[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 122 (Friday, July 27, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H8789-H8812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1, IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 9/11 
                         COMMISSION ACT OF 2007

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 567 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  July 27, 2007 On Page H8789 the following appeared: Mr. HASTINGS 
of Washington.
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Mr. HASTINGS of 
Florida.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 567

       Resolved,  That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 
     be in order to consider the conference report to accompany 
     the bill (H.R. 1) to provide for the implementation of the 
     recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist 
     Attacks Upon the United States. All points of order against 
     the conference report and against its consideration are 
     waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  I also ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days 
within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous 
materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to myself, I 
yield to the gentleman from New York for a unanimous consent request.
  (Mr. McNULTY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of both the rule 
and the conference report.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 567 provides for consideration of the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 1, to provide for the 
implementation of the recommendations of the National Commission on 
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. The rule waives all points of 
order against the conference report and its consideration.
  This is a typical rule for a conference report and was reported out 
by the Rules Committee by a bipartisan voice vote.
  Mr. Speaker, when Americans decided last November that they were 
tired of the way business was being done in Washington, they elected 
Democrats to the majority.
  We promised them that we would implement the recommendations of the 
9/11 commission, and today we are fulfilling that promise in bipartisan 
fashion. We are showing that compromise can, indeed, yield good policy. 
Democrats have shown with this bill that that compromise can indeed be 
positive for America.
  There were many who did not want to see Democrats succeed in 
completing work on this bill. They preferred political posturing over 
protecting the American public. For them, inaction is an acceptable 
solution, and obstructionism their plan to get back into the majority.
  The American people should take great comfort in knowing that we will 
not allow them to succeed.
  I commend my good friends, the distinguished chairman of the Homeland 
Security Committee, Bennie Thompson, and the ranking member for their 
tireless work on this conference report. It was not an easy job, but 
their diligence and commitment to protecting America persevered.
  This product takes significant steps to further protect the American 
people. Democrats are leading in delivery while fixing the shortcomings 
in our homeland security network highlighted by the 9/11 Commission.
  First, this conference report places a priority on providing homeland 
security grants based on risk and not political preference. This is 
especially important to my constituents, as south Florida has seen its 
recent homeland security grant allocations decreased as political 
consideration has increased in the process.
  When it comes to first responders, the conference report includes 
$1.6 billion for a first responder interoperability grant program.
  The report also invests in rail, transit and bus security, 
authorizing more than $4 billion for these crucial grants.
  Further, this report requires the screening on all passenger air 
cargo within 3 years. This is, without doubt, the furthest that 
Congress has ever gone to ensure that the flying public is safe and 
protected.
  Within the next 5 years, the conference report requires the screening 
of all container ships as they leave foreign shores and head to the 
U.S. This, too, was another of the 9/11 recommendations.
  If America is going to be safe, Mr. Speaker, then Congress must do 
everything in its power to ensure that cargo coming into our ports has 
been screened and checked. As someone who represents a district which 
is within just miles of three major international seaports, I'm pleased 
that the committee included this provision in the bill. The safety and 
security of south Florida literally depends on it.
  I'm also pleased that the Homeland Security Committee and the House 
Intelligence Committee, of which I'm a proud member, were able to reach 
an agreement regarding the public disclosure of total spending in the 
intelligence community. This was another key recommendation from the 9/
11 Commission, and Democrats are again keeping their promise to turn 
those recommendations into law.
  It is a new day in the House of Representatives. With honesty and 
transparency as our guiding principles, Democrats are working to 
strengthen and restore faith in our intelligence community. Even more, 
we are sending the message to the American people that this Congress 
will no longer allow the intelligence community to operate without 
proper oversight.
  This conference report is another installment of how Democrats are 
working to protect the American people and hold the Bush administration 
accountable for its failures and shortcomings.
  This is a good conference report and a good rule. I urge my 
colleagues to support both.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H8790]]

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to 
the woefully incomplete conference report that the Democrat majority is 
bringing to the House floor today.
  Despite the repeated campaign promises made by Democrat leaders to 
the American people that they would take action on all of the remaining 
9/11 Commission recommendations, that is not what is being done and not 
what is being brought to the floor of the House today.
  It now appears that those claims were nothing more than just a hollow 
campaign promise because, as anticipated, they have failed to address a 
key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.
  While the Senate included a simple sense of Congress that 
congressional operations should be streamlined so that overlapping and 
duplicative oversight issues could be addressed, even this simple 
symbolic measure was dropped from the final legislation.
  The 9/11 Commission stated: ``Of all our recommendations, 
strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult 
and important. So long as oversight is governed by current 
congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people 
will not get the security they want and need.''
  It went on further to say: ``Congress should create a single, 
principal point of oversight and review for homeland security.''
  In the 109th Congress, House Republicans provided the responsible 
leadership needed on this issue by making the Committee on Homeland 
Security a standing committee, but there are still 10 other House 
committees that have overlapping and redundant oversight over the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  House Democrats could have enacted this change with a simple rules 
change at the start of the 110th Congress. They failed to do so then; 
and with this legislation, they are once again ignoring this important 
issue entirely, including a campaign promise.
  Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, this conference report is not a complete 
failure. Thanks to the leadership of President Bush and House 
Republicans, two important provisions were fixed in this conference 
report that will help keep Americans safe and improve our ability to 
combat terror at home.
  First, this legislation wisely does not contain a mandate that 
collective bargaining rights be required for the Transportation 
Security Administration screeners. This dangerous provision was 
originally buried in the House Democrat leadership's version of this 
legislation; and thanks to President Bush's veto threat, it has been 
removed from the legislation that we are considering today.
  The 9/11 Commission did not recommend collective bargaining for TSA 
screeners. In fact, to the contrary. The commission stressed the need 
to improve airport security and screening procedures. Collective 
bargaining would have prevented implementing fluid operations for 
protecting our country by requiring TSA management to consult with 
union bosses before making critical homeland security decisions.
  As Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff explained, ``Marines 
don't collectively bargain over whether they're going to wind up being 
deployed in Anbar province in Baghdad. We can't negotiate over terms 
and conditions of work that go to the heart of our ability to move 
rapidly in order to deal with the threats that are emerging.''

                              {time}  1415

  Secretary Chertoff also noted that the proposed negotiations with 
unions would have seriously threatened operations such as the 
interception of the London bombing plot or a response to Hurricane 
Katrina. Thankfully, in what may be the first missed opportunity for 
increasing the power of labor bosses this year in the House, good sense 
prevailed and this provision did not survive the legislative process.
  Additionally, good sense and Republican-proposed policy prevailed in 
this conference through the inclusion of a provision to protect 
vigilant observers who support suspicious terror-related activity. By 
including these John Doe provisions, my good friend, the Homeland 
Security Ranking Member Peter King, won a great victory on behalf of 
the American people.
  As Congressman King recently noted, in a post-9/11 reality, vigilance 
is essential to security. Despite the Democrat opposition to this 
Homeland Security measure, common sense has prevailed and heroic 
Americans who report suspicious activity will be prevented and 
protected from frivolous lawsuits. The American people were heard, and 
our country is safer because of it.
  I commend Congressman King and other Republicans that served on this 
conference committee for insisting that Congress not let trial lawyers 
and the fear of litigation get in the way of promoting one of our best 
and most dynamic lines of defense against domestic terrorism, having 
everyday Americans report potential threats and terrorist activities to 
the proper authority.
  While the Democrat party may not trust American men and women to use 
their good sense in reporting suspicious activity, I know as 
Republicans that's what we will do, and I really do appreciate Pete's 
efforts for this hard work.
  I also appreciate all the hard work that was put into developing the 
conference reports on both sides of the aisle. I am also pleased to 
note that this conference report represents the first time that labor 
bosses and trial attorneys have been denied their every wish on this 
House floor. Unfortunately, I am not confident that we will see another 
commonsense bill that puts the safety and well-being of the American 
people over these special interests any time soon.
  I also appreciate the Democrat leadership's attempt at almost 
fulfilling one of their many unfulfilled campaign promises by bringing 
this legislation back to the House floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very privileged to yield 
3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security 
Committee of this House, my good friend from Mississippi (Mr. 
Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege, as the 
first Democratic chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, to rise 
in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill.
  At the direction of the Speaker, I authored H.R. 1, legislation to 
complete the unfinished business of the 9/11 Commission. It had 200 
original cosponsors.
  H.R. 1 was the first bill of the 110th Congress. It passed the House 
by a vote of 299-128; 32 House conferees on a bipartisan basis, 
including Ranking Member King, signed the conference report. Late last 
night the Senate passed it by a vote of 85-8.
  It would seem that 6 years after the 9/11 attacks and 3 years after 
the release of the 9/11 Commission report, Congress is finally 
embracing what the 9/11 families have been saying all along. It takes 
more than vigilance for our Nation to be more secure against the threat 
of terrorism. It takes a willingness to do things a different way.
  The 9/11 Commission challenged the administration, Congress and the 
American people to think a different way and take concrete steps to 
deter and prevent future attacks. Over the past 3 years, some progress 
has been made, most notably, the reforms in the intelligence community. 
However, until today, many of the key recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission remain unfulfilled.
  The conference report on H.R. 1 ensures that most grant funding is 
allocated based on risk. It authorizes $1.6 billion for an 
interoperability grant program to improve communications for first 
responders. It provides over $4 billion in rail, mass transit and bus 
security grants to ensure that our at-risk communities have the 
security they deserve.
  Additionally, the conference report on H.R. 1 puts in achievable 
benchmarks for ensuring that 100 percent cargo carried on passenger 
planes is screened. It also mandates the screening of all U.S.-bound 
ships in foreign ports for 5 years, but gives the Homeland Security 
Secretary flexibility to delay implementation in certain cases.
  The conference report requires a new electronic travel authorization 
system to screen visitors from companies participating in the Visa 
Waiver Program. This bill also strengthens a board that oversees 
privacy and civil liberties issues.

[[Page H8791]]

  It requires the President and Congress to publicly disclose total 
spending requested and approved for the intelligence community for 2 
years. The bill provides civil immunity to those in good faith who 
report suspicious activities that threaten the safety and security of 
passengers on the transportation system, or that could be an act of 
terrorism.
  Before I yield back, I want to say on the record that the provisions 
I authored to give TSA screeners collective bargaining rights and 
whistle-blower protections was not included in the final bill. Though 
not an explicit 9/11 Commission recommendation, I believe that giving 
voice to the eyes and ears in the airports will make America more 
secure. I will keep working to get them the protections they deserve.
  That said, the bill that is being considered today will make America 
more secure.
  I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, as well as the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, I have been 
working on legislation to temporarily suspend the Visa Waiver Program 
until our ports of entry are secure with the technology outlined and 
required by the 2001 PATRIOT Act and the Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002.
  For those who don't know, the Visa Waiver Program was established 
back in 1986 as a temporary program allowing tourists or short-term 
business visitors to enter the United States for 90 days or less 
without obtaining a visa. The program was later made permanent by 
Congress, and it currently includes 27 countries.
  The problem with this system is that terrorists are not limited by 
borders, nationality or even ethnicity. A terrorist with a French 
passport can be just as dangerous as one from Iran. In short, we need 
to make sure everyone who enters this country is appropriately 
screened.
  This conference report will expand the Visa Waiver Program simply at 
the discretion of the Secretary of State.
  Many of us read in the news this summer that the failed London and 
Glasgow bombings are linked to homegrown British terrorists with ties 
to al Qaeda in Iraq. I don't doubt that the United Kingdom is one of 
our closest allies, but this goes to show that even our greatest 
friends can be vulnerable to homegrown terrorists possessing legitimate 
citizenship documentation and authorized legal passports.
  Giving terrorists a free pass of any type into our country only 
welcomes more strikes on our homeland, and it strengthens these 
organizations, these terrorist organizations right here in the United 
States. We cannot afford additional visa waiver countries and provide 
more opportunities for terrorists to breach a loophole in our security.
  How much time does our Nation have before immigration, customs 
enforcement, our air marshals, the TSA, Transportation Security 
Administration, misses the next Richard Reid.
  In closing, this conference report will not secure our Homeland 
Security if it expands the opportunity for terrorists to travel to the 
United States. As a Member of the House Senate Conference Committee, I 
would not sign a report with language expanding this program.
  I urge my colleagues, vote down the rule and the underlying 
legislation. Let's send it back to the conference and secure our 
Homeland Security.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very privileged to yield 
3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos), who is the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and has 
worked actively and diligently for the security of this Nation.
  Mr. LANTOS. I want to thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference agreement. 
Let me express my appreciation for the fine work of the chairman, the 
Homeland Security Committee, my friend, Bennie Thompson.
  When the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks boarded their flights that 
crisp September morning, they hoped to crush the American spirit. They 
were profoundly mistaken.
  In the first few weeks following the terrorist attacks, our Nation 
rallied to help the victims and their families to reconstruct New York 
City and the Pentagon, but our resolve did not stop there. We 
steadfastly committed to the long-term goal of preventing future 
terrorist attacks on our shores.
  To accomplish this, we convened some of our best and brightest minds 
from both the Democratic and Republican parties to map out a 
comprehensive strategy to prevent another terrorist disaster. With this 
bill today, we willfully implement the sound recommendations of this 
bipartisan 9/11 Commission and take concrete steps to strengthen the 
security of our Nation.
  I am pleased that the conference agreement contains several 
provisions authored by the Foreign Affairs Committee to fight terrorism 
and to stop the proliferation of dangerous weapons. The conference 
agreement will boost our efforts to work with other nations to secure 
nuclear materials and rein in loose nukes more effectively.
  It will also increase the visibility of the Voice of America and our 
other broadcasting services to quickly ramp up their public diplomacy 
efforts in future crises.
  With this bill, we will require the administration to develop a 
better strategy for cultivating U.S. relationships with three countries 
crucial to our counterterrorist efforts: Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and 
Pakistan.
  Finally, I am gratified that the conference agreement includes 
provisions from the ADVANCE Democracy Act. This important bill firmly 
affixes the advancement of freedom and democracy as one of our top 
foreign policy objectives and requires long-term plans to promote 
democracy throughout the world.
  Recently, the Department of State has begun drafting strategies for 
Middle Eastern countries. The conference agreement includes a 
requirement for new written specific strategies for all nondemocratic 
and democratic transition countries building on the important work the 
Secretary of State has already been doing in the Middle East. This 
method ensures that we focus on institutions, not just elections.
  As this bill becomes law, our country will begin to turn its thoughts 
to the sixth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. We will, of 
course, mourn the victims, honor the heroes, and contemplate the 
lessons of that event. But we will also renew our efforts to fight 
extremism and terrorism around the globe. I urge all my colleagues to 
support this important conference agreement.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida, the ranking member of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Mica.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
  My colleagues, I have spent some time on transportation security as 
chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee for some 6 years, helping to 
craft some of the TSA legislation, working actually with the 9/11 
Commission.
  First of all, if anyone thinks that this bill is going to make us 
safer by any of the major provisions in the bill, they are wrong. They 
are dead wrong. What is unfortunate is they are adopting today in this 
so-called 9/11 Commission Report many things that will actually take 
our limited resources and put us greater at risk by diverting those 
resources to programs that make no sense. And I will try to show you in 
a few minutes.
  First of all, let's look at the major provisions of this bill. First, 
cargo security, maritime cargo security. Here is a picture of one of 
the test cargo security maritime screening operations. I brought a 
little model, I made my own little model to show you how this works. 
There is the truck going through there. It goes through. You can either 
have a fixed location for this screening equipment or a portable one; 
they can move it around. Then the truck goes through the screening like 
that. And then when it goes through, we have completed that. Then we 
take the cargo.
  Now, if you have been to the ports, and I have been to the foreign 
ports that they are requiring this procedure for, this cargo goes and 
it sits on the dock somewhere. It may be days, weeks before it is ever 
loaded. What a complete farce for cargo containers to go through this 
exercise.

