[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 21336-21348]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4954, SAFE PORT ACT

  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1064, 
I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4954) to improve 
maritime and cargo security through enhanced layered defenses, and for 
other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1064, the 
conference report is considered read.
  [For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
today.]
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong support of the conference 
report on H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act.
  This is a night of a true success in the area of homeland security 
and port security. This is an issue which the country was focused on 
earlier this year with the whole Dubai Ports issue. It is an issue 
which the Homeland Security Committee addressed head on. We passed the 
bill out of committee. It passed the full House floor by a vote of

[[Page 21337]]

421-2; and now we are here tonight, Mr. Speaker, for final passage.
  Let me at the outset commend the ranking member of the committee, Mr. 
Thompson of Mississippi, for the tremendous cooperation that he gave 
throughout the committee process on this bill; Subcommittee Chairman 
Lungren on our side for his work, the leadership he demonstrated; and 
also Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Harman. This was definitely and truly a 
bipartisan effort, and we are here tonight because both parties came 
together, we worked together, we realized the importance of this. We 
realized that homeland security should not be a partisan issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go on at great length, but I will 
give just some of the highlights of the bill. It provides $400 million 
a year in dedicated port security grant programs, three pilot programs 
for 100 percent screening for nuclear and radiological material. It 
enhances the Container Security Initiative, CSI. It codifies and 
strengthens CTPAT. It also establishes the Domestic Nuclear Detection 
Office. It also sets deadlines for TWIC.
  Mr. Speaker, this is legislation which encompasses so much of the 
issues that we have to address with port security. It is legislation 
whose time has come. It is legislation which makes our country safer or 
makes our ports more secure. It will enable the commerce of the country 
to go forward. And it is a bill which distinctly addresses the concerns 
raised by the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, once again we are here on the floor debating another 
security bill that will not fully secure America. This bill does a lot 
to strengthen port security, but it leaves a number of glaring gaps.
  I want to thank Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Harman. They are the chief 
architects of the best ideas in this bill. They have been true 
champions on port security since the early days of this committee. I 
want to thank Mr. Lungren and Mr. King for working with us on this bill 
on a bipartisan basis, although I was very disappointed that this 
process broke down in the last few days.
  Additionally, Homeland Security staff on both sides of the aisle made 
sure the process was an inclusive one. We heard positive insight from 
industry, first responders, port security experts. I appreciate all of 
them for their help.
  But despite all our efforts, at the end of the day this measure falls 
short. Once again House Republicans have turned their back on everyday 
working folks who rely on buses and trains to get to work. When offered 
an opportunity by the Senate to secure our mass transit and rail 
security, they chose to do nothing.
  Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, this port bill has become just another 
act in the play the House Republicans have billed as ``homeland 
security'' month. They could have offered America a star performance, 
and instead, Mr. Speaker, they delivered mediocrity.
  Let me serve as a narrator of this story for a few moments:
  Act one, protecting ponies. The week before the fifth anniversary of 
9/11, the House leadership was more concerned about protecting horses 
than protecting our ports.
  Act two, border security. Thinking good fences make good neighbors, 
they squandered the little time we had left in this session to revote a 
fence bill. As the Senate passes the fence bill tonight, Americans 
should feel safe in their homes. America will have a 700-mile fence 
across the U.S.-Mexico border.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, not really. The appropriations bill we passed 
today paid for barely half of that fence. I am sure terrorists and 
others crossing the border are quivering in their boots at this half-
baked half fence.
  Let us move to act three, FEMA. The Committee on Homeland Security 
tried to fix FEMA and give first responders the interoperability they 
needed. Instead of fully funding the reorganization, Republicans chose 
to do ``FEMA on the cheap,'' leaving our police, firefighters, and EMTs 
without the ability to talk to one another.

                              {time}  2315

  And here we are at this late hour beginning act four, the closing act 
in this political comedy, port security. H.R. 4954, as passed by the 
House, was a good bill overall. The Senate improved upon the bill by, 
among other things, addressing rail and mass transit security. 
Unfortunately, this sham conference process denied consideration of the 
Senate ideas as well as Democratic amendments to better protect our 
Nation. And that, after this body overwhelmingly approved my motion to 
instruct the conferees to accept the Senate position on rail and mass 
transit security, the conference Chair denied the will of this body. 
Why do not the Republicans want to eliminate this critical 
vulnerability now? We have the time. So why not now?
  The American people would much rather see this body work through the 
night to get homeland security right than go home to run for 
reelections. Instead of calling this month Homeland Security Month, we 
should rename it Amateur Hour Month, because that is all we have seen 
from this Congress.
  While I have enormous issues with the process and the scope of this 
bill, Mr. Speaker, I still intend to vote for it. I make this pledge. 
In the next Congress, we will absolutely be back here to finish the job 
and get homeland security right.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just note that I was listening very carefully to 
the gentleman's remarks, and I really heard nothing at all critical of 
the port security bill. We are talking about other bills that maybe 
should be covered or other items. The fact is, on the issue of port 
security, this is the port security bill. It did receive wide 
bipartisan support. And I think, rather than go on extraneous issues 
and talking and talking about fences, we are talking about port 
security.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the prime sponsor 
of the port security bill, the gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the chairman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman King for his leadership, 
Ranking Member Thompson, the ranking member of my subcommittee, Ms. 
Sanchez, and Congresswoman Harman for all of the hard work in passing 
this important bill to protect our ports.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say that I guess I must have gotten very tired 
tonight, because I think I misheard my good friend, Mr. Thompson, in 
his description of this bill and about some play we are at.
  I remember act one, act two, act three being consultation with the 
other side. I remember working very closely with Members of the other 
side of the aisle and their staffs. I recall us spending months working 
this out. I recall early morning meetings with Ms. Harman, joining 
Congresswoman Harman to go across the Rotunda to the other side, to try 
and see if we could begin our journey together, that is, to see that 
our bill would be close in terms of its tone, in terms of its breadth, 
in terms of its direction with that of our colleagues on the other 
side.
  I can recall the next act when we brought it to the subcommittee, and 
I can recall getting a unanimous vote out of the subcommittee. I can 
recall the next act, which was the full committee. We had a 29-0 vote; 
and where I come from, that is pretty doggone close to unanimous.
  We then had the further act which was acting on the floor of the 
House, and we got a 421-2 vote. It was totally bipartisan. Even the two 
who voted against it split one Republican and one Democrat. You cannot 
get much more bipartisan than that.
  We have worked together to preserve the essence or the guts of the 
bill that we have crafted through our committee structure and which we 
passed on the floor. I am proud to stand here and say that we have 
accomplished something that many people thought could not be 
accomplished.

[[Page 21338]]

