[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H8026-H8038]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4954, SAFE PORT ACT
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1064,
I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4954) to improve
maritime and cargo security through enhanced layered defenses, and for
other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1064, the
conference report is considered read.
[For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
today.]
[[Page H8027]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong support of the conference
report on H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act.
This is a night of a true success in the area of homeland security
and port security. This is an issue which the country was focused on
earlier this year with the whole Dubai Ports issue. It is an issue
which the Homeland Security Committee addressed head on. We passed the
bill out of committee. It passed the full House floor by a vote of 421-
2; and now we are here tonight, Mr. Speaker, for final passage.
Let me at the outset commend the ranking member of the committee, Mr.
Thompson of Mississippi, for the tremendous cooperation that he gave
throughout the committee process on this bill; Subcommittee Chairman
Lungren on our side for his work, the leadership he demonstrated; and
also Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Harman. This was definitely and truly a
bipartisan effort, and we are here tonight because both parties came
together, we worked together, we realized the importance of this. We
realized that homeland security should not be a partisan issue.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go on at great length, but I will
give just some of the highlights of the bill. It provides $400 million
a year in dedicated port security grant programs, three pilot programs
for 100 percent screening for nuclear and radiological material. It
enhances the Container Security Initiative, CSI. It codifies and
strengthens CTPAT. It also establishes the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office. It also sets deadlines for TWIC.
Mr. Speaker, this is legislation which encompasses so much of the
issues that we have to address with port security. It is legislation
whose time has come. It is legislation which makes our country safer or
makes our ports more secure. It will enable the commerce of the country
to go forward. And it is a bill which distinctly addresses the concerns
raised by the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, once again we are here on the floor debating another
security bill that will not fully secure America. This bill does a lot
to strengthen port security, but it leaves a number of glaring gaps.
I want to thank Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Harman. They are the chief
architects of the best ideas in this bill. They have been true
champions on port security since the early days of this committee. I
want to thank Mr. Lungren and Mr. King for working with us on this bill
on a bipartisan basis, although I was very disappointed that this
process broke down in the last few days.
Additionally, Homeland Security staff on both sides of the aisle made
sure the process was an inclusive one. We heard positive insight from
industry, first responders, port security experts. I appreciate all of
them for their help.
But despite all our efforts, at the end of the day this measure falls
short. Once again House Republicans have turned their back on everyday
working folks who rely on buses and trains to get to work. When offered
an opportunity by the Senate to secure our mass transit and rail
security, they chose to do nothing.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, this port bill has become just another
act in the play the House Republicans have billed as ``homeland
security'' month. They could have offered America a star performance,
and instead, Mr. Speaker, they delivered mediocrity.
Let me serve as a narrator of this story for a few moments:
Act one, protecting ponies. The week before the fifth anniversary of
9/11, the House leadership was more concerned about protecting horses
than protecting our ports.
Act two, border security. Thinking good fences make good neighbors,
they squandered the little time we had left in this session to revote a
fence bill. As the Senate passes the fence bill tonight, Americans
should feel safe in their homes. America will have a 700-mile fence
across the U.S.-Mexico border.
Well, Mr. Speaker, not really. The appropriations bill we passed
today paid for barely half of that fence. I am sure terrorists and
others crossing the border are quivering in their boots at this half-
baked half fence.
Let us move to act three, FEMA. The Committee on Homeland Security
tried to fix FEMA and give first responders the interoperability they
needed. Instead of fully funding the reorganization, Republicans chose
to do ``FEMA on the cheap,'' leaving our police, firefighters, and EMTs
without the ability to talk to one another.
{time} 2315
And here we are at this late hour beginning act four, the closing act
in this political comedy, port security. H.R. 4954, as passed by the
House, was a good bill overall. The Senate improved upon the bill by,
among other things, addressing rail and mass transit security.
Unfortunately, this sham conference process denied consideration of the
Senate ideas as well as Democratic amendments to better protect our
Nation. And that, after this body overwhelmingly approved my motion to
instruct the conferees to accept the Senate position on rail and mass
transit security, the conference Chair denied the will of this body.
Why do not the Republicans want to eliminate this critical
vulnerability now? We have the time. So why not now?
The American people would much rather see this body work through the
night to get homeland security right than go home to run for
reelections. Instead of calling this month Homeland Security Month, we
should rename it Amateur Hour Month, because that is all we have seen
from this Congress.
While I have enormous issues with the process and the scope of this
bill, Mr. Speaker, I still intend to vote for it. I make this pledge.
In the next Congress, we will absolutely be back here to finish the job
and get homeland security right.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just note that I was listening very carefully to
the gentleman's remarks, and I really heard nothing at all critical of
the port security bill. We are talking about other bills that maybe
should be covered or other items. The fact is, on the issue of port
security, this is the port security bill. It did receive wide
bipartisan support. And I think, rather than go on extraneous issues
and talking and talking about fences, we are talking about port
security.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the prime sponsor
of the port security bill, the gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the chairman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman King for his leadership,
Ranking Member Thompson, the ranking member of my subcommittee, Ms.
Sanchez, and Congresswoman Harman for all of the hard work in passing
this important bill to protect our ports.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that I guess I must have gotten very tired
tonight, because I think I misheard my good friend, Mr. Thompson, in
his description of this bill and about some play we are at.
I remember act one, act two, act three being consultation with the
other side. I remember working very closely with Members of the other
side of the aisle and their staffs. I recall us spending months working
this out. I recall early morning meetings with Ms. Harman, joining
Congresswoman Harman to go across the Rotunda to the other side, to try
and see if we could begin our journey together, that is, to see that
our bill would be close in terms of its tone, in terms of its breadth,
in terms of its direction with that of our colleagues on the other
side.
I can recall the next act when we brought it to the subcommittee, and
I can recall getting a unanimous vote out of the subcommittee. I can
recall the next act, which was the full committee. We had a 29-0 vote;
and where I come from, that is pretty doggone close to unanimous.
[[Page H8028]]
We then had the further act which was acting on the floor of the
House, and we got a 421-2 vote. It was totally bipartisan. Even the two
who voted against it split one Republican and one Democrat. You cannot
get much more bipartisan than that.
We have worked together to preserve the essence or the guts of the
bill that we have crafted through our committee structure and which we
passed on the floor. I am proud to stand here and say that we have
accomplished something that many people thought could not be
accomplished.
The Senate began their journey several months before we did in terms
of a formed bill. Yet we leapfrogged over them in the work that was
done in our subcommittee and committee. And I do believe that the
actions of this House nudged, if I might use that term, our colleagues
on the other side of the Rotunda such that we are able to bring this
bill to the floor for completed action tonight on this side of the
Rotunda and the other side of the Rotunda.
Rather than create an act of political statement, we have created an
act of law. That is, this will go to the President, and the President
will sign this. So I hope that all who are here in this Chamber will
think of the spirit of bipartisanship with which we started this
journey that will be part of the end of this journey.
Today, we have taken a solid step forward in securing our Nation. I
do not think there can be any doubt about that. This is not a half
measure. This is a major measure.
The sums of money authorized in here are significant. The grant
program is a stream of $400 million a year for 5 years. That is a $2
billion grant program for our ports across this Nation. That is
something we have been looking for for some time.
We now authorize it. We authorize other programs that Members on both
sides of this aisle have spoken for for a long period of time, all to
secure this Nation and particularly to secure our ports.
Our enemies have stated that they want to disrupt our economy, murder
our citizens, and destroy our way of life. By passing this bill, we do
not make a statement, we actually begin to protect our Nation's ports,
safeguard the American people, and increase the confidence in our
international trade routes.
The American people expect us to take action to protect our ports,
and with this bill we have done precisely that. We have addressed the
possibility of our enemies using our open society and free economy
against us. We have taken away a potential weapon, one capable of
causing major disruption to our economy.
In passing this bill tonight, we are taking rational action to harden
our domestic critical infrastructure, ensuring that those who wish to
harm us are unable to have access to those critical facilities.
But this bill is more than just protecting our local facilities.
Securing international maritime trade is incredibly complex. At any one
time there are hundreds of vessels and literally hundreds of thousands
of containers crossing the oceans on the way to our ports.
With this bill, we have developed a strategy to implement a system to
scan each container before it enters our domestic stream of commerce.
We will be able to identify and track containers destined for our
shores, using training and technology to identify any that may pose a
risk.
We are pushing out our borders beyond our geographical limits to make
a rational approach to stopping the opportunity that those who would
kill us and maim us and destroy our economy would otherwise have.