[[Page H8792]]

  Then if you have been to the ports, let's try Marseilles, I have been 
to Marseilles, let's try Livorno. Let's try others. What about this guy 
who is a dock worker? That dock worker can take this cargo and 
penetrate it. We have talked to the dock workers and they say that what 
you are instituting is an absolute joke. And it is not a 
recommendation. I defy anyone to get a copy of this and look at it.
  Page 393 is what they recommend. They said: TSA should expedite the 
installation of an advanced in-line baggage screening system. You are 
going to hear somebody tell you that we have done that. Folks, this is 
how many airports we have done out of 440 airports: five of our major 
airports in the United States. A total of 18, but five of our major 
airports; 29 airports handle 75 percent of the air passengers. And that 
is what they recommended. It is right here. It says: TSA also needs to 
intensify its efforts to identify, track, and appropriately screen 
dangerous cargo in both the aviation and maritime sectors.
  I am telling you, this is an expensive exercise in diverting limited 
resources and will put us even greater at risk. The terrorists have to 
be laughing at us today.
  Even worse are some of the other provisions. This lifts the 45,000 
caps on screeners. We are paid $5.4 billion for 45,000 screeners. In 
fact, we should be spending that $5.4 billion on technology that does, 
I can't reveal the classified results, but it does an incredible job. 
Instead, we have an army of 16,800 screeners who are hand-checking 
checked baggage at the airport. A complete farce. And that is a 
provision.
  Here is another provision that is a disaster: require the disclosure 
in the Intelligence budget, that is almost criminal, in 2007 and 2008 
but not I guess not in 2009, to tell the other side exactly what we are 
doing. So this does a lot of damage.
  And then, finally, it creates a whole new bureaucracy. I didn't think 
the conference committee, and I wouldn't sign the report, could create 
a bigger bureaucracy. But it did just that.
  If you love bureaucracy, you will love this bill. Not only what I 
just described, but we have had a Department of Transportation that 
administers transit grants, has done so, has the bureaucracy in place, 
and can expedite the quick distribution. Instead, we have 185,000 
people in the Department of Homeland Security who haven't done this 
before now are going to set up another bureaucracy in the Department of 
Homeland Security. This is a great bill; it is a nice bumper sticker 
thing to go back and say we did something about homeland security. But, 
folks, we are doing damage.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to Mrs. 
Maloney, who was directly affected in her district in New York during 
9/11, I would just say to my friend from Florida that when he and his 
party were in charge, the question is, what did they do? Did they pass 
$250 million annually for airport checkpoint screening? Did they pass 
$450 million annually for baggage screening? Did they do 100 percent 
screening within 5 years? Did they protect from lawsuits people who in 
good faith report what they believe are terrorist activities around 
airplanes, trains, or buses? Did they do stronger security measures? 
No. They did none of that.
  I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished lady from New York, who really 
knows about 9/11, Mrs. Maloney.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I rise in strong support of this rule and 
the underlying bill, and I congratulate this Democratic majority and 
this speaker for making security an absolute priority and for 
implementing all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and 
making it a priority.
  This bill was H.R. 1, the first bill introduced under the Democratic 
Congress, and it increases funding in many areas, particularly the 
interoperability of first responders' phones. The phones did not work 
on 9/11; the communications did not work. They still do not work. This 
will move us towards safer responding of our first responders. Over $4 
billion for rail and security and trains and buses. And very, very 
importantly, it calls that our grants, our grants that are based on 
high threat, on security risks is based just on that, security risks, 
so that the money goes where it is needed, not in pork barrel politics.
  And today marks the end of a very long journey that, along with many 
of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including Representative 
Shays and 9/11 family members, when we joined together and formed the 
9/11 Commission Caucus and introduced legislation to implement all of 
the recommendations. While the bill that was signed into law in 2004 
did not include everything in the recommendations that our bill called 
for, it was a necessary first step in the process, and we are 
completing that process today.
  The first bill was the first bill of major reorganization of our 
government since 1946. It coordinated all of our 15 different agencies 
under the National Intelligence Director, and it moved us in the right 
direction. This bill completes the recommendations of the commission in 
a bipartisan way. All the members have endorsed this legislation.
  I want to note the heroic efforts of the 9/11 family members, 
including Mary and Frank Fetchet; Beverly Eckert; Carol Ashley; Abraham 
Scott; Rosemary Dillard; and Carrie Lemack. They have worked selflessly 
and tirelessly for years to pass this. They are an inspiration to me 
and this body, and I do not believe these bills would have passed 
without them.
  Particularly, I want to note the provisions in the conference report 
that strengthen the privacy and civil liberties board more to the way 
that the 9/11 Commission recommended: a strong board, not the very weak 
one that the previous majority championed.
  This bill establishes a strong, independent board with subpoena 
power. And this conference report will achieve many more significant 
reforms. It will make our country safer. I urge my colleagues to 
support this rule, the underlying bill, so that we will strengthen our 
homeland security and our defenses against another terrorist attack. It 
is based on merit. It is based on the 9/11 Commission Report. I urge an 
``aye.''
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the gentlewoman, if 
I can, since she is an expert on this important piece of legislation if 
she would. And the question I would like to ask the gentlewoman:
  Republicans tried our very best, other than demanding, that the 
terrorist watch list would be applied to trains and passengers for 
people like on trains and Amtrak. And I wonder if the gentlewoman can 
tell me whether that was added in this conference report.
  Mrs. MALONEY. It is not in the conference report. It is not in the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, people stand up and 
talk about what a great job they are doing to protect this country, but 
they fail to get the essence because it might be a privacy concern. The 
fact of the matter is that all the people that are on our trains, 
Amtrak, that we are spending billions of dollars that are being spent 
for more security officers; and yet the Democrats fail to do the 
simplest thing, and that is, at the time you buy a ticket, seeing if 
you are on the terrorist watch list.
  It is incredibly arrogant that this Congress would stand up and say 
we are doing all we can do, and yet we do not even apply the terrorist 
watch list to people who would be on our trains.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes at this time to the ranking member of 
the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague 
from Texas, Congressman Sessions, for yielding. And, Mr. Speaker, I 
oppose the conference report to H.R. 1, and I oppose this rule that 
provides for its consideration as well.
  Mr. Speaker, while the conference report claims to protect Americans 
from foreign terrorists, we should be aware that in fact it does just 
the opposite. Specifically, changes in the Visa Waiver Program can do 
us great harm.
  The Visa Waiver Program enables citizens of certain countries to 
travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 30 
days or less without obtaining a visa. To qualify for participation in 
the Visa Waiver Program, countries must meet certain established 
criteria which include security standards for their travel documents, 
and a very low rate of nationals whose visas are denied.

[[Page H8793]]

  The conference report language needlessly lowers the standards of the 
Visa Waiver Program. How can we consider the expansion of this program 
knowing that it has already been abused by two terrorists?
  Peter Gadiel, president of 9/11 Families for a Secure America whose 
son was killed on 9/11, says, ``As family members of Americans who were 
murdered on 9/11, we are deeply concerned that some in Congress are 
working to expand the Visa Waiver Program. It is reckless and 
irresponsible to consider expanding the program in these perilous 
times, especially to accept countries that do not even meet current 
standards. Congress cannot and should not pass a law that would leave 
the door wide open for more terrorists.''
  Lowering the standards for the Visa Waiver Program threatens national 
security and makes a mockery of our efforts to combat illegal 
immigration. Many illegal immigrants come to the U.S. legally on a 
temporary basis and never return to their home country. The conference 
report allows the administration to permit countries with a history of 
visa overstayers to participate in the Visa Waiver Program, 
guaranteeing an increase in illegal immigration.
  The administration plans to admit countries to the Visa Waiver 
Program that come nowhere close to meeting current standards. They want 
to reward countries that have cooperated with us in the war on terror, 
and we all appreciate the assistance of our allies, but this is no way 
to conduct foreign policy.
  It is irresponsible to lower the standards for the Visa Waiver 
Program and make it easier for terrorists to get into the U.S. This is 
no way to protect American lives.
  It is bad enough that the administration doesn't enforce many current 
immigration laws. It is inexcusable that it would intentionally change 
the law knowing that it will endanger American lives and increase 
illegal immigration. It is so obvious that this change in the Visa 
Waiver Program will result in more illegal immigration and the 
inevitable entry of terrorists that the administration must now take 
responsibility for the predictable results.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the 
conference report as well.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), who is the chairwoman of the 
Intelligence Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment. The 
gentlewoman and I served on the Intelligence Committee, and perhaps she 
might be able to educate my friend from Texas regarding watch lists and 
how difficult it would be in order to have watch lists, as Mrs. Maloney 
put it, for 800,000 people on one rail line in New York alone.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, implementing the recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission has been a passion for me, to honor the memories of 
those who tragically and needlessly died on that day, to show respect 
for their amazing families, and to keep our country safe.
  My roles as coauthor of the intelligence reform legislation and lead 
House cosponsor with Mr. Hoekstra on its conference was a personal 
highlight of my service here, and I'm honored to be a conferee on this 
bill and to stand with Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King in 
support of it.
  The report passed the Senate 85-8 last night. Are people seriously 
going to oppose a bill to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission?
  Sure, there's more to do. But here are many terrific things in this 
bill. Number 1, it improves vertical information sharing between the 
Federal intelligence officials and local first responders, crucial if 
we're to prevent future attacks, a growing possibility according to the 
recently released NIE on terrorism. The next attacks could be anywhere. 
We need our capable first preventers to have accurate and actionable 
information.
  Second, it will reform the Visa Waiver Program which, I agree, as it 
currently operates, is a potential loophole. I worry that a terrorist 
trained in the Pakistani tribal areas and traveling on a British 
passport could use that program to come here and to enable a homegrown 
cell to conduct an effective operation against Americans in America. We 
need to tighten that program, and this bill does it.
  There are things that are not in this bill. I still think we need 
more reorganization of Congress, and I also think that the legislation 
proposed by all nine Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee last 
year to provide an expedited emergency warrant process under FISA 
should be enacted by this House. That's all the reform of FISA we need. 
We have authority now to listen to foreigners abroad, despite some 
claims by the other side. The only thing necessary are procedural 
reforms, and we should enact them promptly.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to know how much we're 
protecting this country and what's included in this bill.
  I think what the gentlewoman also forgot to say is that in committee 
they denied CBP the ability to even look at passengers' names who are 
coming in on rail from other countries to the United States. Once 
again, another failure from this Democrat Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to 
vote against the rule for the consideration of this conference report. 
And if the rule is defeated, this House should turn its immediate 
attention to a critical problem facing this country.
  We have the perfect opportunity here, and the conferees had a perfect 
opportunity to add the most important action that this Congress must 
take, before we leave in August, into this conference report, and that 
is critical reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  The problem is what this bill does not do. It is the perfect vehicle, 
the perfect train leaving the station to get a bill down to the 
President and get his signature immediately on foreign intelligence 
surveillance reform. But it's going to go to the President without the 
most critical piece of legislation that we should be working on. This 
is our responsibility, to fix the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act.
  Just yesterday, the Director of National Intelligence, Mike 
McConnell, wrote to the members of the House Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence, and in his letter he said, ``Simply put, in a 
significant number of cases, we are in a position of having to obtain 
court orders to effectively collect foreign intelligence about foreign 
targets located overseas.''
  He went on to say, ``in short, resource allocation is not the 
fundamental issue we face in this area, but instead a fundamental 
problem with a law that requires modification to ensure we are 
protecting America, while respecting the privacy rights of Americans.''
  ``It is essential,'' he said, ``that the administration and Congress 
work together and without delay to close the current intelligence gap 
by amending the FISA statute.''
  The responsibility is here in this body to fix this law as quickly as 
possible, without delay, to make sure that we can listen to foreigners 
in foreign countries who are using our communications networks to plot 
to kill us.
  This House has failed to act. I, again, call on the leadership of the 
Democratic Party and to the Speaker of the House, personally, before we 
adjourn for August, to bring FISA reform legislation to this floor, and 
I would ask my colleagues to oppose the rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 3\1/
2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who is on 
the Committee on Homeland Security, and the chairman of the Select 
Committee on Global Warming.
  Mr. Markey has fought diligently regarding airport screening. The 
gentleman from Florida isn't in here now that talked about screening as 
not being something that's important.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, September 11 was a very important day in 
Boston history. Mohammed Atta and nine other terrorists hijacked two 
planes with hundreds of people on them 2 miles from my house and flew 
them into the World Trade Center, killing not only the people in the 
World Trade Center, but all of the people on those two planes from 
Logan airport.
  For the last 5 years, we've had a fight over whether or not we should 
screen

[[Page H8794]]

the cargo which goes on passenger planes in our country. Yes, each of 
us has to take off our shoes, our bags have to go through, we have to 
take off our wristwatches, children's baby carriages have to be 
inspected. But, believe it or not, then the cargo is placed right under 
our feet, and it's not screened. Billions of pounds of cargo not 
screened.
  And so this cargo loophole has been fought by the cargo industry, 
opposed by the Bush administration, but now it is in this legislation. 
And henceforth, all of the cargo which goes onto passenger planes in 
our country, placed next to the bags of passengers, placed under the 
feet of passengers on planes, will also be screened. And so now cargo 
will have this on it. Screened, safe to place upon those planes. It is 
a huge moment in security. This bill is historic.
  And secondly, although the Bush administration has opposed it, this 
legislation also includes my language which is going to require the 
screening of cargo on ships coming into ports in the United States.
  Right now cargo with a nuclear bomb in it, which we know is al 
Qaeda's top goal, to obtain a nuclear weapon from someplace in the 
former Soviet Union, move it to a port in the world and move that ship 
with the cargo into New York, into Long Beach, into Boston, and then 
detonate the nuclear bomb before it is taken out of the cargo hold of 
that ship, destroying that American city. Because of the language in 
this bill, that cargo will now be screened in the port overseas before 
it ever leaves for our country. It will be screened for a nuclear bomb 
overseas, thwarting the highest objective which al Qaeda has, which is 
to detonate a nuclear bomb.
  Now, I can understand the Bush administration's misgivings about it, 
and I understand that many of the Senators, Republican Senators will 
not sign this conference report because of this requirement. I think 
they're making a historic mistake. This is at the top of the terrorist 
target list. This is what they want to do to American cities, detonate 
a nuclear bomb on a ship already docked in a port in the United States 
before it's ever taken off that ship.
  This legislation is historic. I congratulate Chairman Thompson. I 
congratulate the staff. I congratulate the bipartisan nature for the 
vast majority of this legislation. It is overdue. It is overdue.
  We must put in place the defense, now, against al Qaeda returning to 
finish their plot against us here in the homeland.
  Al Qaeda came to Boston to begin this attack. There's no reason to 
believe they can't return to those very same planes, to those very same 
docks where al Qaeda came in. They came in through the ports of Boston 
to, in fact, wreak this catastrophic event on our country.
  Vote ``yes'' on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, as the principal author of the air cargo security 
provision in Section 1602 of the conference report--Screening of Cargo 
Carried Aboard Passenger Aircraft--I want to make several points clear.
  While the House version of the bill used the term ``inspected'' and 
the Senate version used ``screened'', neither bill actually defined 
these terms. The language in the final version of the bill does define 
``screening'', and it makes clear that screening does not mean what DHS 
currently considers screening--reviews of manifests, information about 
shippers (Known Shipper program), etc.
  To make clear what is meant by screening, the final bill states that:
  The system used to screen 100 percent of cargo carried on passenger 
planes must provide a level of security on par with the level of 
security for passengers' checked bags. Specifically, the language 
states that the system ``shall require, at a minimum, that equipment, 
technology, procedures, personnel or other methods approved by the 
Administrator of TSA are used to screen cargo carried on passenger 
planes to provide a level of security commensurate with the level of 
security for the screening of passenger checked baggage.'' (emphasis 
added). A 3-year deadline is established to get to 100 percent, with an 
interim benchmark of 50 percent of cargo within 18 months of enactment.
  Screening means an examination of the cargo's contents, not just 
information about the cargo, consistent with the mandate that the cargo 
screening must be on par with the security standard for screening of 
passengers' checked bags. The bill stipulates the cargo screening 
methods TSA is to use to meet this standard: ``Methods of screening 
include x-ray systems, explosive detection systems, explosive trace 
detection, explosive detection canine teams certified by the TSA, or a 
physical search together with manifest verification.'' These are 
methods currently used for checked bags.
  While TSA may approve additional methods, they cannot be solely data 
checks, and must also utilize physical checks. As the final language 
makes clear: ``The Committee is also concerned about TSA using data 
checks of cargo or shippers . . . as a single factor in determining 
whether cargo poses a threat to transportation security. The Conference 
substitute, therefore, requires that if such data checks are used, they 
must be paired with additional physical or nonintrusive screening 
method approved by TSA that examines the cargo's contents.'' (emphasis 
added).
  There has been some discussion in the media about Congress's intent 
in passing this provision. I want to address these points and make 
clear the intent of the provision.
  One concern that was raised is that as much as 60 percent of air 
cargo could be exempt from a mandatory physical inspection at airports, 
under a new program to be called Certified Shipper.
  As noted above, the language in the final version of the bill 
requires that the system for screening all cargo on passenger planes 
must ``provide a level of security commensurate with the level of 
security for the screening of passenger checked baggage.'' All cargo on 
passenger planes must be physically examined before it is loaded 
onboard, a major departure from current practice. While TSA may be 
considering a so-called ``Certified Shipper'' program that would 
require physical examination of all cargo in a location off the airport 
grounds and then a sealing of the cargo containers with tamper-proof 
seals, this plan, and any such system developed by TSA, must provide a 
level of cargo security on par with the level of security for checked 
bags, which includes the requirement that the contents of all the cargo 
must be physically checked.
  The final version of the bill mandates that the Department of 
Homeland Security issue a rule to implement a system consistent with 
the bill's 100 percent cargo screening requirement. Congress, along 
with stakeholders who have been working to require 100 percent 
screening of all cargo carried on passenger planes, will be watching 
TSA's plans closely to ensure that the implementation of the cargo 
screening mandate in the bill is performed in a manner that complies 
with the mandate in the final version of the bill. If TSA's system does 
not ``provide a level of security commensurate with the level of 
security for the screening of passenger checked baggage'' as required 
in the bill, it will not be in compliance with the congressional 
mandate in the final version of the bill, and therefore will be in 
jeopardy of being halted or modified by Congress to bring it into 
compliance with the law.
  Another concern that has been raised is that companies that 
participate in the Certified Shipper program would still have to follow 
security rules, including conducting their own package inspections and 
putting special tamperproof seals on containers, but packages handled 
by these companies, which will probably represent the bulk of the air 
cargo industry, would generally be exempt from mandated electronic, 
canine or other physical inspections at the airport.
  Again, a so-called ``Certified Shipper'' program or any other program 
that TSA develops to implement the mandate to screen 100 percent of the 
cargo on passenger planes must meet the standard that it provides a 
level of security on par with the level of security for passenger 
checked bags. At this point, it is unclear whether a program that 
screens and then seals cargo outside the airport perimeter would meet 
this standard.
  In an April 2007 report requested by Representative Markey and other 
Members, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted that the 
Department of Homeland Security is conducting pilot programs to test a 
number of currently employed technologies used in other areas of 
aviation and transportation security, as well as new technologies. 
These pilot programs include an air cargo security seals pilot, which 
is exploring the viability of potential security countermeasures, such 
as tamper-evident security seals. According to GAO, TSA anticipates 
completing its pilot tests by 2008. (GAO-07-660 Aviation Security). 
Before implementation of any TSA air cargo program relying on seals, a 
thorough, comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of such seals 
will have to be conducted. Again, if such a system does not ``provide a 
level of security commensurate with the level of security for the 
screening of passenger checked baggage'' as required in the bill, it 
will not be in compliance with the congressional mandate in the final 
version of the bill, and therefore will be in jeopardy of being halted 
or modified by Congress to bring it into compliance with the law.
  Another concern that has been raised is that a program similar to 
Certified Shipper that is

