[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 9, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H209-H222]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMPLEMENTING THE 9/11 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS ACT OF 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murtha). Pursuant to Section 507 of
House Resolution 6, proceedings will now resume on the bill (H.R. 1) to
provide for the implementation of the recommendations of the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murtha). The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
[[Page H210]]
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to what order of the House are
we considering this resolution, H.R. 1?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House is proceeding under House
Resolution 6.
Proceedings will now resume on H.R. 1.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. HENSARLING. Does that special order of the House waive all points
of order against H.R. 1, including the newly enacted and much
advertised pay-as-you-go point of order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All points of order are waived by House
Resolution 6.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
Does the special order provide for the consideration of any amendments?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. By way of a motion to recommit.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
Does the special order treat the minority's right to offer a motion to
recommit in the same manner as the bill itself by waiving all points of
order again, including the much advertised new pay-as-you-go point of
order against the motion to recommit?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion to recommit is admissible. No
waivers are provided for such motion.
When proceedings were postponed earlier today, 11 minutes of debate
remained on the bill.
The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) had 6\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) had 4\1/2\
minutes remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, because her time was
accidentally cut off earlier, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding and for his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, today belongs to the family members of the attacks of
September 11 who have worked tirelessly to see these recommendations
enacted. They spent today in Congress in meetings in support of this
legislation.
The 9/11 Commission gave us a blueprint for better security which was
not meant to be on a shelf gathering dust. With this legislation,
Congress accomplishes more for security in less than a week than it
previously could accomplish in more than 2 years.
Homeland security is a high priority of the first 100 hours agenda,
and it includes many important and commonsense provisions. It requires
Homeland Security grants to be based on risk, not politics. And the
radios that did not work on 9/11 still do not work, and they did not
work at Katrina. It establishes a grant program specifically for
communications equipment for first responders.
It establishes an independent privacy and civil liberties board with
subpoena power, and it includes the prevention and helps to prevent the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. The bill
expands the U.S. diplomatic outreach in the Middle East.
In short, the bill will make our citizens and our country safer. It
is an important bill, and the 9/11 families thank the leadership of
this Congress. The responders thank the leadership of this Congress.
And I am deeply grateful that H.R. 1 is among the first bills in the
first Democratic Congress to pass. It will make us safer in this
country. I congratulate the new leadership on their hard work at making
this happen.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman
from Mississippi as to how many speakers he has?
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker, and I
will be prepared to close after that.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, for the last 4 years I have worked to ensure
that no shipping container should be put on a ship bound for the United
States until it is scanned for radiation and density, and sealed with a
tamper-proof seal. The 9/11 Commission insisted on better port security
measures.
Last year, along with Mr. Oberstar, I introduced the Sail Only if
Scanned Act. We tried to insert into the SAFE Port Act, but the
Republican leadership opposed this provision with near party-line votes
in committee and on the floor.
But now, Title V of this bill will implement the Sail Only if Scanned
Act, and require that every container be scanned and sealed with a
tamper-proof seal before being placed on a ship bound for the U.S. We
phase in the requirement, within 3 years for large ports, 5 years for
small. But it must be done.
We must be serious about protecting ourselves against the terrorists.
Studies are not enough. This bill finally takes the threat seriously.
The cost to scan each container is only about $6.50. The startup cost
to purchase and install the scanning equipment world wide is about $1.5
billion. Foreign ports can recover the cost by charging about $20 per
container. Given the fact that it costs about $4,000 to ship a
container from Asia to the United States and a container might hold
$50,000 or $100,000 worth of goods, that is a drop in the bucket.
This bill also includes critical provisions to strengthen aviation
security, to distribute homeland security grants based on risk, and it
will strengthen the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to secure
nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. For years, some of us
have been pushing to accelerate counter-proliferation programs. This
bill will go a long way toward securing loose nuclear materials around
the world.
I congratulate the new leadership of this House for pressing this
bill. I urge all my colleagues to vote for this and finally implement
the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and make this country
safer.
Madam. Speaker, for the last four years, I have worked to insure that
no shipping container should be put on a ship bound for the U.S. until
it is scanned for radiation and density, and sealed with a tamper-proof
seal. The 9/11 Commission insisted on better port security measures.
Last year, along with Chairman Oberstar, I introduced the Sail Only
if Scanned (SOS) Act. We then tried to insert it into the SAFE Port
Act. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership opposed this provision,
with near party-line votes in committee and on the floor.
But now, Title V of this bill will implement the Sail Only if Scanned
Act, and require that every container be scanned and sealed with a
tamper-proof seal before being placed on a ship bound for the U.S. We
phase in the requirement--within three years for large ports, five
years for small. But it must be done.
We know our port security system is vulnerable. The 9/11 Commission
said the opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater, in maritime
transportation than in our aviation system.
Luckily, the Democratic Leadership is willing to follow through on
our promise to scan 100 percent of shipping containers so that we can
prevent nuclear weapons from being smuggled into the United States
through our ports. We recognize that it is time for Congress to catch
up to the rest of the World. In Hong Kong, the Integrated Container
Inspection System (ICIS) pilot program has successfully achieved 100
percent scanning, proving that the technology works without slowing
down commerce. Many other ports are already starting to purchase this
equipment, and many in the shipping industry realize that it is in
their best interest to secure their cargo before,
G-d forbid, someone uses our ports to cause harm, and the system has to
be completely shut down.
We must be serious about protecting ourselves against the terrorists.
Studies are not enough. This bill, finally takes the threat seriously.
The cost to institute this system is minimal. It could be folded into
the cost of doing business and the consumer would never even notice.
The cost to scan each container is only about $6.50. The startup cost
to purchase and install the scanning equipment worldwide is about $1.5
billion. Foreign ports can recover the cost by charging about $20 per
container. This is a drop in the bucket given that it costs about
$4,000 to ship a container from Asia to the United States, and that
container might hold $50,000-$100,000 or more worth of goods. We waste
billions of dollars in Iraq and on other Defense Programs, such as
``Star Wars,'' but we can protect ourselves against this very real
threat to our port security system with virtually no cost to the U.S.
Government.
We must not wait to impose security measures until containers reach
the United States.
[[Page H211]]
If there is a bomb inside a container, and it is detected in Newark, or
Miami, or Los Angeles, it may be too late. Reading the cargo manifest
is not enough. Trusting the shippers is not enough. We must verify the
contents of the containers at the point of origin, before they are
loaded onto a ship destined for America. This bill will do just that.
This bill also includes critical provisions to strengthen aviation
security, to distribute homeland security grants based on risk, and it
will strengthen the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to secure
nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. For years, I have been
pushing to accelerate counter proliferation programs, and this bill
will go a long way toward securing loose nuclear materials around the
world.
I urge all my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1 and finally implement all
of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset of the debate, I commend the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) on his elevation to the
position of chairman. He is an outstanding Member of this House, and I
look forward to working with him in a bipartisan manner throughout the
next 2 years.
I must say, however, that I am deeply disappointed in the manner in
which this bill was brought to the floor today and, indeed, with many
of the provisions that are in this bill. I say that as someone who lost
more than 150 friends, neighbors and constituents on September 11th,
who has a number of staff members working for me who lost relatives on
September 11th, so no issue is more important to me than getting
homeland security right and making it work.
But during the previous 2 years, certainly during the 15 months that
I was chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, it was bipartisan.
Every bill that came to the floor went through subcommittee and went
through the full committee. Port security legislation, FEMA
restructuring, chemical plant security bill, all went through the
subcommittee, full committee and were adopted by this House and were
signed into law.
In addition to that, we had the risk-based funding bill which went
through the committee and again passed on the House floor. It was
blocked in the Senate. But the fact is, we got results, and we got them
in a bipartisan basis. No bill came to the floor without full
bipartisan cooperation from day one.
Now, unfortunately, for whatever reason, as part of the 100 hours
show, the leadership refuses to allow any bipartisan input, no
committee involvement at all, no subcommittee involvement and no
amendments. And in doing that, it is not just a shot at us. We can
survive that. We will be back in 2 years. But what I am concerned about
is, what this does for the next 2 years and what it does to the
Homeland Security Committee, because the 9/11 Commission specifically
stated that a committee should be given primary jurisdiction. That
should be the Homeland Security Committee.
{time} 1830
The Democrats could have taken care of that in their rules package.
They refused to do it. So the most important recommendation of the 9/11
Commission is not being enacted today. It is not being done at all. In
fact, they are weakening the committee by bypassing the committee
process.
I will use as one example what happens when a bill is rushed to the
floor without the proper deliberative process. We talk about 100
percent scanning of all cargo coming into our ports. The fact is in the
port security bill, which passed the House, passed the Senate and was
enacted into law, we set up pilot projects around the world to find a
scanning process that works.
The fact is there is no current technology that works at 100 percent.
We don't have it. We want to find what works the best. Nowhere in the
9/11 Commission report do they call for 100 percent scanning. All of us
want to have it. The fact is we are not going to be able to scan 11
million containers coming into our shores.
Now, last year when this was first raised by the Democratic Party,
the Washington Post said it is a terrible idea. It is a slogan, not a
solution. We hope lawmakers resist the temptation to use it in the
election season to come.
Now, the Washington Post is not exactly an advocate of the Republican
Party. Today in their editorial, they talk about what a tough job it is
to bring about homeland security. They say it will not be done by
wasting money on the kind of political shenanigans written into the
sprawling Democratic bill introduced on the House floor today.
The Democrats don't offer a realistic cost estimate for the mandate
they will propose, but the cost to the government and the economy is
sure to be in the tens of billions of dollars and quite possibly
hundreds of billions annually.
