[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 124 (Thursday, September 28, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H7770-H7775]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4954, SECURITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR 
                             EVERY PORT ACT

  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4954) to improve maritime and 
cargo security through advanced layered defenses, and for other 
purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate 
amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.


       Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Thompson of Mississippi moves that the managers on the 
     part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes 
     of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 
     4954 be instructed to agree to the

[[Page H7771]]

     following provisions of the Senate amendment:
       (1) Title V (relating to the Rail Security Act of 2006).
       (2) Title VI (relating to the National Alert System).
       (3) Title VII (relating to mass transit security).
       (4) Title IX (relating to improved motor carrier, bus, and 
     hazardous material security).
       (5) The following sections of title XI:
       (A) Section 1101 (relating to certain TSA personnel 
     limitations not to apply).
       (B) Section 1102 (relating to the Rural Policing 
     Institute).
       (C) Section 1103 (relating to evacuation in emergencies).
       (D) Section 1104 (relating to health and safety during 
     disasters).
       (E) Section 1116 (relating to methamphetamine and 
     methamphetamine precursor chemicals).

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the motion to instruct be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Mississippi?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. King) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this motion to instruct 
conferees. By passing this motion, we will ensure that the House 
conferees take seriously our Nation's efforts to secure the national 
transportation infrastructure.
  We have seen a lot of piecemeal legislation coming out of the House 
of Representatives. Just last week, Republicans tried to shortchange 
the American people on border security by authorizing a fence without 
sufficient funds to build it. Some folks seem to think that piecemeal 
legislation will do just fine in time for the election. We have a 
chance here today to ensure that piecemeal and politics do not prevail 
over security and doing what is right by the American people.
  We have the choice: we can partially secure or fully secure the 
national transportation infrastructure. This choice should be a no-
brainer. That is why I encourage this body to support this motion to 
instruct. This motion incorporates many of the important security 
measures passed by the Senate, but neglected by the House.
  Among other things, Mr. Speaker, this motion would instruct conferees 
to support improvements to security for America's seaports and mass 
transit and rail systems. We know about the very real threat to our 
rail and mass transit systems. We remember what happened in Tokyo, 
Mumbai, London, and Spain. We mourn the hundreds of innocent civilians 
that have been killed and wounded by terrorist attacks on a major rail 
system.
  But despite all of this, Mr. Speaker, the 109th Congress has not 
adequately focused on rail and public transportation security. 
Similarly, the administration has not yet accepted that rail and public 
transportation is a Federal responsibility.
  At a congressional hearing on March 29, Tracey Henke of DHS told 
Members of Congress that ``aviation security by law is a Federal 
responsibility. That is not the case for transit security.'' Quite 
simply, this administration has flawed vision of securing America.
  The Senate has offered us a way to solve some of these issues, and 
the sensible thing to do is to support these solutions. It helps our 
communities for Congress to support vulnerability assessments for 
freight and passenger rail transportation.
  It is good policy to require the submission of prioritized 
recommendations for improving rail security in a report to Congress. It 
makes good sense for the government to use this information as a basis 
for allocating grants and establishing security improvement priorities, 
and it makes sense to study the costs and feasibility of required 
security screening for passengers, baggage, and cargo on passenger 
trains.
  It is also good for our Nation's security, Mr. Speaker, to create a 
rail security R&D program to improve freight and intercity passenger 
rail security. It makes sense to reduce the vulnerability of train 
stations and equipment to explosives and hazardous chemical, biological 
and radioactive substances.
  Democrats, Mr. Speaker, offered many of these provisions in the Rail 
and Public Transportation Security Act of 2006, and I am glad to see 
that they found their way to the floor today.
  Another transportation mode that we should instruct conferees on is 
aviation security. London officials thwarted the terrorist plot to 
destroy 10 planes bound for this country. Next time we might not be so 
lucky. We know that aviation remains a major target for terrorists, so 
we should absolutely ensure that the House conferees do not ignore 
improvements to aviation security. Anything less would shortchange our 
communities and their safety.
  This motion to instruct, Mr. Speaker, would instruct conferees to 
retain language adopted in the Senate that will ensure that TSA has 
enough screeners to keep our aviation system secure.