We have reached out in this way to our trading partners to include
them in this strategy to keep international trade flowing with minimal
disruption. This strategy allows us to integrate security into
international commerce, allowing us to facilitate trade rather than
hinder it, so that we do not allow the terrorists to succeed.
We have given the Department of Homeland Security the tools it needs
to protect against the potential of weapons of mass destruction being
delivered to our shores. We have created a program for our best minds
to develop even more effective and less intrusive scanning technology
to make security completely transparent, seamless and even more
effective.
Recognizing that technology is only as good as the people who use it,
we provided a multitude of grants available to our local port
facilities so that they can train their employees in emergency
procedure and response. That is something that we very much wanted to
emphasize, and I would like to give Congressman Reichert credit for
pursuing that in such a strong way.
The bill also provides for more Customs and border protection agents,
which should enable the Department to continue its mission of both
building security and facilitating legitimate trade that is critical to
the Nation.
We provided for the Coast Guard to create joint port security
operational centers in our Nation's major ports to coordinate effective
response to any incident that threatens the security of these ports.
Some may wish to focus on what the bill does not do, when we should
appreciate it for what it does. It strengthens our port facilities, it
enhances the security of the international supply chain, increases the
resiliency and confidence in our economy.
By doing all of this, the significant piece of legislation and all of
those that worked so hard to bring it to passage, including Chairman
King, Ranking Member Thompson, Congresswoman Harman, Ranking Member
Sanchez and our colleagues in the Senate all have joined together to
increase the security of our Nation; and I, for one, am proud to have
been involved.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Lungren for the
accurate recap of the early parts of the act. But like most early parts
of the act, people forget how it ends; and what I am saying to you is,
while bipartisanship might be good, the process is incomplete.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Harman), one of original authors of the bill.
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Ranking Member of the Full
Committee for yielding to me so early in this debate.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of the conference report for
the SAFE Port Act. In a month that was supposed to be all about
security, this measure is the only one we have considered that will
actually make America more secure.
This bill is as good as it is because it was developed through a
bipartisan approach. From introduction back in March, through
subcommittee and full committee mark-up, to passage by an astonishing
vote of 421-2 in May, we worked on this bill together.
Sadly, as our Ranking Member has said, this bipartisanship ended in
the conference. The conference agreement, while good, could have been
much, much better. But the fact remains that this bill will add value.
As we debate tonight, operations are ongoing at the port complex of Los
Angeles and Long Beach. This complex, which adjoins my district, is the
largest container complex in the Nation.
Nearly 55,000 20-foot containers were processed at this complex
today. Right now, thousands of containers are being unloaded from large
cargo ships by 4,000 dock workers who work every day under the threat
of a terrorist attack. They will be comforted that we are closing big
gaps in port security with this legislation.
Because of the SAFE Port Act, most containers will have been screened
for nuclear and radiological materials at their port of embarkation,
thousands of miles from us, our business and our families.
I am sure we will hear later in this debate that scanning would be
better, and I agree. But we could not achieve that in this legislation.
The good news is we have three pilot projects.
Because of the SAFE Port Act, a trusted company can partner with the
U.S. Government to take additional steps to prevent security breaches.
Because of the SAFE Port Act, workers with access to secure areas
will carry identification cards that control their access, verify their
identities and background and assure they pose no threat. Right this
minute, on hundreds of trucks traveling on southern California
highways, containers are about
[[Page H8029]]
to make their way through the City of Los Angeles bound for large
retailers, `mom and pop' stores, and wholesalers across the country.
Because of the SAFE Port Act, port officials will have the technology
to be sure that radiological materials do not leave our ports and enter
the center of our country.
This process will be repeated millions of times every year, and each
time we will significantly reduce the chance of a terrorist attack that
could make 9/11 look tame.
My thanks to the co-author of this bill, Mr. Lungren of California,
who was a terrific partner working this bill through to the conference;
to the Ranking Member of the Committee, Mr. Thompson; of the
Subcommittee, Ms. Sanchez; and to the Chairman of the Full Committee,
Mr. King. It is also true that our security sisters in the Senate,
Senators Susan Collins and Patty Murray, made a great effort to be sure
that the bill would be heard in that body.
Yes, the SAFE Port Act is not perfect; and it passes late at night in
a week of disappointments. But it is the real deal. One star in a dark
night. Vote ``aye.''
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Leach).
{time} 2330
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to note that folded into the SAFE Port Act is the
Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act which is one of the most
important pieces of family legislation this Congress has ever
considered.
Internet gambling restraints have been under review for four
Congresses. This evening we are finally poised to act decisively on
this subject, and I want to extend my personal appreciation to the
Speaker; to the majority leader, Mr. Boehner; and to the Senate
majority leader, Mr. Frist, for their steadfast support.
Companion legislation to the House product was forthrightly led in
the Senate by John Kyl of Arizona. Many Members have played an
important part over the years in this legislation, particularly Mike
Oxley and Spencer Bachus from the Financial Services Committee and Bob
Goodlatte and Chris Cannon from Judiciary.
But I want to stress this is bipartisan legislation. The majority of
Democrats voted for it just a few weeks ago. Indeed, all of us can be
proud of this legislation. It should be considered a significant
accomplishment of this Congress. After all, with each passing day we
learn of friends and neighbors touched by devastating losses from
Internet gambling. Never has it been so easy to lose so much so quickly
at such a young age.
As a professor of business at the University of Illinois has noted,
Internet gambling is crack cocaine for gamblers. There are no needle
marks; you just click the mouse and lose your house.
The reason the NCAA, the NFL and the NBA, the NHL, and Major League
Baseball support this legislation is their concern for the integrity of
the games. The reason the religious community from Baptists and
Methodists to Muslims has rallied to this cause is because it is
concerned for the unity of the American family.
The reason we should adopt this approach is that we must be mindful
of our obligations to the American family.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this legislation, and I will submit
for the Record at this point its legislative history.
Legislative History for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act
Section 801. Short title
This Act may be cited as the `Unlawful Internet Gambling
Enforcement Act of 2006.'
Section 802. Prohibition on acceptance of any payment instrument for
unlawful Internet gambling
Subsection (a) adds a new `Subchapter IV--Prohibition on
Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling' to Chapter 53 of Title
31 (Monetary Transactions). The new subchapter will come
immediately after subchapter III, covering Money Laundering
and Related Financial Crimes.
Section 5361. Congressional findings and purpose
(a) Findings. The Congressional findings note that: (1)
Internet gambling is primarily funded through the personal
use of payment system instruments, credit cards, and wire
transfers; (2) the National Gambling Impact Study Commission
in 1999 recommended the passage of legislation to prohibit
wire transfers to Internet gambling sites or the banks which
represent such sites; (3) Internet gambling is a growing
cause of debt collection problems for insured depository
institutions and the consumer credit industry; and (4) new
mechanisms for enforcing gambling laws on the Internet are
necessary because traditional law enforcement mechanisms are
often inadequate for enforcing gambling prohibitions on the
Internet, especially where such gambling crosses State or
national borders.
(b) Rule of Construction. No provision is to be construed
as altering, limiting, or extending any Federal or State law
or Tribal-State compact prohibiting, permitting or regulating
gambling within the United States. This is intended to
alleviate fears that this bill could have the effect of
changing the legality of any gambling-related activity in the
United States.
Section 5362. Definitions
This defines the term `bet or wager' as the staking or
risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome
of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject
to chance with the agreement that the winner will receive
something of value in the event of a certain outcome. This
subsection clarifies that `bet or wager' does not include
bona fide business transactions such as securities trading or
buying or selling insurance contracts, or participation in a
simulation sports game or educational game. ``Something of
value'' does not include personal efforts of the participants
in playing the game or contest, or points or credits that the
sponsor of the game or contest provides to participants free
of charge and that can be used or redeemed only for
participation in games or contests offered by the sponsor.
Defines the term `unlawful Internet gambling' as placing,
receiving, or transmitting a bet or wager by any means which
involves the use of the Internet, where such bet or wager is
unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the
State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is
initiated, received, or otherwise made. Clarifies that
purely intrastate transactions conducted in accordance
with state laws with appropriate security controls will
not be considered unlawful internet gambling. Likewise,
transactions solely within Tribal lands complying with
similar security requirements and the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act will not be considered unlawful. Section
5362(10)(D) addresses transactions complying with
Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA) which will not be
considered unlawful, because the IHA only regulates legal
transactions that are lawful in each of the states
involved. Also clarifies that intermediate routing of data
packets does not determine the location in which bets or
wagers are made.