[[Page H8795]]

used by Customs and Border Patrol for ship cargo has frequently been 
criticized. Auditors have found that companies in this program are 
sometimes permitted to move their goods more quickly even though there 
is insufficient proof that they have a robust security system in place.
  The program referred to above is called the Customs--Trade 
Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT). I have criticized C-TPAT for 
many of the same reasons cited above. In fact, in addition to the air 
cargo screening requirement, the final version of the bill also 
includes a requirement that 100 percent of maritime cargo must be 
screened and sealed overseas before it arrives in U.S. ports. Clearly, 
with the inclusion of this mandate in the final version of the bill, 
Congress rejected C-TPAT as a substitute for 100 percent scanning of 
maritime containers. It did not intend, nor would it permit, a program 
for screening 100 percent of air cargo that is based on the flawed C-
TPAT program.
  By establishing the standard that TSA's system for screening 100 
percent of cargo on passenger planes must ``provide a level of security 
commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger 
checked baggage'', the final version of the bill creates requirements 
much more stringent than the C-TPAT program. C-TPAT uses risk-based 
process, not mandatory, comprehensive screening. Specifically, C-TPAT 
security guidelines state that ``C-TPAT recognizes the complexity of 
international supply chains and endorses the application and 
implementation of security measures based upon risk analysis. 
Therefore, the program allows for flexibility and the customization of 
security plans based on the member's business model. As listed 
throughout this document appropriate security measures, based on risk, 
must be implemented and maintained throughout the Air Carrier's supply 
chains'' (emphasis added, http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/commercial
_enforcement/ctpat/security_guideline/
guideline_air_carrier.xml)
  The air cargo provision requires 100 percent screening, not risk 
assessment. The air cargo provision mandates screening of all cargo 
carried on passenger planes within 3 years. Under the air cargo 
provision in the conference report, no risk calculation is permitted to 
determine whether or which cargo to screen; rather, all cargo is 
presumed to present a risk and must be screened, just as all of 
passengers' checked bags must be screened under the current policy.
  The C-TPAT program relies on data and manifest information, not 
physical checks. C-TPAT guidelines advise program participants in the 
procedural security measures they should use for the shipping and 
receiving of cargo. These procedures rely on data and manifest checks, 
not the physical screening of the cargo to determine and evaluate its 
contents. Specifically, the C-TPAT guidelines state that: ``Arriving 
cargo should be reconciled against information on the cargo manifest. 
The cargo should be accurately described, weighed, labeled, marked, 
counted and verified. Departing cargo should be checked against 
purchase or delivery orders.'' (emphasis added)
  Whatever system TSA establishes to implement the 100 percent air 
cargo screening requirement in the bill will be subjected to close 
congressional scrutiny to ensure that it meets the standard established 
in the bill; namely, the system must provide a level of security 
commensurate with the level of security for the screening of passenger 
checked baggage, as stipulated in the bill. Again, any TSA system that 
fails to meet this standard will not be in compliance with the 
congressional mandate in the final version of the bill, and therefore 
will be in jeopardy of being halted or modified by Congress to bring it 
into compliance with the law.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 4 minutes 
to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the ranking member of 
the Intelligence Committee.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I think the last speaker set the perfect 
tone for what I'd like to talk about. He talked about the threat from 
al Qaeda and that high on their list is their desire to explode a 
nuclear weapon in the United States. I think their quote goes something 
along the lines, if, by the grace of God, we get access to a nuclear 
weapon, we will use it.
  We know that in their writings they talk about they want to move the 
violence from what they call the outlying areas of the world, from the 
Middle East, from northern Africa, from Asia, and they want to move it 
to the core countries. And they define the core countries as being 
Western Europe and the United States. It's clear that they want to take 
every opportunity to attack the United States. And it's great to see 
one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle acknowledge that 
threat. Sometimes I really believe, with the strategies that they are 
proposing, as to whether that threat is really perceived.
  So what are we going to do in this bill?
  I find it very ironic that as we move forward with this bill, we're 
going to give radical jihadists and al Qaeda more information about our 
Intelligence Community than what they have today. This bill says that 
we're going to tell al Qaeda, radical jihadists, and our enemies around 
the world exactly how much we spend in the intelligence community. If 
that makes us safe or makes us safer, I suppose that the next strategy 
will be, let's break it down and outline how much we spend in every 
category. Because if telling them the total number makes us safer, 
giving them even more detail probably makes us more safe, makes us 
safer yet.
  Why would we want to tell al Qaeda more about what we are doing in 
the intelligence community?
  And then the other question is, while we tell al Qaeda more about 
what our strategies and tactics are to confront them, we don't deal 
with the most pressing homeland security issue that we face today. Our 
intelligence community has significant gaps as we try to listen and 
determine what their plans and objectives and strategies are.
  The Director of National Intelligence recently sent our committee a 
letter saying significant gaps exist in our intelligence. The National 
Intelligence Estimate that came out in the last week says that we are 
at a heightened level of threat. Things are more dangerous perhaps in 
the United States today than they were earlier this year. We've had 
this information since the middle of April, that because of changing 
circumstances and various other issues, this intelligence gap exists. 
We have this opportunity to change it.
  So we know that we are at a heightened threat level. We know that 
there are gaps in intelligence. We are on the verge of passing this 
major bill, and we decide we're going to take this opportunity. We're 
going to use this as an opportunity to give radical jihadists more 
information about our Intelligence Community. But we are not, we are 
not going to provide the intelligence community with the legislation 
and with the opportunity and the authority to go in and listen to 
foreign intelligence by foreign terrorists who are located outside of 
the United States. They are in foreign countries.
  I would encourage every single one of my colleagues to read the 
letter that Director McConnell sent to our Intelligence Committee. It 
is unclassified. You can see clearly in his statement that a gap does 
exist, that he does need to get a warrant, and that this is about 
foreign intelligence on foreign terrorists.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, my good friend (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 
of the Committee on Homeland Security.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
member of the Rules Committee for yielding.
  I would like to say to my good friend the provision is simply a 2-
year pilot that only indicates the amount of the Intelligence budget. 
We know how important intelligence is, but I think we need to look at 
the whole bill of H.R. 1. And many of us sometimes need to be reminded 
of the enormity of that day.
  I am very glad to stand here and support the rule for H.R. 1, the 9/
11 conference report, because it emphasizes unique and new approaches 
to security. How more comforted we are as travelers to know that cargo 
is being inspected in ports, consumers or those who understand how 
vulnerable ports are. I know it well. I have one of the larger ports in 
the United States in my community, the Houston port.
  How many of us are more comforted about cargo being inspected in 
airlines. How many of us are more comforted by the fact that we will 
have transportation security grants that go directly to the 
transportation entities like buses, like airplanes, like subways, like 
mass transit, Amtrak, and others to focus on the traveling public.
  How disappointed I am that we didn't recognize the hardworking people 
who

[[Page H8796]]

work for us every day that we could not give collective bargaining 
rights for the Transportation Security Administration workers. But we 
are getting better. We are going to do developmental training, 
professional training.
  This is a bill to remind us of where we have come from and where we 
are going. Interoperability, incident command system.
  And, finally, let me just say we lost lives on 9/11 because we were 
not prepared in terms of the intelligence community. We were not 
prepared in terms of supporting the law enforcement community. Today we 
are prepared. We shall never forget.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/
2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), who is chairman of 
the Science Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the 
conference report.
  I was honored to serve on the conference committee. It was a good 
team effort. And as anyone in team sports knows, it takes a good 
offense and a good defense to make a good team. This bill takes 
important steps toward building a good defense, and good defense today 
is more important than ever because our offense has miscarried so 
badly.
  There we were pursuing Osama bin Laden literally to the ends of the 
Earth, to Tora Bora, when this administration steered us off that 
course and into the cul-de-sac of Iraq.
  This bill will build a better defense because we need it more than 
ever. We need this bill not just as legislation but as a reminder to 
carry forth with the oversight that this Congress has traditionally 
exerted.
  The jurisdiction of my subcommittee and of the Homeland Security 
Committee over the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office is more crucial 
than ever as that body chooses technologies to protect this Nation 
going forward.
  Eternal vigilance is the call for the day, and I am committed to 
exerting that vigilance going forward from this day.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased 
to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished new Member of the U.S. 
Congress from Pennsylvania who is chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Management, Investigations, and Oversight (Mr. Carney).
  Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Hastings for the 
time.
  I rise today in support of the rule, certainly.
  I find it a little bit odd, perhaps curious, that our friend from 
Texas on the other side talked about security failures. This talks 
about fixing security failures. And I am very pleased with this bill 
and the bipartisan efforts to ensure our Nation's safety and to make 
our homeland more secure.
  Since coming to Congress, one of the first things I have been 
concerned with is the interoperability question between first 
responders. The 9/11 Commission in effect cited this as one of the 
critical weaknesses in our security system. This bill addresses that 
failure and puts $1.6 billion, in fact, into fixing that and to 
addressing the problem over 5 years. This is critical for the urban 
areas and certainly for the rural areas that I represent.
  The bill also contains measures to promote information sharing 
between local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers. This is 
another recommendation, something we must strengthen.
  We have also strengthened efforts to prevent terrorist travel. The 
bill strengthens the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center and adds 
personnel to it, again in direct response to the 9/11 Commission's 
recommendations.
  The bill will also enhance the security in the transportation sector. 
We must do more to make our transportation infrastructure safe and this 
does that.
  In closing, I urge all my colleagues to support this bipartisan 
effort to make our Nation safer and to vote in favor of the rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/
2\ minutes to another distinguished member of the Committee on Homeland 
Security, my very good friend from the Virgin Islands, Donna 
Christensen.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the conference 
report on H.R. 1, which implements the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission. And I am proud to be associated with this bill as a member 
of the Homeland Security Committee and as a member of the conference.
  I want to join my colleagues in applauding our committee Chair, 
Bennie Thompson, for skillfully leading the House conferees and working 
with the Senate to reach a compromise between the Senate and House 
negotiators on this legislation that strengthens the safety of all 
Americans against terrorist attacks and catastrophic disasters.
  H.R. 1 was the first bill we Democrats passed when we assumed 
leadership of this Congress, and this conference report fulfills our 
promise to fully implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  With this conference report, we will see greater distribution of 
homeland security grants for States, territories, and high-risk urban 
areas based on risk, while still ensuring that all of our districts 
have funds available for basic preparedness. It creates a dedicated 
grant program to improve interoperability at local, State, and Federal 
levels. The conference report requires 100 percent screening of 
maritime cargo within 5 years, and it also recognizes the important 
role that the private sector plays in securing our Nation by engaging 
the private sector to strengthen and secure 85 percent of the Nation's 
infrastructure.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate Leader Pelosi and all of our 
leadership for their steadfast commitment and dedication to making 
protecting our homeland one of the top priorities for Democrats.
  I urge my colleagues to support passage of this conference report.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield at 
this time 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, Mr. Hastings, for this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the bill.
  This is an important day in American history. Today the Congress will 
send to the President a bill that provides the framework for our 
homeland defense community and takes a giant leap towards that service.
  On intelligence, cargo scanning, transportation grants, and a host of 
other issues, this bill reforms and enhances our existing structure to 
maximize our security.
  In particular, I am pleased that we were able to add the 
Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado, to the National 
Domestic Preparedness Consortium. As the Nation's premier rail security 
facility, adding this to the consortium will improve our Homeland 
Security Department's ability to train first responders.
  I want to note the hard work of my colleague John Salazar on this 
important issue, and I want to thank Chairman Thompson and the members 
and staffs of both sides of the aisle in crafting a bipartisan bill 
that will work for the American people.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time until the gentleman has closed.
  I would ask the Speaker how much time I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 2 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from Texas has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a recorded vote on 
the previous question for this rule. If the previous question fails, I 
will ask the House to amend the rule to provide for the separate 
consideration of H.R. 3138, which would amend the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act of 1978 to update the definition of electronic 
surveillance.
  Mr. Speaker, our country is facing a serious problem that must be 
addressed before the House adjourns in August. And to date the Democrat 
majority has continued to shirk their responsibility

[[Page H8797]]

to keep America safe by ignoring the seriousness of this threat.
  Today the Rules Committee met to pass a rule for the Eightmile Wild 
and Scenic River Act; however, this Democrat leadership cannot seem to 
find time to schedule consideration of legislation that clarifies one 
very simple and critical thing, and that is that the United States 
Government will no longer be required to get a warrant to listen to 
foreign terrorists who are not even located in the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, repeatedly Members of this House have come to the floor 
for weeks and weeks and weeks asking for that ability to make sure we 
can get this done to protect the American people. The Director of 
National Intelligence, Michael McConnell, and the Director of the CIA, 
Michael Hayden, have testified to Congress that under current law their 
hands are tied. As Director McConnell recently testified, FISA is 
outdated and has been made obsolete by technology. I might also say, 
and the laws governing that. And today our intelligence community is 
forced to obtain warrants to listen to terrorists outside our Nation, 
and as a result we are actually missing, we are missing, a significant 
portion of what we should be getting. Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to 
be asleep; it is a different thing not to even wake up and see what you 
need to do.
  If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are serious about 
facing down the threat, they will join me in defeating the previous 
question so the House will be able to address this very real and 
serious threat immediately.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include my amendment and 
extraneous materials in the Congressional Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, you do know and every Member of this body does know that 
the 9/11 Commission Report was published in the year 2004. Since that 
time an election has occurred. Before that time and even before this 9/
11 Commission Report came into existence, President Bush did not even 
want to appoint a 9/11 Commission. He came kicking and dragging and 
screaming to even cause it to come into existence. And the 
extraordinary work that has been done by Lee Hamilton and Governor Kean 
and the other members of that committee recommended to this body in 
2004 that we undertake these measures.
  So now we come here, and I ask them, what did you do before that? The 
answer is nothing.
  Mr. Speaker, this body has a responsibility today to pass this rule 
and the underlying legislation. We can't afford to continue to 
procrastinate, as my colleagues did since 2004.
  Today this new Democratic majority is delivering another piece of our 
Six for '06 promises. Today this Democratic majority is passing and 
sending to the President for his signature the 9/11 Commission's 
outstanding recommendations.
  The fact of the matter is that bad people who want to do bad things 
will always try to find a way to succeed. This conference report 
ensures that we are doing everything we can here in the United States 
and abroad to stop that from happening.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

        Amendment to H. Res. 567 Offered by Mr. Session of Texas

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point 
     of order, consider the bill (H.R. 3138) to amend the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to update the 
     definition of electronic surveillance. All points of order 
     against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution ..... [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I 
call up the conference report 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 567, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
July 25, 2007, at page H8496.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Thompson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) each will control 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.


                             General Leave

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members would have 5 legislative days to revise and extend 
their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Mississippi?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed historic, this 
conference report we have before us at this point.

[[Page H8798]]

  Almost 3 years ago, 10 American patriots came forward and spoke with 
one unified bipartisan voice. What they said in their 567-page report 
fundamentally changed America's views of its security. Quite simply, 
Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission did its job and told us what must be 
done to deter and prevent future terrorist attacks on our Nation.
  When Congress didn't do its job to implement their recommendation, 
the 9/11 Commission stayed vigilant and formed the 9/11 discourse 
project. They did so, as they explained, because the perils of inaction 
are far too high and the strategic value of the Commission's findings 
too important for the work of the 9/11 Commission not to continue.
  Unfortunately, the project's December 2005 report card found little 
progress was being made on addressing known vulnerabilities and gaps in 
our Nation's security. Still, Mr. Speaker, the 109th Congress did not 
do its job.
  On January 5, however, at the direction of Speaker Pelosi, I 
introduced H.R. 1, a bill to complete the unfinished business of the 9/
11 Commission, with 200 of my fellow colleagues. Today, I'm privileged 
to present a bipartisan conference report that finally fulfills the 
recommendations.
  This report passed the Senate just last night before midnight by a 
vote of 85-8. When H.R. 1 is law, Mr. Speaker, Homeland Security grants 
will finally be allocated based on risk. Targeted communities will get 
the Federal help they so richly deserve. First responders will have 
interoperable communications. When H.R. 1 is law, information necessary 
to uncover terrorist plots will be exchanged between Federal and local 
law enforcement. Would-be terrorists will not be able to exploit the 
Visa Waiver Program. Privacy and civil liberties will be central in how 
we approach homeland security. Our rail, mass transit and aviation 
systems will be more secure. When H.R. 1 is law, 100 percent of U.S.-
bound cargo will be scanned in a commerce-friendly manner.
  Though I'm disappointed that collective bargaining and whistle-blower 
rights for TSA screeners were not included in the final report, I 
applaud Senator Lieberman and the 42 other conferees who stood with us 
on this legislation. Their hard work, combined with the leadership of 
Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, assured that this effort came to 
fruition.
  Frederick Douglass once said, ``The life of a nation is secure only 
while the nation is honest, truthful and virtuous.'' Thank you to the 
9/11 Commission for exemplifying these values. And thank you to the 9/
11 families, and everyone else who would not let us forget what was at 
stake if we did not act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me commend all the members of the 
Homeland Security Committee, especially Chairman Thompson, for the 
spirit of bipartisanship which did bring the floor to this moment right 
now, this conference report.
  Having said that, I must take exception to a number of the statements 
that have been made here today, especially by the gentleman from 
Florida and his statements implying somehow that there has not been a 
significant amount of accomplishments since September 11, 2001.
  Let me just recount some of them that were done prior to this. The 
enactment of the PATRIOT Act; the reauthorizing of the PATRIOT Act; the 
Intelligence Reform Act, which created the Director of National 
Intelligence; just last year, the adoption of the first-ever port 
security act; chemical plant security; restructuring FEMA; $1 billion 
for interoperability.
  I really don't think it serves a purpose to somehow be suggesting 
that the Republicans, or any Member of this body for that matter, is 
holding back or in any way not doing all that is possible to protect 
our Nation against the threat of Islamic terrorism. For instance, the 
National Intelligence Estimate, when it was released last week, made a 
point of stressing that the greatly increased counterterrorism efforts 
over the past 5 years have constrained the ability of al Qaeda to 
attack the United States' homeland again and have led terrorist groups 
to perceive the homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11. 
These measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United 
States since 9/11.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I don't think it does any purpose at all to 
downgrade the efforts made by this Congress and this administration. 
This should be a bipartisan effort, and I think a lot of the rhetoric 
today undermines that.
  Having said that, I will be supporting this bill because, on balance, 
I believe there have been significant improvements made. I hope that 
next year and the year after and the year after that we continue to 
make improvements.
  Now, there have been some failures. One of the main requirements, 
main recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was that jurisdiction be 
consolidated in one committee. That was not done. In fact, anyone who 
went to the first meeting of the conference committee, it was like the 
Tower of Babel. We had subcommittees and committees, and ranking 
members and committee chairmen. I think there were about over 60 people 
at a conference committee when there should have been four.
  Having said that, I believe that this is something to work toward in 
the future. And I would hope that the Democrats, during the time that 
they still retain the majority, will work to consolidate that 
jurisdiction.
  But some of the positive steps, on grant reform, I certainly agree 
with the gentleman from Mississippi on this, and I commend him for 
this. We did have long, involved preconferencing negotiations. And he 
worked with me and Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins to come up 
with a grant formula which is far more based on risk than it was 
before. It's still not perfect, it was still a minimum that's going to 
be in there, but having said that, it's a significant advance over what 
we've had in the past, and I applaud him for that. I applaud the other 
members of the conference committee, and the bipartisan membership of 
our committee which passed similar legislation in 2005 and 2006, and 
now it has been brought to fruition. And I give Chairman Thompson 
credit for that.
  Also, on another issue, which I'm very pleased is in this bill, and 
that's upon the issue of giving immunity to those who come forward and 
report suspicious activity. I want to thank my good friend, Mr. Pearce, 
the gentleman from New Mexico who is here today, who was the first to 
initiate this legislation. Then we passed it here on the House floor in 
March. And so long as we're in a partisan mood today, I point out that 
a majority of Democrats voted against that. And last week, a majority 
of Democrats voted against it in the Senate. And to me it was 
unfortunate that we had to have 5 or 6 days of intense negotiations 
before the Democratic leadership finally intervened and brought about 
the insertion of that language into the conference report. But it is 
there; it gives immunity to those people who come forward and report 
what they see on good faith. And we learned on September 11, if you see 
something, say something.
  We know that you cannot have enough FBI agents, you cannot have 
enough police officers to monitor the actions of Islamic terrorists. We 
need the eyes and the ears of millions of good Americans, and that's 
what this language protects.
  Before I slow myself down, let me just say that at the conference 
committee from the other side, I want to commend Senator Lieberman and 
Senator Collins. This was a true bicameral effort. And again, Chairman 
Thompson, we went through a number of, over a period of weeks, 
preconference negotiations, all of which were conducted in good faith. 
And I think the product today, again, while not perfect, is another 
step in the right direction, building on the steps of the previous 5\1/
2\ years.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to 
Mr. King that it would have been nice to have four conferees, but it 
was a 900-page bill, so we had 60. It worked, and I'm happy to see the 
process go forward.
  I would like to yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Intelligence 
Subcommittee on Homeland Security, the gentlelady from California (Ms. 
Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank the Chairman for yielding to me. I spoke on the 
rule