Luckily, the Senate will give more thought to its homeland security
bill, the Washington Post says, but House Democrats can figure those
odds as well as anyone, but why not score some easy political points in
your first 100 hours.
Well, the fact is you shouldn't be scoring political points on the
issue of homeland security. That is too important an issue to be
trivialized the way you are doing it here today. Now I will, in the
end, I will vote for this bill despite its faults, because I want to
send a bipartisan message that the House stands behind homeland
security.
But I will hope that in the future, we will have a Homeland Security
Committee which is empowered the way it should be by the Democratic
leadership, that a Homeland Security Committee, which I know the
chairman wants to do, will work in a bipartisan way so we can address
the scourge of Islamic terrorism as Republicans and Democrats and
Americans and not having something rammed through to score cheap
political points in the 100-hour circus.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the
remainder of the time.
First of all, I would like to set a couple of things straight for the
record. For my ranking member, these 9/11 recommendations are not cheap
political tricks; they are very serious and things that we all take
very seriously because of that.
With respect to the 100 percent port cargo screening, it says take
the lessons learned from the pilots and then implement what you learned
from the pilots, not go forward, like you say.
You talk about not bringing bills before the committee. You brought a
fence bill straight to the floor without going through a subcommittee
or a committee.
So I might say to my colleague, I look forward to working with him
over the next 2 years on making sure that we keep America safe from bad
people, but also that we are able to respond to natural disasters and
other things.
Mr. Speaker, it is fitting and proper that this bill, the first bill
voted upon by the new Congress, gets the record straight on the 9/11
Commission's report. We finished the job. Yesterday, former Vice Chair
Lee Hamilton of the 9/11 Commission made it very clear why we are here
today.
He said in his view, ``The terrorists are plotting today on how best
to strike the United States. They will not wait, and it has been a
source of very considerable frustration to the members of the 9/11
Commission that so many of our recommendations, which really are
commonsense recommendations, like the ability of the first responders
to communicate with one another, the allocation of funds on the basis
of risk and not politics, and many other recommendations, are simply
common sense. It has puzzled us and frustrated us that they have not
been enacted into law.''
Let us be very clear, Mr. Speaker, today's bill fixes these problems
and fulfills many of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. In short,
as 9/11 Vice Chair Lee Hamilton said yesterday, if this bill is
enacted, funded and implemented, the American people will be safer.
I urge support of the bill.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of an important bill that
will make America safer and more secure.
Today's legislation ends years of gridlock by finally enacting
recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission over two years ago. H.R. 1
will distribute homeland security grants based on risk, enhance nuclear
non-proliferation, and improve education and economic development in
Arab and Muslim countries.
[[Page H212]]
Under the Republican regime, I was never one to jump on the homeland
security bandwagon as Congress passed meaningless resolutions intended
to frighten and divide the American people, repeatedly and falsely
claimed progress was being made in Iraq, and conducted no oversight of
the Department of Homeland Security. In contrast, the Democratic
Congress is already taking meaningful action to improve American
security. H.R. 1 is short on rhetoric and long on reforms and tough new
security requirements.
The 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act contains common sense,
bipartisan ideas. Opponents may argue that this bill is too ambitious,
but they won't find a single provision inserted merely to instigate a
political fight.
In the recent election, Democrats pledged to work across the aisle to
pass substantive legislation that will affect the everyday lives of all
Americans. This first bill meets that pledge. I urge my colleagues to
heed the pleas of our constituents to stop posturing and start
legislating by voting yes to make America more secure.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, and I
urge all my colleagues to join me in voting to pass this vitally
important legislation to implement the recommendations of the
bipartisan 9/11 Commission.
Keeping all Americans safe should be the top priority of the
government. Congress cannot wait for another attack to take steps to
protect our nation from terrorism. I have worked on the Homeland
Security Committee to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations,
and I hope that the rest of my colleagues will join me in supporting
these critical reforms.
The bill includes a number of steps to improve homeland security,
including:
Requiring major improvements in aviation security, border security,
and infrastructure security;
Requiring 100 percent inspection of cargo at ports and on passenger
aircraft;
Providing first responders the equipment and training they need
including the critical issue of communications interoperability;
Increasing efforts to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of
mass destruction;
Significantly expanding diplomatic, economic and educational
strategies designed to counter Islamic terrorism;
Strengthening privacy and civil liberties protections; and
Restoring America's moral leaderships throughout the world.
As North Carolina's only Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I
worked with my colleagues in the 109th session of Congress to implement
many of the reforms included in today's legislation. In particular, I
joined my colleagues on the committee in supporting legislation to
screen 100 percent of all containers entering U.S. ports, and to
provide first responders with interoperable communications equipment.
The bipartisan 9/11 Commission was created by Congress to provide
recommendations on preventing another terrorist attack. The
recommendations were released in 2004. Congress implemented several of
the recommendations in December 2004, however the Republican-controlled
Congress did not implement many, and only partially implemented others.
In its final report card, the 9/11 Commissioners gave the
Administration and Congress many poor grades on implementing the
recommendations, and this legislation will make America safer by
putting these new policies into place.
Mr. Speaker, the American people want bipartisan action to provide
real solutions for a safe and secure country, and I urge my colleagues
to join me in voting to pass H.R. 1.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of H.R. 1, a long awaited legislative package that will finally
fulfill our duty to protect the people of our nation by fully
implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
After months of careful investigation into the security weakness that
led to the 9/11 attacks, the bipartisan and independent 9/11 Commission
proposed a series of reforms necessary to secure our country and
prevent future terrorist attacks. These recommendations addressed a
number of areas, including revamping the way we fund homeland security,
preventing nuclear materials and WMD from falling in the worst hands,
and targeting the root causes of terrorism. Yet, despite bipartisan
public support for their work, 20 of the Commission's 41
recommendations--nearly half--have gone unfulfilled.
Over the past two years, the 9/11 Commission has rated Congress'
implementation of their recommendations with failing grades. Protecting
the American people is the primary responsibility of our government,
and I am proud that one of the first bills considered by the new
Congress is the implementation of all of the 9/11 recommendations. This
bill meets our duty to protect the nation we serve by requiring the
scanning of all air and maritime cargo, increasing resources that will
enable our first responders to communicate with each other in times of
crisis, and ensuring that we distribute our homeland security funding
where it is needed the most.
I am particularly grateful that this bill increases our commitment to
preventing the worst weapons from falling into the worst hands. During
public forums on nuclear nonproliferation I have hosted in the past
year at St. Joseph College and Trinity College, many of my constituents
expressed their concerns about nuclear materials falling into the hands
of terrorists. That threat to our nation is real, and this bill
fulfills the 9/11 Commission recommendation to prevent terrorists from
acquiring weapons of mass destruction and strengthen our
nonproliferation programs around the world.
More than sixty Connecticut residents lost their lives on that tragic
September day in 2001. Over five years later, we owe it to them and
their families to finally implement these measures and ensure that such
a day will never happen again.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend this body for
considering legislation which with finally get us back on track to
fully implement all of the recommendations made by the bipartisan 9/11
Commission in 2004.
The 9/11 Commission provided our nation an objective and eye-opening
assessment of how terrorists were able to exploit our security
vulnerabilities on September 11th and made 41 key recommendations to
address these shortcomings.
Unfortunately, two and a half years after the Commission's
recommendations, there are still glaring threats that remain to be
addressed. In fact, just over a year ago, the 9/11 Public Discourse
Project issued a report card that gave the Administration D's and F's
in some of the most critical areas.
Today, we finally have an opportunity to ensure that the 9/11
Commission's tireless efforts were not in vain. The legislation before
us would shore up remaining vulnerabilities and implement
recommendations that have been ignored completely or only partially
addressed until now.
As the former Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Prevention of
Nuclear and Biological Attack, I am particularly pleased that this bill
contains several provisions to make our nation more secure from the
threat of a nuclear attack. H.R. 1 strengthens our most effective
global non-proliferation programs, like Cooperative Threat Reduction
and the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. These programs have proven
successful in securing the most dangerous nuclear material abroad,
before it can get into the hands of those who would do us harm.
Additionally, this measure gives the United States the power to
sanction individuals involved in the illegal trade of nuclear material.
It also builds upon the recently enacted SAFE Ports Act by requiring
all cargo containers be scanned before leaving their port of origin and
improves the quality of their inspections.
Today we are also taking a long-overdue, comprehensive approach to
the vulnerabilities that remain in our aviation system. Under this
measure, we will finally screen 100 percent of cargo on passenger
planes and improve airline screening checkpoints to detect explosives.
This measure will also create a redress process for passengers
misidentified against the ``No Fly'' or ``Selectee'' watchlists who
have been wrongfully delayed or prohibited from boarding a flight.
This measure provides significant support to first responders, who
place their lives on the line each day, by funding state and local
efforts to obtain the interoperable communication systems essential for
emergency response. Additionally, our bill will considerably improve
information sharing, which is one of our most effective forms of
defense. H.R. 1 will strengthen fusion centers across the country,
helping state and local law enforcement build relationships across
every level and discipline of government and with the private sector to
help ensure that criminal intelligence and other information is shared
with those who can put it to the best use.
Finally, this legislation will protect the privacy and civil
liberties of Americans, while effectively combating terrorism. Under
this measure, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will be
reestablished as an independent agency, which will greatly enhance the
Board's oversight functions and help to ensure that we do not sacrifice
freedom in the name of security.
The best way to honor those who died in the attacks of September 11th
is to learn from the lessons of that tragic day, and this bill brings
us much closer towards achieving this goal.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1.