  The Senate began their journey several months before we did in terms 
of a formed bill. Yet we leapfrogged over them in the work that was 
done in our subcommittee and committee. And I do believe that the 
actions of this House nudged, if I might use that term, our colleagues 
on the other side of the Rotunda such that we are able to bring this 
bill to the floor for completed action tonight on this side of the 
Rotunda and the other side of the Rotunda.
  Rather than create an act of political statement, we have created an 
act of law. That is, this will go to the President, and the President 
will sign this. So I hope that all who are here in this Chamber will 
think of the spirit of bipartisanship with which we started this 
journey that will be part of the end of this journey.
  Today, we have taken a solid step forward in securing our Nation. I 
do not think there can be any doubt about that. This is not a half 
measure. This is a major measure.
  The sums of money authorized in here are significant. The grant 
program is a stream of $400 million a year for 5 years. That is a $2 
billion grant program for our ports across this Nation. That is 
something we have been looking for for some time.
  We now authorize it. We authorize other programs that Members on both 
sides of this aisle have spoken for for a long period of time, all to 
secure this Nation and particularly to secure our ports.
  Our enemies have stated that they want to disrupt our economy, murder 
our citizens, and destroy our way of life. By passing this bill, we do 
not make a statement, we actually begin to protect our Nation's ports, 
safeguard the American people, and increase the confidence in our 
international trade routes.
  The American people expect us to take action to protect our ports, 
and with this bill we have done precisely that. We have addressed the 
possibility of our enemies using our open society and free economy 
against us. We have taken away a potential weapon, one capable of 
causing major disruption to our economy.
  In passing this bill tonight, we are taking rational action to harden 
our domestic critical infrastructure, ensuring that those who wish to 
harm us are unable to have access to those critical facilities.
  But this bill is more than just protecting our local facilities. 
Securing international maritime trade is incredibly complex. At any one 
time there are hundreds of vessels and literally hundreds of thousands 
of containers crossing the oceans on the way to our ports.
  With this bill, we have developed a strategy to implement a system to 
scan each container before it enters our domestic stream of commerce. 
We will be able to identify and track containers destined for our 
shores, using training and technology to identify any that may pose a 
risk.
  We are pushing out our borders beyond our geographical limits to make 
a rational approach to stopping the opportunity that those who would 
kill us and maim us and destroy our economy would otherwise have.
  We have reached out in this way to our trading partners to include 
them in this strategy to keep international trade flowing with minimal 
disruption. This strategy allows us to integrate security into 
international commerce, allowing us to facilitate trade rather than 
hinder it, so that we do not allow the terrorists to succeed.
  We have given the Department of Homeland Security the tools it needs 
to protect against the potential of weapons of mass destruction being 
delivered to our shores. We have created a program for our best minds 
to develop even more effective and less intrusive scanning technology 
to make security completely transparent, seamless and even more 
effective.
  Recognizing that technology is only as good as the people who use it, 
we provided a multitude of grants available to our local port 
facilities so that they can train their employees in emergency 
procedure and response. That is something that we very much wanted to 
emphasize, and I would like to give Congressman Reichert credit for 
pursuing that in such a strong way.
  The bill also provides for more Customs and border protection agents, 
which should enable the Department to continue its mission of both 
building security and facilitating legitimate trade that is critical to 
the Nation.
  We provided for the Coast Guard to create joint port security 
operational centers in our Nation's major ports to coordinate effective 
response to any incident that threatens the security of these ports.
  Some may wish to focus on what the bill does not do, when we should 
appreciate it for what it does. It strengthens our port facilities, it 
enhances the security of the international supply chain, increases the 
resiliency and confidence in our economy.
  By doing all of this, the significant piece of legislation and all of 
those that worked so hard to bring it to passage, including Chairman 
King, Ranking Member Thompson, Congresswoman Harman, Ranking Member 
Sanchez and our colleagues in the Senate all have joined together to 
increase the security of our Nation; and I, for one, am proud to have 
been involved.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Lungren for the 
accurate recap of the early parts of the act. But like most early parts 
of the act, people forget how it ends; and what I am saying to you is, 
while bipartisanship might be good, the process is incomplete.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Harman), one of original authors of the bill.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Ranking Member of the Full 
Committee for yielding to me so early in this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of the conference report for 
the SAFE Port Act. In a month that was supposed to be all about 
security, this measure is the only one we have considered that will 
actually make America more secure.
  This bill is as good as it is because it was developed through a 
bipartisan approach. From introduction back in March, through 
subcommittee and full committee mark-up, to passage by an astonishing 
vote of 421-2 in May, we worked on this bill together.
  Sadly, as our Ranking Member has said, this bipartisanship ended in 
the conference. The conference agreement, while good, could have been 
much, much better. But the fact remains that this bill will add value. 
As we debate tonight, operations are ongoing at the port complex of Los 
Angeles and Long Beach. This complex, which adjoins my district, is the 
largest container complex in the Nation.
  Nearly 55,000 20-foot containers were processed at this complex 
today. Right now, thousands of containers are being unloaded from large 
cargo ships by 4,000 dock workers who work every day under the threat 
of a terrorist attack. They will be comforted that we are closing big 
gaps in port security with this legislation.
  Because of the SAFE Port Act, most containers will have been screened 
for nuclear and radiological materials at their port of embarkation, 
thousands of miles from us, our business and our families.
  I am sure we will hear later in this debate that scanning would be 
better, and I agree. But we could not achieve that in this legislation. 
The good news is we have three pilot projects.
  Because of the SAFE Port Act, a trusted company can partner with the 
U.S. Government to take additional steps to prevent security breaches.
  Because of the SAFE Port Act, workers with access to secure areas 
will carry identification cards that control their access, verify their 
identities and background and assure they pose no threat. Right this 
minute, on hundreds of trucks traveling on southern California 
highways, containers are about to make their way through the City of 
Los Angeles bound for large retailers, `mom and pop' stores, and 
wholesalers across the country.
  Because of the SAFE Port Act, port officials will have the technology 
to be sure that radiological materials do not leave our ports and enter 
the center of our country.

[[Page 21339]]

  This process will be repeated millions of times every year, and each 
time we will significantly reduce the chance of a terrorist attack that 
could make 9/11 look tame.
  My thanks to the co-author of this bill, Mr. Lungren of California, 
who was a terrific partner working this bill through to the conference; 
to the Ranking Member of the Committee, Mr. Thompson; of the 
Subcommittee, Ms. Sanchez; and to the Chairman of the Full Committee, 
Mr. King. It is also true that our security sisters in the Senate, 
Senators Susan Collins and Patty Murray, made a great effort to be sure 
that the bill would be heard in that body.
  Yes, the SAFE Port Act is not perfect; and it passes late at night in 
a week of disappointments. But it is the real deal. One star in a dark 
night. Vote ``aye.''
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Leach).

                              {time}  2330

  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to note that folded into the SAFE Port Act is the 
Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act which is one of the most 
important pieces of family legislation this Congress has ever 
considered.
  Internet gambling restraints have been under review for four 
Congresses. This evening we are finally poised to act decisively on 
this subject, and I want to extend my personal appreciation to the 
Speaker; to the majority leader, Mr. Boehner; and to the Senate 
majority leader, Mr. Frist, for their steadfast support.
  Companion legislation to the House product was forthrightly led in 
the Senate by John Kyl of Arizona. Many Members have played an 
important part over the years in this legislation, particularly Mike 
Oxley and Spencer Bachus from the Financial Services Committee and Bob 
Goodlatte and Chris Cannon from Judiciary.
  But I want to stress this is bipartisan legislation. The majority of 
Democrats voted for it just a few weeks ago. Indeed, all of us can be 
proud of this legislation. It should be considered a significant 
accomplishment of this Congress. After all, with each passing day we 
learn of friends and neighbors touched by devastating losses from 
Internet gambling. Never has it been so easy to lose so much so quickly 
at such a young age.
  As a professor of business at the University of Illinois has noted, 
Internet gambling is crack cocaine for gamblers. There are no needle 
marks; you just click the mouse and lose your house.
  The reason the NCAA, the NFL and the NBA, the NHL, and Major League 
Baseball support this legislation is their concern for the integrity of 
the games. The reason the religious community from Baptists and 
Methodists to Muslims has rallied to this cause is because it is 
concerned for the unity of the American family.
  The reason we should adopt this approach is that we must be mindful 
of our obligations to the American family.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this legislation, and I will submit 
for the Record at this point its legislative history.

 Legislative History for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act

                        Section 801. Short title

       This Act may be cited as the `Unlawful Internet Gambling 
     Enforcement Act of 2006.'

 Section 802. Prohibition on acceptance of any payment instrument for 
                       unlawful Internet gambling

       Subsection (a) adds a new `Subchapter IV--Prohibition on 
     Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling' to Chapter 53 of Title 
     31 (Monetary Transactions). The new subchapter will come 
     immediately after subchapter III, covering Money Laundering 
     and Related Financial Crimes.

            Section 5361. Congressional findings and purpose

       (a) Findings. The Congressional findings note that: (1) 
     Internet gambling is primarily funded through the personal 
     use of payment system instruments, credit cards, and wire 
     transfers; (2) the National Gambling Impact Study Commission 
     in 1999 recommended the passage of legislation to prohibit 
     wire transfers to Internet gambling sites or the banks which 
     represent such sites; (3) Internet gambling is a growing 
     cause of debt collection problems for insured depository 
     institutions and the consumer credit industry; and (4) new 
     mechanisms for enforcing gambling laws on the Internet are 
     necessary because traditional law enforcement mechanisms are 
     often inadequate for enforcing gambling prohibitions on the 
     Internet, especially where such gambling crosses State or 
     national borders.
       (b) Rule of Construction. No provision is to be construed 
     as altering, limiting, or extending any Federal or State law 
     or Tribal-State compact prohibiting, permitting or regulating 
     gambling within the United States. This is intended to 
     alleviate fears that this bill could have the effect of 
     changing the legality of any gambling-related activity in the 
     United States.