[[Page H8799]]

about the merits of this bill and commended him for the job that he has 
done leading the Homeland Security committee in this Congress.
  I rise again to clarify something. It seems a shame to me that this 
good bill is being disparaged. Claims are being made that we have no 
ability now, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, to 
intercept foreign-to-foreign communications. That is false. Foreign-to-
foreign communications are not covered by the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act, FISA. We can intercept them, and we should be 
intercepting them vigorously right now. The question comes up only in 
circumstances when FISA is triggered because a U.S. person is involved. 
But in that circumstance, we should still intercept those 
communications, and we should then be getting emergency warrants, a 
limited number of individualized emergency warrants when an American is 
involved. That can happen now under FISA, which has been modernized 
many times since 9/11. If additional resources are needed to implement 
the emergency warrant section of FISA, legislation proposed by the 
Democrats on the Intelligence Committee last year should be enacted.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California, the former Attorney General of California, a man who 
came back to Congress to combat terrorism, Mr. Lungren.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that 
I am very proud of this House and the work that it has done on a 
bipartisan basis over the last number of years, the intervening years 
since 9/11. That's why I was somewhat surprised by some of the 
comments, certainly from the gentleman from Florida, during the debate 
on the rule suggesting that nothing has been done since that time until 
we adopt this bill.
  I support this bill. I think it does give us an improved state over 
what currently exists. But to suggest that we haven't done anything 
suggests to the American people that the billions of dollars that they 
have spent, as authorized by this House, the fact of the inconveniences 
they go through at airports, all the expenditures we've made with 
respect to increasing protections in aviation, in our ports, transit, 
and now what we are already doing with respect to chemical facilities 
is for naught.
  And when we make those arguments, we tend to lose the support of the 
American people because they throw their hands up and say, no matter 
what you do, it doesn't make anything better. We ought to make it very 
clear, we are safer today than we were on September 10. We are safer 
today than we were 2 years ago, 3 years ago, a year ago. Are we safe 
enough? No. But to denigrate the efforts that have been made by good 
men and women in this body and the other body, the work that's being 
done by countless thousands of law enforcement individuals across this 
country, to denigrate the changes that have been made with respect to 
the cooperation between the intelligence community, the law enforcement 
community, and law enforcement communities on all levels, is nonsense. 
And more than that, it is detrimental to our effort to make this a 
safer country for the people we represent.
  This bill is a good bill. It has its warts like anything else, but 
it's a good bill precisely because it builds on the achievements we 
have made over the last number of years.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for 
working on our committee in a bipartisan basis, as the gentleman from 
New York did during his tenure as Chair. I think we have established a 
good basis for bipartisanship in this committee, and I think we ought 
to bring that to this floor.
  The American people should understand that the further we get away 
from 9/11 without having an attack on our land, the more difficult it 
is for us to continue to keep the vigilance up.

                              {time}  1530

  But the fact that we have succeeded does not mean the threat has 
diminished. In many ways, it is stronger, not because we have not done 
anything, but because the enemy is strong.
  So I would say vote for this bill, take pride in this bill, but also 
take pride in the progress that has been made up to this point.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), one of the conferees, as well 
as the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I compliment Chairman Thompson on the 
superb work he has done as Chair of the Committee on Homeland Security. 
He is the right man at the right time in the right place. He has 
approached his responsibility with great sincerity and focus of 
purpose. He has accomplished a great deal, an enormous amount in his 
first year as chairman. He has defended the House position on the 
Homeland Security 9/11 Commission Report to the best of his ability 
against a rather obstructive other body.
  I had great reservations about creating a Department of Homeland 
Security at its very outset. I opposed formation of the Department in 
2002 on operational grounds. Four years later, I still question the 
Department's effectiveness in managing the responsibilities we have 
handed to it.
  On signing the Homeland Security Act in 2002, the President said, 
``Our objective is to spend less on overhead and more on protecting 
neighborhoods and borders and waters and skies from terrorists.''
  In at least one respect, this bill doesn't meet that objective. The 
conference report authorizes new rail, public transportation, and over-
the-road bus security grant programs that will provide historically 
high levels of funding for those modes of transportation. I am for 
that. I support those needed investments.
  But in the House bill, we recognize that the most efficient way to 
administer these programs and get the money out to the recipients was 
to have the Department of Transportation and the Department of Homeland 
Security share those responsibilities.
  The Department of Homeland Security in the House bill was to award 
grant funds based on risk and select grant recipients and then transfer 
those funds to DOT, which through the Federal Transit Administration 
administers $9 billion a year efficiently and effectively on time to 
transit agencies to disburse those grants with its already effective, 
award-winning distribution program.
  Instead, in the conference, we met with nothing but obstruction from 
the other body. I offered several fair and sensible compromises: have 
the Government Accountability Office review the existing grant 
distribution programs of the two Departments and make recommendations; 
have the Inspectors General of the two Departments jointly certify that 
DHS was ready to distribute grant funds efficiently; and monitor and 
enforce the various grant certifications, including labor protections. 
That was rejected, as the previous was rejected. I offered for DOT to 
distribute the grant funds in the early years of the program to allow 
DHS to get up to speed and get an efficient program running. That was 
summarily rejected.
  Now we are going to have the Department of Homeland Security and the 
Department of Transportation getting together and signing a memorandum 
of understanding. That is not going to work. This is a great mistake. 
It is misguided and works contrary to the best purpose of this 
Department.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the excessively partisan 
comments from the gentleman from Florida that did not serve this 
bipartisan, bicameral product well, I do want to thank Chairman 
Thompson and Ranking Member King of the Homeland Security Committee for 
their hard work to bring this very fine bill together. As a member of 
the conference committee, I had an opportunity to see firsthand the 
extraordinary leadership these two gentlemen provided. I thank them for 
that.
  This leadership really came together and really came to the forefront 
during the debate on the so-called ``John Doe'' provision. I vigorously 
applaud their efforts to make this immunity grant part of the bill. 
These provisions were made necessary because of an outrageous lawsuit 
that attempts to punish airline passengers and crew for

[[Page H8800]]

being vigilant. Contrary to what some might think, vigilance on the 
part of our traveling public is important, especially during a time 
when terrorists want to attack us both at home and abroad.
  Above and beyond the ``John Doe'' language, this bill has noteworthy 
accomplishments. It allows a greater percentage of homeland security 
funds to be distributed based upon risk, and it authorizes funds for 
transportation security.
  Further, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Emergency 
Communications, Preparedness and Response, I was especially pleased 
that this report establishes a new grant program within the Department 
of Homeland Security that will promote the development of interoperable 
communications.
  But while this bill has some good provisions, it does leave some 9/11 
Commission recommendations and some 9/11 Commission business undone, 
especially in two important areas. First, it does not address the issue 
of congressional jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security, 
and it does nothing to promote the development of a comprehensive 
screening system for international travelers arriving at our borders.
  Had the majority chosen to incorporate my Fast and Secure Travel 
Initiative into this legislation, we would have dovetailed very nicely 
with the transportation security provisions contained within the act. 
Frankly, that second recommendation would have satisfied completely.
  Passage of this conference report, though, is another part of our 
continuing efforts to keep our homeland secure. It is a laudable step. 
But as you can see, there is still much more to do.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House 
of Representatives.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate both Mr. King of New 
York and the chairman of the committee, who I know worked very hard 
together in a bipartisan fashion to get us to a place where we all want 
to be. Where we all want to be is a safer America, a safer homeland, 
and safer Americans living here at home.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a critically important day for this Congress and 
indeed for our Nation. We have no higher duty than to protect the 
American people, defend our homeland and to strengthen our national 
security. We know, nearly 6 years after the horrific attacks on 
September 11, 2001, that Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorist 
network continue to present a real, serious threat to the American 
homeland.
  In fact, the most recent National Intelligence Estimate released just 
this month states: ``The group, al Qaeda, has been able to restore key 
capabilities it would need to launch an attack on U.S. soil: a safe 
haven in Pakistan tribal areas, operational lieutenants, and senior 
leaders.'' That is cause for concern for every one of us that 
represents the 300 million Americans in this country.
  Thus, today, with this conference report implementing the 
recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, we will be taking an 
enormous step forward in hardening our Nation's defense and combating 
and eliminating the terrorists who seek to harm us.
  Let me say my friend, the gentleman from California, the former 
Attorney General of California, is correct. Steps have been taken, and 
these are taking additional steps. Unfortunately, as the gentleman 
knows, when we were assessed by the 9/11 Commission itself, it gave 
five Fs and 12 Ds to our performance up until last year. That does not 
mean we didn't do some things. We did some very good things, and we did 
them in a bipartisan fashion. He is right, we got 9 Cs and two 
incompletes for failing to implement fully the 9/11 Commission.
  Today, we make this top national security priority, the first major 
bill that we considered in this Congress, H.R. 1, a reality, and I 
believe we will adopt the conference report which passed the Senate 85-
8 with strong bipartisan support, as has been expressed on this floor.
  This legislation, among other things, will substantially improve our 
homeland security by doing the following. I know it has been 
referenced, but we ought to repeat it, so the American public and all 
of our colleagues know what we are doing:
  Significantly increasing the share of State homeland security grants 
provided on the basis of risk. Where are we most vulnerable? The 
gentleman, of course, from the New York area knows that very well. I 
know it as well, representing the Washington metropolitan area.
  Requiring scanning of 100 percent of maritime cargo containers by 
2012. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, has been working on this 
issue every day since 9/11, and I congratulate him for the efforts he 
has put in and the efforts that others have put in on this issue.
  Requiring screening 100 percent of air cargo within 3 years. If the 
Transportation Security Administration cannot meet this goal, it must 
provide classified briefings to Congress on its process.
  Withholding assistance to Pakistan for fiscal year 2008 until the 
President certifies that the Pakistani Government is cracking down on 
the Taliban. We still have a sanctuary for the Taliban. We still have a 
sanctuary for al Qaeda. We still have a staging area for al Qaeda. That 
is not acceptable because it continues to cause us great risk and 
danger.
  Significantly strengthening the Cooperative Threat Reduction, Nunn-
Lugar Program, and creating a new National Bio-Surveillance Integration 
Center which would support Federal efforts to rapidly identify and 
track biological threats.
  Additionally, Mr. Thompson and Mr. King have included in this 
conference report, it seeks to reduce extremism by enhancing the 
International Arab and Muslim Youth Opportunity Fund and establishing a 
Middle East Foundation that will promote economic opportunities, 
education reform, human rights and democracy in the Middle East.
  Let no one, however, be mistaken: this legislation alone cannot 
immunize our Nation from attack. However, it does represent a very 
important step forward for our national security.
  As former Congressman Lee Hamilton, the cochair of the 9/11 
Commission, has noted, and again I quote: ``The bottom line is that 
when this legislation is enacted and implemented, the American people 
will be safer.''
  That is their expectation of us; that is our duty to them and to the 
Constitution we have sworn an oath to defend. That must be our 
objective every day, and it is surely our responsibility.
  I congratulate, again, Mr. Thompson, who has led this committee; Mr. 
King, who has fought so ably over the years to make our country safer; 
and I urge the support on both sides of the aisle for this very 
critically important legislation.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the bipartisan nature of 
the majority leader's remarks. I thank him personally.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the conference report, H.R. 1. 
I did not sign the conference report, but I will vote for the bill 
today.
  The bill promises security and offers the hope of closing remaining 
loopholes in our laws by enacting the remaining 9/11 Commission 
recommendations. But while on one hand it increases security, on the 
other it undermines it through a dangerous expansion of the Visa Waiver 
Program.
  Whenever we allow a country to participate in the Visa Waiver 
Program, we take a risk of admitting foreign citizens without any State 
Department screening. I realize that the United States should be 
working toward close relationships with our allies in the war on 
terror, but it doesn't follow that we should turn a blind eye to those 
security risks involved with free access to those countries' citizens.
  Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, and Zacharias Moussaoui, the 9/11 
conspirator, both used this program to slip into our country without 
close scrutiny. And this bill continues that very troubling program.
  Currently, countries must undergo strict evaluation before being 
admitted into the program. The U.S. does not admit countries whose 
citizens have a

[[Page H8801]]

high percentage of overstaying their visas. However, this bill gives 
the Secretary of Homeland Security the choice to ignore a country's 
visa overstay.
  The president of 9/11 Families for a Secure America, Peter Gadiel, 
has said that 9/11 families have grave concerns about Congress 
expanding the Visa Waiver Program. As part of the Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act this year, I voted with 76 of my colleagues to 
eliminate that program altogether.

                              {time}  1545

  Reluctantly, I will vote for the conference report today, and I urge 
my colleagues to pressure the Speaker to adopt a separate bill on the 
Visa Waiver Program so Americans can be better protected.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 
minute to the Speaker of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for making us so very, very proud of his chairmanship, Mr. 
Thompson's chairmanship of this very important committee. Homeland 
security is as local as our neighborhoods and our front porches and as 
national as our interests wherever they are threatened throughout the 
world.
  I rise today in strong support of this legislation to make the 
bipartisan independent 9/11 Commission recommendations into law. With 
this bill, we will be keeping our promises to the families of 9/11. We 
will be honoring the work of the 9/11 Commission, and we will be making 
the American people safer.
  I salute the steadfast leadership of so many of our colleagues; as I 
mentioned, Chairman Thompson and the distinguished ranking member, Mr. 
King. Thank you for your leadership, Mr. King, as well. I also want to 
acknowledge Chairmen Lantos, Dingell, Conyers, Oberstar, Skelton, 
Markey and Nadler, who played an important role in the conference 
report, as well as all of your ranking members, Mr. King, on the 
Republican side.
  Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago this week the bipartisan and independent 9/
11 Commission released its report outlining urgent and achievable 
recommendations for securing our Nation. Under the outstanding 
leadership of Chairman Tom Kean and Vice Chair Lee Hamilton, the 9/11 
Commission presented a road map to protect the American people from 
terrorism.
  In assuming power, Democrats promised a new direction for America, 
and nowhere was that new direction more critical than ensuring the 
safety of the American people. That is why on the very first day of the 
new Congress, our very first legislative act was to pass H.R. 1, the 9/
11 Commission recommendations. It was our highest priority, to make the 
American people safer, and we passed it on the first day in our first 
legislative act.
  Today we will pass the final version of this bipartisan bill. We will 
send it to the President for his signature which we expect he will 
apply to it. And when we do, we will have done in 6 months what 
previous Congresses failed to do in nearly 6 years.
  We could not have accomplished this without the courage and 
determination of those whose loved ones were lost on September 11. The 
families of 9/11 turned their grief into strength and advocacy, and 
that made America safer.
  Implementing the recommendations will fundamentally change the way 
the President and the Congress deal with matters related to terrorism, 
making us more unified and more effective. This is because this bill 
closes loopholes and weaknesses that terrorists seek to exploit and 
that leave Americans vulnerable.
  I know others have addressed these, but in commending the committee 
in a bipartisan way, I want to highlight some of the important things 
that make America safer.
  Federal funding for homeland security will now be focused on those 
parts of the country that are at the greatest risk. By securing loose 
nuclear material abroad, this bill will help prevent terrorists from 
acquiring weapons of mass destruction. That is a very, very important 
issue.
  Our bill requires that 100 percent of shipping containers be scanned 
and sealed abroad before they ever reach our shores and move through 
our waterways and across the country. Mr. Nadler, thank you for your 
exceptional leadership and your persistence on this matter. 9/11 
occurred in your district, and you have been a relentless advocate for 
safety for all Americans.
  It also requires the screening of 100 percent of cargo on our 
passenger aircraft, a provision again relentlessly pursued by 
Congressman Markey.
  We know that lives were lost on 9/11 because our first responders 
were not able to communicate with each other in real-time. This bill 
makes a $1.6 billion investment in the equipment for our fire fighters, 
police and other emergency personnel, the equipment they need to 
communicate with each other more effectively to protect us and for them 
to protect each other.
  These are just but a few provisions of the bill. Others have 
referenced a more extensive list; each of them is very important.
  Mr. Speaker, as we learned in the National Intelligence Estimate 
released last week, the threat of terrorist violence against the United 
States is growing. Al Qaeda is gaining strength, and Osama bin Laden 
continues to elude capture. There is not a moment to spare to take the 
steps necessary to keep the American people safe.
  With this bill, we are honoring our solemn responsibility to protect 
and defend the American people. We take that as our oath of office, to 
protect the Constitution and, in the preamble, to provide for the 
common defense as a major charge to us. I urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation and the President to sign it.
  I thank my colleagues again, Mr. Thompson and Mr. King, for bringing 
this legislation to the floor.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker of the House 
for her bipartisan comments, and I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report to H.R. 1. I want to commend Homeland Security Chairman Thompson 
and Ranking Member King and others for their good work on the bill. I 
support the conference report because I believe it will improve 
America's security.
  I sought a seat on the Homeland Security Committee so I could 
continue the bipartisan efforts to further strengthen our Nation's 
homeland defenses. I was disappointed, extremely disappointed, that 
this bill bypassed our committee earlier this year and was brought to 
the floor without the opportunity for amendment and time for meaningful 
debate that these serious subjects deserve.
  The conference report is, however, an improvement over the House 
bill. Although I don't have time to cover all of the provisions, I am 
pleased that Ranking Member King's commonsense proposal to provide 
civil immunity to good Samaritans who report suspicious activity is now 
included in this measure.
  I am heartened that the conference report includes two proposals that 
I made that were included in the rail and public transportation 
security bill the House passed earlier this year. The first will 
require the security coordinators who are developing and implementing 
rail security plans to be American citizens, which makes sense since 
U.S. citizenship is required for individuals seeking security 
clearances for access to classified information and materials.
  The second will require the physical testing of rail tank cars used 
to carry toxic-inhalation hazardous materials to determine how best to 
secure them from attack, and more accurately, a modeling analysis to 
better understand the real-world consequences and most effective manner 
to mitigate the release of such dangerous materials.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a good bill that could have been 
better if we had followed regular order and given Members of the House 
and the Homeland Security Committee our rightful opportunity to fully 
review and revise its contents. I hope the majority gives us that 
opportunity in the future.
  I think this bill is a step in the right direction. Therefore, I urge 
adoption by this body and enactment by the President.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the chairman of the House 
Intelligence Committee.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I