I am deeply disappointed that it has taken more than 5 years since
the terrible events of September 11, 2001, to implement the
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
However, by making legislation implementing these recommendations the
first
[[Page H213]]
measure brought to the floor, our Democratic leadership has affirmed
what will be our unwavering commitment to homeland security throughout
the 110th Congress.
I am also deeply heartened that this bill would exceed the 9/11
Commission's recommendations by finally requiring the examination of
all shipping containers bound for the United States.
Only a small percentage of the 11 million containers delivered during
the more than 62,000 port calls made annually at U.S. ports is
physically inspected upon arrival. It is therefore critical that all
possible measures be taken to interdict containers that could pose a
threat to our Nation's security before they ever set sail for our
shores.
I urge the passage of H.R. 1 and I commend Speaker Pelosi, Leader
Hoyer, and Chairman Thompson for their dedication to port security. I
look forward to working with our distinguished Chair, Mr. Oberstar and
the leadership to strengthen the security of every facet of our
Nation's transportation network.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1, the ``Fully Implementing the 9/11
Commission Recommendations Act,'' does not achieve what it advertises.
In fact, in many cases, it inhibits our Nation's ability to secure our
citizens against attack. This bill neglects to address many
recommendations, including classified oversight of the Homeland
Security Department, declassification of the intelligence budget, and a
shift of paramilitary operations from the CIA to the Defense
Department. There are other provisions inserted in this bill, that do
not appear anywhere in the 9/11 Commission Report, including
unionization of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees,
100 percent screening of cargo containers, and several foreign policy
initiatives, some of which have already been passed into law.
Incredibly, a provision in this bill would cede one of our Nation's
most critical and effective national security initiatives to regulation
by the United Nations. The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) is a
4-year-old program created and run by the United States to coordinate
nonproliferation efforts by ourselves and our allies. This program's
effectiveness was a key deterrent to Libya's nuclear program, and was
directly responsible to uncovering the large Pakistani nuclear black
market ring run by A.Q. Khan. Transferring this program to the United
Nations would require participants in the program to seek the approval
of these foreign governments prior to interdicting illicit WMD
material, creating yet another hurdle that agencies would have to
overcome prior to intercepting illegal WMD shipments.
This program relies heavily on shared intelligence, which is the
primary reason it must not be handed over to the UN Security Council.
This would jeopardize the intelligence, routes, methods and sources
used by U.S. and allied forces to prevent proliferation of WMDs by
rogue regimes and terrorist organizations. Allowing members of the
United Nations Security Council, which in the past has counted Syria
and Pakistan as members, will compromise operations, cripple the
program's effectiveness and endanger our citizens.
In yet another disparity, the 9/11 Commission does not recommend 100
percent screening of cargo containers. However, the last Congress
determined that greater security was a need, and therefore passed, with
bipartisan support, the SAFE Ports Act. Under these expanded security
measures, all cargo entering the country is assessed for risk long
before it reaches our shores, and when designated as questionable,
those shipments are thoroughly inspected. In fact, current best
practices by the Customs and Border Patrol also includes random
inspections both at dockside during loading and unloading, and of the
trucks as they leave the port.
This 100 percent mandate is also incredibly burdensome financially.
House Democrats expect industry, and possibly foreign governments, to
cover the costs of ensuring 100 percent cargo screening of containers
entering the United States by air or sea. The airlines would be
expected to pay for air cargo inspections; while foreign port terminal
operators would be expected to pay for scanning U.S. bound sea cargo.
The bill does not estimate how much this will cost, but DHS is already
spending $60 million a year to scan sea cargo at six foreign ports.
According to DHS, there are more than 700 I seaports that ship to the
U.S., raising estimates of the costs of this program into the tens of
billions.
Funding for Homeland Security must be split to address a wide array
of threats against the United States to minimize risk as best possible.
To allocate funding on any program that has little likelihood of
effectiveness is egregiously irresponsible. Container-screening
technology is improving, but is not yet proficient enough to scan all
of those containers in a useful, accurate, and speedy manner. That is
why in the SAFE Ports Act, Congress included provisions to conduct
feasibility studies of the 100% container-screening proposal and of
emerging screening technology. The results of these studies have not
even been reported, and yet the Democratic leadership insists on
pushing through this incredibly ill advised mandate without the full
information, without hearings and without mark-up sessions in
committee. This illogical, ill-informed approach to our national
security is being pursued with only one discernable purpose, political
clout by achieving passage of the Democrats' ``100 hours agenda''.
There is also the extraordinarily troubling provision that would
grant collective bargaining rights to TSA employees. On the surface,
this may seem reasonable, but it poses a clear danger to our national
security. Granting unionization rights to TSA employees would allow
them to strike when negotiating their contracts. Imagine a strike of
TSA screeners at airports across the nation at Thanksgiving, or the
during the Fourth of July holiday. It would be a nightmare--airport
operations would cease or the security of our flights would be
threatened from lack of adequate passenger and luggage screening. That
is one reason why federal employees in positions impacting National
Security were purposely excluded from collective bargaining rights when
Congress passed the Labor-Management Relations Act in 1947, and
affirmed again when the TSA was re-established under the Department of
Homeland Security in 2002.
DHS must have the flexibility to move and retrain employees at will
in response to the changing nature of threats against the United
States. Following last July's intelligence revelation that terrorists
were plotting action against U.S. flights from the United Kingdom, one
critical advantage that DHS cited was the ability to shift employees to
respond to this new emerging threat. Should TSA employees unionize, DHS
would no longer have this speed and flexibility, weakening our
responses to terrorist threats.
This bill is touted by democrats to implement many of the
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, but not only does it not
accomplish this, it fails to identify funding for the initiatives. In
fact, only one provision in the entire bill contains a defined funding
authorization: the checkpoint screening security fund, which would
authorize $250 million for FY2008. Therefore, this legislation could
end up only as an exercise in futility should appropriators not
allocate funds for these programs. House Homeland Security Chairman
Bennie Thompson conceded that he may have included more authorization
levels had there been more time, ``But, in the spirit of `let's get it
done,' we'll work it out.'' Ramming through legislation with the
expectation that legitimate concerns and problems with legislation will
be addressed at some later date is not the way to protect our citizens,
and it is certainly a haphazard manner in which to pass laws.
National security is not an issue that should hinge on ``rough
drafts'' of proposals awaiting future refinement. If there is a need to
reform our nationals security procedures, which I believe there is, it
is imperative that we thoroughly consider these issues in Committee
with hearings and legislation mark-up sessions. We must always consider
national security issues with due deference and the humbling knowledge
that every initiative we pass here in Washington will directly impact
the security of our constituents at home.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1.
The 9/11 Commission made its recommendations over two and a half years
ago, and I am pleased this legislation to implement those
recommendations is a top priority in this Congress.
Among other things, this legislation will address the allocation of
Homeland Security grants to ensure risk-based distribution of funds to
provide the most vulnerable areas with the resources necessary to
protect citizens and infrastructure. Section 2001 of this bill defines
what critical sectors should be used to determine high risk areas, and
representing a district that is home to many of these sectors, I have
long supported these changes.
This bill will also improve information sharing among different
levels of law enforcement, improve the interoperability of
communications for first responders, and strengthen aviation and cargo
security.
As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, these are all important steps
toward securing our homeland. But I am concerned about how some of
these objectives are accomplished and the jurisdictional implications
in this bill.
In particular, this bill provides the Department of Homeland Security
with broad authority over public health, electric transmission, site
security, and communications. The agencies and departments that
currently oversee these areas have expertise working with these issues
and it is not clear that DHS is better prepared to regulate, advise or
award grants in these areas.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure these issues
are worked out either in conference or through committee oversight.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, after more than 2 years of needless delay, the
House is finally taking action on the balance of the recommendations
made by the 9/11 Commission.
[[Page H214]]
This is a large bill that tackles a range of critical issues, but I
want to comment on three areas in particular: risk-based funding for
homeland security needs, making our first responder's communications
truly interoperable, and measures we need to take overseas to stop the
terrorist from getting here in the first place.
For the past several years, I've sponsored a series of homeland
security grant writing workshops for first responder organizations in
my district. These workshops are always well attended and I'm pleased
that they've been of value in helping various fire, EMS, and police
departments cross central New Jersey become competitive in applying for
these grants. However, the one question I get most often from these
professionals is ``Why aren't these grants allocated on the basis of
risk?'' I know many of my colleagues were hearing the same thing from
their first responders, which is why last year I joined a number of my
colleagues in sending a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security
Michael Chertoff asking him to make grant award decisions on the basis
of risk. While DHS has made some progress in this area, it hasn't come
far enough quickly enough. That's why I'm pleased that this bill
requires DHS to use a risk-based funding formula when allocating these
grants. New Jersey is at far greater risk of attack--and it has more
infrastructure targets, like chemical plants--than more rural, less
densely populated states. Our vulnerabilities require commensurately
greater resources.
Another critical fix contained in this bill is a grant program
dedicated to communications interoperability. As incredible as it may
seem, 5 years after the 9/11 attacks, and one year after Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, the Department of Homeland Security still does not
allocate funds specifically for the purpose of helping local first
responders coordinate in an emergency. As a result, states and
localities are forced to rob Peter to pay Paul by using large chunks of
homeland security grant funding--in some instances 80 percent--to
purchase communications equipment. As a result, fewer resources are
spent securing bridges, ports, and buildings. This is a false choice
being forced upon local officials. Today's legislation is a down
payment on those needs.