                       Section 5362. Definitions

       This defines the term `bet or wager' as the staking or 
     risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome 
     of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject 
     to chance with the agreement that the winner will receive 
     something of value in the event of a certain outcome. This 
     subsection clarifies that `bet or wager' does not include 
     bona fide business transactions such as securities trading or 
     buying or selling insurance contracts, or participation in a 
     simulation sports game or educational game. ``Something of 
     value'' does not include personal efforts of the participants 
     in playing the game or contest, or points or credits that the 
     sponsor of the game or contest provides to participants free 
     of charge and that can be used or redeemed only for 
     participation in games or contests offered by the sponsor.
       Defines the term `unlawful Internet gambling' as placing, 
     receiving, or transmitting a bet or wager by any means which 
     involves the use of the Internet, where such bet or wager is 
     unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the 
     State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, 
     received, or otherwise made. Clarifies that purely intrastate 
     transactions conducted in accordance with state laws with 
     appropriate security controls will not be considered unlawful 
     internet gambling. Likewise, transactions solely within 
     Tribal lands complying with similar security requirements and 
     the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act will not be considered 
     unlawful. Section 5362(10)(D) addresses transactions 
     complying with Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA) which will 
     not be considered unlawful, because the IHA only regulates 
     legal transactions that are lawful in each of the states 
     involved. Also clarifies that intermediate routing of data 
     packets does not determine the location in which bets or 
     wagers are made.
       The Internet gambling provisions do not change the legality 
     of any gambling-related activity in the United States. For 
     instance, if use of the Internet in connection with dog 
     racing is approved by state regulatory agencies and does not 
     violate any Federal law, then it is allowed under the new 
     section 5362(10)(A) of title 31.
       The Internet gambling provisions do not interfere with 
     intrastate laws. New section 5362(10)(B) creates a safe 
     harbor from the term ``unlawful Internet gambling'' for 
     authorized intrastate transactions, if the state law has 
     adequate security measures to prevent participation by minors 
     and persons located out of the state. The safe harbor would 
     leave intact the current interstate gambling prohibitions 
     such as the Wire Act, federal prohibitions on lotteries, and 
     the Gambling Ship Act so that casino and lottery games could 
     not be placed on websites and individuals could not access 
     these games from their homes or businesses. The safe harbor 
     is intended to recognize current law which allows states 
     jurisdiction over wholly intrastate activity, where bets or 
     wagers, or information assisting in bets or wagers, do not 
     cross state lines. This would, for example, allow retail 
     lottery terminals to interact with a processing center within 
     a state, and linking of terminals between separate casinos 
     within a state if authorized by the state.
       Tribal gaming laws are similarly preserved. Transactions 
     solely within tribal lands complying with similar security 
     requirements and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act will not be 
     considered unlawful, under section 5362(10)(C). Moreover, the 
     principle of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is that state 
     governments cannot apply discriminatory laws against gaming 
     authorized by tribal governments within the state. If a state 
     authorizes use of the Internet for gambling pursuant to this 
     section and the tribal government also authorizes this, 
     gambling businesses located on tribal lands within that state 
     would be permitted to ``export'' gambling services to persons 
     in the rest of the state, off of tribal lands, if the 
     ``exported'' game complies with state law, pursuant to 
     section 5362(10)(B). This does not give the state 
     jurisdiction over the operation of the tribal gambling 
     business, including licensing requirements, and does not 
     allow the state to dictate tribal gaming laws. Only the game 
     itself--including the method for playing the game--must 
     comply with state law if a person physically located off of 
     tribal lands places a bet that is received by a tribal 
     gambling business. This principle also applies in reverse: if 
     a person on tribal lands plays a gambling game with a state-
     based gambling

[[Page 21340]]

      business, the game must not violate tribal law.
       Section 5362 also defines the terms `business of betting or 
     wagering,' `designated payment system,' `Internet,' and 
     `restricted transaction.' Several additional terms are 
     defined by reference to other sections of the U.S. Code.

Section 5363. Prohibition on acceptance of any financial instrument for 
                       unlawful Internet gambling

       Prohibits persons engaged in the business of betting or 
     wagering from knowingly accepting credit, funds, bank 
     instruments, or proceeds of any other form of financial 
     transaction in connection with the participation of another 
     person in unlawful Internet gambling. This is called a 
     'restricted transaction' according to the definitions 
     section.

     Section 5364. Policies and procedures to identify and prevent 
                        restricted transactions

       (a) Regulations and (b) Requirements for Policies and 
     Procedures. Requires the Secretary of the Treasury and the 
     Federal Reserve Board, in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney 
     General, to prescribe regulations within nine months 
     requiring any payment system to establish policies and 
     procedures reasonably designed to identify and block 
     restricted transactions, or otherwise prevent restricted 
     transactions from entering its system.
       (c) Compliance and (d) Liability. Provides persons 
     operating financial systems with immunity from civil 
     liability for blocking transactions that they reasonably 
     believe are restricted transactions, or in reliance on the 
     regulations promulgated by the Treasury Department and 
     Federal Reserve. Though a financial institution may block 
     additional transactions based on reasonable belief, it has no 
     duty to do so, and may rely solely on the regulations to 
     fully discharge its obligations.
       (e) Enforcement. The Federal functional regulators and the 
     Federal Trade Commission are given the exclusive authority to 
     enforce this section.

                      Section 5365. Civil remedies

       Authorizes the U.S. Attorney General and State Attorneys 
     General to pursue civil remedies, including a preliminary 
     injunction or injunction against any person to prevent or 
     restrain a violation of this legislation. It clarifies that 
     the bill does not alter, supersede or otherwise affect the 
     Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; generally limits responsibility 
     of an interactive computer service to the removal or 
     disabling of access to an online site violating this section, 
     upon proper notice; restricts the ability to bring injunctive 
     cases against financial transaction provider activities.
       Internet gambling operators primarily use the resources of 
     two types of businesses to conduct their unlawful 
     enterprises: payment systems and interactive computer 
     services. The unlawful use of payment systems is addressed by 
     section 5364, not by injunctions. The legislation addresses 
     the unlawful use of interactive computer services through 
     injunctions, but with appropriate limits to avoid imposing 
     any duty to censor or monitor on these computer services. 
     Section 5365(c)(2) also extends to interactive computer 
     services the same immunity from liability that common 
     carriers are afforded when complying with a notice from law 
     enforcement pursuant to section 1084(d) of title 18 to 
     discontinue service to a gambling business.

                    Section 5366. Criminal penalties

       Authorizes criminal penalties for violating section 5363, 
     including fines or imprisonment for not more than five years 
     or both. Also authorizes permanently enjoining a person 
     convicted under this section from engaging in gambling 
     activities.

                Section 5367. Circumventions prohibited

       Provides that, notwithstanding the safe harbor provided in 
     section 5362(2), a financial intermediary or interactive 
     computer service or telecommunications service that has 
     actual knowledge and control of bets and wagers, and operates 
     or is controlled by an entity that operates, an unlawful 
     Internet gambling site can be held criminally liable under 
     this subchapter.

   Section 803. Internet gambling in or through foreign jurisdictions

       Subsection (a) provides that, in deliberations between the 
     U.S. Government and any other country on money laundering, 
     corruption, and crime issues, the U.S. Government should 
     encourage cooperation by foreign governments in identifying 
     whether Internet gambling operations are being used for money 
     laundering, corruption, or other crimes, advance policies 
     that promote the cooperation by foreign governments in the 
     enforcement of this Act, and encourage the Financial Action 
     Task Force on Money Laundering to study the extent to which 
     Internet gambling operations are being used for money 
     laundering. It also requires the Secretary of the Treasury to 
     submit an annual report to Congress on the deliberations 
     between the United States and other countries on issues 
     relating to Internet gambling.
       Subsection (b) requires the Secretary of the Treasury to 
     submit an annual report to Congress on any deliberations 
     between the United States and other countries on tissues 
     relating to Internet Gambling.

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member on the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time and for 
the very strong statement he made earlier, the very straightforward and 
candid assessment of the process to which this legislation has been 
subjected.
  While I appreciate the work of the gentleman from New York, chairman 
of the committee of conference, and also Chair of the Homeland Security 
Committee, and the gentleman from Mississippi who have done stellar 
work on this legislation, I am disappointed with the outcome.
  There are two issues here. There are substance and process. On the 
substance, sure, I will vote for the conference report because what is 
in the bill will improve port security. What is left out is what is 
troubling and disappointing.
  When the bill cleared the House, there was the expectation, as there 
always is when we pass a part in one bill and have a comparable in the 
other, that the missing links will be addressed in a conference 
committee, and in this case, the missing links in security will be 
addressed in conference. That did not happen.
  This bill does not make improvements in rail and transit security, 
even though the Senate version had good provisions to address transit 
and intercity passenger rail security. For reasons I do not understand 
and no one has explained, the House Republican leadership apparently 
determined late at night last night that it would not attempt to work 
out rail and transit security in conference.
  The committee of conference held a meeting. Conferees elected a 
chairman and made opening statements, and that was it. The supporters 
of rail and transit security improvements were never permitted to make 
proposals or offer amendments to improve rail and transit security. We 
expected that we were going to be able to do that, but it never 
happened.
  The security needs in rail and transit are huge, $700 million for 
Amtrak, $6 billion for transit. In the wake of the Madrid, London, and 
Mumbai bombings, the leadership of the other party should not have 
passed up an opportunity to protect millions who use intercity rail and 
transit each day.
  There is much more that we could have and should have done. We should 
not be kicking it over to the next Congress. That is the 
disappointment. We have an opportunity to make an improvement. You 
should seize that opportunity and move ahead.
  As far as it goes, it is a useful bill. It is not what it should be.
  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure wrote the original 
Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA). That landmark 
legislation significantly improved security at our Nation's ports. The 
conference report before us fine tunes that original security act and 
gives added direction to the Administration in how to carry out its 
multiple port security programs. It also provides a statutory framework 
for many regulatory initiatives established by the Department of 
Homeland Security, including the Container Security Initiative and the 
Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism Program (CT-PAT).
  Republicans rejected the Nadler-Oberstar amendment offered during 
House consideration of the bill. That amendment would have required 100 
percent of containers to be scanned for nuclear weapons before a 
container destined for the United States was loaded in a foreign port. 
I am pleased that the conference report adopts the Senate provision to 
authorize a pilot program for 100 percent scanning of containers in 
three foreign ports. I am also encouraged that the conference report 
requires the Secretary to scan 100 percent of containers entering the 
22 largest container ports in the United States. What I don't 
understand is if we can scan 100 percent of containers when they are 
offloaded from a ship in a U.S. port, why can't we scan those same 
containers before they are loaded on that same ship in the foreign 
port? Why can't we continue to work to ``push the borders out''?
  While the conference report goes a long way toward strengthening port 
security, it does not do a thing for rail and transit security and