[[Page H8802]]

want to congratulate my good friend, Mr. Thompson and Ranking Member 
King for a great job on this legislation.
  Prior to coming to Congress, I served proudly in the United States 
Border Patrol for 26\1/2\ years, including 13 years as a sector chief 
in Texas. As the only Member of Congress with experience in defending 
our Nation's borders, I have firsthand knowledge about what is needed 
to keep America safe.
  As a former law enforcement officer, I have long advocated for better 
communication between agencies in the field. I am pleased that H.R. 1 
establishes a stand-alone interoperability grant program which will 
allow improved emergency communication capabilities among our Nation's 
first responders.
  H.R. 1 also enhances State and local intelligence ``fusion'' centers, 
places a high priority on border intelligence, and modernizes the Visa 
Waiver Program, a critical element of our homeland security defense.
  I was appointed to the Intelligence Committee before the tragic 
events of 9/11, and today I proudly serve as the committee chairman. 
H.R. 1 takes a step to close the gap and implement several 9/11 
Commission recommendations, including the declassification of the 
intelligence top-line funding figure. It requires disclosure of the 
intelligence top-line for fiscal year years 2007 and 2008, but not 
until 30 days following the end of the respective years. Starting in 
2009, the administration may decide not to disclose the amount if it 
provides a written justification to Congress.
  As the 9/11 Commission found, such declassification of the overall 
number would not disclose exactly how we are investing in specific 
capabilities, would not reveal intelligence sources and methods, and 
would not advantage our enemies. Instead, it simply provides greater 
transparency to American taxpayers.
  The conference report also extends the Public Interest 
Declassification Board and mandates that CIA declassify to the maximum 
extent possible the congressionally mandated 9/11 accountability 
report. These provisions further underscore the high priority 
supporters of H.R. 1 have placed on striking the proper balance between 
protecting our most sensitive intelligence secrets and ensuring greater 
accountability, openness and transparency.
  Overall, the report reflects thoughtful legislative drafting, and I 
strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this conference report.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I intend to support the conference report; 
however, I want to share my serious concerns over a provision requiring 
all foreign ports to scan 100 percent of commercial cargo destined for 
the United States.
  First, this policy was not recommended by the 9/11 Commission. 
Instead, it called for selecting the most practical and cost effective 
ways of improving security focusing on areas of greatest risk. I 
believe 100 percent scanning would undermine our current risk based 
approach as endorsed by the SAFE Port Act last fall, which I supported.
  We are also putting the cart before the horse given the ongoing SAFE 
Port Act pilot project that tasked 100 percent scanning at three 
foreign ports. This is testing our technological ability to scan all 
cargo and the effectiveness of doing so. Implementing 100 percent 
scanning could significantly disrupt trade flows and lead to similar 
mandates or other actions against U.S. exports in our ports.
  Finally, I wonder who will pay for this mandate inside and outside 
the United States. We must monitor developments leading to the 
implementation of 100 percent cargo scanning in 5 years and assess if 
legislative changes are needed.
  I also will be watching to see how U.S. shippers, importers, 
retailers, and our trading partners are able to comply with the 
mandate.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the next speaker, who perhaps can answer some of the 
questions raised by the previous speaker, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler), who has been a champion of inspection and screening ever 
since he has been here. As the Speaker indicated, his district was hit 
on 9/11.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report.
  The bill contains several critical homeland security improvements 
that have been mentioned before. I won't mention them because I want to 
concentrate on the 100 percent scanning that the gentleman from 
California opposed.
  I have pushed for the 100 percent scanning for almost 5 years. The 
language in this bill is modeled on the language that I introduced 2 
years ago, along with Mr. Oberstar, in the SOS, Sail Only if Scanned 
Act, which was then supporter afterwards by Mr. Markey.
  As we just heard, the Republicans have opposed this. The Republican 
leadership opposed it, and last year, it failed on practically party-
line vote. This year, it passed on a practically party-line vote, and I 
thank Mr. Thompson and I thank our leadership for making sure that this 
was included in the conference report.
  Twelve million containers a year come into our ports. Our risk-based 
inspection inspects 6 percent of them. That leaves 94 percent of the 12 
million containers uninspected, any one of which could have a chemical 
or nuclear or radiological bomb inside it and we wouldn't know. We must 
inspect them, or electronically scan them to be precise, before they're 
put on a ship bound for the United States in the foreign port if we're 
going to be safe. We can do it.
  Yes, this wasn't included in the 9/11 Commission report. This bill 
improves upon the 9/11 Commission report, and I commend the Democratic 
leadership of this House and of the Senate for doing that.
  We are told it's impractical. It is not impractical. The technologies 
exist for doing it. There are three or four different technologies that 
exist for doing it. When we were told last year that the tamper-proof 
seals didn't exist, General Electric had a van across the street from 
the Rayburn House Office Building showing three different models of the 
tamper-proof seals that sold for $50, $100, and $150 at the same time.
  This is eminently doable and it must be done. A few years ago, I 
debated Mr. Rogers who said we will inspect the high-risk containers. I 
said, wonderful, they'll put the bomb in the low-risk container. The 
fact is there is no such thing as the low-risk container. The most 
reliable shipper with the best record, all it takes is one driver on 
his way from the factory to the port to have lunch and someone replaces 
a television set with a nuclear bomb or vice versa in the container.
  This is a great step forward. It will greatly enhance the safety of 
this country. I urge that we adopt this, and I thank the leadership of 
this House for their steadfastness in supporting this very essential 
measure.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) who is the initial author of the 
John Doe immunity legislation.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi and 
gentleman from New York (Mr. King) for their work for homeland security 
because it is truly a bipartisan issue. It was my privilege to serve on 
the committee with both of them in a previous Congress, and I miss that 
service during this current Congress.
  I rise today to compliment the majority for yielding to the will, the 
will of the American people, because the provision that does protect 
John Does from lawsuits was curiously stripped out of the conference 
report previously. I'm pleased, though, that today's final conference 
report includes those provisions protecting John Does from lawsuits for 
reporting suspicious activity.
  In March, Mr. King and I teamed up as the House passed the sense of 
my Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act as the motion to 
recommit to the Rail and Transportation Security Act, H.R. 1401, by a 
304-121 margin. Again, that was 304 ``yeses'' to 121 ``noes.''
  Today, we finally adopt and send this provision, along with this 
bill, to the President, something that is not only a right step but a 
critical step.
  This provision will make America safer, will make Americans more 
aware

[[Page H8803]]

of terrorist activity and will show the terrorists that we are standing 
strong in the war on terror.
  Ever since 9/11, law enforcement agencies have been telling the 
American people that they should immediately report suspicious activity 
that they see. Citizens are on the front line of our domestic war on 
terror. Our Founding Fathers declared eternal vigilance be the price of 
liberty.
  It was Brian Morgenstern, an alert American, who stopped the Fort Dix 
terrorists by speaking up and reporting what he saw on videotapes.
  It was an alert ambulance crew in June who noticed the Haymarket car 
bomb in London, England. However, terrorists and their supervisors are 
trying to use our freedoms against us.
  On 9/11, the hijackers knew how the crew on the plane would respond 
and used that knowledge against them to carry out their attacks. Last 
November, 6 imams who behaved in manners and methods similar to those 
9/11 terrorists were reported to authorities. Now, those six imams are 
using our courts to terrorize the Americans who reported their 
behavior.
  The John Doe provision in this act will simply help stop this 
terrible shakedown of alert and responsible Americans. If we are 
serious about fighting terrorism, if we are serious about protecting 
Americans and asking them to help protect each other, then we need to 
pass the provision that is in this bill today.
  I know most Americans were shocked to know that this simple, 
commonsense issue became an issue of partisan sniping. We should have 
never had to fight over this provision.
  Today, we're going to make a choice. The Israelis said it best, 
There's no room in the world for political correctness. Today, we're 
going to make that choice, choosing political correctness or securing 
the American people. We will tell the trial lawyers you cannot 
terrorize Americans in our courts.
  Vote ``yes'' on this conference report. I thank the gentlemen both 
for their work.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a 
member of the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
conference report, the Implementation of the Recommendations of the 
Bipartisan 9/11 Commission, and commend the chairman, Mr. Thompson, and 
the ranking member, Mr. King, for their hard work. We would not be here 
today had it not been for their diligence and hard work and the 
leadership of our committee. And certainly, as has already been said 
today, Congress cannot wait for another attack like 9/11 to take the 
steps to protect our Nation from terrorists, and I thank them for their 
efforts.
  This legislation improves homeland security. It empowers our 
communities to respond to threats, and it enhances interoperable 
communications and begins to restore America's moral leadership in the 
world.
  Homeland security begins with hometown security, and local funding 
provided by this bill makes our entire Nation more secure.
  Specifically, the bill provides States with more than $3 billion over 
5 years to provide all hazardous preparation and response assistance.
  Mr. Speaker, as a former State school chief in North Carolina, and a 
proud member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am particularly 
proud that this bill specifically strengthens school security. The 
legislation emphasizes the need for resources to protect our school 
children and plan for emergency response for our schools. And it 
contains a provision that I offered directing the Department of 
Homeland Security to study this related to school buses and school 
transportation.
  Just last week, the National Intelligence Estimate gave us a stark 
warning that we cannot afford to be complacent in the face of rising 
Islamic extremism and threat of terrorist violence.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people want bipartisan action and I commend 
this report.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this Conference Report to 
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.
  In the immediate aftermath of the tragedy of 9/11, our Federal, 
State, and local governments worked to improve preparedness and our 
security. The work that we have done since then has made our country 
safer, but there is much more yet to do.
  Keeping all Americans safe must be the top priority of the 
government. Congress cannot wait for another attack to take steps to 
protect our nation from terrorism. The legislation that I hope my 
colleagues will join me in supporting today improves homeland security, 
empowers our communities to prepare for and respond to all threats, and 
begins to restore America's moral leadership throughout the world. It 
reflects bipartisan work on the part on the part of this Congress and 
implements many of the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 
Commission. These provisions will make our Nation stronger and safer.
  The bill fixes grant programs for first responders, and takes all-
hazards risk-based approach to our homeland security spending. It will 
provide critical funding and equipment to our communities to implement 
state homeland security plans, protect mass transportation, and enable 
first responders to communicate with each other during a terrorist 
attack or other emergencies. It improves intelligence and information 
sharing among agencies, and ensures a unified response to all threats. 
Homeland security begins with hometown security, and these local 
resources make our entire nation more secure. Specifically, the bill 
provides states more than $3 billion over 5 years to provide all 
hazards preparation and response assistance.
  Others have spoken about the provisions that provide 100 percent 
scanning of cargo, prevent the proliferation of WMD, and advance our 
democratic values--these are vital and important provisions we can all 
be proud of. As the former State schools superintendent in North 
Carolina, and North Carolina's only member of the Homeland Security 
Committee, I am particularly proud of the fact that the legislation 
emphasizes. the need for resources to protect our school children and 
plan for emergency response at our schools. It also contains my 
provision directing the Department of Homeland Security to study risks 
related to school buses and other school transportation. These details 
are evidence of the comprehensive nature of this bill, which preserves 
and strengthens our national response to all threats to homeland 
security.
  Just last week, the new National Intelligence Estimate gave us a 
stark warning that we can not afford to be complacent in the face of 
rising Islamic extremism and the threat of terrorist violence. This 
legislation continues Congress' commitment to keeping America safe.
  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 approve this conference report.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. McCaul) a former member of the Joint Terrorism Task 
Force.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman and 
ranking member for their bipartisan spirit on this bill. It was an 
honor and I was proud to be a conferee to this report.
  This is not a perfect bill. We raised concerns at the conference 
regarding the 100 percent screening for cargo containers, and I don't 
believe that's a realistic assessment. However, there were enough 
exceptions to give the Secretary flexibility that I felt comfortable.
  Also, the Visa Waiver Program which the terrorists have exploited. 
However, under this bill, those provisions will be strengthened.
  But nearly 6 years after the attacks of September 11, I believe it is 
now time to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, but I want 
to focus my remarks at this moment on a unique opportunity we had with 
this bill and with the conference to address a gaping loophole in our 
national security, and that is regarding the FISA statute and FISA 
reform bill.
  When I worked in the Justice Department, I worked on national 
security wiretaps, or FISAs as they were referred to. I believe that 
intelligence is our first line of defense in this war on terror, and 
the 9/11 Commission recognized this when they said there were 
systematic problems with covering communications of potential 
terrorists.
  Just recently, Director McConnell wrote a letter to Chairman Reyes of 
the Intelligence Committee, and I think it's important to know what he 
said. He said: ``Our Nation faces an intelligence `gap,' a situation in 
which

[[Page H8804]]

