unless those
deficiencies are addressed to the satisfaction of the Department.
Third, with the security self-assessment completed, and initially
identified deficiencies addressed, the Department again reviews for
sufficiency with the minimum security criteria and also vets the
importer through the law enforcement and trade databases, as well as
through the El Paso Intelligence Center, EPIC, for linkage to DEA and
other law enforcement databases. If the importer's security profile
demonstrates that the company is meeting the criteria, has positively
passed vetting, and has a successful importing record, only then will
the importer be certified as tier 1 and given a limited ATS score
reduction.
In response to the concerns raised by the gentlewoman from
California, we have incorporated into this bill penalties if, in fact,
it is shown that they did not participate in the process completely and
honestly; and, in fact, if they have had any misleading or false
information in their application, they are mandatorily barred from
participation in the program for 5 years. The reason why they get a
small benefit in terms of the rating by beginning in the program with
their application before they are fully certified is to give
encouragement to get them into the program to begin with. It is more
than just saying they are handing in a piece of paper. It is, in fact,
a document that requires a good deal of work on their part; and we want
to encourage participation in this program rather than discourage it.
C-TPAT is one of the layers, not the only one, but one of the layers
that we have of security in our multi-layered approach, and so I would
urge people to reject this amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Aside from the risk reduction score that C-TPAT companies get without
us verifying what they do and what they said they would do, there are a
whole lot of a series of other positives they get. They do not sit in
line for secondary inspections. That means they are not idling and
wasting their gas, et cetera. They get a lot, but the risk reduction to
the score I believe is too much.
Yes, we have a layered approach. We do not have a 100 percent look at
what is in those containers. So we should make sure that each layer is
done to the best of our ability, and we can do that by making this
small change.
As far as catching them afterwards, well, that is like telling my
teenage son that if he gives me a plan about how he is going to take
the driver's written test and a plan about how he is going to then
after he does that take the driving test, but he does not get around to
that for 2 years for the company to check, meanwhile he is on the
highway driving without ever having taken a test.
{time} 1330
It is the same thing. We haven't verified what we are doing, and this
terrorism issue is too important for us to ignore. I hope that my
colleagues will vote for the Sanchez amendment.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Chairman, again I would
suggest that it is important for us to retain the program as it exists,
for the Department to retain the discretion reward a small benefit to
the Tier 1 members by reducing their ATS score. They do not move to the
head of the line; they get to move up just a little bit. It is an
encouragement to participate in the program.
The only way I can help the gentlewoman by suggesting that penalties
do work is to suggest that deterrence does work. It is recognized in
just about every other aspect of our lives, including the criminal
justice system; and I don't know why she does not believe it will not
work here.
As a matter of fact, in response to the GAO report that she referred
to, the Department did reduce the amount of the ATS score reduction for
Tier 1 members, so they have responded to some concerns that they were
moving too far up the line. Not in front of the line, but too far up
the line.
They get a small, small benefit at the present time. It is an
incentive to participate in a voluntary program, which ultimately gives
us more information, has more people working with greater security than
they had before, and it helps us our a multi-layered approach.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chairman, I demand a
recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195,
noes 230, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 125]
AYES--195
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--230
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
[[Page H2150]]
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--7
Andrews
Evans
Frank (MA)
Lewis (GA)
Miller, George
Osborne
Slaughter
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are
2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1355
Messrs. BOREN, PICKERING and Otter changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. CUELLAR, BERMAN, OBERSTAR, RUPPERSBERGER and Ms. SCHWARTZ of
Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. There being no other amendments, the question is
on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Kline) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Biggert, Acting Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4954) to
improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced layered defenses,
and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 789, she reported
the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee
of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Nadler
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. NADLER. Yes, I am in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Nadler moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4954 to the
Committee on Homeland Security with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendments:
Page 51, strike line 16 and all that follows through line
25 on page 52.
Page 80, strike line 10 and all that follows through line
14.
Redesignate sections 202 through 206 of the bill as
sections 203 through 207, respectively.
Page 81, after line 23, insert the following new section:
SEC. 202. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO ENTRY OF CONTAINERS INTO
THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Requirements.--Section 70116 of title 46, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(c) Requirements Relating to Entry of Containers.--
``(1) In general.--A container may enter the United States,
either directly or via a foreign port, only if--
``(A) the container is scanned with equipment that meets
the standards established pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) and a
copy of the scan is provided to the Secretary; and
``(B) the container is secured with a seal that meets the
standards established pursuant to paragraph (2)(B), before
the container is loaded on the vessel for shipment to the
United States.