Importantly, the federal grants can be used only for equipment,
technology, and systems that have been determined by the Secretary of
Homeland Security to meet emergency communications equipment and
technology standards. Therefore, State and local governments will be
protected from relying solely on the claims of vendors, and can use the
grants to invest in emerging technologies, not the same dinosaur
systems that first responders historically have been forced to rely on.
Also, this bill also takes steps to ensure the completion of a National
Emergency Communication Plan. Such a plan will help to ensure that
Federal, State, and local governments are developing plans and
systems to improve multi-jurisdictions communications in an emergency
that is truly ``National'' in scope.
Finally, while this bill includes useful provisions for strengthening
our outreach to the Islamic world, we have to recognize that defensive
measures at home are necessary in part because of a failure of our
policies abroad.
For decades, our government has had a devil's bargain with a number
of corrupt, despotic regimes in the Middle East and South Asia: they
help us maintain order in the region, and we help them maintain order
at home. We don't like to talk about this hypocritical double standard,
but it exists, and it is impossible to truly quantify how much damage
that hypocrisy and our support for such dictatorial regimes has cost
us.
This is another legacy of the Cold War, where any country--no matter
how brutal its government--was a potential ally for us against the
Soviets. The same misguided approach is now being applied in our
relationships with various countries with corrupt, brutal governments
that ruthlessly suppress dissent at home even as they proclaim their
solidarity with us in the war against Al Qaeda and like-minded groups.
The reality is that by viciously obliterating the voices of
moderation in their societies, these despotic regimes are paving the
way for Al Qaeda. By eliminating those calling for a free press and
free elections, these governments are driving ever-greater numbers of
Muslims into bin Laden's ranks. So long as we stand by and let them
repress or destroy the voices of moderation in these countries, will we
be complicit in the creation of the next generation of people who
reject democracy in favor of the Kalishnikov rifle or the car bomb.
Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that the House will pass this bill today and
I will gladly support it. But we must know that even if this bill
becomes law, the work of protecting our citizens and restoring our
country's standing in the world has only begun.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the new Congress has begun and today we
debate the first piece of our 100 hours agenda, H.R. 1--the
implementation of some of the long-overdue bipartisan 9/11 Commission
recommendations.
As I have stated on numerous occasions, national security is our
highest priority. By passing these long-overdue 9/11 Commission
recommendations today, we will be taking significant steps towards
better protecting our country. This means scanning all air cargo loaded
onto passenger planes and seaborne cargo containers shipped into the
United States, as well as encouraging intelligence information sharing
among federal, state and local agencies.
Further, it will increase the share of state homeland security grants
provided to our communities, based on risk--an issue of particular
concern to my home state of California. The current formula results in
40 percent of funding equally distributed to each state with the
remainder allocated based on risk. With H.R. 1, each state is
guaranteed a minimum of .25 percent of funding, while states that share
an international border, or are connected to a body of water with an
international border would receive at least .45 percent. This strikes a
balance between risk-based allocations and ensuring a funding minimum
for all states. Another result of this new distribution is that more
funding will be directed towards essential programs such as the Urban
Area Security Initiative, the State Homeland Security Grant program and
the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention program.
Concerns have also been raised about the gaps in the Department of
Homeland Security's critical infrastructure asset database. Over the
past year, I have repeatedly highlighted overlooked infrastructure with
DHS, which led to the Department making changes to the Urban Area
Security Initiative Grant. This bill will begin to close this gap by
requiring annual assessments of information regarding critical
infrastructure and the creation of a regularly updated asset databases.
As I have repeatedly stated, the federal government needs to do its
job of protecting the American people. Part of that is providing
leadership by setting standards as incorporated in H.R. 1 and the other
is to provide resources.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has had far too long to implement these
critical reforms recommended by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. I am
pleased to be able to vote today in favor of H.R. 1. I know that these
reforms will direct our limited federal funds toward areas facing
higher threats, and ensure further safety standards for our
transportation systems. Through H.R. 1 we will ensure that our country
is better protected against and prepared for any future terrorist
attack.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of provisions in this
bill that I believe will improve our national security. For instance, I
support increasing protections at our most important infrastructure
facilities, like dams and power plants, and improving the Homeland
Security grant allocation process so that it is truly risk-based. I
also agree with the provisions in the bill that would strengthen
sanctions on countries that participate in the proliferation of nuclear
materials, equipment and weapons technology.
However, I do have concerns with the bill's cargo inspection
provision. We need to arrive at a system that ensures that all cargo
entering the U.S. is safe. I believe the best way to approach supply
chain security is through a risk-based approach, as endorsed by the
SAFE Ports Act, which became law last fall. In particular, the SAFE
Ports Act establishes a pilot program to test a system of 100 percent
scanning at three ports. Then, based on lessons learned from that
program, we could deploy a broader functioning inspection system.
Although the goal of today's legislation is laudable, I am concerned
that it imposes an arbitrary deadline for its new requirement for 100
percent scanning in all ports without first considering the
effectiveness of such a proposal or our ability to carry it out. We
must also consider who will pay for this new program--both inside and
outside the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I remain committed to working with others in the House
to see that the provisions of last year's SAFE Ports Act are
implemented, and believe that the feasibility of any new measures and
mandates should be demonstrated before they're passed into law.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, during this past campaign, Democrats
pledged to move legislation through the regular committee process and
to allow Republicans more latitude to offer amendments on the House
floor. They broke this promise last week, again today, and they intend
to do it next week as well. Today, as the House considers H.R. 1, the
Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007, Members
are not allowed to offer any amendments. Formal committee process,
rather than a closed rule and no committee consideration, would have
identified the absurdity of providing an unelected board with an
administrative subpoena authority that exceeds that of the FBI.
[[Page H215]]
An administrative subpoena is an order from a government official to
a third party, instructing the recipient to produce certain
information. Congress has granted subpoena authority to many agencies
that exercise regulatory powers. One problem with administrative
subpoenas is that they are not reviewed by courts unless challenged or
for enforcement reasons.
The 9/11 Commission's final report recommended that ``there should be
a board within the executive branch to oversee adherence to the
guidelines we recommend and the commitment the government makes to
defend our civil liberties.'' H.R. 1 makes the Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board an independent agency within the executive
branch.
I generally oppose administrative subpoenas within the executive
branch, specifically those for law enforcement. I opposed granting the
FBI administrative subpoena authority during consideration of the
PATRIOT Act and I oppose it in this case.
During a Judiciary Committee markup of H.R. 10 in September 2004, I
offered an amendment to establish a Privacy and Civil Liberties
Oversight Board to provide advice and counsel on policy development and
implementation as it pertains to privacy and civil liberties
implications of executive branch actions, proposed legislation,
regulations, and policies related to efforts to protect the Nation from
terrorism. My amendment was a complete substitute for an amendment
offered by Mr. Watt that would have provided for a similar board with
broad administrative subpoena power and provided nearly unlimited
authority to analyze all aspects of the Nation's war on terrorism.
While it is necessary to provide the proper tools and resources
needed to fight and win the war on terror, giving an unelected board
broad administrative subpoena authority is not the answer.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am greatly pleased that the
first priority of this legislation is to continue the efforts of the
109th Congress to fundamentally change the way in which Homeland
Security grants are dispersed. By current formulae, only 60 percent of
grants are assigned on the basis of risk, meaning that we are spending
hundreds of millions of dollars that should be protecting our most
vulnerable citizens and infrastructure on political priorities.
Restructuring this grant program to better protect the regions at
highest risk of terrorist threat has been amongst my highest priorities
since coming to Congress. North Jersey, which I represent, lost many
residents and family members in the 9/11 attacks and, in fact, sent
many of its own first responders over the Hudson River to respond to
those attacks. While those same brave New Jersey first responders have
struggled to purchase the communications and safety equipment that are
necessary to deal with any future attacks, operating with outdated air
packs and obsolete radio equipment, other areas of the country with
less risk of terrorist attack have had the luxury of using these funds
for far less necessary purchases.
Three times the 109th Congress passed legislation to fix this gross
oversight. I hope that the current leadership will stand strong and
insist that their colleagues in the Senate take the appropriate steps
to better prioritize our limited funds and make our people safer.
I am further concerned that this large and expensive bill has come to
floor outside of any normal procedure. There are a number of new
programs, panels, reports, and procedures contained in the bill that
have never come before the Committee on Homeland Security. Some of
these programs may be effective in enhancing our security, but without
expert testimony or any comment from the department officials who will
carry out these directives, we can have no confidence in their value.
In fact, there is no real way to even determine what all these
provisions will cost since the bill fails to appropriate or authorize
specific sums. Given the claims of our new leadership that they are
retaking the mantle of fiscal responsibility, it is disturbing to see
that their first piece of legislation, H.R. 1, comes to the floor
without any plan for how much is to be spent and where all this new
funding is supposed to come from.
Security for the American people should be our number one priority,
but we absolve ourselves of our responsibility as legislators by
writing a blank check. I hope that in the coming months we can work
together to bring real solutions to the House floor and work with the
Senate to send strong legislation to the President.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, the
Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act.
I am pleased that in the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, the
Democratic leadership is taking up legislation of enormous importance:
how to make our Nation safe from future terrorist attacks.
As a Nation, we must work harder to close the security gaps that
still exist. For example, we know that transportation systems are a
frequent target of terrorist attacks. In fact, one third of the
terrorist attacks that take place around the world's largest
transportation systems.
As many have observed, our Nation's security is only as strong as our
weakest link. This bill will help strengthen some of our weakest links,
especially with respect to security at our ports.
Today only about 5 percent of the more than 11 million shipping
containers destined for the United States are inspected or scanned. We
cannot own or control the entire global trade network, but we can and
should ensure the security of containers destined for this country.