our intelligence community everyday is `missing a significant portion 
of what we should be getting' in order to protect the American people.
  ``Under FISA today, `we are significantly burdened in capturing 
overseas communications of foreign terrorists planning to conduct 
attacks inside the United States.' ''
  As the head of the Nation's intelligence community, he says that, ``I 
am obligated to provide warning of threats of terrorist activity and I 
have deep concern of the current threat situation.''
  Indeed, the National Intelligence Estimate, recently published, 
concluded that our Nation faces a determined al Qaeda.
  ``If we are to stay a step ahead of the terrorists and protect the 
American people,'' he says, ``I firmly believe that we need to be able 
to use our capabilities to collect foreign intelligence about foreign 
targets overseas without the requirements imposed by an out-of-date 
FISA statute.
  ``Simply put,'' he says, ``in a significant number of cases,'' this 
is the Director of National Intelligence, ``we are in the unfortunate 
position of having to obtain court orders to effectively collect 
foreign intelligence about foreign targets located overseas.''
  He says, ``It is essential that the administration and Congress work 
together and without delay to close the current intelligence gap by 
amending the FISA statute.''
  I will say that every day we waste by not amending the statute and 
closing this gaping loophole in our national intelligence law, every 
day we take a risk of another attack on the United States, and I call 
upon my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work with us to 
get this done before we go home for the August recess.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who's also a 
member of the Homeland Security Committee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for your 
important leadership on this committee and to the ranking member. It's 
been a pleasure for me to work cooperatively in a bipartisan way.
  I rise in strong support of the conference report which will make us 
safer by increasing the amount of risk-based homeland security grants, 
screening 100 percent of maritime and aviation cargo and improving 
intelligence collection and information-sharing capabilities.
  I would also like to highlight the title on interoperability grants 
which completes the three-pronged interoperability proposal I put 
forward following September 11.
  The dedicated grant program will significantly enhance the ability of 
public safety agencies to plan, build, and maintain communications 
networks as they will no longer have to make impossible decisions such 
as whether to purchase personal protective equipment or radios. It will 
ensure that first responders will have more advance resources than 
those used by Paul Revere.
  This bill is a great victory for first responders.
  I rise in strong support of the conference report, which implements 
many of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, actions that should have 
been taken years ago.
  As a member of the Homeland Security Committee and the conference 
committee that resolved differences with the Senate, I know that many 
of us put a great deal of work into creating this legislation. I would 
like to thank Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King for their 
tireless work. I would also like to thank our leadership for making 
this the House's top priority.
  I would like to briefly outline a few of the many reasons why this 
bill makes our country safer. First, it mandates 100 percent scanning 
of all maritime cargo before it enters the U.S. The current system of 
scanning only some cargo when it has already entered the U.S. is 
inadequate. AI Qaeda and other terrorist organizations must be 
prevented from using a maritime cargo container to conceal a nuclear 
weapon.
  Many have stringently opposed this provision and have stated that 
they will not support the conference report because of the perceived 
impact on business. I would respond to this argument by stating the job 
of Congress is to protect the American people, not stand in the way of 
commonsense security measures to make it easier for the business 
community to ship containers. The cost to scan each container is 
minimal compared to the cost of value of goods shipped in each 
container. And the cost is nothing compared to the consequence of what 
would happen if terrorists were able to detonate a nuclear weapon in 
the U.S.
  Second, the bill greatly enhances aviation security efforts. Today, a 
great deal of cargo is placed on commercial aircraft without being 
screened. The bill closes this security loophole. It also authorizes 
$450 million per year for in-line explosive detection systems and 
provides a process for passengers who have been misidentified and 
placed on the ``no-fly'' or ``selectee'' lists to clear their names.
  Third, it augments intelligence collection and information sharing. 
The bill properly organizes intelligence gathering agencies within the 
Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to enable them to better 
communicate potential threats with local first responders. One of the 
best ways to prevent an attack is to increase our intelligence 
gathering capabilities. This bill will help to provide assistance to 
State and local fusion centers and counter-terrorism officials. The 
excellent work of the New York Police Department's counter-terrorism 
division to detect and prevent potential terrorist plots exemplifies 
what can be accomplished by local law enforcement agencies.
  Fourth, the bill advances our efforts to identify and protect 
critical infrastructure, one of the fundamental purposes of the 
Department of Homeland Security. The conference report includes 
provisions I proposed to review and update the National Asset Database 
and the subset National At-Risk Database. It also requires the 
Department to conduct annual critical infrastructure vulnerability 
assessments.
  These are only four of the many examples of how the bill makes our 
country more secure. I would like to detail two particular provisions 
which have been two of my highest priorities since the September 11 
attacks--interoperability grants and the first responder funding 
formula for homeland security grants.
  Title III of the conference report completes the three-pronged 
interoperability proposal I first put forward following September 11. 
The Department of Homeland Security now has an office that coordinates 
first responder emergency communications efforts. It is in the process 
of implementing a national communications strategy, and this bill 
creates an interoperability grant program.
  Communications problems have plagued first responders in every major 
emergency in the last 15 years. We witnessed this 12 years ago in 
Oklahoma City. It resurfaced at Columbine in 1999. It slowed our 
response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. On September 11, it proved to be 
a deadly problem.
  Of the 58 firefighters who escaped the North Tower of the World Trade 
Center and gave oral histories to the Fire Department of New York, only 
three heard radio warnings that the North Tower was in danger of 
collapse. We will never know how many of the 343 firefighters who died 
that day while heroically rescuing thousands of workers were in the 
North Tower. Nor will we know how many of these lives would have been 
spared if they had had effective, interoperable communications 
equipment to receive the evacuation order.
  The provisions in the emergency communications grant title are long 
overdue. More than 10 years ago, the Public Safety Wireless Advisory 
Committee stated that, ``unless immediate measures are taken to promote 
interoperability, public safety agencies will not be able to adequately 
discharge their obligation to protect life and property in a safe, 
efficient, and cost effective manner.''
  The 9/11 Commission included interoperability as one of its 
recommendations and the Public Discourse Project found that the Federal 
Government had made minimal progress on this priority. This legislation 
finally responds to the widely acknowledged vulnerabilities posed by 
poor communications capabilities.
  A dedicated grant program, which I first proposed following September 
11, will significantly enhance the ability of public safety agencies to 
plan, build, and maintain communications networks as they will no 
longer have to make impossible decisions such as whether to purchase 
personal protective equipment or radios.
  This bill will not solve all of our interoperability problems. 
However, it will help to ensure that in the next emergency, our first 
responders are not left to the same strategies used by Paul Revere in 
1775, which was sadly the case during Katrina just 2 years ago. This is 
a great victory for first responders.
  A second item which I have been fighting for years to improve is the 
first responder funding formula. Title I of the conference report 
increases the percentage of DHS grants that are allocated on the basis 
of risk. For far too long the Department has awarded 40 percent of 
formula grants to State governments without any consideration of risk. 
The conference report will eventually lower this amount to 18.52 
percent in 5 years.
  On four occasions, the House passed legislation to increase the 
amount of risk-based

[[Page H8805]]

funding, including an amendment that I added to the USA PATRIOT Act 
Reauthorization bill. The compromise we are considering today, while 
far from perfect, is the product of several years of negotiations 
between the two chambers. Even with the conference report, I will 
continue my efforts to improve the manner in which grants are awarded.
  As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of 
cure. After September 11, we experienced the cost of not being 
adequately prepared--the loss of almost 3,000 lives and tremendous 
economic impact. We must distribute homeland security funding on the 
basis of risk now so that areas most at risk have the resources to 
prevent and effectively respond to any potential attacks.
  Attacks against New York, Madrid, London, and Mumbai illustrate that 
terrorists target the areas in which they can inflict the most damage. 
The Federal Government's efforts to prepare and respond to terrorism 
should reflect this reality. In addition, Hurricane Katrina highlighted 
the need to allocate resources to the areas most vulnerable to any type 
of emergency situation. We cannot afford to use homeland security 
funding as a type of revenue sharing.
  This was one of the most prevalent recommendations from the 9/11 
Commission. In 2005, the Commission gave the Federal Government an 
``F'' for failing to allocate funding where it is needed. Had the 
provisions in the conference report been implemented prior to the date 
the report card was issued, this grade would have been better.
  Regardless of the amount of the percentage of risk-based funds, the 
Department must do a better job calculating risk. In the Fiscal Year 
2007 Homeland Security Grant Program allocation process, the Department 
made many decisions that resulted in awarding what were supposed to be 
risk-based funds to areas that do not face a high threat of being 
attacked. I plan on introducing legislation that would improve the 
manner in which DHS calculates risk and awards funds, strengthening the 
first responder funding formula provisions in this conference report.
  In addition, I am disappointed that the conference report dropped the 
provisions that would have provided collective bargaining and other 
worker protections for Transportation Security Officers (TSOs). These 
provisions were included in both the House and Senate versions of the 
bill but were dropped from the conference report due to the President's 
misguided veto threat.
  Transportation Security Officers are on the front lines protecting 
our airports and airplanes. They should be given the basic worker 
protections enjoyed by other DHS personnel. They perform a crucial and 
often grueling job that requires training, experience, and patience. We 
need workers who have mastered the job and will make a career of 
helping to protect the flying public and our skies.
  That is why I am introducing stand-alone legislation today to provide 
the 42,000 screeners with basic worker protections. This would replace 
the increasing turnover and dissatisfaction with professionalism and a 
career path our screeners will pursue long-term. Highly trained and 
seasoned TSOs are part of our smart, comprehensive, and cost-effective 
efforts to prevent terrorist attacks and protect America's 
transportation system.
  In its July 2004 report, the 9/11 Commission concluded that we are 
safer than we were prior to September 11, 2001, but we are not safe. 
The same is true today. While we will never be able to eliminate all 
threats or vulnerabilities, the implementation of this conference 
report is a substantial step forward.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much 
time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Mississippi has 11\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a member of the committee and an 
outstanding spokesman on this issue.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, first, I'd like to thank the 9/11 families 
for their work on this legislation, their faith in their country, their 
love for their country. During the debate on the rule, I had to walk 
out, it was getting so partisan. So I want to thank Steny Hoyer for 
bringing us back to a sound basis for debate and appreciation that this 
is a bipartisan problem with a bipartisan solution.
  Next, I want to thank former chairman Peter King for his outstanding 
work as chairman, never making this a partisan issue, and to Chairman 
Bennie Thompson for their work on a bipartisan basis on this 
legislation.

                              {time}  1615

  As co-Chair of the 9/11 Caucus with Carolyn Maloney, we fought hard 
in the previous Congress to pass the Ensuring Implementation of the 9/
11 Commission Report Act, which this legislation is based on. I 
appreciate the fact that this majority has finally brought this 
legislation to completion and they should be congratulated.
  I particularly want to thank Carolyn Maloney for her work helping to 
create a Department of Homeland Security, her work to help create the 
9/11 Commission, her work to help create a Director of Intelligence, 
and her work now on this legislation, which, frankly, she is not 
getting enough credit for. She worked on this for a long period of 
time.
  There are many provisions in this bill that we should be proud of: 
the risk-based grants; the John Doe provisions; the interoperability 
grants; the intelligence and information sharing; the rail, bus and 
mass transit security grants; the 100 percent inspection of air cargo, 
which Ed Markey championed, and I was his Republican co-sponsor in this 
effort; and the 100 percent inspection of the maritime cargo. It is 
important that we do it. We will have to monitor that.
  I particularly want to point out the Privacy and Civil Liberties 
Oversight Board work improvements that Carolyn Maloney and I 
particularly had legislation on. This bill removes the Privacy and 
Civil Liberties Board from the Executive Office of the President and 
establishes an independent agency. It grants subpoena power to the 
board for obtaining information. This was an important provision.
  The critical infrastructure provision and the private sector 
preparedness, the whistle-blower protections. Congratulations, Mr. 
Thompson and Mr. King on the legislation you have worked on.
  Let me conclude by saying this: There are clearly more than one 
inconvenient truth facing us. The one that Al Gore talks about in 
global warming is a real concern; it is inconvenient.
  There is another inconvenient truth; it's what the 9/11 Commission 
talked about, and that's Islamist terrorism. This bill is a wake-up to 
that concern.
  Mr. Speaker, as Co-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Caucus with my 
colleague, Representative Carolyn Maloney, I am grateful the conference 
report on H.R. 1, legislation to implement most of the remaining 9/11 
Commission Recommendations, is on the House floor today.
  This legislation will take many important--and overdue--steps toward 
protecting our homeland, including requiring the screening of cargo on 
passenger planes; improving cargo screening at our ports; strengthening 
the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; distributing homeland 
security funds based on risk; and improving interoperability for first 
responders.
  Over a year ago, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project graded the federal 
government on implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, 
issuing a failing, near-failing or average grade for action on 27 of 
their 41 recommendations.
  As a result, Representative Maloney and I introduced the Ensuring 
Implementation of the 9/11 Commission Report Act, which addressed each 
of the recommendations and held the appropriate agency accountable for 
reporting to Congress on its actions.
  Having worked to create the 9/11 Commission; co-chaired hearings in 
my National Security Subcommittee on its recommendations; pushed for 
enactment of the Intelligence Reform and Terorism Prevention Act in 
2004; and co-authored legislation to fully implement the 9/11 
Commission's recommendations, I was grateful H.R 1 passed in early 
January.
  This legislation takes additional steps to protect the American 
public, including provisions to provide civil liability protection to 
citizens who, in good faith, report suspicious activity that might 
indicate a terror attack upon our Nation's travel system and to 
establish an interoperable emergency communications grant program 
within DHS.
  While there is still work to do, such as fortifying our southern 
border and requiring passports at our northern border, the bottom line 
is this legislation is an essential step forward.
  It is also a testament to the work of Fourth District residents Mary 
and Frank Fetchet--parents of Brad; and Beverly Eckert--wife of Sean 
Rooney.
  They along with several other family members have worked for more 
than 5 years to establish the commission, ensure it had the tools it 
needed to do its job, and pushed for enactment of these recommendations 
into law. I have been humbled to work with them.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), a member of the committee.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1, Implementing the 9/11 
Commission Recommendations Act, took

[[Page H8806]]

an act of Congress, a Congress willing to act, and leadership that knew 
how to act. For this I thank Senator Lieberman, the leadership on the 
Senate side, Ranking Member King, the 9/11 families who were very much 
involved in this process, and I especially thank the chairman of the 
committee, Chairman Bennie Thompson. He has been thoughtful. He has 
been brilliant. He has been the glue that has maintained the stability 
and kept this committee moving forward. Without his leadership, the 
committee would not have been able to achieve the bipartisanship that 
has made the difference, such as this legislation that's being 
implemented.
  This legislation, in addition to the risk-based solutions, which are 
important, don't throw money at a problem, throw money at the solution 
that deals specifically with the problem, and the risk is where we are 
going to get the best bang for our buck.
  It also deals 100 percent with the cargo screening, and that's 
important, because it's being done abroad not here in our country, and 
99\1/2\ won't do.
  Finally, I would like to mention that it deals with national transit 
security centers. I am honored to say that one will be coming to 
Houston, Texas, and to Texas Southern University. I am honored to have 
worked with the chairman to have Texas Southern University become 
involved in this process of finding solutions to security problems in 
our transportation system.
  I thank you for helping us to develop this most extensive and 
comprehensive piece of legislation that is going to help secure this 
entire country. I am honored to say that Texas Southern University will 
be a part of that process.
  God bless you.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a member of the 
Homeland Security Committee.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, but above all, I 
thank him for a bill of historic dimensions.
  Mr. Speaker, if this bill did no more than H.R. 1, enact a 9/11 
Commission report, it would be that, and it does a great deal more. 
It's what we have been trying to do ever since you and I have been on 
this commission.
  Let me point out a couple of things. One of the most criticized parts 
of homeland security has been what is called the revenue sharing or 
pork barrel spending we did in just distributing this money all over 
the country. Your task was to somehow make sure everybody got enough 
money, while pointing the money to where al Qaeda is pointing the 
threat. That is exactly what you have done with the base Federal 
funding for emergency preparedness now going, finally, on the basis of 
risk and vulnerabilities.
  Of course, that means New York City and Washington D.C. are getting 
more attention than before. But those are not the only jurisdictions. 
Would anyone not want those two jurisdictions to get most of the 
attention where al Qaeda is giving most of the attention.
  I share with Chairman Oberstar the concern that what we put in our 
bill for the distribution of the transportation security funds was not 
agreed to by the Senate. So we have another bureaucracy distributing 
the funds, as we would not have preferred.
  But it must be said that you and I sponsored the bill for rail 
security. Public transportation security could get nowhere. Look what 
you have in this bill. Where the people are, we have got $4 billion for 
the first time. We got it for rail, we have got it for public 
transportation, we got it for buses. Finally, there is a collective 
sigh of relief.
  There is $20 million, I must say, for Union Station. I just want to 
point that out, because Union Station is 2 seconds away from the Senate 
of the United States. It's the hub for Amtrak, and it's typical of 
where your bill looks for where the vulnerability is, where the holes 
are and shores them up. Your bill will be remembered by history.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank the 
gentleman from Mississippi, the chairman of the Homeland Security 
Committee for his outstanding leadership on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission provided an eye-opening assessment 
of how terrorists were able to exploit security vulnerabilities on 
September 11. It made 41 key recommendations to address these 
shortcomings. We promised the American people that the Commission's 
efforts would not be in vain, and today we made good on that promise.
  Our threat environment presents unique challenges. While good 
intelligence will always be the pointy tip of the spear, it will always 
be critical to our anti-terror efforts. We know that it's not 
foolproof.
  Among the many things that this conference report accomplishes, it 
fulfills a key commission recommendation by creating a stand-alone 
program for communications interoperability. It also requires 100 
percent advance screening of maritime cargo, which will ensure a weapon 
of mass destruction never even has a chance of reaching American shores 
by being smuggled in a cargo container.
  I am proud to have served as a conferee on this bill, and I believe 
we have an excellent final product before us today.
  The best way to honor those who died on September 11 is to learn from 
the lessons of that tragic day and take action. This conference report 
represents a major step towards that goal of which the American people 
can be proud.
  I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for his great 
work on this bill.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the chairman for his leadership on this 
issue. I am proud to be a conferee, and also Mr. King of New York for 
his good work.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say, I am very proud to be a member of this 
committee. Over the last 4 or 5 years, whether it has been on the 
Republican rule or under Democratic rule, this committee has had 
incredible oversight. I commend the two chairmen for that.
  Congressman Daniel E. Lungren was on the floor earlier. He was very 
vigorous in oversight. This is another part of the accomplishment here 
is it's strengthening congressional oversight, the speaker in the chair 
today, Mr. Murtha, and Speaker Pelosi created a panel on the 
Appropriations Committee with HPSCI. This is providing additional 
oversight. I think it's one of the most important things we can do. But 
getting this bill finally passed is a great accomplishment. You should 
be very proud of it.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who is a member of the 
committee.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. My appreciation to the leadership of our 
chairman, Chairman Thompson, who has taken the challenge of the 9/11 
families, and the 9/11 Commission report more than to his heart. That 
is why we are here today.
  I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. King, for working with us on 
many of these challenges and always raising the voice of bipartisanship 
as it relates to 9/11.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very proud, as the subcommittee Chair for 
Transportation Security in Critical Infrastructure, to have had the 
opportunity to see some of the elements that are under our subcommittee 
jurisdiction take a strong stand in the 9/11 conference.
  I did this earlier today, but I know that sometimes we need to be 
reminded of the Pentagon and reminded of this tragedy so that we 
understand today is an enormously important step towards securing the 
homeland security.
  One of those aspects of securing the homeland security clearly has to 
do with providing transportation security. I am very proud that in the 
course of providing transportation security, we now have jurisdiction 
to issue transportation security grants so that buses and trains, so 
that the Amtrak system, mass transit, so that highways and byways will 
have the opportunity for

[[Page H8807]]

these jurisdictions to seek out grants specifically to secure areas 
that might be subject to the acts of terrorists.
  Might I also say that we have now interoperability, that we have the 
ability that so many of our colleagues have worked on to talk to each 
other. We know the front lines of fighting terrorism has to be that our 
law enforcement is able to communicate.
  We are very glad that this bill emphasizes intelligence sharing, 
which was one of the downfalls of the tragedy of 9/11. I am more than 
grateful to know that our families, our families sanctioned this bill, 
who have been so strong, and I salute them.
  Let me also say that in placing language in the bill to provide 
transportation security grants and training, I am very glad that Texas 
Southern University will have a center of excellence that I announce 
and enjoy with my colleague from Texas, and also will be able to train 
transportation officials in security.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Conference report 
to accompany the bill (H.R. 1), to provide for the implementation of 
the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks 
Upon the United States (9/11 Commission). As a Member of the Conference 
Committee that worked to reconcile the House and Senate versions of 
this legislation and to produce this report, I believe it represents a 
vital step toward securing the Nation. I wish to thank the Chairman of 
the Conference Committee, Senator Lieberman, as well as the 
distinguished chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, 
Congressman Bennie Thompson, for their visionary leadership in 
shepherding this important legislation through both houses of Congress. 
Unlike the previous Republican leadership, this Democratic Congress has 
wholeheartedly embraced the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, a 
body comprised of ten of the most distinguished citizens of this 
country.
  Today Mr. Speaker, we are here to consider a Conference report that 
will provide for the implementation of the recommendations of the 
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 
Commission). This Conference report closes many critical gaps 
identified by the 9/11 commission. In its final report, the 9/11 
commission concluded that the United States Government had been 
unprepared for the 2001 terrorist attacks, and made numerous 
recommendations for how to safeguard the American people. The 
legislation passed by the House on January 9 and the Senate in mid-
March will implement many of these important recommendations.
  The 9/11 commission report noted the need for additional tools for 
first responders and emergency personnel. The lack of adequate 
equipment likely contributed to the deaths of 343 firefighters in New 
York City on September 11, 2001, when police could not communicate 
effectively with fire fighters prior to the collapse of the Twin 
Towers. Deficiencies in communication technologies also hindered the 
effective evacuation and rescue efforts after Hurricane Katrina. I am 
pleased to say that this legislation authorizes $1.6 billion over 5 
years for a grant program to improve emergency communication 
capabilities for first responders. This legislation also requires 
States to submit statewide inoperability plans.
  Additionally, this legislation calls for the allocation of Homeland 
Security Grants based on risk. High-risk areas will receive the crucial 
resources they need to protect their population and critical 
infrastructure. My home city of Houston, with its 5.3 million residents 
as well as the Port of Houston, a thriving petrochemical industry, the 
largest medical center in the world, and an extensive range of 
commercial assets, is just such an area. The allocation process put in 
place by this legislation ensures that those areas that face the 
highest risk of an attack receive adequate funding.