                              {time}  1700

  There is little justification for an arbitrary 45,000 screener cap. 
Such a cap ties the hands of TSA just as it is trying to expand its 
activities in the airport to include behavioral recognition and the 
checking of identification against boarding passes. TSA should not be 
boot-strapped by this arbitrary cap.
  The Senate approach of dealing with this issue is an important one 
that we should accept.
  In sum, Mr. Speaker, this motion instructs conferees to take a total 
and complete approach to transportation and maritime security. Mr. 
Speaker, we cannot continue to piecemeal security legislation. Just as 
we can't secure our borders with a small fence, we can't secure our 
homeland without focusing on all major threats. But how can we go back 
to our constituents and say we didn't secure America's transportation 
system when we had a chance? This body can do better, and this motion 
will make sure we put America's security first. I urge all Members to 
support it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion 
to instruct. But let me say at the outset that I commend the gentleman 
from Mississippi for the cooperation he has given throughout this 
legislative process.
  I want to commend Ms. Harman, Ms. Sanchez, and certainly Mr. Lungren, 
who are the prime movers of this legislation at the subcommittee and 
committee level.
  Several points have to be made. The first is port security bill is 
completed. None of the items referenced by the gentleman from 
Mississippi relate to port security. Port security matters have been 
resolved.
  Among other things, the port security legislation will provide $400 
million in grants for U.S. ports.
  It requires scanning of all containers coming to the U.S. for 
radiation at the Nation's 22 top ports, which covers 98 percent of 
containers entering the United States.
  It sets a firm timetable for implementing the Transportation Worker 
Identification Card, TWIC, and requires a pilot program to scan 100 
percent of cargo at three foreign seaports. Using the results of this 
pilot, the bill requires a widespread implementation.
  Mr. Speaker, many of the items or a number of the items referenced in 
the motion to instruct, taken by themselves, many Members on this side, 
including myself, would agree to. Also, for instance, with reference to 
title 6 in the National Alert System, we have reached agreement on 
that, and that will be included in the final legislation.
  On matters such as 1103, that is redundant in certain respects with 
the FEMA reforms which have been already approved by the conference 
committee and are included in the Homeland Security appropriations 
bill. There are other matters such as section 1104, which I strongly 
support and I am still hoping can be included in the final package. We 
are working toward that, and we are negotiating. There are other items 
also that are still on the table and we are trying to find accord on.
  Having said that, I think it is important to note, for instance, with 
the

[[Page H7772]]