The Internet gambling provisions do not change the legality
of any gambling-related activity in the United States. For
instance, if use of the Internet in connection with dog
racing is approved by state regulatory agencies and does not
violate any Federal law, then it is allowed under the new
section 5362(10)(A) of title 31.
The Internet gambling provisions do not interfere with
intrastate laws. New section 5362(10)(B) creates a safe
harbor from the term ``unlawful Internet gambling'' for
authorized intrastate transactions, if the state law has
adequate security measures to prevent participation by minors
and persons located out of the state. The safe harbor would
leave intact the current interstate gambling prohibitions
such as the Wire Act, federal prohibitions on lotteries, and
the Gambling Ship Act so that casino and lottery games could
not be placed on websites and individuals could not access
these games from their homes or businesses. The safe harbor
is intended to recognize current law which allows states
jurisdiction over wholly intrastate activity, where bets or
wagers, or information assisting in bets or wagers, do not
cross state lines. This would, for example, allow retail
lottery terminals to interact with a processing center within
a state, and linking of terminals between separate casinos
within a state if authorized by the state.
Tribal gaming laws are similarly preserved. Transactions
solely within tribal lands complying with similar security
requirements and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act will not be
considered unlawful, under section 5362(10)(C). Moreover, the
principle of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is that state
governments cannot apply discriminatory laws against gaming
authorized by tribal governments within the state. If a state
authorizes use of the Internet for gambling pursuant to this
section and the tribal government also authorizes this,
gambling businesses located on tribal lands within that state
would be permitted to ``export'' gambling services to persons
in the rest of the state, off of tribal lands, if the
``exported'' game complies with state law, pursuant to
section 5362(10)(B). This does not give the state
jurisdiction over the operation of the tribal gambling
business, including licensing requirements, and does not
allow the state to dictate tribal gaming laws. Only the game
itself--including the method for playing the game--must
comply with state law if a person physically located off of
tribal lands places a bet that is received by a tribal
gambling business. This principle also applies in reverse: if
a person on tribal lands plays a gambling game with a state-
based gambling
[[Page H8030]]
business, the game must not violate tribal law.
Section 5362 also defines the terms `business of betting or
wagering,' `designated payment system,' `Internet,' and
`restricted transaction.' Several additional terms are
defined by reference to other sections of the U.S. Code.
Section 5363. Prohibition on acceptance of any financial instrument for
unlawful Internet gambling
Prohibits persons engaged in the business of betting or
wagering from knowingly accepting credit, funds, bank
instruments, or proceeds of any other form of financial
transaction in connection with the participation of another
person in unlawful Internet gambling. This is called a
'restricted transaction' according to the definitions
section.
Section 5364. Policies and procedures to identify and prevent
restricted transactions
(a) Regulations and (b) Requirements for Policies and
Procedures. Requires the Secretary of the Treasury and the
Federal Reserve Board, in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney
General, to prescribe regulations within nine months
requiring any payment system to establish policies and
procedures reasonably designed to identify and block
restricted transactions, or otherwise prevent restricted
transactions from entering its system.
(c) Compliance and (d) Liability. Provides persons
operating financial systems with immunity from civil
liability for blocking transactions that they reasonably
believe are restricted transactions, or in reliance on the
regulations promulgated by the Treasury Department and
Federal Reserve. Though a financial institution may block
additional transactions based on reasonable belief, it has no
duty to do so, and may rely solely on the regulations to
fully discharge its obligations.
(e) Enforcement. The Federal functional regulators and the
Federal Trade Commission are given the exclusive authority to
enforce this section.
Section 5365. Civil remedies
Authorizes the U.S. Attorney General and State Attorneys
General to pursue civil remedies, including a preliminary
injunction or injunction against any person to prevent or
restrain a violation of this legislation. It clarifies that
the bill does not alter, supersede or otherwise affect the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; generally limits responsibility
of an interactive computer service to the removal or
disabling of access to an online site violating this section,
upon proper notice; restricts the ability to bring injunctive
cases against financial transaction provider activities.
Internet gambling operators primarily use the resources of
two types of businesses to conduct their unlawful
enterprises: payment systems and interactive computer
services. The unlawful use of payment systems is addressed by
section 5364, not by injunctions. The legislation addresses
the unlawful use of interactive computer services through
injunctions, but with appropriate limits to avoid imposing
any duty to censor or monitor on these computer services.
Section 5365(c)(2) also extends to interactive computer
services the same immunity from liability that common
carriers are afforded when complying with a notice from law
enforcement pursuant to section 1084(d) of title 18 to
discontinue service to a gambling business.
Section 5366. Criminal penalties
Authorizes criminal penalties for violating section 5363,
including fines or imprisonment for not more than five years
or both. Also authorizes permanently enjoining a person
convicted under this section from engaging in gambling
activities.
Section 5367. Circumventions prohibited
Provides that, notwithstanding the safe harbor provided in
section 5362(2), a financial intermediary or interactive
computer service or telecommunications service that has
actual knowledge and control of bets and wagers, and operates
or is controlled by an entity that operates, an unlawful
Internet gambling site can be held criminally liable under
this subchapter.
Section 803. Internet gambling in or through foreign jurisdictions
Subsection (a) provides that, in deliberations between the
U.S. Government and any other country on money laundering,
corruption, and crime issues, the U.S. Government should
encourage cooperation by foreign governments in identifying
whether Internet gambling operations are being used for money
laundering, corruption, or other crimes, advance policies
that promote the cooperation by foreign governments in the
enforcement of this Act, and encourage the Financial Action
Task Force on Money Laundering to study the extent to which
Internet gambling operations are being used for money
laundering. It also requires the Secretary of the Treasury to
submit an annual report to Congress on the deliberations
between the United States and other countries on issues
relating to Internet gambling.
Subsection (b) requires the Secretary of the Treasury to
submit an annual report to Congress on any deliberations
between the United States and other countries on tissues
relating to Internet Gambling.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member on the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time and for
the very strong statement he made earlier, the very straightforward and
candid assessment of the process to which this legislation has been
subjected.
While I appreciate the work of the gentleman from New York, chairman
of the committee of conference, and also Chair of the Homeland Security
Committee, and the gentleman from Mississippi who have done stellar
work on this legislation, I am disappointed with the outcome.
There are two issues here. There are substance and process. On the
substance, sure, I will vote for the conference report because what is
in the bill will improve port security. What is left out is what is
troubling and disappointing.
When the bill cleared the House, there was the expectation, as there
always is when we pass a part in one bill and have a comparable in the
other, that the missing links will be addressed in a conference
committee, and in this case, the missing links in security will be
addressed in conference. That did not happen.
This bill does not make improvements in rail and transit security,
even though the Senate version had good provisions to address transit
and intercity passenger rail security. For reasons I do not understand
and no one has explained, the House Republican leadership apparently
determined late at night last night that it would not attempt to work
out rail and transit security in conference.
The committee of conference held a meeting. Conferees elected a
chairman and made opening statements, and that was it. The supporters
of rail and transit security improvements were never permitted to make
proposals or offer amendments to improve rail and transit security. We
expected that we were going to be able to do that, but it never
happened.
The security needs in rail and transit are huge, $700 million for
Amtrak, $6 billion for transit. In the wake of the Madrid, London, and
Mumbai bombings, the leadership of the other party should not have
passed up an opportunity to protect millions who use intercity rail and
transit each day.
There is much more that we could have and should have done. We should
not be kicking it over to the next Congress. That is the
disappointment. We have an opportunity to make an improvement. You
should seize that opportunity and move ahead.
As far as it goes, it is a useful bill. It is not what it should be.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure wrote the original
Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA). That landmark
legislation significantly improved security at our Nation's ports. The
conference report before us fine tunes that original security act and
gives added direction to the Administration in how to carry out its
multiple port security programs. It also provides a statutory framework
for many regulatory initiatives established by the Department of
Homeland Security, including the Container Security Initiative and the
Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism Program (CT-PAT).
Republicans rejected the Nadler-Oberstar amendment offered during
House consideration of the bill. That amendment would have required 100
percent of containers to be scanned for nuclear weapons before a
container destined for the United States was loaded in a foreign port.
I am pleased that the conference report adopts the Senate provision to
authorize a pilot program for 100 percent scanning of containers in
three foreign ports. I am also encouraged that the conference report
requires the Secretary to scan 100 percent of containers entering the
22 largest container ports in the United States. What I don't
understand is if we can scan 100 percent of containers when they are
offloaded from a ship in a U.S. port, why can't we scan those same
containers before they are loaded on that same ship in the foreign
port? Why can't we continue to work to ``push the borders out''?