Security experts agree that nuclear weapons, or bomb-making
materials, could easily be smuggled into the country under the current
regime.
Beyond the human toll, an attack on or through our ports would have a
dramatic economic impact and could bring the flow of commerce to a dead
stop. A terrorist attack on our ports--or an attack carried out through
a cargo container system--would undermine our Nation's confidence in
the hundreds of thousands of containers that crisscross our country
every day.
I'm proud to represent one of the busiest commercial ports on the
West Coast--the Port of Hueneme. The employees at the Port and the
people that live and work around it appreciate that this bill will
finally close this glaring security gap.
H.R. 1 ensures that every container is scanned using the best
available technology before being loaded onto a ship destined for our
country. And it mandates a gradual implementation to ensure that
overseas ports have the time to purchase and install new scanning
equipment. These measures will ensure that commerce will continue to
flow as these important security measures are taken.
As you know, this legislation is modeled on the operations conducted
at container terminals in Hong Kong, which scans 100 percent of cargo
containers without impeding commerce. The cost of creating this
security system is quite minimal. In fact, the estimated cost to scan a
container is only $6.50--a drop in the bucket given it costs about
$4,000 to ship a container from Asia to the United States.
All Congress needs to do is make 100 percent scanning the policy of
the United States. And this legislation would do just that
To protect the security of our Nation, Congress must act to implement
this recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, and the others included in
this legislation, to further secure our homeland.
Mr. Speaker, we continue to confront grave threats, and there is no
greater priority than ensuring the safety of our country.
I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important
legislation to make Americans safer.
One of the most important functions of government is to protect
people.
On September 11, 2001, our Nation suffered the devastating terrorist
attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and at the Pentagon.
Thousands of people were killed, many were injured, and all of us were
scarred.
We vowed to do whatever was necessary to protect our homeland. We owe
it to the victims and their families. We owe it to all Americans.
And we are taking a big step to make Americans safe.
Congress is now following the recommendations made by the bipartisan
commission formed to report on the 9/11 failures.
This Commission had both Republicans and Democrats, men and women who
have served our country well. They worked hard to produce a report that
would help us understand what needed to be done.
The 9/11 Commission issued 41 recommendations to the Administration
and Congress that were designed to improve homeland security, prevent
terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and develop
strategies for preventing the spread of Islamic terrorism.
Many of these recommendations have only been partially implemented.
Others have been ignored.
For more than 5 years after the September 11 attacks, Republican
leaders refused to take action on many of the recommendations essential
to the security of the American people.
The 9/11 Commissioners have routinely given the Bush Administration
and Congress failing grades on implementing the recommendations and
taking actions to protect Americans.
So it is important that we pass this legislation.
This bill includes many provisions to improve homeland security,
including steps to prevent terrorist attacks by speeding up the
installation of explosive detection systems to monitor passengers and
baggage at airports, requiring 100 percent inspection of air cargo over
the next 3 years and 100 percent scanning of U.S.-bound shipping
containers over the next 5 years.
[[Page H216]]
These steps are especially important to the people I represent in the
Inland Empire of California because our region is an important
transportation route for cargo arriving in the United States at the
ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and at LAX airport.
We must make sure that dangerous weapons or chemicals or other
hazardous material are not brought into our country and then traveling
on highways or railroad tracks or stored in warehouses in the San
Bernardino area.
With this legislation, we are also creating a grant program to help
first responders have the equipment they need and make sure they can
communicate with one another in an emergency.
These are just some of the important and necessary ways we are making
Americans safer by passing this legislation.
I am proud to support H.R. 1 to implement the recommendations of the
9/11 Commission.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, on July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission
released its final report on the 2001 terrorist attacks. That was 2 \1/
2\ years ago. Since that time, we have had two elections and two
Congresses. Yet only today are we beginning to enact most of the
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
This is a long and complicated bill that is far from perfect. The
scope of the bill's language must be addressed before it is finalized
into law. This is, however, an important step forward.
The inaction of the previous Congress and the current administration
has left America vulnerable, with the American people questioning its
leadership. Cargo remains largely unscreened. Not all first responders
can communicate effectively. International alliances against terrorism
are in shambles. Civil protections have been weakened. Any bill that
attempts to hold the administration accountable for this state of
affairs is indeed welcome.
The legislation calls for vulnerability assessments of our Nation's
infrastructure and seeks to prioritize threats. It establishes grant
programs involving the private sector and public safety officials, for
communications, intelligence, and border protection, and encourages a
common set of criteria for private sector preparedness efforts.
Some of these functions already occur within Federal agencies that
regulate sectors of our economy, including energy, public health,
telecommunications, information technology, drinking water, chemical
and transportation systems, as well as other commercial facilities. We
must ensure the bill will not result in wasteful or duplicative efforts
that may cause further confusion, or compromise our national security.
H.R. 1 establishes a new grant program at DHS to improve
communications among public safety organizations during emergencies.
But true interoperability requires more than just spectrum and
technology. Stepped-up coordination and planning among public safety
personnel, accompanied by greater funding, are critical.
Congress directed the Department of Commerce to use its spectrum and
communications expertise to administer a $1 billion interoperable
communications grant program, which is currently underway. Recognizing
the value of such a grant program, this legislation now seeks to
emulate this approach within DHS. I hope that doing so will properly
focus DHS on ways to achieve widespread communications
interoperability.
In addition, given the Government Accountability Office's cyber
security concerns, I fully expect nothing in this bill will distract
DHS or other Federal agencies from properly preparing for and reacting
to cyber threats.
Additionally, my home State of Michigan has one of the busiest--and
most peaceful--border crossings in the world. Businesses on both sides
of the border are dependent on smooth and regular transit between the
U.S. and Canada. We need to consider the costs to the economy of
northern border States as we strike a balance between open borders and
security.
In the weeks following 9/11, the delays at the Ambassador Bridge--
Detroit's only crossing with Canada--cost Michigan billions and forced
factories to suspend production. Hopefully this legislation can speed
the technological enhancements and personnel expansion we desperately
need.
I also appreciate the independence this legislation provides to the
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, whose membership will be
confirmed by the Senate. This should go a long way toward ensuring that
civil liberties of Americans are truly protected. Without independence,
opportunities for chicanery will persist.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve upon this
important first step. As this legislation moves into conference,
members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce with extensive
expertise on these matters including issues as diverse as nuclear
energy, the reliability of our communications systems, and the safety
of our food supply and drinking water, will enhance these policies for
the betterment of the American people.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me just thank the
majority for bringing this bill to the floor because I think that most
Americans want Democrats and Republicans to work together to ensure
that all America remains safe and secure and not to repeat another
September 11.
And by and large there are some very good elements of the
legislation, but let me right at the outset request that as we go
forward there are some specific concerns that New York City has that I
think need to be addressed. First is the issue that the city itself
cannot apply directly for the interoperable communications grants, it
must go through the State without any requirements that the State get
the funds to the locality like New York City such as exists in the UASI
process. We know by now that New York City has specific needs and
therefore I believe this should be addressed.
The same would apply to what could be a duplicative process in
relation to the new interoperability grant program under DHS speaking
as someone who was involved with the establishment of the first
interoperability grant program under the Department of Commerce where
as we speak the NTIA is in the process of preparing guidelines. My
concern is that we don't get in a situation where there are two
different agencies getting into a bureaucratic trap which will prevent
the flow of money.
Most importantly, however, is that we know that one size does not fit
all and I speak specifically that under current law there could be, and
I think will be a problem, with relation to section 3006 of Public Law
109-171. And that is, as much that over the last 10 years New York City
has allocated a lot of money and in the last 5 years since 9/11 almost
a billion dollars to upgrade its interoperability capacity to allow
firefighters and police officers to talk to each other. So now under
current law we are essentially saying that everyone must use the 700
MHz in the spectrum. New York City cannot, like I said, they have
allocated a billion dollars, in the 400 and the 800 megahertz spectrum,
Why? Because they found out that it is easier to use that to
communicate into subways, into high rise buildings. The last thing I
think this Congress wants to be on the record for is to essentially tie
the hands of New York City. Undo much of the good work that has taken
place over the last 5 years and allow New York City and other
localities that have unique and specific needs to continue to deploy
and build on the networks that they have put in place. I think it would
be a big mistake, I encourage the majority to consider using this
legislation as a vehicle to clarify congressional intent in current law
as the process goes forward. I make no mistake, I make no hesitation
that not acting will hurt and punish New York City and the millions,
tens of millions of people who come there to visit the greatest city in
the world.
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 1, Implementing
the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007. With this legislation
we finally have a real opportunity to address the unfulfilled
recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission on improving homeland
security, preventing terrorists from acquiring WMD, and developing
strategies for preventing the spread of Islamic terrorism.
While I support H.R. 1, there is one area of concern that I believe
we could do more to improve and that involves security improvements to
our ports and incoming containers. Certainly, screening containers is
important but it isn't enough. We have to start with the basics.
The idea of screening 100 percent of all cargo containers is a
formidable task that is expensive and extremely time consuming. I
believe we should strive to meet these goals, however, this could take
many years and cost billions of dollars before we achieve that
objective. In the meantime, there are many inexpensive basic steps that
we can take to make our ports and containers more secure. Tampering of
containers in route to the United States is a genuine threat. Today,
containers are only protected by a simple bolt seal. All it takes to
defeat our current container security is bolt cutter. Fortunately
better technology is available. For over 3 years, the Department of
Homeland Security and Customs and Border Patrol have been developing a
Container Security Device or a CSD.