transportation provisions that they even added on to the port security 
bill and yet in some cases they can be redundant. It should be noted, 
for instance, that through the transit security grant we have provided 
$375 million to the country's rail, mass transit, ferry, and inner city 
bus systems across the country and this year voted to appropriate $200 
million in grants specifically targeting mass transit agencies. Since 
9/11, we granted more than $11 billion, $11.5 billion, in homeland 
security assistance. Much of this has gone to transit.
  The point is, Mr. Speaker, if there were more time, there are a 
number of these items which I could support, I know many members of the 
committee on our side could support, but we cannot allow the perfect to 
be the enemy of the good.
  We have a port security bill. Those of us who went through the trauma 
of Dubai Ports know the way the country came to a fevered pitch, and 
rightly so, over the issue of our Nation's security. We have addressed 
that. We passed legislation on this floor by a vote of 421-2, 
legislation that was worked on at a tremendous pace by Mr. Lungren, Ms. 
Harman, Ms. Sanchez. That went through. It was a truly bipartisan 
effort.
  We have now reached the one-half yard line on that legislation. Let 
us not allow other issues, as important as they may be, to stop us from 
getting across the goal line with port security, comprehensive port 
security legislation which the American people have asked for. They 
demand it.
  We have satisfied that request. This is excellent legislation. It is 
bipartisan legislation. We should be all proud of it. Let us not allow 
other issues to impede that, especially when a number of those issues I 
believe still can be resolved. But we don't want to, again, put the 
final product in jeopardy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California, an original person promoting port 
security, Ms. Harman.
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for 
his enormous leadership as ranking member on the Homeland Security 
Committee. I am proud to serve on that committee.
  Mr. Speaker, nearly 6 months ago, I stood here with our colleagues 
and called the passage of H.R. 4954 by a vote of 421-2 a legislative 
miracle. I stand by those words today.
  Mr. Lungren and I co-authored the SAFE Port Act, and from the 
beginning it has been a collaborative and comprehensive effort, both 
bicameral and bipartisan. It has been, and I hope it will continue to 
be, an example of how Congress should work. I appreciate this 
bipartisan approach to port and container security, and I am gratified 
that this issue is finally getting the attention it deserves.
  Thanks should also go to the ranking member of the full committee, 
Mr. Thompson; the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Sanchez; the 
chairman of the full committee, Mr. King; and Chairman Lungren of the 
subcommittee, who showed by working together that the Homeland Security 
Committee is becoming a very significant committee in this Congress.
  But this is not the time, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate ourselves and 
rest on our laurels. It is the time to take the steps to make a law. 
And in the last days of the last week before we recess for this 
election, we have a chance to do that, but only if we compromise with 
the other body.
  As you heard from Mr. Thompson, this motion to instruct encourages us 
to take provisions in the other bill that reach for rail, mass transit, 
aviation, and related transportation modes beyond layered container 
security.
  I know, as the representative of residents around the Ports of L.A. 
and Long Beach, the largest container port complex in the country, that 
those containers go onto a semi-submerged rail bed and go all over the 
country. I know that my constituents use all these other modes of 
transportation. They know that they need to be safer, and that by 
reaching for responsible provisions in the Senate version of this bill, 
as this motion instructs us to do, we will get a law. We will also do 
what we came here to do and what this week of debate on various 
security bills was supposed to be about, and that is work together to 