  There are numerous other important provisions detailed in this 
Report. As Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security 
and Infrastructure Protection, I am extremely pleased with the 
provisions that will improve the security of our systems of transport. 
The 9/11 Commissioners gave a ``D'' grade to the Administration and 
Congress for their efforts on enhancing air cargo screening. To correct 
this deficiency, this legislation requires 100 percent screening of all 
air cargo carried on passenger planes. It also strengthens the 
explosives detection at passenger screening checkpoints. Additionally, 
this legislation requires the screening of 100 percent of U.S.-bound 
seaborne cargo containers loaded in foreign ports.
  This legislation authorizes $4 billion over four years for rail, 
transit, and bus security grant programs, which will be administered 
under the Department of Homeland Security. In the Conference Committee, 
I stood by my conviction that DHS is in the best position to administer 
these grants, and I am pleased that the Department will be responsible 
for the distribution of these important transportation security grants. 
Specifically, this legislation provides training for rail and mass 
transit workers, and it requires security plans for high risk transit 
and rail companies.
  This legislation enhances homeland security while protecting 
constitutionally enshrined civil liberties. It establishes the Privacy 
and Civil Liberties Oversight board as an independent agency, extends 
protection for whistle-blowers, and provides protection from lawsuits 
to individuals who report suspicious activities. We can protect our 
Nation without infringing upon the fundamental rights of Americans; we 
can provide security for our country without eliminating those freedoms 
that make the United States extraordinary. This legislation protects 
our rights as it protects our cities, borders, infrastructure, and 
population.
  As I stand on the House floor today, 6 years since the horrific 
attacks of September 11, 2001, my heart still grieves for those who 
perished that day. No one could have predicted that attack; when the 
sun rose on the morning of September 11, none of us knew that it would 
end in an inferno in the magnificent World Trade Center Towers in New 
York City, the Pentagon in Washington, DC, and in the grassy fields of 
Shanksville, Pennsylvania. We can, however, work to identify and 
correct the shortcomings in our national security structures, and to 
take the necessary steps to prevent another such attack on our Nation 
and its people.
  I stand here remembering those who still suffer, whose hearts still 
ache over the loss of so many innocent and interrupted lives. Mr. 
Speaker, we can best honor the memory of those who perished on 9/11 by 
working to ensure that such an attack never happens again. I strongly 
urge the adoption of this conference report.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Staten Island, Brooklyn, who lost more residents than any other 
Member in Congress on September 11.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be as brief as possible. If there is any issue 
that we all could come together on, despite the many disagreements that 
exist, is the notion that the American people should be as best 
protected as possible. I hope that this bill does just that.
  At the outset, let me thank the chairman, and, in particular, my good 
friend, Peter King, for their tireless work in trying to advance this 
bill. Importantly, I thank the common sense of Peter King and his 
tenacity and persistence to ensure things like the John Doe provision 
remain part of this conference report, so I tip my hat.
  The first part, a beneficial part of this program, is finally the 
UASI program has been authorized into law. At $850 million, I believe 
that this true threat-based funding formula will bring assistance to 
the first responders in high-threat areas such as New York City that 
they deserve.
  Second, the bill resizes the Homeland Security Advisory System and 
makes improvements to information sharing between and among local, 
State and Federal officials, a goal I worked on with several amendments 
to the intelligence authorization bill for the last 2 years.
  However, let me say I continue to be disappointed of the fact that 
the 9/11 Commission suggestions are not fully implemented here. 
Reducing the State minimums from .75 percent to .375 percent and then 
.35 percent is a step in the right direction but falls short of truly 
realizing the report's recommendation.
  Earlier today we passed the farm bill. Farmers get the money. In 
homeland security, the cities that deserve and have the highest threat 
and the most vulnerabilities and the consequences should get the money. 
I think that's common sense. As a reminder, on page 396 of the 9/11 
Commission report, states that the ``Homeland Security security 
assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and 
vulnerabilities. . . . Federal Homeland Security assistance should not 
remain a program for general revenue sharing . . . Congress should not 
use this money as a pork barrel.''

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  And let me thank, again, Chairman Thompson for his bipartisan effort, 
thank Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins. Let me thank the Republican 
staff members, Matt McCabe, Kerry Kinirons, Sterling Marchand, Heather 
Hogg, Mike Power. A special thanks to Mark Klaassen who unfortunately 
is

[[Page H8808]]

going to be leaving the committee, but he has been a tremendous asset. 
Chad Scarborough, Joe Vealencis, Deron McElroy, Adam Paulson and Lauren 
Wenger of my staff.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good conference report. I urge its adoption. 
And, again, I thank the chairman for his cooperation and assistance.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that 
there is substantial support for the bill as well as substantial 
support to get on the vote for the bill.
  I would like to thank my colleague, Ranking Member King, for his 
support as well as his staff. They have been very good. I would like to 
recognize the Democratic staff: Jessica Flanigan, Rosaline Cohen, 
Michael Stroud, everybody. I have something to insert in the Record to 
recognize their value.
  Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that this is a good bill. It is in the 
best interest of the country. It is completion of the 9/11 
vulnerability report. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, while I commend the work on H.R. 1, I rise today to 
express my disappointment that the provision to afford our 
Transportation Security Officers, TSOs, the collective bargaining 
rights and whistleblower protections they deserve is excluded from the 
Conference Report. Mr. Speaker, our TSOs are not second class citizens 
and should not be treated as such.
  In 2001, when the Transportation Safety Administration, TSA, was 
created, Congress vested power to set TSO compensation, leave, and 
other basic employment rights with the Secretary of Transportation. 
When TSA was moved to the Department of Homeland Security, this 
authority remained. While this authority was helpful in getting TSA up 
and running, the TSOs now need to be treated like all other TSA 
employees--fairly and equitably. This provision would have restored the 
labor rights of approximately 43,000 TSOs and provided them with 
veterans' preference, anti-discrimination protections, retirement, 
whistle-blowing, and collective bargaining rights.
  Restoring basic employment rights is critical to recruiting and 
retaining TSOs. We do not need to look far to see what low morale can 
do to the health, recruitment, and retention of the Department of 
Homeland Security workforce. According to a GAO report released this 
month, TSOs account for approximately a third of the total workforce 
and their attrition rates are higher than the normal for the Federal 
Government. It is unfortunate that we are failing to provide the most 
basic labor protections to our front line workers who perform an 
important job and work to keep us all safe; rights that are afforded to 
thousands of workers in the Federal Government.
  I commit to my colleagues today that as Chairman of the Committee on 
Homeland Security I will continue work to ensure that our TSOs are 
afforded the rights and protections they deserve.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, let the record reflect that in addition to 
the staff that I recognized earlier, the following individuals did a 
service to our Nation in helping the Conference develop legislation to 
make America more secure.
  Michael Stroud
  Denise Krepp
  Craig Sharman
  Tom Finan
  Veronique Pluviose-Fenton
  Alison Rosso
  Jacob Olcott
  Chris Beck
  Matt Washington
  Jeff Greene
  Erin Murphy
  Michael Beland
  Erin Daste
  Tamla Scott
  Tyrik McKeiver
  Stephan Vina
  Diane Bean
  Brian Turbyfill
  Angela Rye
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for affording me the opportunity to recognize 
the good work of Majority staff of the Committee on Homeland Security.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, today I rise with great concern about what the 
Conference Report to accompany H.R. 1 does, but I am more troubled by 
what this report has left undone.
  The purported goal of H.R. 1/S. 4 was to implement all of the 
recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission Report. This conference report does not do that. 
Specifically, this report remains silent on one of the 9/11 
Commission's vital recommendations concerning reform of congressional 
oversight of intelligence.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission Report recommended that 
Congress should either form a joint House and Senate Committee on 
Intelligence or that the House and Senate should consolidate their 
authorizing and appropriating functions for the intelligence community 
into one committee in each chamber. To this end, I drafted language to 
offer during the conference on this bill. But, from introduction to 
floor consideration, under a closed rule, H.R. 1 did not follow regular 
order. Likewise, the conference was closed to amendment and debate on 
all but a few provisions, congressional oversight of intelligence not 
being one of them.
  My motion would have included language in the conference report to 
establish a commission to study the congressional oversight of 
intelligence. The proposed commission would have examined the impact of 
the current system of congressional oversight on the intelligence 
community and specifically addressed at what cost to our national 
security is the decision not to heed the 9/11 Commission's 
recommendations.
  Unfortunately, I was blocked by the majority from offering my 
amendment. In fact, the majority refused to hear any proposals on 
intelligence oversight during the conference. The omission of any 
discussions regarding the 
9/11 Commission's recommendations on this matter is troubling and has 
led to an incomplete piece of legislation that will leave America less 
secure. As such, this report, and our work as a Congress, is left 
unfinished.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1, legislation to 
implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  In July of 2004, the 9/11 Commission concluded that the United States 
Government was unprepared for the devastating terrorist attacks of 
2001. In the weeks and months following the release of the 9/11 
Commission's report, the U.S. Congress enacted important legislation to 
overhaul the intelligence community and improve our Government's 
ability to detect and respond to attacks. The legislation before us 
today will further expand our nation's preparedness by providing our 
first responders and emergency personnel with additional tools to 
enhance security, such as interoperable communication and cargo 
screening technology.
  In fact, I am particularly pleased that H.R. 1 includes my amendment 
requiring the Department of Homeland Security to assess key foreign 
rail security practices that are not currently used in the US. While 
the concept of ``rail security'' is relatively new here at home, 
security officials in Europe and Asia have decades of experience with 
terrorist attacks and I have long believed in the importance of 
leveraging this experience to improve our own system. My amendment, 
which was approved overwhelmingly by the House and the Senate, will 
require our government to develop a plan for utilizing techniques such 
as covert testing of security systems and random screening of rail 
passengers and baggage. It will also require our government to model 
U.S. train stations and subway systems after methods used in London to 
prevent terrorist attacks.
  Additionally, while I support the overall purpose of this bill, I am 
very concerned that Congress failed to use this opportunity to 
implement several of the 9/11 Commission's other most important 
recommendations. Specifically, I believe it is inexcusable that H.R. 1 
does not include the 9/11 Commission's critical recommendation to 
reform congressional oversight of the intelligence community. 
Currently, intelligence funding is concealed in the classified section 
of the Pentagon's budget, and thus is subject to very little 
accountability. As a former Member of the House Intelligence Committee, 
I believe strongly in this 9/11 Commission recommendation and I have 
introduced H.R. 334 to create an empowered and independent intelligence 
appropriations subcommittee to oversee intelligence community funding. 
Unfortunately, the House's Democratic leadership denied my attempt to 
amend H.R. 1 to include this important provision.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that we have missed a key 
opportunity to enact all of the 9/11 Report's recommendations. However, 
the bill before us makes progress to expand security and I commend the 
conference committee for taking much needed steps to improve rail 
security in the US. I encourage my colleagues to support this 
legislation and I call on the leadership in Congress to act immediately 
to address these remaining national security issues.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report.
  This week marks 3 years since the National Commission on Terrorist 
Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, 
issued a comprehensive set of bipartisan recommendations to Congress to 
address the shortcomings in our Nation's intelligence infrastructure 
that led to the tragic attacks of 9/11.
  While Congress acted on some of the recommendations, many of the 
Commission's most important recommendations sat on a shelf for two-and-
a-half years, until the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress.
  We acted quickly to pass legislation to:
  Ensure homeland security grants are targeted for states and high-risk 
urban areas based on risk of terrorism;

[[Page H8809]]

  Improve interoperability of first-responder communications at local, 
State, and Federal levels;
  Provide over $4 billion over 4 years for rail, transit, and bus 
security grants;
  Mandate screening of all maritime cargo within five years and all 
airline cargo within 3 years; and
  Provide sunshine on the activities of the Intelligence Community by 
requiring the President to publicly disclose the total budget for the 
intelligence community.
  Now that the Senate has also acted and we have the Conference Report 
before us, I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation and send it to 
the President's desk for his signature.
  These are not partisan issues. Assessing blame for past failures will 
not help us protect our future. However, refusing to recognize these 
failures and not take the critical steps to ensure that they don't ever 
occur again is not acceptable.
  The American people owe a great deal to the work of the 9/11 
Commission and the inspired leadership of the families of 9/11 victims, 
without whom the original legislation would not have become law.
  These reforms are long overdue and we should not waste another day in 
enacting them into law.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong 
support for H.R. 1, which will finally implement in full the 
recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. This is an extremely 
important day for our Nation.
  I want to specifically express my support for the inclusion of 
provisions that protect our privacy and civil liberties. Last Congress, 
I worked with Representatives Carolyn Maloney and Christopher Shays to 
introduce the Protection of Civil Liberties Act which would have made 
the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board an independent agency and granted 
it the power it needed to fully do its job. I am pleased that the 
Conference Report works to ensure that the Board will finally be able 
to fully operate as our country's independent civil liberties watchdog.
  The Conference Report before us today gives the Board independence by 
finally removing it from the administration's control and provides it 
with the funding necessary to do its job. It authorizes the Board to 
have access to all the relevant information it needs to carry out its 
responsibility, and gives the Board more power to subpoena potential 
witnesses. Additionally, the Board will be required to regularly report 
to Congress on its activities, findings, and recommendations, and to 
inform the public of its activities as well.
  Clearly, for years our country has been headed in the wrong direction 
regarding the protection of our civil liberties, and a fully 
independent Civil Liberties Oversight Board will serve as an important 
first step to bring our nation back on course. We must not continue to 
undercut the civil liberties our Constitution guarantees under the 
false pretense that they cannot be maintained in a post-9/11 world. I 
strongly believe the American public deserves both security and privacy 
and, today, action in the House ensures that this can occur. I urge my 
colleagues to support this vital piece of legislation.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the 
conference report of H.R. 1, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation 
Act. This comprehensive bill addresses many of our homeland security 
issues, and as a conferee I am pleased that the conference report 
includes an important provision that protects those who see suspicious 
behavior and take the initiative to notify the authorities of their 
concerns. No one should have to fear prosecution for acting vigilantly 
and coming forward when they see something that doesn't seem right. If 
anything, we should be encouraging people to speak up when they see 
suspicious behavior while waiting to board a plane or shopping in a 
crowded mall.
  Take the alert store clerk in New Jersey who noticed suspicious 
activities on a tape he was asked to transfer to DVD. This young man 
was at work, saw something that didn't seem right, and alerted the 
authorities. As a direct result of his actions, a terrorist strike 
against a military installation in my district--Ft. Dix--was prevented. 
This man should be heralded as a hero, not prosecuted like a criminal.
  It may have taken some time, but my fellow conferees worked through 
their differences, and in the end supported the inclusion of this vital 
provision. Had this language not been included, who knows what untold 
tragedies could have occurred if observant individuals, afraid of 
possible prosecution, did not contact law enforcement officials.
  Again, I support this important measure and urge my colleagues to 
vote in support of the conference report.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to express my view 
of H.R. 1, The 9/11 Conference Report. I commend the bipartisan group 
that worked together on this bill, which on balance is a good bill, 
although I do have reservations about some provisions of the bill.
  There are some very good provisions in this bill, which were not part 
of the House-passed bill. I am pleased that many of the significant 
problems in the version of this bill that passed the House in January 
have been removed from the final conference report that we are voting 
on today.
  This bill no longer contains the provisions that place the collective 
bargaining policies of Transportation Security Administration, TSA, 
employees above the homeland security needs of the American people. 
This was a troubling provision that was included in the original House-
passed version of this bill. It was troubling because collective 
bargaining rights would have interfered with the ability of the 
Department of Homeland Security and the TSA to impose the best work 
policies and procedures possible in order to make our Nation safer. It 
would have interfered with the ability to fully and quickly implement 
security-based policies.
  I am pleased that the Conference Report contains a provision that 
grants immunity from civil lawsuits to those who report transportation-
related suspicious activities. This is a crucial provision that will 
free American citizens from the fear of reporting activity that they 
think is suspicious. No one should be subject to a lawsuit because they 
report suspicious activity.
  We cannot allow an atmosphere of fear of litigation to further hamper 
our ability to thwart acts of terror. If people feel some activity is 
suspicious, they should feel free to report it to the proper 
authorities. It is then up to the authorities to determine if it is 
suspicious enough to investigate. In weighing the rights of Americans, 
I believe the right to be free from injury or death from terrorists 
trumps the right of threatening people to conduct their threatening 
activity with impunity. This provision directly addresses the case of 
the six Imams who have brought suit against the passengers on their 
flight who reported their suspicious activity. It is clear to most 
observers that these individuals were likely fomenting fear in order to 
create the lawsuit that has resulted. I, and my fellow Americans, will 
not stand for the patent abuse of our own legal system used against us.
  Provisions in the bill enhancing the screening of air cargo carried 
on passenger airlines is an important provision and one of which I am 
very supportive. The bill will also implement a program to collect 
biometric data on those entering the U.S. from visa waiver countries. 
This will enhance security as will the provision enabling us to take 
into account visa overstay violations when considering visa waiver 
country policies.
  I agree with these and other provisions in the bill and believe they 
will enhance national security. However, there are some provisions that 
have little to do with homeland security and should never have been in 
this bill. In fact, none of these provisions were included in the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and in fact, do just the 
opposite of enhancing security.
  I am greatly disappointed that the Democrat majority chose to include 
a provision that will disclose to the public, including terrorists, how 
much money our Nation spends on intelligence gathering. This should 
never have been included in a bill aimed at securing our Nation. How 
does disclosing to those who seek to harm the American people make our 
Nation safer? I will be supporting efforts to ensure that this budget 
is not revealed and that this is not disclosed.
  Additionally, I am concerned that the bill included a provision that 
allows the administration to increase the scope of the Visa Waiver 
Program. Currently, individuals from 27 nations are permitted entry 
into the U.S. without having to go through the security processes 
related to obtaining a visa. I oppose this provision and will support 
legislative provisions to limit the administration's ability to expand 
the program.
  Finally, I share some of the concerns raised by my colleagues 
relating to the provision requiring 100-percent screening of container 
cargo. I am concerned that there are loopholes and weaknesses in such a 
system and that simply requiring 100-percent screening may give the 
American people a false sense of security. There are deficiencies in 
the screening technologies and, once screened, the cargo can still be 
tampered with. I believe we need to weigh the implementation of this 
program and adjust it along the way to ensure that we are using our 
homeland security dollars as wisely as possible. Even the 9/11 
Commission recommended that we base cargo inspections on a security 
risk assessment rather than a 100-percent screening program. I think 
they recognized the value of a focused program.
  I look forward to continuing to work to address these issues.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the 
Committee on