The job of a CSD is simple. It attaches to the inside of a cargo
container, protected from the elements and anybody who might want to
remove or disable it. It monitors and records door openings--authorized
and unauthorized. The CSD can then report those breaches to port or
customs authorities. It sounds simple and it is simple. These devices
are currently being used by the private sector--companies like
Starbucks--to safeguard their shipments worldwide. But unbelievably,
despite extensive evaluation by DHS, CBP and commercial entities, it
still has not been deployed in even a pilot program in the supply
chain.
Today, we don't know where a container has been, whether someone has
opened the
[[Page H217]]
doors or who actually stuffed it. CSD technology that is available
today can provide critical security information. It is also important
to note that the CSD program is available at little cost to the Federal
Government and to shippers. At less than $20 per shipment, we have a
chance to make a real difference in port security. The administration
should move to deploy CSD technology and do it at soon as possible.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, legislation
to fully implement the remaining recommendations of the 9/11
Commission. I am pleased the new House leadership has made this one of
the first major pieces of legislation debated in the 110th Congress.
In the 5 years since the appalling acts of September 11, our country
has been fighting terrorism to protect America and our friends and
allies. On July 22, 2004, the independent and bipartisan 9/11
Commission provided to Congress and the American public 41
recommendations to improve homeland security.
At the end of the 108th Congress, legislation was passed and signed
into law that implemented some of the recommendations of the 9/11
Commission. I was disappointed that the bill did not implement all of
the Commission's recommendations. That is why I am pleased to support
the bill before us today which includes all of the remaining
recommendations.
One of the most important subjects the bill addresses is how the U.S.
Government interacts with the Arab and Muslim world. The United States
must extend our preemptive strategy to include winning the hearts and
minds in the developing world; I believe this can be achieved through
education reform. H.R. 1 would significantly enhance the International
Arab and Muslim Youth Opportunity Fund, which is designed to improve
educational opportunities for these youth, by calling for greater
funding and outlining specific purposes for the fund.
Education reform in the Arab and Muslim world is of great importance
to me. In fact during the 109th Congress I introduced the Universal
Education Act to reform education in the developing world. Despite
strong evidence that education can make nations more prosperous,
healthy, stable, and democratic, the total amount spent each year on
foreign aid directed at education could not even build 20 American high
schools. If one of our strategic goals is to defeat terrorism around
the world, we need to drastically increase our foreign aid spending,
and to help developing nations improve their education systems.
Additionally, the bill before us improves the capabilities of the
Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center by authorizing additional
funding and hiring intelligence analysts experienced in the fields of
human trafficking and terrorist travel. Cutting off the ability for
terrorist to leave their country of origin is a first good step to
stopping another attack on U.S. soil.
Further, the legislation strengthens several Federal non-
proliferation initiatives so that weapons of mass destruction, WMD, do
not fall into the hands of terrorists. Moreover, H.R. 1 would enact the
Nuclear Black Market Counter-Terrorism Act. This bill requires the
President to impose sanctions on any foreign person who trades nuclear
enrichment technology to a non-nuclear weapons state or provides items
that contribute to the development of a nuclear weapon by a non-nuclear
weapons state or any foreign person. This action sends a clear message
to would be terrorists that if they do attempt to arm themselves there
will be serious consequences.
I praise the Commission for its excellent work, leadership,
patriotism, and service to our country. We owe it to the families of
the victims of 9/11 and to the citizens of our country to use the
report's recommendations to make certain such attacks never happen
again.
Again, I would like to congratulate and thank the House leadership
for making one of the first tasks of the 110th Congress implementing
the wise reforms suggested by the 9/11 Commission. I urge my colleagues
to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1.
I am deeply disappointed that it has taken more than 5 years since
the terrible events of September 11, 2001, to implement the
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
However, by making legislation implementing these recommendations the
first measure brought to the floor, our Democratic leadership has
affirmed what will be our unwavering commitment to homeland security
throughout the 110th Congress.
I am also deeply heartened that this bill would exceed the 9/11
Commission's recommendations by finally requiring the examination of
all shipping containers bound for the U.S.
Only a small percentage of the 11 million containers delivered during
the more than 62,000 port calls made annually at U.S. ports is
physically inspected upon arrival. It is therefore critical that all
possible measures be taken to interdict containers that could pose a
threat to our Nation's security before they ever set sail for our
shores.
I urge the passage of H.R. 1 and I commend Speaker Pelosi, Leader
Hoyer, and Chairman Thompson for their dedication to port security.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this long-
overdue legislation to implement the recommendations of the 9/11
Commission.
The war on terror isn't just a military operation--it's also a battle
to persuade people in Arab and Muslim countries that the universal
values of freedom and democracy are far superior to radical ideologies
that preach intolerance, hate and violence.
This bill includes several important provisions to help us succeed in
that struggle.
Building on previous legislation, it establishes an enhanced
International Arab and Muslim Youth Opportunity Fund to provide
educational opportunities for young people.
The Fund will support teacher training, the development of modern
curricula, and the translation of western publications to help ensure
that students have alternatives to the radical Madrassas that nurtured
the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
A related provision in the bill extends a program I authored with Mr.
Knollenberg that provides scholarships for Arab and Muslim students to
attend American-sponsored elementary and secondary schools in their
home countries.
This can be a cost-effective means to ensure that needy students
receive an American-style education and exposure to western ideas and
values.
H.R. 1 also authorizes the designation of a Middle East Foundation to
support democracy, human rights, civil society, independent media and
the rule of law in countries throughout the greater Middle East.
Like the highly successful Asia Foundation, this non-profit, non-
governmental institution will make it easier for the U.S. to support
reform-minded organizations and individuals without arousing the
suspicion and mistrust that often comes with direct government funding.
Consistent with the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, this
legislation also calls for a significant expansion of U.S.
international broadcasting and other public diplomacy in Arab and
Muslim countries, and provides new authority that will allow the
Broadcasting Board of Governors to respond quickly to a crisis
overseas.
As Congress takes these steps to improve our international
broadcasting capabilities, I hope the President will appoint a new
Chairman of the BBG to enhance the credibility and effectiveness of
that important organization.
Finally, this bill also contains some very important provisions to
combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
It repeals unnecessary restrictions on the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative
Threat Reduction program, strengthens the Global Threat Reduction
Initiative, and establishes a U.S. Coordinator for the Prevention of
WMD Proliferation and Terrorism.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this important
legislation.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I could not be more pleased that we
start the hundred legislative hours dealing with the implementation of
9/11 commission recommendations.
On the first somber anniversary of 9/11, I asked myself whether we
had done all we could have as a Congress to make America safe. Sadly I
did not think so and my feelings were vindicated when the bipartisan
independent 911 commission later reported that much more was left to be
done. That was as unacceptable then as it is now.
The American public expects and deserves better. By moving forward
with these recommendations today, we are keeping faith with that
commitment and making long overdue progress. I understand that this is
the beginning of that commitment rather than the end. There are other
things that I would do much more quickly including giving the American
public the budget numbers so they can begin to evaluate our
stewardship, but I understand that these will take more time.
We are striking a balance between rapid action, broader consensus and
bipartisan engagement. Today we're dealing with the lowest hanging
fruit and setting the stage for more progress. I look forward to the
committees' of jurisdiction in the House stepping up their efforts, and
to the Senate joining us in what I hope will be a steady stream of
further reform. Until that happens, launching the grant program for
interoperability among first responders refocusing investments based on
risks and not political power and providing a platform for the
legislative leadership to coordinate in these critical oversight areas
are very important first steps.
We'll continue to work for further streamlining the congressional
intelligence and security oversight, but I am delighted that this will
be done in an open legislative platform and
[[Page H218]]
moving away from the backroom dealing that has shut out the minority.
This represents an important and long overdue step forward.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, which
provides for the implementation of remaining recommendations by the
bipartisan 9/11 Commission.
Implementation of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations is long
overdue. In 2004, the 9/11 Commission submitted 41 recommendations to
the Bush Administration and Congress to fill critical gaps in our
nation's homeland security. More than two years later, many of these
recommendations have only been partially implemented and others not at
all. Troubling gaps in our homeland security still exist. As the Co-
Chairmen of the Commission stated last August, ``we are not as safe as
we should be.''
As just one example, the 9/11 Commission found that the inability of
first responders to communicate with each other and their commanders
resulted in a loss of life after the planes hit the World Trade Center
towers five years ago. In an emergency situation, first responders in a
unit--and across departments--must be able to talk to each other. In
response, one of the Commission's recommendations stated that
establishing and funding interoperable communications for first
responders had to be given a high priority. This hasn't happened;
indeed, after Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans last year, the
communications network in that city simply collapsed.
Securing funding for interoperable radios is the number one homeland
security priority for my district, but the high cost of establishing
the required infrastructure and acquiring the necessary equipment has
greatly slowed this vital effort. For smaller communities, the tens of
thousands of dollars needed to upgrade their systems is simply too
great. The stand-alone interoperability grant program included in this
legislation is a great step forward, and I look forward to working to
secure appropriations for this critical effort in the future.
The Commission also criticized the current funding system for federal
first responder funding--which guarantees States a large portion of
baseline funding with some additional funding distributed on the basis
of population--arguing that homeland security assistance should be
based ``strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.''
One result of the current funding formula is that States at low risk
of terrorist attack receive far more money per capita than states at
much higher risk from terrorism. For example, under the current
formula, Wyoming received $18.06 per capita in Department of Homeland
Security grants in 2006 while Michigan, whose border crossings are the
busiest on the northern border and conduct about $450 million in trade
every day, received $5.13 per capita.