make America safer.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
opposition to the motion to instruct, not because I disagree with the 
intent of the gentleman from Mississippi nor the other speakers on the 
other side, but rather, let's not screw up a good deal.
  We have worked very hard on a bipartisan basis to bring forth a major 
piece of legislation dealing with an area of the country that needs to 
be addressed, and that is port security. The name of the bill is the 
Safe Ports Bill. The Senate retained our number, retained the name; the 
guts of our bill is in this conference report that I believe we will 
complete before the end of today. And if we instruct conferees in this 
regard, frankly, we complicate the effort to reach a final conclusion.
  I am concerned about the area of rail and mass transit security. As a 
matter of fact, I held a hearing in our subcommittee today at the 
request of the ranking member, Ms. Sanchez, and the ranking member of 
the full committee, Mr. Thompson. I thought it was a good bipartisan 
examination of a number of issues that are out there.
  Some have suggested that the very fact that we had that hearing may 
have prompted some action on the part of DHS to put further attention 
to these areas. I was very proud of the fact that on a bipartisan basis 
we approached that issue, and we will continue to approach that issue, 
and I hope that we will continue in a bipartisan spirit to complete 
this action.
  As the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the full committee, 
has said, we are close to the goal line right now. It has been a lot of 
hard work by a lot of people on a bipartisan basis, starting with our 
staffs about a year ago. We reached across the aisle, and when we 
reached across the aisle we were met with open hands by the other side. 
We have worked together to complete a comprehensive response to the 
threat that exists or the vulnerability that exists at our ports.
  It is natural that, when you are attacked by air, that you initially 
respond to the area of attack. But we are 5 years after 9/11. We are 5 
years past the time when we can say that we don't know or didn't know 
or don't know now of the vulnerabilities that exist with respect to our 
ports.
  This is a major piece of legislation. This will be, when completed, a 
major achievement; and all I would say to my friends on the other side 
is, please join us ultimately in supporting this overall bill, as you 
have to this point.
  We will ask for a defeat of this motion to instruct not because of 
the spirit in which it is offered but because of the complications that 
it will create and the difficulties that will ensue. If you want to 
have a viable response to the concerns that have been raised about port 
security, vote against this motion to instruct so that we can get to 
the business of completing our action during our conference later 
today, so we can bring to the floor of this House within the next 24 
hours a completed bill, a bill that started in the House of 
Representatives, a bill that remains in the contours of what will be 
presented to the conference today, the guts of the bill that passed 
this House 421-2.
  When you have something that passes the House 421-2 you ought to 
learn to accept ``yes'' for an answer. This is a great piece of work 
that is going to be presented. It doesn't answer all the questions, but 
moves us in the proper direction. It puts into law or will put into law 
many of the things that were first started with this administration but 
which are not in law, which are not mandatory, which are not permanent, 
and it extends those. And ideas from both sides of the aisle were put 
into this bill and will come out of this conference when we complete 
action.
  So while I rise in opposition to the gentleman's motion to instruct, 
I do so in the spirit of cooperation that, once we get past this and 
once we get to the conference and once we come back with our completed 
conference report, we can all join together with another near unanimous 
vote for a safe ports piece of legislation.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to 
the