While the conference report goes a long way toward strengthening port
security, it does not do a thing for rail and transit security and
other issues, which were covered in the Senate bill, and should have
been included in this conference report.
Last night, the House passed, by a vote of 281-140, a motion to
instruct conferees on
[[Page H8031]]
H.R. 4954 to adopt the Senate provisions on rail and transit security,
as well as other security measures. Less than an hour later, the
Conference Committee met and conferees were allowed to make statements,
but not amendments to a draft conference report. In fact, the conferees
had no legislative text to consider. It was obvious to all that there
was no interest among House Republican conferees to have a serious
discussion about including rail and transit security in this bill.
One by one, Members of the Conference Committee--House and Senate--
asked the Conference Committee Chairman when we were going to be able
to review the final conference report and when Members were going to be
able to offer amendments to it. The gentleman from New York (Mr.
King)--and I quote--stated, ``The expectation is we will receive the
final documents, go to debate and consider amendments and go forward at
that time.''
Two hours later, Mr. King's staff advised members that there would be
no further meetings of the conferees. What could have possibly happened
in those two hours to create such a great delay that the documents were
not available for a meeting today? Why do Republicans consistently
prevent Democrats from offering amendments that will make our country
safer?
In the wake of the Madrid, London, and Mumbai bombings, Congress has
a responsibility to the American people to assure the safety and
security of our Nation's rail and transit systems. This year, the
Federal government will invest $4.7 billion in aviation security
improvements, while spending only $150 million on rail and transit
security, even though five times as many people take trains as planes
every day.
Amtrak has requested more than $100 million in security upgrades and
nearly $600 million for fire and life-safety improvements to tunnels on
the Northeast Corridor in New York, Maryland, and Washington, DC. The
American Public Transportation Association, which represents transit
agencies and commuter railroads, has well-documented transit security
needs that exceed $6 billion (including more than $5.2 billion of
capital investment security needs).
The Senate-passed port security bill would have helped meet those
needs, and the conferees should have been granted the right to vote on
them before they were stripped from the final version of the bill. Do
we have to wait for an attack before we take action to secure our
nation's railroads and transit systems? What is wrong with providing
funding for critical rail and transit security needs? What is wrong
with hiring more inspectors? There are only 100 Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) rail inspectors responsible for the security of
our Nation's 144,000-mile freight and passenger railroad system. What
is wrong with requiring development and implementation of a national
rail and transit security plan to clarify the roles and
responsibilities of federal, state, and local agencies in securing rail
and transit systems? What is wrong with ensuring that key workers have
the necessary support and training required to protect our rail and
public transit systems? Nothing, the House Republican Leadership just
did not want to do it.
Another example of what should have been included in this conference
report and wasn't: Removal of the cap of 45,000 on TSA screeners. That
cap is both arbitrary and counterintuitive, and it is also impairing
security. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) passed by
Congress in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks requires
100 percent electronic baggage screening. Yet, there is evidence that
staffing shortages are undermining electronic screening efforts.
Staffing shortages often require TSA to use alternative screening
procedures to screen checked bags, and the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) reports that TSA's use of alternative screening procedures
involves trade-offs in security effectiveness.
While the number of airport screeners remains static, passenger
traffic grows. Airlines are expected to carry more than one billion
passengers by 2015, increasing from approximately 700 million in 2004.
TSA currently screens 522 million bags per year. GAO reports that TSA
could be screening as many as 96 million more bags than it now
screens--an 18 percent increase--by as early as 2010. According to TSA
data, the use of alternative screening procedures will increase at some
airports because of rising passenger traffic.
All of these issues should have been dealt with in this conference
report. While I support the port security bill, it has left much work
undone.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much
time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Each side has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. KING of New York. Could I inquire of the gentleman from
Mississippi how many speakers he has remaining.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I have four.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member from Energy
and Commerce.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, well, the mountain shook, the lightning
flashed, the thunder roared and the mountain gave birth to a mouse.
In last night's discussion, there was no discussion and nobody has
been brought in to talk about what this legislation does, but I think
we can talk about what it does not do.
First of all, it does not allow the Members opportunities to offer
amendments to discuss issues of importance. It does virtually nothing
to protect 25 million Amtrak riders and millions of Americans who live
and work near railroad and freight tracks and passing trains carrying
highly hazardous materials. It also stripped long overdue rail and mass
transit measures from the final bill, as well as a number of other
important security measures.
It should be noted that the bill in the Senate included provisions
improving the securities of other surface transportation, including
truck, bus, hazardous material transportation and pipeline security, as
well as it strengthened aviation security. All gone, gone, gone.
The conferees should have been granted the right to vote on these
provisions before they were stripped from the final version of the
bill, particularly in light of the fact that last night we heard the
House express its wishes overwhelmingly when we voted for the
instruction of House conferees 281-140 to accept rail and transit
titles, as well as other important provisions.
We talk about this as a great bill to address the question of
airport, railroad and port security. It does not. It is not.
I would note that when we showed up last night for the conference, we
all sat around for a goodly while. We had no agenda. We had no business
to come before the committee. We were told there would be a meeting
this morning to discuss, and we would have an opportunity to amend.
Somehow or another that commitment vanished, but it did not vanish so
much we do not have a bill here which was drafted without any input
from any Member on this side of the aisle.
So we have sent the distinguished chairman, for whom I have enormous
affection, a letter. Fifteen of our colleagues on this side of the
aisle joined in signing it, and we said to you: ``Dear Chairman King:
You made a personal and public commitment last night. You broke it.
``We write to protest your decision to shut down the House-Senate
conference on H.R. 4954. Many of us took your word that we would have a
voice in the conference process. However, your action to silence input
from every Democratic member of the conference by denying the right to
offer amendments effectively stripped the long-overdue rail and mass
transit security measures from the final bill.''
This is a sorry process. It is a sorry procedure. It is a sorry piece
of legislation. It is inadequate, and it is another example of the
majority trying to do things on the cheap and then marketing it as
something good.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, September 29, 2006.
Chairman Peter King,
House of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security, The
Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman King: You made a personal and public
commitment last night. You broke it.
We write to protest your decision to shut down the House-
Senate conference on H.R. 4954. Many of us took your word
that we would have a voice in the conference process.
However, your action to silence input from every Democratic
member of the conference by denying the right to offer
amendments effectively stripped the long-overdue rail and
mass transit security measures from the final bill, as well
as many other important security measures. Consequently,
these important elements of our transportation systems remain
vulnerable to terrorist attack.
Despite deadly attacks on transit systems worldwide--in
Madrid two years ago (191 innocent civilians killed), in
London last year
[[Page H8032]]
(52 killed), and Mumbai this year (207 killed)--Congress has
not passed a transit security bill. The transit community has
identified $6 billion in security needs, of which only less
than a tenth has been made available by Congress. Even less
has been done to protect the 25 million annual Amtrak riders
and the millions of Americans that live and work near freight
railroad tracks and passing trains carrying highly hazardous
materials.
The Senate had included in its version of the bill
comprehensive plans to improve U.S. rail security and mass
transit security, the second time the Senate has passed these
provisions since 9/11. In addition, the Senate included
provisions improving the security of other surface
transportation modes, including truck, bus, hazardous
materials transportation, and pipeline security, as well as
several that strengthen aviation security.
Conferees should have been granted the right to vote on
these provisions before they were stripped from the final
version of the bill, particularly in light of the wishes of
an overwhelming majority of House members, who voted last
night 281-140 to instruct House conferees to accept rail and
transit titles, as well as other important provisions.
Americans expect us to help keep them safe. We can only
hope that you have a good reason for denying them that peace
of mind.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Lautenberg.
Patty Murray.
Joe Lieberman.
Paul Sarbanes.
John D. Dingell.
Ed Markey.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me first of all thank the gentleman from Michigan for his undying
affection that he shows for me so often, especially tonight. It really
warms my heart, and I want to thank him especially for it.
I would, however, just like to touch on a few things. First of all,
this is the SAFE Port Act. I have listened as carefully as I possibly
can. I have listened; I have asked Mr. Lungren to listen; I have asked
staff to listen. I have not heard even one remote criticism of the port
security aspects of this bill. This is a port security bill. We had
staff negotiations going on day after day after day.
Now, the gentleman from Michigan raised the question of last night.
Let us explain this right now. It was explained before. We will try
again.