The legislation before the House significantly increases that share
of state homeland security grants provided on the basis of risk. Under
the bill, most States would be guaranteed a minimum of 0.25 percent of
Homeland Security grant money, down from 0.75 percent. Eighteen states
that have international borders, including Michigan, would get a higher
guaranteed amount of 0.45 percent of the total. The rest of the money
would be distributed based on the Homeland Security Department's
assessment of risk and need. I agree with this approach. We must focus
our resources on high-threat areas where the risk from terrorist attack
are greatest.
The most basic job of government is to be ready to respond in the
event of a disaster, whether natural or man-made. We can't afford
another response like the one following Hurricane Katrina. I urge all
my colleagues to join me in voting for this important legislation.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the 9/11
Commission Fulfillment Act of 2007. Specifically, I strongly support
the provision in this bill that creates a new Checkpoint Screening
Security Fund, with $250 million in dedicated funding for explosive
detection technology at airport checkpoints. This provision is derived
from H.R. 1818, the Airport Screener Technology Improvement Act of
2005, which Chairman Oberstar and I introduced last Congress.
Mr. Speaker, the single greatest security threat to aviation today is
the suicide-bomber as evidenced by the 9/11 Commission specifically
recommending that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and
Congress ``give priority attention to improving the ability of
screening checkpoints to detect explosives on passengers.''
Several months later, the Department of Homeland Security Inspector
General (IG) reported that airport screeners were still having serious
problems detecting threat items at checkpoints because they lacked the
technology. Specifically, the IG found that:
``Despite the fact that the majority of screeners . . .
were diligent in the performance of their duties . . . lack
of improvement since our last audit indicates that
significant improvement in performance may not be possible
without greater use of technology . . . We encourage TSA to
expedite its testing programs and give priority to
technologies, such as backscatter x- ray, that will enable
the screening workforce to better detect both weapons and
explosives.''
In response to the IG's findings, the TSA concurred.
In September 2005, the 9/11 Commission reiterated its recommendation
to strengthen passenger security screening declaring that ``minimal
progress'' had been made. The Commission urged Congress to:
``. . . provide the funding for, and TSA needs to move as
expeditiously as possible with, the installation of
explosives detection trace--portals at more of the nation's
441 commercial airports, while both continue to support the
development of more advanced screening technology.''
Mr. Speaker, the recommendations, findings and statements of the DHS
IG, TSA, and the 9/11 Commission all suggest that technology is sorely
needed to improve security at our airports. But, limited funding has
prevented the wide-scale deployment of these technologies.
We know what needs to be done to improve screener performance, and we
must take action now. If a U.S. airliner is destroyed by a suicide-
bomber it will not be regarded as a ``failure of imagination''--it will
be regarded simply as a failure of funding and a failure of political
will to provide the resources that might have prevented it.
Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased that H.R. 1 provides dedicated
funding to improve airport security checkpoints and I ask my colleagues
to vote yes on this bill so we can work to deploy technologies that
will help our screeners do their jobs and keep the American traveling
public safe.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, our Government has no greater
responsibility to the American people than national security. It is one
of the few prescribed duties specifically outlined in both the preamble
and body of the United States Constitution.
It has been over 5 years since the terrorist attacks of September 11
and America is safer and much more alert to the dangers that lurk in
our world. Since 9/11, our military and our intelligence services have
thwarted dozens of attacks. Their efforts have saved countless lives.
These successes were possible because of the tools we armed them with
through the passage of laws on the floor of this House.
Mere days after September 11, Republicans responded by approving the
USA PATRIOT Act to address the ways in which American law enforcement
agencies can combat terrorism. By making necessary changes such as
modernizing wiretapping laws and allowing more information sharing
between law enforcement agencies, we increased the likelihood of
catching terrorists and punishing them accordingly. This law, which we
recently reauthorized, has enabled the Federal Government to
effectively deter and punish terrorist acts in the U.S. and around the
world.
Following the release of the 9/11 Commission's report and
recommendations. Members of the House and Senate met to discuss these
issues. At times, our views differed significantly regarding the
changes we believed were necessary, but, in the end, we were able to
find common ground on many of these issues and did what was right for
America.
This culminated in the passage of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act. This legislation provided the largest
overhaul in the structure of the U.S. intelligence community since the
creation of the CIA and incorporated most of the recommendations
offered by the 9/11 Commission. Furthermore, this legislation allowed
the intelligence community to focus its efforts on 21st century threats
and was a tremendous step to further protecting the safety of the
American people.
As we learned, access to timely and accurate information is critical
to defeating terrorists and protecting our Nation from other threats.
As such, the bill created the Office of the National Intelligence
Director who acts as the unifying central point bringing together U.S.
intelligence efforts. In addition, the bill addressed the loop-holes
that existed in our national security structure by making improvements
to law enforcement, defense intelligence, emergency preparedness, and
border and aviation security.
The Intelligence Reform Act also addressed the issue of
communications interoperability for first responders. The act required
the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a national strategy for
public safety interoperability communications, and required the
Secretary to establish two pilot projects to serve as national models.
In addition, we passed subsequent legislation to establish an Office of
Emergency Communications within the Department of Homeland Security.
Furthermore, we included provisions in the Deficit Reduction Act to
plan for the release of radio frequency spectrum, and create a fund to
receive spectrum auction proceeds. Among other things, the fund
establishes a grant program of up to $1 billion for public safety
agencies to deploy interoperable systems.
[[Page H219]]
Nonetheless, we still had important border security and immigration
provisions to be addressed. To that end, the House passed the REAL ID
Act of 2005. A key 9/11 Commission recommendation, the REAL ID Act
federally standardizes the requirements for applying and issuing State
identification cards. According to the 9/11 Commission, the 19
hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks carried between
them 13 valid drivers' licenses and 21 State-issued ID cards. The
Commission recommended Congress establish Federal standards for sources
of identification in order to target terrorist travel and better
prevent another terrorist attack on American soil. This legislation
addressed that.
And that's not all--over the past 5 years, this House has passed
legislation to address maritime and port security, aviation security,
and research and development of biomedical countermeasures to potential
biological attacks.
As President John F. Kennedy once said, ``In the long history of the
world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending
freedom in its hour of maximum danger.'' This is a responsibility we
have never shied away from. America must continue to be vigilant and
prepared for terrorist threats and attacks. And we will continue to
work together to that end.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the long-awaited
legislation this nation has desperately needed since the 9/11 attacks
on our democracy . . . yet which was pushed to the back burner by the
previous Congress.
I'm proud that--within the first 100 legislative hours of this
Congress--we are considering this bill to make our Nation safer by
implementing the 9/11 Commission's recommendations left out of the
Intelligence Reform bill in 2004. The bill also goes beyond the
Commission's recommendations by requiring, within five years, 100
percent scanning of U.S.-bound shipping containers.
I represent two major ports in South Texas--the Port of Brownsville
and the Port of Corpus Christi, which also has a strategic sealift
command--and the array of possibilities for terrorists to access our
Nation through shipping containers is amazing and horrifying.
Implementing the Commission's recommendations will make us safer by
enhancing homeland security, strengthening efforts to stop the
proliferation of WMD, and promoting strategies to reduce the appeal of
extremism, particularly in Muslim parts of the world.
Today, we are--at long last--making a number of substantial
improvements to homeland security, including: distributing homeland
security grants on the basis of risk alone; creating a stand-alone
grant program for interoperable communications for first responders;
requiring a 100 percent inspection of air cargo over the next 3 years;
accelerating the installation of explosive detection systems for
checked baggage; and mandating a strategic plan to deploy explosive
detection equipment at passenger checkpoints.
Today's bill also offers provisions to prevent terrorists from
acquiring WMD by creating a U.S. Coordinator for the Prevention of WMD
Proliferation and Terrorism and a blue-ribbon commission to recommend
further reforms. We also strengthen efforts to eliminate nuclear black-
market networks, easily the greatest danger to the civilized nations of
the world.
Through this bill we offer strategies to reduce the appeal of
extremism by providing assistance for expanding modern educational
programs for Arab and other Muslim youth around the world, as well as
promoting economic opportunities, education reform, human rights, and
democratic processes in the countries of the Middle East.
This is a good day for this nation . . . and when the president signs
this bill into law, we will be a safer nation.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the
opportunity to make reference to the fact that H.R. 1 includes
provisions in which the Judiciary Committee has a jurisdictional
interest. Specifically, I am speaking of provisions that touch on the
following aspects of the bill: the Human Smuggling and Trafficking
Center, the Fusion and Law Enforcement Education and Teaming Grant
Program, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, and the treatment of detainees.
I appreciate the assistance of my colleague from Michigan, Mr.
Conyers, in assuring the expedited consideration of this important
legislation on the House floor, given his Committee's jurisdictional
interest in the legislation. While it is important to note that I do
not control the entire process, as there are other House Committees
involved and the Senate will likely have its own positions on a variety
of these issues, I am glad to work with the gentleman from Michigan and
other Members of the Judiciary Committee as this legislation moves
forward.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001 remain a dark day in our Nation's history, but the tragedy of 9/11
rallied Americans to the aid of their fellow citizens and showed the
world our resilience.
Throughout the country, patriotic Americans responded to the attacks
by volunteering to serve their country in the armed forces, and I am
proud to count my son among those who signed up.
Since 9/11 we've known that we need to do more to expand security
measures nationwide. The legislation we will be voting on today takes
us a few steps closer to protecting Americans here at home by
increasing security at our nation's ports and airports, improving
communication, and providing funding for our first responders.