[[Page H7773]]

gentlewoman from Orange County, California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Thank you 
for all of your guidance and help in getting this bill to the point 
where it is, and also to Chairman King. This was done in a very 
bipartisan manner. I also want to thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee where I am the ranking member, which would be Mr. Lungren. 
And I rise in support of the Democratic motion to instruct conferees on 
H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act.
  Now, why would we have a motion to instruct that would include things 
about freight and about mass transit and surface transportation 
security? Well, the reason is that the Senate side is taking up those 
issues; and they are good issues.
  I mean, look how long it took us to get here to do port security. We 
should be just as concerned to do rail security, mass transit security, 
surface transportation security. As Ms. Harman said, when you get done 
with the port, the container keeps going through the neighborhood on 
trucks, it goes through in freight through the railroad tracks. So it 
doesn't stop at the port. We need to do it all.
  For example, today we held a hearing, as Chairman Lungren said, on a 
very important issue, the training for the security of transportation 
employees. Not the ones at the airport where we have done a lot of 
training, we have put a lot of money, but the ones for busses, mass 
transit, railroad, freight workers.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. Speaker, this was a very important hearing because things have 
happened on buses and trains, like Madrid and London. We need to ensure 
that transit and rail employees receive adequate training on how to 
recognize and report potential threats; how to protect themselves; and 
how to help us, the passengers, if there is a disaster going on; how 
they would respond in an incident.
  And there are other provisions in this motion to instruct: establish 
a national alert response system to ensure that populations are alerted 
if there is a serious threat; require the Department of Homeland 
Security to perform vulnerability assessments of freight and passenger 
rail and make recommendations on how to improve their security; and 
establish a program to increase the tracking and communications 
technology on trucks that carry hazardous materials.
  These are some of the critical issues that this motion to instruct 
encompasses. So all of this work, Mr. Thompson, Ms. Harman, myself, Mr. 
Lungren, Mr. King, is very important, and I am thrilled we are at this 
point.
  But we can add more, and it will be good. We cannot wait another 5 
years like we did with port security. We should do it now. I urge my 
colleagues to support improving rail, mass transit, surface 
transportation, and port security. Please vote for the motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Democratic motion 
to instruct conferees on the SAFE Port Act. The Republican leadership 
has failed to fix the Department of Homeland Security's grant system 
which just this week failed to provide the port of Oakland in 
California, the fourth busiest port in the country in the heart of the 
Bay Area, with any money at all to protect this vital national security 
and economic security asset.
  The most recent round of port security grant awards demonstrates the 
agencies' continued ignorance of the security needs of our Nation's 
ports, and the lack of a credible threat assessment by which to award 
funds.
  Of course, should we be surprised? This is the same agency that 
identified Old McDonald's Petting Zoo as a vulnerable national asset, 
but left the Empire State Building off the list as a logical target in 
need of funding support.
  We cannot do enough to protect our critical infrastructure in the 
United States; but without Ranking Member Thompson's motion to 
instruct, we will be leaving glaring vulnerabilities in our rail, 
subway, bus, and trucking systems.
  The Republican leadership has had many opportunities to address these 
issues, separate and apart from ports legislation, but it has failed to 
take our Nation's domestic security seriously.
  Today, through the motion to instruct, the House has the ability to 
show our absolute commitment to the safety and security of Americans 
who use our Nation's vital transportation systems. We should follow the 
leadership of the other body to secure our Nation's rail and transit 
systems, strengthen aviation security, secure the border, create a 
national warning and alert system, and provide first responders with 
post-disaster health monitoring.
  By supporting the Democratic motion to instruct conferees, we will 
get it right; and we will instruct the conferees to accept the Senate 
positions on these important issues. We should not let this opportunity 
to do better, to strengthen security, and assist first responders pass 
us by.
  Please support the Democratic motion to instruct.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).
  (Mr. RUPPERSBERGER asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to 
instruct conferees. As co-chair of the Congressional Port Security 
Caucus and a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
I cannot stress enough the importance of adequately securing our ports.
  The proposed sale of shipping operations to Dubai Ports World earlier 
this year was a wake-up call for this country, not because it would 
have jeopardized shipping operations here on the ground. Our 
longshoremen, terminal operators, Coast Guard, Customs and Border 
Patrol will do a great job no matter what company manages shipping 
operations. The Dubai deal was an eye opener because it did just that, 
it put the spotlight on our ports and showed the vulnerabilities that 
America could no longer ignore. The UAE spends a huge amount of money 
on securing its Dubai ports, and their ports are the safest in the 
world. The Dubai ports are safe because of the money invested in their 
ports and because they make their ports a priority.
  We have not paid sufficient attention to our ports. We have not made 
our ports a priority. There are 539 ports in this country, making them 
an economic engine for America. The Port of Baltimore, which I 
represent, alone handles about 400,000 containers each year. A major 
event at a port would result in economic damages ranging from $58 
billion to $1 trillion.
  With so much at stake for our safety and economy, it is essential 
that we know what is coming in through our ports, where it came from, 
and who is sending it. Ironically, Dubai Ports World's failed attempt 
to take over shipping operations here in America was what finally got 
our country to focus on securing our ports. The SAFE Port/GreenLanes 
bill is a critical piece of legislation and a bipartisan effort. It is 
a comprehensive first step to make our ports safer. We must make port 
security a high priority.
  I strongly support moving this bill through Congress.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I thank him for his excellent work on this legislation.
  I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees offered by Mr. 
Thompson.
  Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission determined that the risk of maritime 
terrorism is at least as great if not greater than the risk of 
terrorism involving civilian aviation. We know that terrorists around 
the world want to obtain a nuclear bomb. We know that their plot 
includes an attempt to purchase a nuclear bomb in the former Soviet 
Union,