[[Page 21341]]

other issues, which were covered in the Senate bill, and should have 
been included in this conference report.
  Last night, the House passed, by a vote of 281-140, a motion to 
instruct conferees on H.R. 4954 to adopt the Senate provisions on rail 
and transit security, as well as other security measures. Less than an 
hour later, the Conference Committee met and conferees were allowed to 
make statements, but not amendments to a draft conference report. In 
fact, the conferees had no legislative text to consider. It was obvious 
to all that there was no interest among House Republican conferees to 
have a serious discussion about including rail and transit security in 
this bill.
  One by one, Members of the Conference Committee--House and Senate--
asked the Conference Committee Chairman when we were going to be able 
to review the final conference report and when Members were going to be 
able to offer amendments to it. The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
King)--and I quote--stated, ``The expectation is we will receive the 
final documents, go to debate and consider amendments and go forward at 
that time.''
  Two hours later, Mr. King's staff advised members that there would be 
no further meetings of the conferees. What could have possibly happened 
in those two hours to create such a great delay that the documents were 
not available for a meeting today? Why do Republicans consistently 
prevent Democrats from offering amendments that will make our country 
safer?
  In the wake of the Madrid, London, and Mumbai bombings, Congress has 
a responsibility to the American people to assure the safety and 
security of our Nation's rail and transit systems. This year, the 
Federal government will invest $4.7 billion in aviation security 
improvements, while spending only $150 million on rail and transit 
security, even though five times as many people take trains as planes 
every day.
  Amtrak has requested more than $100 million in security upgrades and 
nearly $600 million for fire and life-safety improvements to tunnels on 
the Northeast Corridor in New York, Maryland, and Washington, DC. The 
American Public Transportation Association, which represents transit 
agencies and commuter railroads, has well-documented transit security 
needs that exceed $6 billion (including more than $5.2 billion of 
capital investment security needs).
  The Senate-passed port security bill would have helped meet those 
needs, and the conferees should have been granted the right to vote on 
them before they were stripped from the final version of the bill. Do 
we have to wait for an attack before we take action to secure our 
nation's railroads and transit systems? What is wrong with providing 
funding for critical rail and transit security needs? What is wrong 
with hiring more inspectors? There are only 100 Transportation Security 
Administration (TSA) rail inspectors responsible for the security of 
our Nation's 144,000-mile freight and passenger railroad system. What 
is wrong with requiring development and implementation of a national 
rail and transit security plan to clarify the roles and 
responsibilities of federal, state, and local agencies in securing rail 
and transit systems? What is wrong with ensuring that key workers have 
the necessary support and training required to protect our rail and 
public transit systems? Nothing, the House Republican Leadership just 
did not want to do it.
  Another example of what should have been included in this conference 
report and wasn't: Removal of the cap of 45,000 on TSA screeners. That 
cap is both arbitrary and counterintuitive, and it is also impairing 
security. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) passed by 
Congress in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks requires 
100 percent electronic baggage screening. Yet, there is evidence that 
staffing shortages are undermining electronic screening efforts.
  Staffing shortages often require TSA to use alternative screening 
procedures to screen checked bags, and the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) reports that TSA's use of alternative screening procedures 
involves trade-offs in security effectiveness.
  While the number of airport screeners remains static, passenger 
traffic grows. Airlines are expected to carry more than one billion 
passengers by 2015, increasing from approximately 700 million in 2004. 
TSA currently screens 522 million bags per year. GAO reports that TSA 
could be screening as many as 96 million more bags than it now 
screens--an 18 percent increase--by as early as 2010. According to TSA 
data, the use of alternative screening procedures will increase at some 
airports because of rising passenger traffic.
  All of these issues should have been dealt with in this conference 
report. While I support the port security bill, it has left much work 
undone.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much 
time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Each side has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. KING of New York. Could I inquire of the gentleman from 
Mississippi how many speakers he has remaining.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I have four.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member from Energy 
and Commerce.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, well, the mountain shook, the lightning 
flashed, the thunder roared and the mountain gave birth to a mouse.
  In last night's discussion, there was no discussion and nobody has 
been brought in to talk about what this legislation does, but I think 
we can talk about what it does not do.
  First of all, it does not allow the Members opportunities to offer 
amendments to discuss issues of importance. It does virtually nothing 
to protect 25 million Amtrak riders and millions of Americans who live 
and work near railroad and freight tracks and passing trains carrying 
highly hazardous materials. It also stripped long overdue rail and mass 
transit measures from the final bill, as well as a number of other 
important security measures.
  It should be noted that the bill in the Senate included provisions 
improving the securities of other surface transportation, including 
truck, bus, hazardous material transportation and pipeline security, as 
well as it strengthened aviation security. All gone, gone, gone.
  The conferees should have been granted the right to vote on these 
provisions before they were stripped from the final version of the 
bill, particularly in light of the fact that last night we heard the 
House express its wishes overwhelmingly when we voted for the 
instruction of House conferees 281-140 to accept rail and transit 
titles, as well as other important provisions.
  We talk about this as a great bill to address the question of 
airport, railroad and port security. It does not. It is not.
  I would note that when we showed up last night for the conference, we 
all sat around for a goodly while. We had no agenda. We had no business 
to come before the committee. We were told there would be a meeting 
this morning to discuss, and we would have an opportunity to amend. 
Somehow or another that commitment vanished, but it did not vanish so 
much we do not have a bill here which was drafted without any input 
from any Member on this side of the aisle.
  So we have sent the distinguished chairman, for whom I have enormous 
affection, a letter. Fifteen of our colleagues on this side of the 
aisle joined in signing it, and we said to you: ``Dear Chairman King: 
You made a personal and public commitment last night. You broke it.
  ``We write to protest your decision to shut down the House-Senate 
conference on H.R. 4954. Many of us took your word that we would have a 
voice in the conference process. However, your action to silence input 
from every Democratic member of the conference by denying the right to 
offer amendments effectively stripped the long-overdue rail and mass 
transit security measures from the final bill.''
  This is a sorry process. It is a sorry procedure. It is a sorry piece 
of legislation. It is inadequate, and it is another example of the 
majority trying to do things on the cheap and then marketing it as 
something good.

                                Congress of the United States,

                               Washington, DC, September 29, 2006.
     Chairman Peter King,
     House of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security, The 
         Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman King: You made a personal and public 
     commitment last night. You broke it.
       We write to protest your decision to shut down the House-
     Senate conference on H.R. 4954. Many of us took your word 
     that we would have a voice in the conference process.

[[Page 21342]]

     However, your action to silence input from every Democratic 
     member of the conference by denying the right to offer 
     amendments effectively stripped the long-overdue rail and 
     mass transit security measures from the final bill, as well 
     as many other important security measures. Consequently, 
     these important elements of our transportation systems remain 
     vulnerable to terrorist attack.
       Despite deadly attacks on transit systems worldwide--in 
     Madrid two years ago (191 innocent civilians killed), in 
     London last year (52 killed), and Mumbai this year (207 
     killed)--Congress has not passed a transit security bill. The 
     transit community has identified $6 billion in security 
     needs, of which only less than a tenth has been made 
     available by Congress. Even less has been done to protect the 
     25 million annual Amtrak riders and the millions of Americans 
     that live and work near freight railroad tracks and passing 
     trains carrying highly hazardous materials.
       The Senate had included in its version of the bill 
     comprehensive plans to improve U.S. rail security and mass 
     transit security, the second time the Senate has passed these 
     provisions since 9/11. In addition, the Senate included 
     provisions improving the security of other surface 
     transportation modes, including truck, bus, hazardous 
     materials transportation, and pipeline security, as well as 
     several that strengthen aviation security.
       Conferees should have been granted the right to vote on 
     these provisions before they were stripped from the final 
     version of the bill, particularly in light of the wishes of 
     an overwhelming majority of House members, who voted last 
     night 281-140 to instruct House conferees to accept rail and 
     transit titles, as well as other important provisions.
       Americans expect us to help keep them safe. We can only 
     hope that you have a good reason for denying them that peace 
     of mind.
           Sincerely,
     Frank R. Lautenberg.
     Patty Murray.
     Joe Lieberman.
     Paul Sarbanes.
     John D. Dingell.
     Ed Markey.