``(2) Standards for scanning equipment and seals.--
``(A) Scanning equipment.--The Secretary shall establish
standards for scanning equipment required to be used under
paragraph (1)(A) to ensure that such equipment uses the best-
available technology, including technology to scan a
container for radiation and density and, if appropriate, for
atomic elements.
``(B) Seals.--The Secretary shall establish standards for
seals required to be used under paragraph (1)(B) to ensure
that such seals use the best-available technology, including
technology to detect any breach into a container and identify
the time of such breach.
``(C) Review and revision.--The Secretary shall--
``(i) review and, if necessary, revise the standards
established pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and (B) not less
than once every two years; and
``(ii) ensure that any such revised standards require the
use of technology, as soon as such technology becomes
available, to--
``(I) identify the place of a breach into a container;
``(II) notify the Secretary of such breach before the
container enters the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United
States; and
``(III) track the time and location of the container during
transit to the United States, including by truck, rail, or
vessel.
``(D) Definition.--In subparagraph (C), the term `Exclusive
Economic Zone of the United States' has the meaning given the
term `Exclusive Economic Zone' in section 2101(10a) of this
title.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out section 70116(c) of title 46,
United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this
section, such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal
years 2007 through 2012.
(c) Regulations; Application.--
(1) Regulations.--
(A) Interim final rule.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
shall issue an interim final rule as a temporary regulation
to implement section 70116(c) of title 46, United States
Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section, not later
than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this
section, without regard to the provisions of chapter 5 of
title 5, United States Code.
(B) Final rule.--The Secretary shall issue a final rule as
a permanent regulation to implement section 70116(c) of title
46, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this
section, not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this section, in accordance with the provisions
of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code. The final rule
issued pursuant to that rulemaking may supersede the interim
final rule issued pursuant to subparagraph (A).
(2) Phased-in application.--
(A) In general.--The requirements of section 70116(c) of
title 46, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of
this section, apply with respect to any container entering
the United States, either directly or via a foreign port,
beginning on--
(i) the end of the 3-year period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act, in the case of a container loaded
on a vessel destined for the United States in a country in
which more than 75,000 twenty-foot equivalent units of
containers were loaded on vessels for shipping to the United
States in 2005; and
(ii) the end of the 5-year period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act, in the case of a container loaded
on a vessel destined for the United States in any other
country.
(B) Extension.--The Secretary may extend by up to one year
the period under clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A) for
containers loaded in a port, if the Secretary--
(i) finds that the scanning equipment required under
section 70116(c) of title 46, United States Code, as added by
subsection (a) of this section, is not available for purchase
and installation in the port; and
(ii) at least 60 days prior to issuing such extension,
transmits such finding to the appropriate congressional
committees.
(d) International Cargo Security Standards.--The Secretary,
in consultation with the Secretary of State, is encouraged to
promote and establish international standards
[[Page H2151]]
for the security of containers moving through the
international supply chain with foreign governments and
international organizations, including the International
Maritime Organization and the World Customs Organization.
(e) International Trade and Other Obligations.--In carrying
out section 70116(c) of title 46, United States Code, as
added by subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary shall
consult with appropriate Federal departments and agencies and
private sector stakeholders to ensure that actions under such
section do not violate international trade obligations or
other international obligations of the United States.
Mr. NADLER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion to recommit with the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and I thank him for his
efforts on this issue.
This is a reasonable bill, but none of it matters much if we don't at
least electronically scan every shipping container. All it takes is one
atomic or radiological bomb to make 9/11 look like a firecracker, to
kill hundreds of thousands of people, to cost hundreds of billions of
dollars, to bring commerce to a total halt for weeks or months while
every ship is searched by hand because we don't have in place the means
to scan every container.
{time} 1400
That is what this motion is about. If we really want to make this
country safer, we must demand that before any container is put on a
ship bound for the United States it must be scanned electronically in
the foreign port. It is too late if we find a nuclear bomb in Los
Angeles or New York.
The container must then be sealed with a seal that will tell us if it
is tampered with after it is scanned, and the results of the scan must
be transmitted electronically to people in the United States for
examination.
This motion is identical to an amendment that was unanimously agreed
to by Chairman Young and the entire Transportation Committee a month
ago. This is not a partisan issue, unless you choose to make it so by
voting ``no.''
They say the technology doesn't exist. The technology most certainly
does exist. It is installed right now in Hong Kong. The technology is
installed in Hong Kong now, except that the results of those scans are
stored on disks because no one at the Department of Homeland Security
can be bothered to read them.
The people who say we can't do this are the same people that told us
2 years ago that we couldn't get a bill of lading for every container
24 hours in advance, the same people who told us that if we searched
every passenger, the airports would be gridlocked, the planes would
never take off. Scanning every container is feasible, it is relatively
cheap, and it will not delay global commerce.