[[Page H7774]]

to transport that nuclear bomb to a port around the world, to place 
that nuclear bomb in a container on a ship, and then to bring that 
container on that ship to a port in the United States where that 
nuclear bomb can be detonated by remote control before that nuclear 
bomb is ever taken off that ship.
  The majority is happy that they are going to screen once they reach 
the port in the United States. By then it is too late. The bomb can be 
detonated while it still is on the ship. That is our nightmare 
scenario. And that is something that the majority Republican Party has 
refused to put in place as a protection against this ultimate al Qaeda 
attack upon our country.
  They support screening after it reaches the United States. They 
support having a demonstration project around the world. But as late as 
2 days ago in the Homeland Security Committee hearing, Secretary 
Chertoff once again repeated the Bush administration policy, the 
Republican policy, that they do not support the mandatory screening of 
all cargo for nuclear bombs overseas, which is the 9/11 Commission 
report finding, that that is where the protection should be put in 
place.
  So that is our problem. What we will do is we will have a ship with a 
container in Africa, in Europe, in Asia, and one of those containers 
will have had a nuclear bomb slipped into it. And then that ship, 
because there is no scanning for nuclear bombs around the world, that 
ship then heads for a port in the United States.
  We would not be talking about losing 3,000 people or 5,000 people. We 
would be talking about losing tens or hundreds of thousands of 
Americans in that nuclear explosion.
  If we don't scan for a nuclear bomb overseas, we can't be sure. If we 
don't scan and seal these containers overseas, then the United States 
will have to once again reinstitute a policy of duck and cover here in 
America with Americans learning how to protect themselves in the event 
of a nuclear bomb.
  The bomb is not going to be delivered by an airplane or some 
submarine attack. Al Qaeda doesn't have that kind of capacity. This is 
the way in which the nuclear bomb is most likely to come into our 
country. It is an opening that is too big. It should be closed. The 
Republican majority just wants to use paperwork screening. It is almost 
like saying that they are going to check everyone of us at an airport 
in the United States, but having checked our paperwork they say, Get on 
the plane, you don't have to let us look at your bags. You don't have 
to show us your bags, take off your shoes, go right on the plane. Get 
on the plane. Thanks for showing us your paperwork.
  We in America will never be happy with that, but that is what their 
policy is for nuclear bombs. Show us the paperwork. We are not going to 
actually check the inside of the container. We are not going to screen; 
we are not going to scan. We are going to screen your paperwork; we are 
not going to screen the container.
  Can you imagine that as a policy for airlines in the United States? 
We are going to screen your paperwork before you get on the plane, but 
not screen you or your bags or computer to make sure that you are not 
going to blow up the plane. It just won't happen post-9/11.
  Here is the huge opening. This is something that the Republican 
administration continues to listen too closely to the cargo industry 
and the shipping industry rather than to the real security interests of 
the American people.
  I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for his leadership on these 
issues.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I will just make several remarks 
before I reserve the balance of my time.
  With reference to the gentleman from Massachusetts, unfortunately 
nothing he said in his statement relates to the motion to instruct. If 
he had read our bill and read the motion to instruct, he would know 
that nothing he said was germane to the motion to instruct.
  Secondly, as to the issue of bipartisanship and 100 percent 
screening, I would also advise the gentleman that the language that is 
adopted in the SAFE Ports Act which is going to conference was the 
language proposed by Democrats in the Senate which provides for three 
pilot projects of 100 percent screening at three foreign ports. So we 
are adopting Democratic language. We had one in ours, and they had 
three in theirs. We are accepting the three. To me that is the essence 
of bipartisanship.
  With that, I would have to dismiss the comments of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for 
a very instructive motion to instruct.
  I would say to the chairman that we have worked together on this 
committee as best that we could in a bipartisan manner.
  But let me tell you why I think this motion to instruct is 
particularly important. And I was drawn to the floor, I had a bill on 
the floor and several meetings, at the same time as several committee 
hearings that had to do with rail security. I believe the Committee on 
Homeland Security, of which I am a member, knows that this is an 
important issue. But we are operating against a backdrop of a 
Department that questions whether or not this is an important challenge 
that we have to face.
  I respect, Mr. Thompson, the fact that the leadership of our 
Department may have a different view from us.