  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me first of all thank the gentleman from Michigan for his undying 
affection that he shows for me so often, especially tonight. It really 
warms my heart, and I want to thank him especially for it.
  I would, however, just like to touch on a few things. First of all, 
this is the SAFE Port Act. I have listened as carefully as I possibly 
can. I have listened; I have asked Mr. Lungren to listen; I have asked 
staff to listen. I have not heard even one remote criticism of the port 
security aspects of this bill. This is a port security bill. We had 
staff negotiations going on day after day after day.
  Now, the gentleman from Michigan raised the question of last night. 
Let us explain this right now. It was explained before. We will try 
again.
  The fact is last night there was no legislative text incorporating 
the staff recommendations. The Senate assured us they would provide it. 
The Senate did not have it last night. The Senate refused to provide 
it. The first we saw it was 3 o'clock this afternoon. What is going on 
in the Senate is up to them, but that is where the final text was.
  Now, if the gentleman is saying that when they came back in at 3 
o'clock this afternoon, rather than take advantage of a bill which has 
been worked on for 6 months, which has gone through subcommittee, which 
has gone through committee and which has gone through the House floor, 
which was worked out so carefully with Senator Collins and Senator 
Lieberman and Senator Murray, which had strong bipartisan support, that 
because of the fact that the Senate language was not over here in time 
for the gentleman from Michigan, that we should put that aside, and 
taking the risk of not taking advantage of this moment, of not seizing 
the moment and passing this historic legislation to save our Nation, I 
have heard of people who cannot take ``yes'' for an answer.
  We said last March, let us put together a port security bill. We did 
it. We put together a good bill and all we get tonight is begrudgery. 
Well, it is good, it is this, it is that, but it is not good enough 
because it does not cover rail, it does not cover transit or it does 
not cover this. Also, as the gentleman from California reminded me, it 
does not contain the cure for cancer either.
  But the fact is it is a very good port security bill. As the 
gentlewoman from California said, it is the real deal. If you want to 
turn your back on the real deal, if you want to vote and say I really 
wanted something else, this is not good enough for me, the real deal 
should be good enough for me.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), ranking member on 
the subcommittee with responsibility for ports.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking 
member, Mr. Thompson.
  This conference report is a culmination of many years of working on 
the issue of port security. I want to begin by thanking my colleague, 
actually Juanita Millender-McDonald, whose original bill was brought to 
me a couple of years ago, was the framework for this, and added to that 
were many of the port bills that I had authored were put into that; and 
then Ms. Harman put in some more and Mr. Lungren put in some more and 
Mr. Thompson put in some more, and pretty soon we had a pretty good 
port bill. I am pleased with the port bill.
  Our chairman said he did not want rail or transit or any of that, 
which the Senate also put in their port bill, because he did not have 
the time, he did not want to jeopardize a port bill.
  So why is there Internet gambling in our port bill? If you had time 
to stick Internet gambling in our port bill, then I think you could 
have held a meeting today, or tomorrow if we had to stay an extra day, 
or the next day if we had to stay an extra day to make our country 
safer, especially for the people who take rail and mass transit to 
work.
  But, no, that would have been too much. This is just a port bill, 
plus Internet gambling. That is why people are upset. The Senate put in 
rail and mass transit and port. You had people last night who asked 
you, Will we get to make amendments, because they wanted to put in rail 
and mass transit like the Senate had put in, and we had the votes in 
the room to pass this port bill and to pass rail and mass transit.

                              {time}  2345

  But it was too much. I don't know if it was you, Mr. Chairman, or 
Speaker Hastert. I don't know who is going to answer what happens if we 
have something that happens like happened in Madrid or London and we 
didn't fund rail or transit. Will we get blamed? Will you take the 
blame, Mr. Chairman? Or will you stand up and say it was the 
leadership; it wasn't me?
  Who is responsible for not having done the right thing? That is what 
people are asking. That is why people are upset. They are not just 
upset on this side of the aisle because we know it is the right thing 
to do. They are upset in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle.
  This is way too important for us to say, oh, gosh, we have got to get 
out of here on Friday, and let's not work another day. I would have 
stayed here a week. I would have stayed here a month. You know, I have 
been working on this for about 4 or 5 years. If we could have gotten 
that in, it would have been the right thing to do.
  You are right, Mr. Chairman. This is a good port bill, because we 
took our time and we did it right. But it could have been a much better 
security bill, a security bill that last night the majority in this 
House said they wanted, a security bill not only to secure containers 
and freight that come into this country but a bill that would have 
helped the people who commute every day to work and make America go.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, again I inquire as to how much 
time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 15\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Mississippi has 10\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would add that, again, I have 
been listening and listening, and there is no criticism at all of the 
port security. And again, rather than to take yes for an answer, we are 
talking about going around our committee process. The fact is, one of 
the reasons this bill is so good is because it was at the subcommittee 
level, the committee level, and then it went to the floor.

[[Page 21343]]

  This was a long process on the port security aspect of it. Rather 
than just accept something coming over from the Senate at the last 
minute, I have enough respect for the integrity of the process of our 
committee that I want to replicate that when we are dealing with 
transit and when we are dealing with rail and working, of course, with 
Mr. Young. I don't want to get him nervous while he is sitting here. 
But it is essential that we do do it in a deliberative process.
  Again, it is beyond me why, after a 6-month process where there was 
such bipartisanship, such working together, both here and in the 
Senate, that the begrudgers of the world have arrived on the floor 
tonight and all they can say is there is something here that is good, 
though they are afraid to acknowledge it, and then they talk about 
something which was never part of our bill to begin with.
  We dedicated ourselves to port security, and we got it done. We 
should be proud of that. And, again, there is a special place in life 
for begrudgers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), one of the conferees on 
this particular bill.
  Mr. PASCRELL. You know, Mr. Chairman, you sound like an Irish tenor 
this evening.
  This is a bill which we can support. We thank both staffs on both 
sides of the aisle. They worked very hard on this.
  Simply put, this is a good bill. Many Members on both sides of the 
aisle have worked tirelessly to bring the critical legislation to 
finality; and while I think it could have been improved if those of us 
on the conference committee were given a chance to offer further 
amendments, I wish to remind the chairman, last night, ultimately, this 
is still a good product.
  There is no doubt that authorizing $400 million in port security 
grants for each of the fiscal years of 2007 to 2012 is a wise 
undertaking, as is creating firm deadlines to require the Department of 
Homeland Security to issue transportation worker identification cards 
to workers with access to secure areas of ports. No one should be 
allowed into those ports that do not have a proper card and a proper 
identification; and we should really carry this over to those folks who 
work at our airports, which we have not done.
  I am particularly pleased that the two provisions I was able to 
secure when this bill originally came before the Homeland Security 
Committee remains within the legislation this evening: Section 114, 
which authorizes the Secretary of DHS to establish an exercise program 
to test and evaluate the capabilities of Federal, State, local, and 
other relevant stakeholders to coordinate appropriate response and 
recovery from acts of terror. Section 115, which directs the Secretary 
to require each high-risk facility to conduct live or full-scale 
exercises not less than once every 2 years in accordance with the 
facility security plan that this bill mandates.
  Both provisions will enhance the capabilities of our Nation's 
seaports to prevent, prepare for, respond to and mitigate against acts 
of terror. I am grateful for this inclusion in the legislation.
  But, as with so many things in the realm of homeland security, we 
have missed some opportunities. I, like most of my Democratic 
colleagues, would have much preferred that this bill also included 
improvements to security for America's rail, subway, buses, and 
trucking. And in all due reverence, I know that you feel the same way, 
Mr. Chairman.
  But we've got to the best point at the best time, and we need to pass 
this legislation, and I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Thompson.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from New Jersey for his kind remarks about the bill, and I 
especially want to tell him how much it means to me that he commented 
on my great Irish singing voice as I was delivering my oration tonight. 
So, Mr. Pascrell, you are a man of great ethnic perspicacity and my 
admiration for you is unbounded.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4954, the 
SAFE Port Act, which is a comprehensive approach to securing our ports. 
And though not a perfect bill, it surely could have been better, it is 
an important first step.
  One of the worst-case scenarios experts fear is that terrorists would 
be able to smuggle nuclear material across our ports. This is an 
unacceptable reality that we face today, which highlights just how 
important it is that we have adequate detection devices at all of our 
seaports and border crossings. Our radiation portal monitors are our 
last, best chance to prevent catastrophic nuclear or radiological 
attack, and our intelligence analysts continue to tell us that the 
threat is very real.
  I am glad to see that under this bill all containers entering the 
U.S. through the 22 busiest seaports will be examined for radiation by 
the end of next year. While this is certainly a great start, we 
ultimately need to deploy radiation portal monitors at every point of 
entry to fully secure our Nation's ports.
  I am also pleased to see that this bill contains provisions to 
strengthen the Container Security Initiative. Under the SAFE Port Act, 
we will have a greater ability to foster communication between the 
United States and the operators of foreign ports to inspect more U.S.-
bound cargo before it reaches our ports. We need to continue to do 
everything in our power to screen cargo at its point of origin to 
prevent the dangerous possibility of nuclear material ever reaching our 
shores.
  Mr. Speaker, the SAFE Port Act most certainly makes strides in terms 
of securing our ports, but we must acknowledge that it is just one step 
in a much larger process. I will continue to work with my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to secure our Nation's vulnerable ports.
  I want to commend both the chairman and the ranking member for their 
hard work in getting us to this point today. Again, it is an important 
first step. Let us continue to rededicating ourselves to making sure 
that we are doing all we can to make sure the American people are safe.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Might I inquire, Mr. Speaker, as to how much time 
remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman. As there is a great deal of admiration in this room, let me 
say that I too admire the staff and the authors of this bill, Ms. 
Sanchez, Ms. Harman, Mr. Thompson, and the work of Mr. Lungren and Mr. 
King, but it is obvious we could have done more. And I listened to the 
distinguished gentleman talking about regular order. We have not had 
regular order this entire day.
  I do want to say the good work shows that we are concerned about port 
security, with $400 million in port security grants, training for port 
workers, such as longshoremen, transportation workers' I.D. cards, 
screening of the 22 busiest airports, establishing the Domestic Nuclear 
Detection Office, additional Customs and border protection personnel 
and port security plans.
  But I am very proud of the language of training residents of seaport 
communities, that the conferees agreed that it is crucial to involve 
communities in disaster preparedness by providing for an annual 
community update to the homeland security training program described in 
this bill. This was language that I included because of the area in 
which we live in Houston where there is sizable populations living 
around the community.

