[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.
____________________