                              {time}  1730

  But the Secretary recently said in the last year that the truth of 
the matter is that a fully loaded airplane with jet fuel, a commercial 
airliner, has the capacity to kill 3,000 people, but a bomb in a subway 
may kill only 30. I do not know how many of us are experts on the type 
of bomb or the type of transit that may be impacted, but I think that 
narrow view of rail security brings us to where we are today. That is 
why this motion to instruct is so important, because we have an 
atmosphere and a sense at the Homeland Security Department that rail 
security or the devastation that could occur by attacking, whether it 
is Amtrak or whether it is a subway or some other form of rail, that it 
is not serious.
  Let me tell you why it is serious. I live in Houston, Texas, and the 
symbol for Houston is the crossing of two railroads. We are a railroad 
town, and that means that all throughout my district and all throughout 
my neighborhoods are railroad tracks that then have the opportunity for 
a cargo train or a passenger train to travel right next to a 
residential house. My husband might not care for me to say it, but he 
says he went to sleep with the railroad ring in his ears because his 
original home was near the railroad tracks.
  So this motion to instruct is crucial to save lives, because it would 
authorize $3.5 billion for a mass transit security grant program and 
$1.2 billion for freight and passenger rail security.
  Why can't we take the Senate bill? There are large populations that 
are impacted by rail transportation and/or cargo. The Assistant 
Secretary for Homeland Security told Congress just in March of this 
year that aviation security by law is a Federal responsibility. That is 
not the case with transit security. And he ends it at that.
  But homeland security is a Federal responsibility; and, therefore, I 
would argue that the reasonableness of the distinguished gentleman from 
Mississippi's motion to instruct is an important step towards 
recognizing that rail and mass transit can be vulnerable. And I cite 
which has already been cited: Worldwide terrorist attacks on trains 
average 30 per year. The 9/11 Commission noted that rail and mass 
transit are particularly vulnerable, and our workers on mass transit 
are saying that as well.
  So I simply want to applaud the gentleman and ask that my colleagues 
support this and realize that we have a challenge and that the reason 
why Congress has to act is because we need to instruct the Executive 
that we do have a problem because leadership at the Homeland Security 
Department has

[[Page H7775]]

said, one, ``It's not my job.'' We have heard that. And, two, ``Don't 
worry about it; only two or three are going to be lost.''
  Well, I would simply say to my good friends at the Homeland Security 
Department, come to Houston, Texas, and weave your way through 
neighborhoods that are at the high economic level and low, and you will 
find that it would result in a terrible, horrific tragedy, Mr. Speaker, 
if there was a rail catastrophe.
  I ask my colleagues to support the motion to instruct to provide real 
rail security.
  I rise in strong support of the Motion to Instruct Conferees to 
accept the Senate amendments to H.R. 5494 the ``SAFE Port Act.'' I 
particularly wish to thank the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. 
Thompson, the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee, for 
introducing this important and much needed motion.
  The SAFE Port Act, H.R. 4954, was reported out by the Homeland 
Security Committee and passed by the House in May of this year. On 
balance, the SAFE Port Act is a good bill but it only addresses port 
and shipping container security. The Senate bill contains similar port 
security provisions, but also includes several provisions which will 
have the salutary effect of substantially enhancing the safety and 
security of America's rail, subway, buses and trucking systems. The 
Senate bill also strengthens aviation security, border security, and 
creates a National Warning and Alert System which provides first 
responders with post-disaster health monitoring.
  Mr. Speaker, the House Republican Leadership has had many 
opportunities to address these security issues, but it has failed to do 
so. The time for action has long since passed. We need a new direction. 
We need a new approach. It is time for action and a new approach. The 
Senate bill is a bipartisan step in the right direction. We should take 
advantage of this opportunity to strengthen security and assist first 
responders. The final Conference Report should reflect the Senate's 
positions on rail, mass transit, and border security; and warning and 
alert systems.
  Mr. Speaker, unlike the House, the Senate approved an amendment that 
would authorize $3.5 billion for mass transit security grant programs 
and $1.2 billion for freight and passenger rail security. This is 
reason alone to instruct the Conferees to accede to the Senate position 
on mass transit and rail security.
  America's rail and mass transit systems remain vulnerable on the 
watch of the House Republican leadership. We need a new direction. 
Consider the following: Worldwide Terrorist Attacks on Trains Average 
30 Per Year; The 9/11 Commission Noted That Rail and Mass Transit Are 
Particularly Vulnerable; International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) 
Found a Lack of Security Along Railroad Tracks and in Rail Yards Across 
the County; Mass Transit Becomes More Vulnerable to Terrorist Attack as 
Airline Security Improves.