[[Page 21344]]

  The port security training program is designed for the purpose of 
enhancing the capabilities of each of the Nation's commercial seaports 
to prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from 
threatened or actual acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other 
emergencies. The language I contributed extends this training program 
to include communities and neighborhoods in proximity of the seaports 
by educating, training, and involving population at-risk neighborhoods 
around ports, including training on an annual basis to learn what to 
watch for.
  However, I would hope that we would move toward in the next few 
months 100 percent screening of container cargo, which we have not 
done.
  I also hope that we realize, as my colleagues have said and as Mr. 
Thompson's overwhelming motion to instruct said, we have to be 
concerned about rail security. I mentioned during his motion to 
instruct that rail security is not just people riding Amtrak. It is the 
railroads that travel through neighborhoods throughout the regions of 
the Nation, including the South.
  I would also note that I live around a very large port, and this will 
have a positive impact on the Houston port. I ask my colleagues to 
support it, though I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that we have 
extraneous material, such as the Internet gambling, on this bill.
  I rise in support of the Conference Report to the SAFE Port Act of 
2006, H.R. 4954, which represents a significant step forward toward 
national security and safety for our seaports. I am proud of my 
colleagues who have crafted this bill to be inclusive of many issues 
that members of the Committee on Homeland Security and other Members of 
the Congress have expressed over the last few years, and more intensely 
over the last few months.
  All of us share the common goal of all Americans of making the 
movement of cargo through the global supply chain as secure as 
possible, and are committed to doing everything feasible to ensure the 
security of the Nation's ports.
  Many elements of this legislation are beneficial: $400 million in 
port security grants for each of fiscal years 2007-2012; training for 
port workers, such as longshoremen; Transportation Workers 
Identification Credential (TWIC) cards to workers with access to secure 
areas of ports and background checks; screening at the 22 busiest 
seaports; establishment of the Domestic Nuclear Detection office, DNDO, 
within the Department of Homeland Security; additional Customs and 
Border Protection personnel; requires port security plans to include 
training for residents of neighborhoods around facilities.
  Safe and secure seaports are an essential element in building 
efficient and technologically advanced supply chains that move cargo 
quickly to distribution centers, stores, and factories around the 
world. Although we have made progress since the 9/11 attacks in 
enhancing the security of the nation's ports, we cannot afford to be 
complacent.


 Incorporated Amendment: Training for Residents of Seaport Communities

  I am proud and thankful that the conferees agreed that it is crucial 
to involve communities in disaster preparedness by providing for an 
annual community update to the Homeland Security Training Program 
described in this bill.
  The Port Security Training Program is designed for the purpose of 
enhancing the capabilities of each of the Nation's commercial seaports 
to prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from 
threatened or actual acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other 
emergencies.
  The language I contributed extends this training program to include 
communities and neighborhoods in proximity of the seaports by 
educating, training, and involving populations of at-risk neighborhoods 
around ports, including training on an annual basis to learn what to 
watch for.
  Many communities across the country have a ``Neighborhood Watch'' 
program that teaches citizens to watch for suspicious activity or other 
signs of danger. This language provides for a similar ``citizens 
corps'' preparation program in anticipation of a national security 
threat. The intent is to mimic the Citizen Corps initiative begun by 
the White House and the Department of Homeland Security in 2002.
  While 44 percent of Americans say their neighborhood has a plan to 
help reduce crime, only 13 percent report having a neighborhood plan 
for disasters. Nearly two-thirds of respondents, 63 percent, believe it 
is important for neighborhoods to have a way to work together on 
emergency preparedness.
  Fifty-two states and territories have formed state level Citizen 
Corps Councils to support local efforts. My hope is that before the 
next disaster, our citizens will be aware and trained to react 
effectively and timely, and perform as local responders themselves.


                    More Must Be Done 100% screening

  While there are good elements of this bill, I am compelled to discuss 
the fact that this bill could have been so much more, and could have 
definitively contributed to national security efforts. I am dismayed at 
the fact that there are gaps in this report wide enough to let 
terrorists through.
  Apparently, it is not important to know what is arriving by sea 
cargo.
  This bill fails to require 100 percent scanning of contents bound for 
our borders before they leave other nations. By the time they arrive 
and are unloaded onto our soil, it is too late.
  We have the technology to do this--the ports of Hong Kong and Boston 
already screen most inbound cargo for both radiation and lead shielding 
(to hide the radiological materials) using commercially available 
technology without interrupting the flow of commerce. As we continue to 
fight to protect our borders, we need to continue to develop cutting 
edge technologies to detect and defeat next generation threats to port 
security.
  According to security expert Steve Flynn, the cost would be about 
$50--$100 per container--minimal compared to the $4000 per container it 
costs to ship from Asia to the U.S., and to the $66,000 in average 
worth that each container carries. This is accessible, technologically 
feasible, and necessary. It is beyond me why it is not a part of this 
bill.


                         rail and mass transit

  It is unacceptable to consider rail and mass transit security, as 
Secretary Chertoff stated, ``goulash.'' I fear the day when a tragedy 
will strike on a subway, or on a bus, and we will suddenly discover how 
large a mistake it was to miss this opportunity . We know how easy a 
target mass transportation can be-witness Israel, London, Madrid, and 
Mumbai amongst so many others. We have focused so much effort on 
securing our borders. I wonder why Republicans are not just as 
concerned with securing us.
  I am disappointed that this provision is not included in this 
conference report. At the very least, yesterday's Motion to Instruct 
the Conferees, which passed 281-170, instructed the conferees to accept 
the rail and mass transit provisions from the Senate. It takes gall to 
ignore an on-record vote of the House of Representatives.

                     Houston Port and Economic Data

  The Port of Houston is a 25-mile-long complex of public and private 
facilities located just a few hours' sailing time from the Gulf of 
Mexico. The port is ranked first in the United States in foreign 
waterborne commerce, second in total tonnage, and sixth in the world.
  About 200 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston in 
2005. A total of 7,057 vessel calls were recorded at the Port of 
Houston during the year 2003.
  Economic studies reveal that ship channel-related businesses support 
more than 287,000 direct and indirect jobs throughout Texas while 
generating nearly $11 billion in economic impact. Additionally, more 
than $649 million in state and local tax revenues are generated by 
business activities related to the port. Approximately 87,000 jobs are 
connected with the Port of Houston itself, and over 80% of those people 
live in the Houston metropolitan area.
  Centrally located on the Gulf Coast, Houston is a strategic gateway 
for cargo originating in or destined for the U.S. West and Midwest. 
Houston lies within close reach of one of the nation's largest 
concentrations of consumers. More than 17 million people live within 
300 miles of the city, and approximately 60 million live within 700 
miles.

                               Conclusion

  The danger is very real that we may be escorting a weapon of mass 
destruction to its target. For every mile along the Houston Ship 
Channel that dangerous cargo passes, an additional 2000 people are at 
risk. Clearly, once the cargo reaches the city, the risk is greatest.
  There are many such cities and states across the country that are 
vulnerable and need the federal government's leadership for security 
and protection. The legislation is a good start, yet it will not be 
sufficient. I challenge my colleagues on the Homeland Security 
Committee to consider this only the first step in securing and 
protecting our nation's ports, and a necessary gateway to addressing 
the vulnerabilities of rail and mass transit.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Las Vegas (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the ranking member of

[[Page 21345]]

Homeland Security, Mr. Thompson, for allowing me to speak for a minute.
  I have a question to ask. I was listening to Mr. Dingell when he 
spoke eloquently about his disappointment that this bill did not 
address security when it comes to mass transit, railroads, bus 
stations, and Amtrak. And when Mr. King got up to respond, he said the 
reason it doesn't contain any security for mass transit, railroads, bus 
stations, and Amtrak is because this is a port security bill. And he 
said it again. This is a port security bill. And he repeated it a third 
time. This is a port security bill.
  So can he please explain to me if this is a port security bill, that 
we can't put protections and security for our buses and Amtrak and mass 
transit and railroads, how it is that we managed to put a ban on 
Internet gaming?