The fact is last night there was no legislative text incorporating
the staff recommendations. The Senate assured us they would provide it.
The Senate did not have it last night. The Senate refused to provide
it. The first we saw it was 3 o'clock this afternoon. What is going on
in the Senate is up to them, but that is where the final text was.
Now, if the gentleman is saying that when they came back in at 3
o'clock this afternoon, rather than take advantage of a bill which has
been worked on for 6 months, which has gone through subcommittee, which
has gone through committee and which has gone through the House floor,
which was worked out so carefully with Senator Collins and Senator
Lieberman and Senator Murray, which had strong bipartisan support, that
because of the fact that the Senate language was not over here in time
for the gentleman from Michigan, that we should put that aside, and
taking the risk of not taking advantage of this moment, of not seizing
the moment and passing this historic legislation to save our Nation, I
have heard of people who cannot take ``yes'' for an answer.
We said last March, let us put together a port security bill. We did
it. We put together a good bill and all we get tonight is begrudgery.
Well, it is good, it is this, it is that, but it is not good enough
because it does not cover rail, it does not cover transit or it does
not cover this. Also, as the gentleman from California reminded me, it
does not contain the cure for cancer either.
But the fact is it is a very good port security bill. As the
gentlewoman from California said, it is the real deal. If you want to
turn your back on the real deal, if you want to vote and say I really
wanted something else, this is not good enough for me, the real deal
should be good enough for me.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), ranking member on
the subcommittee with responsibility for ports.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking
member, Mr. Thompson.
This conference report is a culmination of many years of working on
the issue of port security. I want to begin by thanking my colleague,
actually Juanita Millender-McDonald, whose original bill was brought to
me a couple of years ago, was the framework for this, and added to that
were many of the port bills that I had authored were put into that; and
then Ms. Harman put in some more and Mr. Lungren put in some more and
Mr. Thompson put in some more, and pretty soon we had a pretty good
port bill. I am pleased with the port bill.
Our chairman said he did not want rail or transit or any of that,
which the Senate also put in their port bill, because he did not have
the time, he did not want to jeopardize a port bill.
So why is there Internet gambling in our port bill? If you had time
to stick Internet gambling in our port bill, then I think you could
have held a meeting today, or tomorrow if we had to stay an extra day,
or the next day if we had to stay an extra day to make our country
safer, especially for the people who take rail and mass transit to
work.
But, no, that would have been too much. This is just a port bill,
plus Internet gambling. That is why people are upset. The Senate put in
rail and mass transit and port. You had people last night who asked
you, Will we get to make amendments, because they wanted to put in rail
and mass transit like the Senate had put in, and we had the votes in
the room to pass this port bill and to pass rail and mass transit.
{time} 2345
But it was too much. I don't know if it was you, Mr. Chairman, or
Speaker Hastert. I don't know who is going to answer what happens if we
have something that happens like happened in Madrid or London and we
didn't fund rail or transit. Will we get blamed? Will you take the
blame, Mr. Chairman? Or will you stand up and say it was the
leadership; it wasn't me?
Who is responsible for not having done the right thing? That is what
people are asking. That is why people are upset. They are not just
upset on this side of the aisle because we know it is the right thing
to do. They are upset in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle.
This is way too important for us to say, oh, gosh, we have got to get
out of here on Friday, and let's not work another day. I would have
stayed here a week. I would have stayed here a month. You know, I have
been working on this for about 4 or 5 years. If we could have gotten
that in, it would have been the right thing to do.
You are right, Mr. Chairman. This is a good port bill, because we
took our time and we did it right. But it could have been a much better
security bill, a security bill that last night the majority in this
House said they wanted, a security bill not only to secure containers
and freight that come into this country but a bill that would have
helped the people who commute every day to work and make America go.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, again I inquire as to how much
time remains.
The Speaker pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 15\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Mississippi has 10\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would add that, again, I have
been listening and listening, and there is no criticism at all of the
port security. And again, rather than to take yes for an answer, we are
talking about going around our committee process. The fact is, one of
the reasons this bill is so good is because it was at the subcommittee
level, the committee level, and then it went to the floor.
This was a long process on the port security aspect of it. Rather
than just accept something coming over from the Senate at the last
minute, I have enough respect for the integrity of the process of our
committee that I want to replicate that when we are dealing with
transit and when we are dealing with rail and working, of course, with
Mr. Young. I don't want to get him nervous while he is sitting here.
But it is essential that we do do it in a deliberative process.
Again, it is beyond me why, after a 6-month process where there was
such bipartisanship, such working together, both here and in the
Senate, that the begrudgers of the world have arrived on
[[Page H8033]]
the floor tonight and all they can say is there is something here that
is good, though they are afraid to acknowledge it, and then they talk
about something which was never part of our bill to begin with.
We dedicated ourselves to port security, and we got it done. We
should be proud of that. And, again, there is a special place in life
for begrudgers.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), one of the conferees on
this particular bill.
Mr. PASCRELL. You know, Mr. Chairman, you sound like an Irish tenor
this evening.
This is a bill which we can support. We thank both staffs on both
sides of the aisle. They worked very hard on this.
Simply put, this is a good bill. Many Members on both sides of the
aisle have worked tirelessly to bring the critical legislation to
finality; and while I think it could have been improved if those of us
on the conference committee were given a chance to offer further
amendments, I wish to remind the chairman, last night, ultimately, this
is still a good product.
There is no doubt that authorizing $400 million in port security
grants for each of the fiscal years of 2007 to 2012 is a wise
undertaking, as is creating firm deadlines to require the Department of
Homeland Security to issue transportation worker identification cards
to workers with access to secure areas of ports. No one should be
allowed into those ports that do not have a proper card and a proper
identification; and we should really carry this over to those folks who
work at our airports, which we have not done.
I am particularly pleased that the two provisions I was able to
secure when this bill originally came before the Homeland Security
Committee remains within the legislation this evening: Section 114,
which authorizes the Secretary of DHS to establish an exercise program
to test and evaluate the capabilities of Federal, State, local, and
other relevant stakeholders to coordinate appropriate response and
recovery from acts of terror. Section 115, which directs the Secretary
to require each high-risk facility to conduct live or full-scale
exercises not less than once every 2 years in accordance with the
facility security plan that this bill mandates.
Both provisions will enhance the capabilities of our Nation's
seaports to prevent, prepare for, respond to and mitigate against acts
of terror. I am grateful for this inclusion in the legislation.
But, as with so many things in the realm of homeland security, we
have missed some opportunities. I, like most of my Democratic
colleagues, would have much preferred that this bill also included
improvements to security for America's rail, subway, buses, and
trucking. And in all due reverence, I know that you feel the same way,
Mr. Chairman.
But we've got to the best point at the best time, and we need to pass
this legislation, and I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
gentleman from New Jersey for his kind remarks about the bill, and I
especially want to tell him how much it means to me that he commented
on my great Irish singing voice as I was delivering my oration tonight.
So, Mr. Pascrell, you are a man of great ethnic perspicacity and my
admiration for you is unbounded.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4954, the
SAFE Port Act, which is a comprehensive approach to securing our ports.
And though not a perfect bill, it surely could have been better, it is
an important first step.
One of the worst-case scenarios experts fear is that terrorists would
be able to smuggle nuclear material across our ports. This is an
unacceptable reality that we face today, which highlights just how
important it is that we have adequate detection devices at all of our
seaports and border crossings. Our radiation portal monitors are our
last, best chance to prevent catastrophic nuclear or radiological
attack, and our intelligence analysts continue to tell us that the
threat is very real.
I am glad to see that under this bill all containers entering the
U.S. through the 22 busiest seaports will be examined for radiation by
the end of next year. While this is certainly a great start, we
ultimately need to deploy radiation portal monitors at every point of
entry to fully secure our Nation's ports.
I am also pleased to see that this bill contains provisions to
strengthen the Container Security Initiative. Under the SAFE Port Act,
we will have a greater ability to foster communication between the
United States and the operators of foreign ports to inspect more U.S.-
bound cargo before it reaches our ports. We need to continue to do
everything in our power to screen cargo at its point of origin to
prevent the dangerous possibility of nuclear material ever reaching our
shores.
Mr. Speaker, the SAFE Port Act most certainly makes strides in terms
of securing our ports, but we must acknowledge that it is just one step
in a much larger process. I will continue to work with my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to secure our Nation's vulnerable ports.