[[Page H8810]]

Homeland Security and a conferee on this legislation, I rise in strong 
support of the Conference report on H.R. 1, the Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.
  This report implements several of the 9/11 Commission's key 
recommendations, including increasing the amount of Homeland Security 
grant funding that is distributed based on risk.
  This extremely important change will ensure that the states at the 
highest risk for terrorist attacks will have the needed resources to 
prepare for and respond to attacks.
  I am also particularly pleased that this report increases the 
authorized funding for the Emergency Management Performance Grant 
program which provides all hazards preparedness funding to States.
  I have been a long-time advocate of increasing EMPG funding, to 
ensure that all of our communities have the ability to prepare for any 
disaster, natural or man-made.
  There are many other excellent provisions in this conference report, 
including the establishment of an office of appeals and redress at TSA 
and a Quadrennial Homeland Security Review of the national Homeland 
Security Strategy.
  I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report, 
which seeks to ensure that our government fully implements the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. While the Congress has 
previously enacted the majority of the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission, several were not addressed during the last Congress. 
Moreover, in the years since the Department of Homeland Security was 
created and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 
2004 became law, we've learned a number of lessons about how well--or 
poorly--these reforms have worked. The bill before us is a partial 
response to those lessons learned.
  This bill authorizes robust funding for a variety of homeland 
security grant programs, including emergency management performance 
grants, interoperable emergency communications grants, and the Urban 
Area Security Initiative Grant Program. The bill also mandates more 
emphasis on a risk-based approach to the awarding of UASI grants, 
something that I and others in the New Jersey delegation have long 
advocated.
  Improving the department's ability to spot threats and foil attacks 
before they happen remains a primary concern of all of us in Congress. 
Those of us who serve on committees that deal with intelligence issues 
know that the department's intelligence operation suffers from a lack 
of clout within both the department and the intelligence community as a 
whole. The bill offers a partial remedy for this problem by 
reorganizing the department's intelligence operations and elevating the 
Chief Intelligence Officer from an Assistant Secretary to an 
Undersecretary--putting that officer on par with his counterpart at the 
Pentagon.
  I agree with the thrust of this reorganization. However, we shouldn't 
deceive ourselves: rearranging the department's organization chart is 
no substitute for the President putting forward highly qualified 
nominees for this and the many other positions at DHS that remain 
vacant to this day. While I believe this proposed reorganization will 
help to rationalize and streamline DHS's intelligence management 
structure, the President must take action to appoint intelligence 
leaders who are aggressive and focused--and then hold them accountable 
for their performance or lack thereof.
  Another 9/11 Commission recommendation relating to our intelligence 
operations concerned declassifying how much we spend per year on 
intelligence activities.
  Those who oppose declassifying the overall budget figure claim it 
would undermine our security. Declassifying the overall budget figure 
would simply tell the American taxpayer how much of their money is 
going towards intelligence programs and activities, something they most 
certainly deserve to know. Declassifying the overall budget figure 
would in no way compromise intelligence sources or methods. That is why 
I was disappointed that the conferees elected to include language that 
allows the President to postpone or even waive the disclosure of the 
overall intelligence community budget figure by certifying to Congress 
that such disclosure would damage national security. This was a 
needless concession to the President and I will seek to have this 
provision reexamined next year.
  Regarding measures Congress can take to improve its oversight of the 
intelligence community, I was pleased to see that the report indicates 
that the Senate is considering following the House's lead in this area. 
Earlier this year and under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, the House 
passed H. Res. 35, which created the Select Intelligence Oversight 
Panel, which I have the honor of chairing. Our panel contains a mix of 
members from both the Appropriations Committee and the House Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence. Our charter is to continuously review 
the operations of the intelligence community and to recommend changes 
in policies and funding levels where necessary. We just completed our 
first such review, and the vast majority of our recommendations were 
approved by the full Appropriations Committee just this week. If the 
Senate is looking for a model for how to better coordinate its 
intelligence oversight work, I would highly recommend that they look at 
the model we're now using here in the House.
  I was also very disappointed to see that the conferees dropped 
language relating to workers' rights to organize and engage in 
collective bargaining with the department. Most other Federal workers 
already have this right, and our failure to ensure our airport 
screeners are allowed to organize and negotiate for better salaries and 
benefits is wrong and should be revisited next year.
  On a brighter note, the bill significantly enhances the power and 
status of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), 
whose creation was another key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.
  Currently, the PCLOB is under the direct control of the Executive 
Office of the President. It has lacked significant funding, something I 
tried to remedy in the fiscal year 2007 Intelligence Authorization bill 
by offering an amendment to the bill that would have authorized an 
annual funding stream of $3 million. Unfortunately, the Republican 
majority blocked that amendment from coming to the House floor for a 
vote. This bill solves that problem by authorizing a steady increase in 
the Board's budget, from $5 million for fiscal year 2008 up to $10 
million through fiscal year 2011, and such funds as are necessary from 
2012 and beyond.
  Another drawback to the current Board is its lack of independence has 
clearly undermined its ability to act as a true civil liberties 
watchdog. The bill before us would remove the Board from the EOP and 
make it an independent agency within the executive branch, and require 
that all Board members--not just the chairman--be subject to Senate 
confirmation. The bill also gives the Board real subpoena power, a 
critical tool for ensuring compliance with the Board's requests for 
information and testimony from executive branch officials.
  Overall, this is a good bill whose enactment would enhance our 
Nation's security, and it is for that reason that I will vote for it 
and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, the 9/11 Commission made a 
series of recommendations to Congress and the administration designed 
to ensure the safety of Americans while protecting the liberties that 
form the core of our democracy. This important legislation addresses 
issues that reach across all aspects of the lives of Americans.
  The 9/11 Commission recommended that Congress ensure that first 
responders be able to communicate with each other across 
jurisdictions--firefighters with police officers, emergency medical 
professionals with State officials, local with State and Federal 
personnel. Title III, Ensuring Communications Interoperability for 
First Responders, establishes a grant program designed to achieve this 
important goal. As structured in this legislation, the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) grant program will complement the 
interoperability program already underway at the Department of 
Commerce.
  Under statute, DHS's expert on all matters relating to emergency 
communications is the Director of Emergency Communications. Title III 
of this Conference Report recognizes this statutory directive by 
ensuring that the Director of Emergency Communications will design and 
implement the grant programs' policies and guidelines. The Director 
will be in charge of ensuring that grant program funds are used to 
establish a forward-looking, nationwide, interoperable system to ensure 
the safety and efficient functioning of all of our first responders as 
they respond to natural disasters and other calamities. The Committee 
on Energy and Commerce looks forward to overseeing this program and 
receiving continual updates from the Director on the progress of DHS 
towards achieving nationwide interoperability through this program.
  I am also especially pleased that the legislation ensures that the 
overwhelming majority of the interoperability grant funds will be 
passed through to localities, because it is at the local level that our 
first responders are working to ensure our safety and well-being. 
Importantly, the legislation ties the grant funds to the implementation 
of statewide plans and a national plan that will act as a road map 
towards statewide and national interoperability. As we have learned, 
natural disasters and incidents do not recognize international borders. 
To help our first responders address trans-border incidents, Title III 
also establishes border interoperability pilot projects to help us 
ensure that our first responders are able to communicate with our 
neighbors to the north and south.

[[Page H8811]]

  Title IV addresses credentialing workers involved in ensuring 
America's safety. The Conference Report states that the DHS shall 
consult with the Secretary of Health and Human Services when developing 
credentialing standards for healthcare personnel. It is imperative that 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services not only be involved but 
also have a leadership role in developing standards for credentialing 
of healthcare professionals. Failing to utilize the public health 
expertise of the Department of Health and Human Services to its fullest 
extent could jeopardize efficient care and support for Americans who 
have been exposed to a terrorist attack or natural disaster. I look 
forward to working with Chairman Thompson to ensure that the required 
consultation is to the degree and of the depth merited by the 
importance of the public health of all of America's people.
  I want to thank the gentleman for some important clarifications that 
have been added to Title IX of the bill, which addresses voluntary 
national private sector preparedness standards. When we voted on this 
bill in January, I noted that Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act 
establishes a mandatory regulatory program regarding the accidental 
releases of hazardous chemicals. As part of that program, the owner or 
operator of a covered facility must prepare and implement a risk 
management plan to detect and prevent or minimize accidental releases 
and to provide a prompt emergency response to any such releases. I 
asked for clarification at that time that the bill's voluntary program 
was not intended to interfere with this mandatory Clean Air Act 
program. The conference report before us today provides that 
clarification. Rules of Construction, as well as requirements for 
consideration and coordination with other Federal agencies' 
preparedness programs or standards, have been included in the two new 
sections of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that address private 
sector preparedness. These provisions clarify that the private sector 
must continue to meet the Clean Air Act Section 112(r) requirements, 
and that the voluntary preparedness standards are not intended to 
supersede or interfere with the mandatory Clean Air Act program.
  Another important area of concern addressed by this legislation is 
cargo screening. One of the major security vulnerabilities facing this 
Nation is the threat from the detonation of a nuclear device smuggled 
into a port through a cargo container loaded on a ship. It is a 
nightmare we must prevent. Section 1701 establishes a 5-year goal of 
100 percent screening for radiological devices or material in cargo 
containers leaving foreign ports before they ever enter the waters of 
the United States. This is a worthy priority, and to ensure adequate 
flexibility, the DHS Secretary is given authority for 2-year waivers 
should there be major impediments to its implementation.
  Section 1701 also authorizes the DHS Secretary to ``establish 
technological and operational standards for systems to scan containers; 
to ensure that the standards are consistent with the global nuclear 
detection architecture developed under the Homeland Security Act of 
2002; and to coordinate with other Federal agencies that administer 
scanning or detection programs.''
  The need for coordination between agencies is essential, particularly 
given the advanced work carried out by the Department of Energy (DOE) 
in setting up radiation portal monitors at ports, airports, and rail 
stations around the world. The DOE's ``Megaports'' program provides 
radiation detection equipment to key international seaports to screen 
cargo containers for radioactive materials, including Greece, Bahamas, 
Sri Lanka, Spain, Singapore, and the Netherlands. Approximately 70 
ports worldwide are targeted for implementation, and installation 
efforts are underway at ports within Belgium, China, Dubai, Honduras, 
Israel, Oman, the Philippines, Thailand, Jamaica, the Dominican 
Republic, and Taiwan. Additionally, the Megaports program is teaming 
with the ``Container Security Initiative'' to implement the ``Secure 
Freight Initiative'' pilot program at ports in the United Kingdom, 
Pakistan, and Honduras. The DOE's ``Second Line of Defense'' program 
installs radiation detection equipment at borders, airports, and feeder 
ports in Russia, former Soviet Union states, and other key countries. 
Approximately 350 sites have been identified to receive detection 
equipment installations.
  Even though this legislation authorizes the DHS Secretary to set 
minimum container scanning technology standards, the Conference Report 
properly notes that DOE has inherent capabilities to assess, through 
its cooperative agreements with numerous countries and port 
authorities, the adequacy of technical and operating procedures for 
cargo container scanning.
  To ensure the smooth continuation of DOE's cooperative relationships 
with numerous countries and the further expansion of the Megaports 
program, the Conference Report makes clear that these two agencies 
shall closely coordinate their activities, and requires that DHS shall 
consult with DOE prior to the establishment of technological or 
operational standards that would affect screening activities in foreign 
ports. As part of the coordination requirement in this section, the 
Conference Report directs that where the scanning technology standards 
affect the DOE's Megaports and SLD programs, the Secretary shall invite 
the DOE to participate in the development and final review of such 
standards, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall seek the 
concurrence of the Secretary of Energy. Should differences arise, I 
would expect that DOE and DHS would notify the relevant committees of 
jurisdiction in Congress. The American people are counting on the 
agencies carrying out cargo screening at our ports and borders to 
ensure that there are technically sound decisions in setting standards 
and selecting equipment, and that there is seamless coordination 
between agencies with responsibility and expertise.
  Title XXII makes an important modification to the Department of 
Commerce's interoperability grant program by including strategic 
technology reserves as eligible for funding. This modification 
recognizes the importance of a resilient and redundant network of 
emergency communications. In Title XXII, Congress also recognizes the 
expertise of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with regard to 
the Nation's communications and information infrastructure and directs 
the FCC to conduct a vulnerability assessment. This title also 
establishes a joint committee and a pilot project to improve 
communications for emergency medical and public healthcare committee. 
Title XXII also requires an important report on the progress of the re-
banding efforts in the 800 megahertz band. As such, this title 
recognizes Congress's clear intent that this process proceed as 
expeditiously as possible so that our first responders in border areas 
may effectively utilize the spectrum to which they are moving. I also 
support the changes in Title XXIII because I believe that it will 
enhance and expedite the ability of our Nation's 911 centers to be able 
to automatically locate callers whether they are using traditional land 
line or mobile phones.

  I appreciate the Chairman's willingness to work with me, the members 
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and our staff as we have used 
our expertise to improve the legislation in this Conference Report.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the ``Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007.
  As a conferee on this legislation, I worked on a number of provisions 
that strengthen U.S. nonproliferation and threat reduction programs, 
which the 9/11 Commission emphasized must be a top priority given the 
threat that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation and 
terrorism pose to the American people.
  I am particularly pleased that the bill strengthens the Proliferation 
Security Initiative (PSI), which is an important tool for interdicting 
illicit transfers of WMD. The bill will help to expand PSI-cooperation 
with our allies and strategic partners; ensure that the PSI has the 
necessary budget, resources and structures; and enable Congress to 
exercise greater oversight of PSI activities.
  I also strongly support the bill provision that establishes a high-
level coordinator for preventing WMD proliferation and terrorism. This 
new coordinator will ensure that the U.S. strategy, budget, programs 
and initiatives, and interagency action are comprehensive and well-
coordinated, and will provide leadership that has been lacking and is 
critical to the effectiveness of U.S. nonproliferation and threat 
reduction efforts.
  Finally, I am pleased that the bill repeals limits on Cooperative 
Threat Reduction Program assistance, which have impeded the 
effectiveness of this Department of Defense program in past years; 
authorizes funding to strengthen and expand Cooperative Threat 
Reduction and Department of Energy nonproliferation programs; and 
includes other measures to counter the threat that WMD proliferation 
and terrorism poses to the American people.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. Our 
government has no greater responsibility than protecting the American 
people. By implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, we 
are taking real steps to close security gaps and provide a secure 
future for all Americans.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, while there are many good reasons to 
support this bill I feel I must oppose the bill because of the Visa 
Waiver provision.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, part of the agenda of the New Democratic 
Leadership was to pass the ``Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission Act'', which has been bottled up for years. By doing so, we 
are taking an important step in improving the safety of all Americans.
  This bill brings about a positive change to our current homeland 
security strategy. It provides a new formula for grant funding 
distribution based on risks in order to remove the politics from our 
national security. It contains a

[[Page H8812]]

substantial amount of funding for improving communications 
interoperability among first responders, which will help Oregon as it 
continues to aggressively address the issue at the local level. It also 
provides nearly $4 billion over the next four years for rail, transit, 
and bus security, a matter which I have had a long standing interests. 
We have seen the devastating impacts of terrorism on these modes of 
transportation in Europe in recent years and it is crucial that we make 
investments to protect this infrastructure at home.
  These changes and many others recommended by the 9/11 Commission 
represent an important and long overdue step forward to securing our 
Nation.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 371, 
nays 40, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 757]

                               YEAS--371

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--40

     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Coble
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Duncan
     Flake
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Hoekstra
     Inglis (SC)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     McHenry
     Miller (FL)
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Petri
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Sali
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Smith (TX)
     Sullivan
     Wamp
     Wilson (SC)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Baker
     Berman
     Boehner
     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Emanuel
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Gutierrez
     Hastert
     Issa
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Waters

                              {time}  1654

  Mr. RADANOVICH changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. BOYD of Florida and 
Mr. TURNER changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  July 27, 2007 On Page H8812 the following appeared: Mr. 
RADANOVICH and Mr. TURNER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.'' Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia and Mr. BOYD 
of Florida changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Mr. RADANOVICH 
changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas, 
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. BOYD of Florida and Mr. TURNER changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this 
Chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 757.
  Stated against:
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to 
cast a vote on rollcall 757. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``nay'' on the measure.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 757, because of a family 
commitment I was not present for rollcall vote 757. Had I been present 
I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________