                              {time}  0000

  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. BERKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. KING of New York. First of all, I am not responsible for the 
germaneness rules in the Senate. Secondly, this is the bill that came 
back to us from the Senate.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Before I yield again, I know you may not control the 
rules of the Senate, but how about the House? Do you have any say here?
  Mr. KING of New York. I would just add, if the gentlewoman will 
yield, this is the bill that came back to us from the Senate, and I 
would remind the gentlewoman that unlike the transit and rail 
provisions, which never passed this House, the Internet gambling bill 
legislation did pass this House by a vote of 317-93. There was at least 
some nexus which was lacking with the others.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, could you please 
explain the nexus to me between port security to keep this country 
safer and a ban on Internet gaming? Give me a break.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my chairman that the motion to 
instruct said to include rail and mass transit to the conferees. That 
is in response to your response to the gentlewoman from Las Vegas. We 
more or less said ``do it'' from the House perspective, and it wasn't 
done.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I was 
just trying to answer the gentlewoman's question. She thought I was 
giving her a break.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi, and 
I thank him for his excellent work on that legislation.
  I would say that the gentlewoman made a fine point here. The 
Democrats waited for days to find out what was in this bill as the 
Republicans deliberated by themselves. Finally it comes back over, and 
we learn what they included.
  Did it have anything on rail and rapid transit security? No. Did it 
have something on moving hazardous materials in a way that got them 
around densely populated areas? No. Did it have anything to do with 
ensuring that we screen for nuclear bombs on ships before they came 
into the ports of the United States? No.
  But what did they include? Well, they included an Internet gambling 
bill. Now, you would think given the fact that it was a port bill, you 
would think they would have something in it on riverboat gambling. But, 
no, nothing even on that.
  So, ladies and gentlemen, what they have produced is a fine piece of 
political pork that the Republican Party in secret has put together. 
Meantime, al Qaeda has their number one objective in the world still 
undealt with by the Republicans, and that is obtaining a nuclear weapon 
out of the former Soviet Union, bringing it to a port in the world, 
placing it in a container on that ship, bringing the ship into a port 
in the United States, and then detonating that nuclear bomb before it 
is ever taken off the ship. And the Republicans in this bill, do they 
require that there be screening for nuclear bombs before they leave for 
the United States? No.
  So, ladies and gentlemen, this bill on the central issue is a 
failure. The number one threat to our security, a nuclear bomb in a 
container on a ship, no requirement at all for the screening before it 
comes to our port. They have the screening after the nuclear bomb 
reaches the port in the United States. By then it is too late.
  So, ladies and gentlemen, it is like instead of buying a dog, they 
put up a ``beware of dog'' sign. So when the bomb has reached the port 
of New York or Boston or L.A., the only thing that will be there is 
``beware of dog.'' They refuse to put up the protection.
  Vote ``no'' on this terrible bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 14 minutes 
remaining.


                             General Leave

  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on the matter under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I assure the House I will not use the 14 minutes.
  I also at this stage would like to commend the staff for the 
tremendous work they have done throughout this process. I would like to 
thank Mandy Bowers, Matt McCabe, Amanda Halpern, Kevin Gronberg, Diane 
Berry, Sterling Marchand, Kerry Kinirons, Mark Klaassen, Mike Power, 
and also the people on the minority staff.
  In saying that, let me just say, Mr. Markey brought us into the new 
day, his eloquence, his soaring rhetoric brought us into the new day, 
but he uses the same tired arguments of yesterday, the arguments we 
hear time and again, the tired metaphors, the lame similes, he goes on 
and on.
  He says Democrats were kept out of the process. Democrats were 
involved every step of the way, every minute, until the Internet 
gambling came over, which we found out about for the first time at the 
same time he did. Now, he may want to talk to the minority leader in 
the Senate and ask him why he consented to this being in, why they 
wanted it in. That is not my problem.
  But the fact is, it is really wrong to suggest that there was any 
moment at all throughout the past 10 or 12 days, when at every stage of 
the way we ensured that the Democratic staff was there reporting back 
to their principals, I don't know where the gentleman from 
Massachusetts was. Maybe he was out buying a dog. I don't know. But the 
fact is if he had spoken with his staff, if he had spoken to the 
committee staff, if he had spoken to the ranking member, he would have 
known what was going on.
  Also, I waited patiently for 29\1/2\ minutes listening to the 
opposition trying to hear one person say one negative word about the 
port security bill. Finally, Mr. Markey came up with his argument and 
he was talking about detecting radiation overseas.
  The fact is, again in the spirit of bipartisanship and bicameralism, 
we adopted the language put forth by Senator Lautenberg in the Senate 
to have three pilot projects. So there we are agreeing with the Senator 
from New Jersey, which I guess is not good enough for the gentleman 
from Massachusetts.
  I would also say that this legislation goes right to the heart of the 
issues that we are trying to address. The gentleman from Massachusetts 
cannot accept that.
  But I will say for the other Members, certainly Mr. Pascrell, for the 
contributions that he made to this bill, to the ranking member, to Mr. 
Langevin, who has really been a leader in the whole issue of radiation 
portal monitors, they have been there.
  So I would again say let us celebrate the fact that we are passing 
historic

[[Page 21346]]

port security legislation tonight. Let us respect the fact that our 
committee, which is only in its second year, has passed major 
legislation. Let us respect the fact and acknowledge the fact that our 
committee paved the way. We showed the way for the Senate. We passed a 
bill which has been virtually intact, from the subcommittee to the 
committee to the House floor and now here tonight with the conference 
report.
  And rather than begrudging, rather than saying it could have been 
this or it could have been that, rather than let the perfect be the 
enemy of the good, let's accept this good legislation, let's go 
forward, let us realize we made the American people far safer. And we 
did it because of a bipartisan effort, which should have been 
bipartisan right to the last moment. Unfortunately, the naysayers tried 
to take this over. The fact is they cannot deny the reality. This is 
excellent legislation that makes our country safe. We should be proud.
  I urge the adoption of the resolution.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the very significant 
provisions in the SAFE Port Act that will go a long way to make our 
ports and waterways secure. I thank Chairman Young and Chairman King 
for their hard work on this legislation.
  I am particularly pleased with the inclusion of the Maritime Terminal 
Security Enhancement Act, legislation I authored in the wake of the 
Dubai Ports deal to ensure that the security at our ports remains in 
the hands of American citizens. The Maritime Terminal Security 
Enhancement Act would require Facility Security Officers to be American 
citizens. It would also provide for periodic, unannounced inspections 
of security at our port facilities, as well as place deadlines on the 
deployment of the Transportation Worker Identification Card to ensure 
the identity of our port workers; a long range vessel tracking system 
that will enable the Coast Guard to further extend our borders and 
monitor vessels bound for U.S. ports; and requires the Department of 
Homeland Security to issue regulations to require foreign merchant 
mariners to carry an enhanced crew member identification credential 
when calling on U.S. ports.
  The SAFE Port Act builds on the unprecedented work we did in the 
Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. I was proud to be an 
author of that bill and I am proud of the work we did to enhance port 
security in this bill.
  However, I am not proud, nor do I support the decision by the 
leadership in the other body to attach at the last minute and without 
consultation, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act. 
There is no question that Internet technology has rapidly and 
substantively changed over the past six years, with new advancements 
being made every day. It is therefore imperative that our thinking 
about how best to regulate activities such as Internet gaming also 
evolve with the times. Unfortunately, this bill does not take into 
account the significant advancements in the technology, nor does it 
include language I support to establish a commission to study whether 
Internet gaming can be properly regulated.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be reluctantly supporting the SAFE Port Act, as I 
am extremely disappointed with the action of the leadership in the 
other body to attach this non germane issue to an otherwise tremendous 
piece of legislation that will strengthen and enhance our ability to 
keep our nation's ports and waterways secure.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to see that we're 
finally seeing this very important and long overdue port security 
legislation on the House floor.
  There are 14 major ports in my home state of Florida, with the Port 
of Jacksonville in my hometown. And we have failed so far in devoting 
the money they need to protect their facility.
  Unfortunately, we're still failing to protect the 25 million 
passengers who ride Amtrak each year. 69,000 passengers ride Amtrak 
every day, and yet they don't qualify for any of the money being 
authorized in this bill and are offered no more protections than they 
have today. That is shameful.
  I can't believe that anyone in this House, following the bombings in 
Madrid and in London, doesn't believe that terrorists would attack an 
Amtrak train on the Northeast corridor that connects Washington, DC, 
New York, and Boston.
  This Republican Congress deserves an F for what they have done to 
protect transit and passenger rail in this country. They wasted an 
opportunity to protect the citizens who take public transit and 
passenger rail to work every day.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to state how deeply 
disappointed I am that the conference report for H.R. 4954, this 
vitally important bill that is meant to secure our ports and protect 
our nation from terrorists, has been amended to include internet gaming 
language.
  Internet gaming has nothing whatsoever to do with port security. It 
is irresponsible to insert this non-germane language into a homeland 
security measure.
  This Congress should not overreact by restricting the growing 
industry of online gaming without giving serious review to the 
potentially negative impacts of such a rash decision.
  We know that current efforts by states and the federal government to 
regulate internet gaming have pushed online consumers to illegal, black 
market sites that have little to no regulation.
  Online gaming is a potential economic opportunity for the State of 
Nevada and the entire country. Current estimates of online gaming 
revenues range from $7 billion to $10 billion for 2004 alone, with U.S. 
bettors providing at least $4 billion or more of that amount.
  Many nations, including England, are in the process of legalizing, 
regulating, and taxing online gaming.
  I, along with my colleagues from Nevada, Congresswoman Berkley and 
Congressman Porter, have introduced a bill, H.R. 5474, that would 
establish a nine-member commission to undertake a complete study of the 
internet gaming issue. The results of this study would allow the 
President, the Congress, and every state and tribal government to make 
informed decisions about this issue and presents a much better 
alternative to a knee-jerk total ban on the activity.
  I voted for H.R. 4954 because it is necessary that we secure our 
ports against those who wish to do us harm, but I do so with grave 
disappointment in the decision to add this nongermane internet gaming 
language.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to vote for the SAFE Ports Act 
when it was considered by Congress in May and I intend to do so 
tonight. However, I am disturbed that The Internet Gambling Prohibition 
and Enforcement Act was added to this bill during conference. My 
understanding is that this provision was slipped into the bill at the 
conclusion of the conference even though internet gambling has nothing 
to do with port security.
  I have long opposed The Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement 
Act since the federal government has no constitutional authority to ban 
or even discourage any form of internet gambling. In addition to being 
unconstitutional, this provision is likely to prove ineffective at 
ending internet gambling. Instead, by passing law proportion to ban 
internet gambling Congress will ensure that gambling is controlled by 
organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to 
today's futile ``war on drugs,'' shows that the government cannot 
eliminate demand for something like internet gambling simply by passing 
a law. Instead, this provision will force those who wish to gamble over 
the internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many 
cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members 
of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not operate 
internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be 
controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners and patrons 
of internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce 
contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be forced to rely on 
members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the 
profits of internet gambling will flow into organized crime. 
Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are 
able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits flowing to 
organized crime from internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a 
bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually increase 
organized crime's ability to control and profit from internet gambling!
  In conclusion, the ban on internet gambling violates the 
constitutional limits on federal power. Furthermore, laws such as this 
are ineffective in eliminating the demand for vices such as internet 
gambling; instead, they ensure that these enterprises will be 
controlled by organized crime. It is a shame to clutter an important 
and good piece of legislation like the Safe Ports Act with a blatantly 
unconstitutional power grab over the internet like the Internet 
Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the gentleman from 
Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in regards to the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act.
  As representative of the Port of Boston--I'm pleased that today's 
conference report takes