                    Rail Security in the Senate Bill

  The Senate bill also advances the ball on meaningful rail security by 
requiring the Departments of Homeland Security and Transportation to 
conduct vulnerability assessments for freight and passenger rail 
systems. The bill authorizes $5 million in FY 2007 to carry out this 
requirement.
  Without any requirements that these agencies conduct comprehensive 
reviews of rail security, how can we move in a meaningful direction to 
protecting America's rail systems?
  This bill also authorizes for fiscal years 2007-2010 critical fire 
and life-safety improvements to Amtrak tunnels on the Northeast 
Corridor in New York City, New York ($470 million); Baltimore, Maryland 
($47 million); and Washington, DC ($32 million). This money will be 
spent specifically on communication, lighting, and passenger egress 
upgrades. If a terrorist attack were to occur in these cities, it is 
vitally important that riders be able to successfully leave the 
tunnels--this could mean the difference between life and death.
  The Senate bill authorizes $350 million for FY 2007 for security 
grants to freight railroad, Alaska Railroad, hazardous materials 
shippers and AMTRAK. This is badly needed funding and not just lip-
service about rail security.
  This bill also requires that hazardous material shippers create and 
implement threat mitigation plans to be reviewed by the Departments of 
Homeland Security and Transportation.
  Research and development is also important component in making sure 
that our rail systems are secure. This bill authorizes $50 million in 
fiscal years 2007 and 2008. The money will be used to test new 
emergency response techniques and technologies; develop improved 
freight technologies; and test wayside detectors.
  Rail employees are the vital eyes and ears of the system. They will 
be the first ones to know if there is a problem. However, they must be 
protected. The Senate bill provides them with whistleblower protections 
in order to ensure that they won't be penalized for reporting problems.
  These are just some of the reasons I support the Motion to Instruct 
Conferees to accede to the Senate position on the SAFE Port Act, H.R. 
5494. I urge my colleagues to join me. I yield back the remainder of my 
time. Thank you.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to close on our side very briefly.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the motion to instruct. I strongly 
support the underlying bill.
  The bottom line is we are in full agreement on a port security bill 
and that is what this is all about. It is a port security bill which 
would provide $400 million in port security grants. It sets up a risk-
based formula for those grants. It establishes a domestic nuclear 
detection office. It sets up three pilot projects overseas with 100 
percent scanning. It is a bipartisan bill. The underlying bill passed 
this House by a vote of 421-2.
  We have carried it this far. Let us not let the perfect be the enemy 
of the good. I respect the gentleman. I respect his motion. But at this 
stage I say let us go on to the conference. Let us do what has to be 
done. Let us put an end to the entire crisis which resulted out of the 
Dubai Ports issue. Let us show the American people we can get the job 
done. Let us finish it. Let us go to conference.
  With that I urge defeat of the motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  This motion to recommit with instructions is clearly intended to make 
the bill better. We clearly have rail and safety issues still 
outstanding. What I have tried to prepare for Congress is an 
opportunity to get it right. Piecemealing is not the way to go. We 
absolutely can fix it right here, right now with this motion to 
instruct. If we do it, we can all go home feeling that America will be 
safer. If we don't, we leave substantial work yet to be done.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________