I want to commend both the chairman and the ranking member for their
hard work in getting us to this point today. Again, it is an important
first step. Let us continue to rededicating ourselves to making sure
that we are doing all we can to make sure the American people are safe.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON. Might I inquire, Mr. Speaker, as to how much time
remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi has 6 minutes
remaining.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman. As there is a great deal of admiration in this room, let me
say that I too admire the staff and the authors of this bill, Ms.
Sanchez, Ms. Harman, Mr. Thompson, and the work of Mr. Lungren and Mr.
King, but it is obvious we could have done more. And I listened to the
distinguished gentleman talking about regular order. We have not had
regular order this entire day.
I do want to say the good work shows that we are concerned about port
security, with $400 million in port security grants, training for port
workers, such as longshoremen, transportation workers' I.D. cards,
screening of the 22 busiest airports, establishing the Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office, additional Customs and border protection personnel
and port security plans.
But I am very proud of the language of training residents of seaport
communities, that the conferees agreed that it is crucial to involve
communities in disaster preparedness by providing for an annual
community update to the homeland security training program described in
this bill. This was language that I included because of the area in
which we live in Houston where there is sizable populations living
around the community.
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 language I contributed extends this training program
to include communities and neighborhoods in proximity of the seaports
by educating, training, and involving population at-risk neighborhoods
around ports, including training on an annual basis to learn what to
watch for.
However, I would hope that we would move toward in the next few
months 100 percent screening of container cargo, which we have not
done.
I also hope that we realize, as my colleagues have said and as Mr.
Thompson's overwhelming motion to instruct said, we have to be
concerned about rail security. I mentioned during his motion to
instruct that rail security is
[[Page H8034]]
not just people riding Amtrak. It is the railroads that travel through
neighborhoods throughout the regions of the Nation, including the
South.
I would also note that I live around a very large port, and this will
have a positive impact on the Houston port. I ask my colleagues to
support it, though I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that we have
extraneous material, such as the Internet gambling, on this bill.
I rise in support of the Conference Report to the SAFE Port Act of
2006, H.R. 4954, which represents a significant step forward toward
national security and safety for our seaports. I am proud of my
colleagues who have crafted this bill to be inclusive of many issues
that members of the Committee on Homeland Security and other Members of
the Congress have expressed over the last few years, and more intensely
over the last few months.
All of us share the common goal of all Americans of making the
movement of cargo through the global supply chain as secure as
possible, and are committed to doing everything feasible to ensure the
security of the Nation's ports.
Many elements of this legislation are beneficial: $400 million in
port security grants for each of fiscal years 2007-2012; training for
port workers, such as longshoremen; Transportation Workers
Identification Credential (TWIC) cards to workers with access to secure
areas of ports and background checks; screening at the 22 busiest
seaports; establishment of the Domestic Nuclear Detection office, DNDO,
within the Department of Homeland Security; additional Customs and
Border Protection personnel; requires port security plans to include
training for residents of neighborhoods around facilities.
Safe and secure seaports are an essential element in building
efficient and technologically advanced supply chains that move cargo
quickly to distribution centers, stores, and factories around the
world. Although we have made progress since the 9/11 attacks in
enhancing the security of the nation's ports, we cannot afford to be
complacent.
Incorporated Amendment: Training for Residents of Seaport Communities
I am proud and thankful that the conferees agreed that it is crucial
to involve 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 language I contributed 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 have a ``Neighborhood Watch''
program that teaches citizens to watch for suspicious activity or other
signs of danger. This language provides for a similar ``citizens
corps'' preparation program 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.
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.
Fifty-two states and territories have formed state level Citizen
Corps Councils to support local efforts. My hope is that before the
next disaster, our citizens will be aware and trained to react
effectively and timely, and perform as local responders themselves.
More Must Be Done 100% screening
While there are good elements of this bill, I am compelled to discuss
the fact that this bill could have been so much more, and could have
definitively contributed to national security efforts. I am dismayed at
the fact that there are gaps in this report wide enough to let
terrorists through.
Apparently, it is not important to know what is arriving by sea
cargo.
This bill fails to require 100 percent scanning of contents bound for
our borders before they leave other nations. By the time they arrive
and are unloaded onto our soil, it is too late.
We have the technology to do this--the ports of Hong Kong and Boston
already screen most inbound cargo for both radiation and lead shielding
(to hide the radiological materials) using commercially available
technology without interrupting the flow of commerce. As we continue to
fight to protect our borders, we need to continue to develop cutting
edge technologies to detect and defeat next generation threats to port
security.
According to security expert Steve Flynn, the cost would be about
$50--$100 per container--minimal compared to the $4000 per container it
costs to ship from Asia to the U.S., and to the $66,000 in average
worth that each container carries. This is accessible, technologically
feasible, and necessary. It is beyond me why it is not a part of this
bill.
rail and mass transit
It is unacceptable to consider rail and mass transit security, as
Secretary Chertoff stated, ``goulash.'' I fear the day when a tragedy
will strike on a subway, or on a bus, and we will suddenly discover how
large a mistake it was to miss this opportunity . We know how easy a
target mass transportation can be-witness Israel, London, Madrid, and
Mumbai amongst so many others. We have focused so much effort on
securing our borders. I wonder why Republicans are not just as
concerned with securing us.
I am disappointed that this provision is not included in this
conference report. At the very least, yesterday's Motion to Instruct
the Conferees, which passed 281-170, instructed the conferees to accept
the rail and mass transit provisions from the Senate. It takes gall to
ignore an on-record vote of the House of Representatives.
Houston Port and Economic Data
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.
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% 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.
Conclusion
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.
There are many such cities and states across the country that are
vulnerable and need the federal government's leadership for security
and protection. The legislation is a good start, yet it will not be
sufficient. I challenge my colleagues on the Homeland Security
Committee to consider this only the first step in securing and
protecting our nation's ports, and a necessary gateway to addressing
the vulnerabilities of rail and mass transit.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Las Vegas (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the ranking member of
Homeland Security, Mr. Thompson, for allowing me to speak for a minute.
I have a question to ask. I was listening to Mr. Dingell when he
spoke eloquently about his disappointment that this bill did not
address security when it comes to mass transit, railroads, bus
stations, and Amtrak. And when Mr. King got up to respond, he said the
reason it doesn't contain any security for mass transit, railroads, bus
stations, and Amtrak is because this is a port security bill. And he
said it again. This is a port security bill. And he repeated it a third
time. This is a port security bill.
So can he please explain to me if this is a port security bill, that
we can't put protections and security for our buses and Amtrak and mass
transit and railroads, how it is that we managed to put a ban on
Internet gaming?
{time} 0000
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. BERKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. KING of New York. First of all, I am not responsible for the
germaneness rules in the Senate. Secondly, this is the bill that came
back to us from the Senate.
Ms. BERKLEY. Before I yield again, I know you may not control the
rules of the Senate, but how about the House? Do you have any say here?
[[Page H8035]]
Mr. KING of New York. I would just add, if the gentlewoman will
yield, this is the bill that came back to us from the Senate, and I
would remind the gentlewoman that unlike the transit and rail
provisions, which never passed this House, the Internet gambling bill
legislation did pass this House by a vote of 317-93. There was at least
some nexus which was lacking with the others.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, could you please
explain the nexus to me between port security to keep this country
safer and a ban on Internet gaming? Give me a break.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my chairman that the motion to
instruct said to include rail and mass transit to the conferees. That
is in response to your response to the gentlewoman from Las Vegas. We
more or less said ``do it'' from the House perspective, and it wasn't
done.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I was
just trying to answer the gentlewoman's question. She thought I was
giving her a break.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my
time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi, and
I thank him for his excellent work on that legislation.
I would say that the gentlewoman made a fine point here. The
Democrats waited for days to find out what was in this bill as the
Republicans deliberated by themselves. Finally it comes back over, and
we learn what they included.
Did it have anything on rail and rapid transit security? No. Did it
have something on moving hazardous materials in a way that got them
around densely populated areas? No. Did it have anything to do with
ensuring that we screen for nuclear bombs on ships before they came
into the ports of the United States? No.
But what did they include? Well, they included an Internet gambling
bill. Now, you would think given the fact that it was a port bill, you
would think they would have something in it on riverboat gambling. But,
no, nothing even on that.
So, ladies and gentlemen, what they have produced is a fine piece of
political pork that the Republican Party in secret has put together.
Meantime, al Qaeda has their number one objective in the world still
undealt with by the Republicans, and that is obtaining a nuclear weapon
out of the former Soviet Union, bringing it to a port in the world,
placing it in a container on that ship, bringing the ship into a port
in the United States, and then detonating that nuclear bomb before it
is ever taken off the ship. And the Republicans in this bill, do they
require that there be screening for nuclear bombs before they leave for
the United States? No.