If we continue to rely solely on so-called risk-based strategy, the
terrorists will simply put the atomic bomb in a low-risk container from
Wal-Mart. The real risk is that a good company will have a container
with sneakers on a truck in Indonesia. On the way to a port, the driver
will stop for lunch; and while he is at lunch terrorists will take out
some sneakers and put in a bomb. And the bill of lading will be fine.
The question on this motion is, do we or do we not want to risk
American cities and American lives on the chairman's confidence in Wal-
Mart's paperwork?
Mr. Speaker, I yield now to a leader on this issue, Mr. Markey.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from New York for his great
leadership on this issue.
This recommital motion deals with the fatal flaw in the Republican
bill. They have refused to allow a vote on this House floor on this
issue. This is now the time for the Members to go on record to get real
about cargo security.
The threat is that, in the former Soviet Union, with all of the loose
nuclear material, that al Qaeda purchases a nuclear device, brings it
to a port in Asia, in Africa, in Europe, places it upon a ship. Using
the screening which the Republican party supports, the screening would
be a piece of paper. Oh, you look okay. You can bring it on to the
ship. No inspection, no scanning. That is what their bill does.
The Democratic substitute says that no container can be placed on a
ship coming to the United States which is not scanned for uranium, for
nuclear materials, for a nuclear bomb, for weapons of mass destruction.
The screening must be done overseas, and we must seal those
containers. We must scan and seal overseas so that we do not have to
duck and cover here in the United States. That is the risk that al
Qaeda has said they pose to us at the very top of their terrorist
target list.
The Republicans are basically saying they are going to put a ``Beware
of Dog'' sign out on the lawn but not purchase a dog, never do the
screening, never do the inspection, use a paperwork inspection instead.
This bill has a loophole big enough to drive a cargo container filled
with nuclear weapons material through it. This is an historic moment.
Here is the seal which the Republicans are still approving to be
placed upon a cargo container. This can be cut by a child's scissors,
ladies and gentlemen.
This is what should be placed upon each one of the containers after
they have been scanned, after they have been sealed, to make sure that
if it is tampered with an electronic signal goes to the Department of
Homeland Security.
The Republican party says no. The Republican party says they will use
paperwork instead of real, physical scanning of each and every cargo
container, knowing that it could have a nuclear weapon, knowing that
these nuclear materials have not been secured in the former Soviet
Union.
Vote ``aye'' on the recommital motion and protect the security of our
country from the single greatest threat that is posed to it. Vote
``aye'' on the recommital motion.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), the author of the legislation.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I came to this body
with many of you to make sure that we did what was necessary to protect
our constituents. I brought this bill to the floor, through the
subcommittee, committee and to the floor with that promise in mind.
This is not, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, a Republican
bill. This is, in fact, a bipartisan bill. Eighty cosponsors. Passed
our committee 29-0.
There is a dispute with respect to this particular technology, and I
might just refer you to the National Journal of this last week talking
about this very issue. It said, nice idea, but not very feasible with
current technology.
Eleven million containers are shipped to the U.S. ports each year. Of
those, U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel physically screen,
that means inspect, only about 6 percent, or 660,000.
It is a noble impulse, but, as a practical matter, it can't be
accomplished right now, said Jack Riley, Homeland Security expert with
Rand.
The key to being able to carry this out in the future is better
equipment that scans faster. That is what our bill does. It asks us to
accelerate our investigation into new technology. It mandates that the
Secretary, if, in fact, he finds that to be usable, practical,
adaptable, that he then negotiate with foreign countries to immediately
put it into place and, if they refuse, gives our President and our
Secretary the right to refuse to allow their cargo into the United
States. We don't put a time limit on it. We said as soon as it is
feasible to do it.
So as a great political philosopher, Don Meredith, once said, ``If
ifs and buts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas.''
We don't bring you a hope that cannot be fulfilled. We bring you a
promise that can be fulfilled in this bill. Please vote down this
motion to recommit.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset commend
Ranking
[[Page H2152]]
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.
Mr. MARKEY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr KING of New York. No, I will not yield. I did not interrupt you.
Mr. MARKEY. Mohammed Atta started in Boston, my friend. There were
Bostonians on that plane.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Mr. KING of New York. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 202,
nays 222, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 126]
YEAS--202
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--222
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Otter
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Andrews
Evans
Frank (MA)
Lewis (GA)
Miller, George
Osborne
Oxley
Slaughter
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1429
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
[[Page H2153]]
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 421,
noes 2, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 127]
AYES--421
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--2
Flake
Markey
NOT VOTING--9
Andrews
Evans
Frank (MA)
Gutknecht
Lewis (GA)
Miller, George
Osborne
Oxley
Slaughter
{time} 1438
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________