The 9/11 Commission created the blueprint for increasing security
some time ago, and I'm pleased today that we are implementing these
critical security recommendations to make America more safe.
I commend the House for taking up this legislation today, and I urge
all of my colleagues to support its adoption.
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1. My
district in Northern New Jersey was greatly impacted by the terrorist
attacks on September 11, 2001. It has been over 5 years since that
terrible day and we are still mourning for those who were lost. I can
think of no better way to honor the memories of those who were lost and
to honor those who were injured than to pass H.R. 1 today.
Two and half years ago the bipartisan 9/11 Commission released their
report and submitted 41 recommendations to Congress. As of today, many
of those recommendations have not been implemented and therefore we
have not done everything we can to help secure our nation.
One of the most important recommendations is to change the
distribution of homeland security funding for high risk States and
regions. My district has been named one of the areas in the country
that is most susceptible to terrorist attacks. The risk that we live
with every day should warrant more federal funding in order to help
ensure security. The cities and towns in my district need to know that
they can count on funding for overtime, equipment, and all of the other
demands that are put on our communities due to these threats.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is long overdue. I strongly support H.R. 1 and
I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murtha). Pursuant to section 507 of
House Resolution 6, the bill is considered read and the previous
question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit with
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Ros-Lentinen moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1 to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendments:
Page 191, after line 22, insert the following:
(a) Statement of Policy.--The following shall be the
policies of the United States:
(1) The responsibility for ensuring the security of the
American people rests exclusively with the Government of the
United States and may not be delegated in whole or in part to
any international organization, agency, or tribunal or to the
government of any other country.
(2) The freedom of the Government of the United States to
act as it deems appropriate to ensure the security of the
American people may not be limited by, or made dependent
upon, the act or lack thereof, by any international
organization, agency, or tribunal or by the government of any
other country.
(3) The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land
and cannot be subordinated to, or superseded by, any act, or
lack thereof, by any international organization, agency, or
tribunal or by the government of any other country.
(4) In carrying out its responsibility for ensuring the
security of the American people, the Government of the United
States has sought and should continue to seek to enlist the
cooperation and support of international organizations,
agencies, and tribunals, including the United Nations and its
affiliated organizations and agencies, as well as the
governments of other countries; but no act taken by the
Government of the United States regarding its responsibility
to ensure the security of the American people may be deemed
to require authorization, permission, or approval by any
international organization, agency, or tribunal or by the
government of any other country.
[[Page H220]]
Page 191, line 23, redesignate subsection (a) as subsection
(b).
Page 192, strike lines 10 through 12.
Page 192, line 13, redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph
(2).
Page 192, line 15, redesignate paragraph (4) as paragraph
(3).
Page 193, strike lines 6 through 9.
Page 193, line 10, redesignate subsection (b) as subsection
(c).
Page 193, line 14, redesignate subsection (c) as subsection
(d).
Page 193, lines 23 to 24, strike ``paragraph (4) of
subsection (a)'' and insert ``paragraph (3) of subsection
(b)''.
Page 194, lines 2 to 3, strike ``paragraphs (1), (2), (3),
and (5) of subsection (a)'' and insert ``paragraphs (1) and
(2) of subsection (b)''.
Page 194, line 4, redesignate subsection (d) as subsection
(e).
Page 194, line 9, strike ``(a)'' and insert ``(b)''.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Mississippi?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk continued to read the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized
for 5 minutes in support of her motion to recommit.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, since its creation by this
administration in the year 2002, the Proliferation Security Initiative,
known as PSI, has quickly become one of this country's most valuable
tools in helping to stop spread the weapons of mass destruction and
preventing them falling into the hands of terrorist countries.
Our PSI partners, working at times with others, have stopped the
transshipment of materials and equipment that have been bound for
Iran's ballistic missiles programs and also has prevented Iran from
procuring goods to support its WMD programs, including its nuclear
program. Again, it was PSI cooperation between the United States,
Britain and other European partners that began the demise of the Dr.
A.Q. Khan network, an action that also contributed to the decision of
the Libyan Government to stop and abandon its nuclear weapons and
longer-range missile program.
However, despite this extraordinary record of success, some of our
Democratic colleagues tell us, as noted in the Dear Colleague that they
have circulated today, that securing United Nations authorization under
international law would persuade countries that are not currently
cooperating with us in the United States to prevent this illicit trade
in items of proliferation concern to somehow cooperate with us.
They dismissed a coalition of the willing, on which the PSI is based
as an ad hoc assembly. But the PSI has been a success precisely because
it is a coalition of the willing.
Countries that might wish to slow or limit its activities have no
means of doing so. The fact is that no country that genuinely wishes to
cooperate with the United States, another PSI participant, is prevented
from doing so. The idea that there is a need for the United Nations to
provide legitimacy to the PSI under international law to permit
countries to cooperate is nonsense.
I do not share the sentiments of my Democratic colleagues who have
the surprising faith in the United Nations' desire to advance the
interests of the United States. Whether it is Iran, Syria, terrorism,
Middle East peace, the U.N. is rarely a help and more often than not a
hindrance to the advancement of the goals of the United States. Rather,
the desire for consensus, an agreement for agreement's sake, as a
result, is a race to the bottom.
We have seen this with the so-called Human Rights Council, Mr.
Speaker. If we allow the section cited in the motion to remain in the
bill, a similar result is likely to happen with PSI. Some of my
Democratic colleagues appear to regard U.N. authorization under
international law as something upon which U.S. action must be
predicated, that it is a higher authority to which we must turn in
order to secure authorization for all our actions, a permission which
may be granted or held as the U.N. sees fit.
We must reject that interpretation. I am certain that many of our
constituents do reject it. What troubles me most are statements that
begin with the phrase ``international law does not allow.''
{time} 1845
We on this side of the aisle do not believe that international law
controls what the U.S. can and cannot do, what it must do to protect
the interests of the American people. That is why I have included
language in this motion to recommit stating that simple truth.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the remaining time to Mr. Wolf of
Virginia, a man who understands the failures of the United Nations. And
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this restatement of the
fundamental principle upon which our Constitution and the foreign
policy of our country is based.
Mr. WOLF. Why would you give the United Nations any impact when, in
Rwanda, 700,000 people died, and the U.N. did nothing? In Srebrenica,
the U.N. stood by as 700 Muslims were led to their death by the Serbs.
In Darfur, where I have been, I led the first delegation, 450,000
people have died, and this House has called it genocide, and genocide
continues today.
Why would you give the U.N. any authority when it couldn't stop
genocide in Darfur, genocide in Srebrenica, and genocide in Darfur
today? I strongly support the amendment.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. LANTOS. Let me first say, I strongly agree with my good friend
from Virginia in opposing genocide. Genocide has nothing to do with
this legislation. Let's make that clear.
Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side are misrepresenting
provisions in H.R. 1 that strengthen and reform the Proliferation
Security Initiative. They are attempting to exhume an old tactic: Scare
the American people with the specter of the all-powerful, irresistible
military machine that is the United Nations.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, this characterization is as absurd as ever
and has about as much substance as Shakespeare's Banquo's Ghost. But it
is part and parcel of the irrational opposition to all things
multilateral even when multilateral and international institutions
clearly benefit American interests.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, our bill seeks to use international law to our
benefit. Our bill seeks to broaden the Proliferation Security
Initiative's authorities under international law to help us convince
more nations to support U.S. efforts to stop and prevent the illicit
trade in dangerous items of proliferation concern. It does not
relinquish any responsibility to the United Nations.
Current international law gives no basis for partners in the
Proliferation Security Initiative to intercept shipments related to
weapons of mass destruction. One cannot overcome this weakness by ad
hoc assemblages of coalitions of the willing.
Even the White House has admitted that international law is weak in
this regard and needs to be strengthened.
Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit would in fact weaken U.S. counter
proliferation efforts by undermining effective action at the United
Nations to increase Proliferation Security Initiative's global
legitimacy and authority.
Mr. Speaker, we will never allow any other government or
international organization to control what actions we take to safeguard
U.S. national security, but we will use international tools that are
available to us in the real world to protect America regardless of the
purely ideological preferences of some on the other side.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit,
and yield the balance of the time to my good friend from Missouri, the
distinguished chairman of the committee on Armed Services, Ike Skelton.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, as a fellow says back home: You can have
your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts. As I said to my
friend the gentlewoman from Florida a few moments ago: Read the
language. It is not what folks on the other side are saying it is.
The Proliferation Security Initiative, as established by the
President in 2003,
[[Page H221]]
is among the newer elements of our many efforts to stop proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction. The PSI is all about the interdiction
of weapons of mass destruction and materials, and supports American and
international security interests. It is a voluntary agreement that we
propose, but we have actively encouraged other nations to participate.
It is really pretty simple: It is in American interests to stop ships
carrying weapons of mass destruction. It is in our own security
interests, if not other countries', to join this effort and take on
more of this critical work. The oceans of this earth are vast, and
sometimes we are not closest to the ship that must be stopped. We need
states all over the world willing to step in.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198,
noes 230, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 14]
AYES--198
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--230
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--7
Buyer
Gillmor
Knollenberg
Marchant
Moran (KS)
Norwood
Ortiz
{time} 1909
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 14 on H.R. 1, I
mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yes'' when I should have voted ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 299,
noes 128, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 15]
AYES--299
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Butterfield
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
[[Page H222]]
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--128
Aderholt
Akin
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Hastert
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
McCarthy (CA)
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Sali
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
Buyer
Gillmor
Knollenberg
Marchant
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Norwood
Ortiz
{time} 1917
Mr. CARDOZA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 15, I missed
the rollcall vote inadvertently. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
____________________