So, ladies and gentlemen, this bill on the central issue is a
failure. The number one threat to our security, a nuclear bomb in a
container on a ship, no requirement at all for the screening before it
comes to our port. They have the screening after the nuclear bomb
reaches the port in the United States. By then it is too late.
So, ladies and gentlemen, it is like instead of buying a dog, they
put up a ``beware of dog'' sign. So when the bomb has reached the port
of New York or Boston or L.A., the only thing that will be there is
``beware of dog.'' They refuse to put up the protection.
Vote ``no'' on this terrible bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 14 minutes
remaining.
General Leave
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on the matter under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I assure the House I will not use the 14 minutes.
I also at this stage would like to commend the staff for the
tremendous work they have done throughout this process. I would like to
thank Mandy Bowers, Matt McCabe, Amanda Halpern, Kevin Gronberg, Diane
Berry, Sterling Marchand, Kerry Kinirons, Mark Klaassen, Mike Power,
and also the people on the minority staff.
In saying that, let me just say, Mr. Markey brought us into the new
day, his eloquence, his soaring rhetoric brought us into the new day,
but he uses the same tired arguments of yesterday, the arguments we
hear time and again, the tired metaphors, the lame similes, he goes on
and on.
He says Democrats were kept out of the process. Democrats were
involved every step of the way, every minute, until the Internet
gambling came over, which we found out about for the first time at the
same time he did. Now, he may want to talk to the minority leader in
the Senate and ask him why he consented to this being in, why they
wanted it in. That is not my problem.
But the fact is, it is really wrong to suggest that there was any
moment at all throughout the past 10 or 12 days, when at every stage of
the way we ensured that the Democratic staff was there reporting back
to their principals, I don't know where the gentleman from
Massachusetts was. Maybe he was out buying a dog. I don't know. But the
fact is if he had spoken with his staff, if he had spoken to the
committee staff, if he had spoken to the ranking member, he would have
known what was going on.
Also, I waited patiently for 29\1/2\ minutes listening to the
opposition trying to hear one person say one negative word about the
port security bill. Finally, Mr. Markey came up with his argument and
he was talking about detecting radiation overseas.
The fact is, again in the spirit of bipartisanship and bicameralism,
we adopted the language put forth by Senator Lautenberg in the Senate
to have three pilot projects. So there we are agreeing with the Senator
from New Jersey, which I guess is not good enough for the gentleman
from Massachusetts.
I would also say that this legislation goes right to the heart of the
issues that we are trying to address. The gentleman from Massachusetts
cannot accept that.
But I will say for the other Members, certainly Mr. Pascrell, for the
contributions that he made to this bill, to the ranking member, to Mr.
Langevin, who has really been a leader in the whole issue of radiation
portal monitors, they have been there.
So I would again say let us celebrate the fact that we are passing
historic port security legislation tonight. Let us respect the fact
that our committee, which is only in its second year, has passed major
legislation. Let us respect the fact and acknowledge the fact that our
committee paved the way. We showed the way for the Senate. We passed a
bill which has been virtually intact, from the subcommittee to the
committee to the House floor and now here tonight with the conference
report.
And rather than begrudging, rather than saying it could have been
this or it could have been that, rather than let the perfect be the
enemy of the good, let's accept this good legislation, let's go
forward, let us realize we made the American people far safer. And we
did it because of a bipartisan effort, which should have been
bipartisan right to the last moment. Unfortunately, the naysayers tried
to take this over. The fact is they cannot deny the reality. This is
excellent legislation that makes our country safe. We should be proud.
I urge the adoption of the resolution.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the very significant
provisions in the SAFE Port Act that will go a long way to make our
ports and waterways secure. I thank Chairman Young and Chairman King
for their hard work on this legislation.
I am particularly pleased with the inclusion of the Maritime Terminal
Security Enhancement Act, legislation I authored in the wake of the
Dubai Ports deal to ensure that the security at our ports remains in
the hands of American citizens. The Maritime Terminal Security
Enhancement Act would require Facility Security Officers to be American
citizens. It would also provide for periodic, unannounced inspections
of security at our port facilities, as well
[[Page H8036]]
as place deadlines on the deployment of the Transportation Worker
Identification Card to ensure the identity of our port workers; a long
range vessel tracking system that will enable the Coast Guard to
further extend our borders and monitor vessels bound for U.S. ports;
and requires the Department of Homeland Security to issue regulations
to require foreign merchant mariners to carry an enhanced crew member
identification credential when calling on U.S. ports.
The SAFE Port Act builds on the unprecedented work we did in the
Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. I was proud to be an
author of that bill and I am proud of the work we did to enhance port
security in this bill.
However, I am not proud, nor do I support the decision by the
leadership in the other body to attach at the last minute and without
consultation, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act.
There is no question that Internet technology has rapidly and
substantively changed over the past six years, with new advancements
being made every day. It is therefore imperative that our thinking
about how best to regulate activities such as Internet gaming also
evolve with the times. Unfortunately, this bill does not take into
account the significant advancements in the technology, nor does it
include language I support to establish a commission to study whether
Internet gaming can be properly regulated.
Mr. Speaker, I will be reluctantly supporting the SAFE Port Act, as I
am extremely disappointed with the action of the leadership in the
other body to attach this non germane issue to an otherwise tremendous
piece of legislation that will strengthen and enhance our ability to
keep our nation's ports and waterways secure.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to see that we're
finally seeing this very important and long overdue port security
legislation on the House floor.
There are 14 major ports in my home state of Florida, with the Port
of Jacksonville in my hometown. And we have failed so far in devoting
the money they need to protect their facility.
Unfortunately, we're still failing to protect the 25 million
passengers who ride Amtrak each year. 69,000 passengers ride Amtrak
every day, and yet they don't qualify for any of the money being
authorized in this bill and are offered no more protections than they
have today. That is shameful.
I can't believe that anyone in this House, following the bombings in
Madrid and in London, doesn't believe that terrorists would attack an
Amtrak train on the Northeast corridor that connects Washington, DC,
New York, and Boston.
This Republican Congress deserves an F for what they have done to
protect transit and passenger rail in this country. They wasted an
opportunity to protect the citizens who take public transit and
passenger rail to work every day.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to state how deeply
disappointed I am that the conference report for H.R. 4954, this
vitally important bill that is meant to secure our ports and protect
our nation from terrorists, has been amended to include internet gaming
language.
Internet gaming has nothing whatsoever to do with port security. It
is irresponsible to insert this non-germane language into a homeland
security measure.
This Congress should not overreact by restricting the growing
industry of online gaming without giving serious review to the
potentially negative impacts of such a rash decision.
We know that current efforts by states and the federal government to
regulate internet gaming have pushed online consumers to illegal, black
market sites that have little to no regulation.
Online gaming is a potential economic opportunity for the State of
Nevada and the entire country. Current estimates of online gaming
revenues range from $7 billion to $10 billion for 2004 alone, with U.S.
bettors providing at least $4 billion or more of that amount.
Many nations, including England, are in the process of legalizing,
regulating, and taxing online gaming.
I, along with my colleagues from Nevada, Congresswoman Berkley and
Congressman Porter, have introduced a bill, H.R. 5474, that would
establish a nine-member commission to undertake a complete study of the
internet gaming issue. The results of this study would allow the
President, the Congress, and every state and tribal government to make
informed decisions about this issue and presents a much better
alternative to a knee-jerk total ban on the activity.
I voted for H.R. 4954 because it is necessary that we secure our
ports against those who wish to do us harm, but I do so with grave
disappointment in the decision to add this nongermane internet gaming
language.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to vote for the SAFE Ports Act
when it was considered by Congress in May and I intend to do so
tonight. However, I am disturbed that The Internet Gambling Prohibition
and Enforcement Act was added to this bill during conference. My
understanding is that this provision was slipped into the bill at the
conclusion of the conference even though internet gambling has nothing
to do with port security.
I have long opposed The Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement
Act since the federal government has no constitutional authority to ban
or even discourage any form of internet gambling. In addition to being
unconstitutional, this provision is likely to prove ineffective at
ending internet gambling. Instead, by passing law proportion to ban
internet gambling Congress will ensure that gambling is controlled by
organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to
today's futile ``war on drugs,'' shows that the government cannot
eliminate demand for something like internet gambling simply by passing
a law. Instead, this provision will force those who wish to gamble over
the internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many
cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members
of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate
internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be
controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons
of internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce
contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on
members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the
profits of internet gambling will flow into organized crime.
Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are
able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to
organized crime from internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a
bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase
organized crime's ability to control and profit from internet gambling!
In conclusion, the ban on internet gambling violates the
constitutional limits on federal power. Furthermore, laws such as this
are ineffective in eliminating the demand for vices such as internet
gambling; instead, they ensure that these enterprises will be
controlled by organized crime. It is a shame to clutter an important
and good piece of legislation like the Safe Ports Act with a blatantly
unconstitutional power grab over the internet like the Internet
Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the gentleman from
Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in regards to the conference report to accompany
H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act.
As representative of the Port of Boston--I'm pleased that today's
conference report takes important steps towards better safeguarding our
Nation's 361 sea and river ports--through the authorization of
significant increases in port security grants for each of fiscal years
2007 through 2012, meaningful port worker security training provisions,
and substantive container screening and scanning improvements.
At the same time, I must say that I'm disappointed that the agreement
under consideration does not include the language to strenghten rail
and transit security passed by the U.S. Senate during its consideration
of port security legislation.
By including language to authorize $1.2 billion for freight and
passenger rail security as well as $3.5 billion for mass transit
security in a ports bill, the Senate clearly recognized that rail and
mass transit have also been grossly underfunded, this in the face of
repeated terrorist attacks against rail and transit systems worldwide--
from Paris, Tokyo, and Moscow to Madrid, London, and most recently,
Mumbai.
In furtherance of the Senate's action, just yesterday the House
passed a motion to instruct the House conferees to accept the Senate's
position on rail and mass transit security by a margin of 281-140.
Regrettably however, the rail and transit language did not make it into
this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, while this agreement is a good start towards securing
our seaports and the international supply chain, I think we've missed a
major opportunity to afford rail and transit similar respect.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support the
Conference Report on H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act. This bipartisan
legislation makes critical improvements to strengthen our domestic and
international security efforts and provides the resources necessary to
detect tampered cargo before it enters our ports. Passage of the SAFE
Port Act today is vital to our national security.
For Washington state, the SAFE Port Act will bring greater regional
coordination, new security grants, increased Customs personnel for
Puget Sound and radiation detection equipment that is both modern and
appropriate for the Port of Tacoma's increased rail capacity.
The SAFE Port Act also takes important steps to plan for and
immediately recover from any incidents on our docks. With the increased
role of western ports like the Port of
[[Page H8037]]
Tacoma and the Port of Seattle in our global economy, we must ensure
the free flow of commerce.
Passage of the SAFE Port Act will help protect our communities, our
critical infrastructure and our homeland. The SAFE Port Act will move
America in the right direction.
____
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for
H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act.
As a member of the Port Security Caucus and as an original co-sponsor
of this legislation, I have been consistently fighting for a massive
increase in funding and focus to secure our Nation's ports.
But as the 9/11 Commission's failing grades have pointed out, over
the last four years, the administration and the Republican Congress
have done far too little to secure our Nation's critical
infrastructure.
Just earlier this week the Homeland Security Department announced its
latest round of port security grants. The Port of Oakland in my
district did not get a single penny even though it's the 4th busiest
container port in the country and is a gateway to trade with Asia and
the Pacific. That is just inexcusable.
By authorizing $400 million in annual port security grants, the SAFE
Port Act takes a step in the right direction. Now we have the
responsibility to fund it.
We must also fix the gaps that still remain by requiring 100%
screening of cargo before it reaches our shores.
At the same time I am disappointed that the Senate language to expand
funding to secure our rail and transit systems was not included in this
bill.
The London and Mumbai rail and subway bombings happened on our watch.
We should not adjourn this session without addressing this critical
vulnerability.
____
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the House and
Senate were able to come together and address port security through the
passage of H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act. This may be the most important
piece of legislation we pass in the 109th Congress.
Clearly our Nation's ports are critical to America's economic
vitality. A major attack on the U.S. maritime transportation system
would simply devastate the U.S. economy. Some 95% of American trade
enters the U.S. through one of 361 seaports on board 8,500 foreign
vessels and makes more than 55,000 port calls per year, which total
worth is nearly
$1 trillion dollars. Securing these and the rest of America's ports as
well as the economic contributions they make must remain a top priority
for each of us.
As the proud Representative from California's 37th District, it is my
responsibility to enhance the security at the Ports of Long Beach and
Los Angeles, the largest port complex in the Nation and the third
largest in the world. In fact, over 52% of all waterborne cargo moves
through the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles alone.
This is a bill rooted in sound policy. Many provisions of the SAFE
Port Act was language in my legislation H.R. 478, the United States
Seaport Multiyear Security Enhancement Act, which I introduced in
February 2005. It was imperative that Congress passed a port security
bill which included multi-funding and a broad approach to securing the
entire international supply chain.
I urge the President to sign the SAFE Port Act as soon as possible,
as America's ports and those who live around them can wait no longer.
____
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to clarify my
``yes'' vote on Final Passage on the Conference Report H.R. 4954 SAFE
Port Act. My ``yes'' vote is in full support of all the necessary
Homeland Security and Port Security provisions included within the
legislation, however, I do not support the inclusion of the non-germane
and unnecessary prohibition on Internet Gaming. I am strongly opposed
to the inclusion of this language and long felt that Congress does not
have a comprehensive understanding of the complexities of this issue.
It is based on this lack of knowledge that I introduced H.R. 5474, The
Internet Gambling Study Commission Act. It is imperative that Congress
fully understand the facts of internet gaming before coming to any rash
decisions. The purpose of my bill is:
To establish a commission to study issues posed by the continued
spread and growth of interstate commerce with respect to Internet
gambling.
Although U.S. federal and state governments insist that online
gambling is illegal, in reality it is thriving. There is a huge
disconnect between current government policy and reality.
Millions of U.S. residents gamble online every day without the
protection of reliable regulatory structures that ensure age and
identity verification, the integrity and fairness of the games, or that
responsible gaming policies are followed.
Neither U.S. federal nor state governments receive tax revenues from
online gaming.
Disrespect spreads for laws that are neither enforced nor evidently
enforceable against an activity that enjoys wide and growing
popularity.
The online gaming industry creates no jobs in the United States and
American businesses earn no returns from online gambling.
Current inconsistencies in U.S. Internet gambling policy could lead
to sanctions by the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Again, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this inclusion of this language
and look forward to working with my colleagues to enact my legislation,
or some similar type of study legislation in the future.
____
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to advance
this important legislation. A few weeks ago, Presidnt Bush gave a
speech in which he stated that our intelligence shows that al-Qaeda has
two main goals--to destroy our nation physically through attacks such
as 9/11; and to pursue a ``death by bleeding'' strategy in which
terrorists destroy us economically. We could protect against al-Qaeda's
first goal by shutting down our borders--but by cutting off America's
life blood of trade, we would actually be helping al-Qaeda achieve its
second goal.
This bill is the right way to protect both our borders and our
economy. It utilizes innovative systems to protect our citizens, and it
provides new resources along our borders. Through programs such as the
Customs-Trade Partnership against Terrorism, we bring the energy and
experience of the trade community into our fight against terrorism.
These programs, together with the bill's provisions modernizing our
international trade data systems, also show that we can facilitate
legitimate trade while at the same time providing information to our
law enforcement officials to identify and stop threats.
To defeat al-Qaeda and prevent it from achieving its goals of
destroying America physically and economically, the Administration,
Congress, our citizens in the private sector, and our international
partners must work together--and trade cannot be seen as the enemy of
security.
I have made it a priority in this bill to ensure that through
consultation and cooperative programs, all of these key partners are
brought together so that we have the most effective and unified effort
we can against terror and for trade.
I congratulate all the Members of this Conference on this bill and
look forward to its quick passage.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 409,
noes 2, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 516]
AYES--409
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
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
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
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)
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
[[Page H8038]]
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
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 Rodgers
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
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)
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
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
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)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--2
Flake
Markey
NOT VOTING--21
Case
Castle
Evans
Foley
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gutierrez
Hefley
Hyde
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Lewis (GA)
Meehan
Ney
Nussle
Oxley
Sabo
Stark
Strickland
Tancredo
Wilson (SC)
{time} 0032
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina changed his vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on September 29, 2006, I was
away from my official duties due to a family mater, and subsequently
missed a recorded vote on Rollcall No. 516, on final passage of H.R.
4954, a bill to improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced
layered defenses, and for other purposes. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``aye.''
____________________