[[Page 21347]]

important steps towards better safeguarding our Nation's 361 sea and 
river ports--through the authorization of significant increases in port 
security grants for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2012, meaningful 
port worker security training provisions, and substantive container 
screening and scanning improvements.
  At the same time, I must say that I'm disappointed that the agreement 
under consideration does not include the language to strenghten rail 
and transit security passed by the U.S. Senate during its consideration 
of port security legislation.
  By including language to authorize $1.2 billion for freight and 
passenger rail security as well as $3.5 billion for mass transit 
security in a ports bill, the Senate clearly recognized that rail and 
mass transit have also been grossly underfunded, this in the face of 
repeated terrorist attacks against rail and transit systems worldwide--
from Paris, Tokyo, and Moscow to Madrid, London, and most recently, 
Mumbai.
  In furtherance of the Senate's action, just yesterday the House 
passed a motion to instruct the House conferees to accept the Senate's 
position on rail and mass transit security by a margin of 281-140. 
Regrettably however, the rail and transit language did not make it into 
this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, while this agreement is a good start towards securing 
our seaports and the international supply chain, I think we've missed a 
major opportunity to afford rail and transit similar respect.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support the 
Conference Report on H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act. This bipartisan 
legislation makes critical improvements to strengthen our domestic and 
international security efforts and provides the resources necessary to 
detect tampered cargo before it enters our ports. Passage of the SAFE 
Port Act today is vital to our national security.
  For Washington state, the SAFE Port Act will bring greater regional 
coordination, new security grants, increased Customs personnel for 
Puget Sound and radiation detection equipment that is both modern and 
appropriate for the Port of Tacoma's increased rail capacity.
  The SAFE Port Act also takes important steps to plan for and 
immediately recover from any incidents on our docks. With the increased 
role of western ports like the Port of Tacoma and the Port of Seattle 
in our global economy, we must ensure the free flow of commerce.
  Passage of the SAFE Port Act will help protect our communities, our 
critical infrastructure and our homeland. The SAFE Port Act will move 
America in the right direction.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for 
H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act.
  As a member of the Port Security Caucus and as an original co-sponsor 
of this legislation, I have been consistently fighting for a massive 
increase in funding and focus to secure our Nation's ports.
  But as the 9/11 Commission's failing grades have pointed out, over 
the last four years, the administration and the Republican Congress 
have done far too little to secure our Nation's critical 
infrastructure.
  Just earlier this week the Homeland Security Department announced its 
latest round of port security grants. The Port of Oakland in my 
district did not get a single penny even though it's the 4th busiest 
container port in the country and is a gateway to trade with Asia and 
the Pacific. That is just inexcusable.
  By authorizing $400 million in annual port security grants, the SAFE 
Port Act takes a step in the right direction. Now we have the 
responsibility to fund it.
  We must also fix the gaps that still remain by requiring 100% 
screening of cargo before it reaches our shores.
  At the same time I am disappointed that the Senate language to expand 
funding to secure our rail and transit systems was not included in this 
bill.
  The London and Mumbai rail and subway bombings happened on our watch. 
We should not adjourn this session without addressing this critical 
vulnerability.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the House and 
Senate were able to come together and address port security through the 
passage of H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act. This may be the most important 
piece of legislation we pass in the 109th Congress.
  Clearly our Nation's ports are critical to America's economic 
vitality. A major attack on the U.S. maritime transportation system 
would simply devastate the U.S. economy. Some 95% of American trade 
enters the U.S. through one of 361 seaports on board 8,500 foreign 
vessels and makes more than 55,000 port calls per year, which total 
worth is nearly 
$1 trillion dollars. Securing these and the rest of America's ports as 
well as the economic contributions they make must remain a top priority 
for each of us.
  As the proud Representative from California's 37th District, it is my 
responsibility to enhance the security at the Ports of Long Beach and 
Los Angeles, the largest port complex in the Nation and the third 
largest in the world. In fact, over 52% of all waterborne cargo moves 
through the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles alone.
  This is a bill rooted in sound policy. Many provisions of the SAFE 
Port Act was language in my legislation H.R. 478, the United States 
Seaport Multiyear Security Enhancement Act, which I introduced in 
February 2005. It was imperative that Congress passed a port security 
bill which included multi-funding and a broad approach to securing the 
entire international supply chain.
  I urge the President to sign the SAFE Port Act as soon as possible, 
as America's ports and those who live around them can wait no longer.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to clarify my 
``yes'' vote on Final Passage on the Conference Report H.R. 4954 SAFE 
Port Act. My ``yes'' vote is in full support of all the necessary 
Homeland Security and Port Security provisions included within the 
legislation, however, I do not support the inclusion of the non-germane 
and unnecessary prohibition on Internet Gaming. I am strongly opposed 
to the inclusion of this language and long felt that Congress does not 
have a comprehensive understanding of the complexities of this issue. 
It is based on this lack of knowledge that I introduced H.R. 5474, The 
Internet Gambling Study Commission Act. It is imperative that Congress 
fully understand the facts of internet gaming before coming to any rash 
decisions. The purpose of my bill is:
  To establish a commission to study issues posed by the continued 
spread and growth of interstate commerce with respect to Internet 
gambling.
  Although U.S. federal and state governments insist that online 
gambling is illegal, in reality it is thriving. There is a huge 
disconnect between current government policy and reality.
  Millions of U.S. residents gamble online every day without the 
protection of reliable regulatory structures that ensure age and 
identity verification, the integrity and fairness of the games, or that 
responsible gaming policies are followed.
  Neither U.S. federal nor state governments receive tax revenues from 
online gaming.
  Disrespect spreads for laws that are neither enforced nor evidently 
enforceable against an activity that enjoys wide and growing 
popularity.
  The online gaming industry creates no jobs in the United States and 
American businesses earn no returns from online gambling.
  Current inconsistencies in U.S. Internet gambling policy could lead 
to sanctions by the World Trade Organization (WTO).
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this inclusion of this language 
and look forward to working with my colleagues to enact my legislation, 
or some similar type of study legislation in the future.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to advance 
this important legislation. A few weeks ago, Presidnt Bush gave a 
speech in which he stated that our intelligence shows that al-Qaeda has 
two main goals--to destroy our nation physically through attacks such 
as 9/11; and to pursue a ``death by bleeding'' strategy in which 
terrorists destroy us economically. We could protect against al-Qaeda's 
first goal by shutting down our borders--but by cutting off America's 
life blood of trade, we would actually be helping al-Qaeda achieve its 
second goal.
  This bill is the right way to protect both our borders and our 
economy. It utilizes innovative systems to protect our citizens, and it 
provides new resources along our borders. Through programs such as the 
Customs-Trade Partnership against Terrorism, we bring the energy and 
experience of the trade community into our fight against terrorism. 
These programs, together with the bill's provisions modernizing our 
international trade data systems, also show that we can facilitate 
legitimate trade while at the same time providing information to our 
law enforcement officials to identify and stop threats.
  To defeat al-Qaeda and prevent it from achieving its goals of 
destroying America physically and economically, the Administration, 
Congress, our citizens in the private sector, and our international 
partners must work together--and trade cannot be seen as the enemy of 
security.
  I have made it a priority in this bill to ensure that through 
consultation and cooperative programs, all of these key partners are 
brought together so that we have the most effective and unified effort 
we can against terror and for trade.
  I congratulate all the Members of this Conference on this bill and 
look forward to its quick passage.

[[Page 21348]]


  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 409, 
noes 2, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 516]

                               AYES--409

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--2

     Flake
     Markey
       

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Case
     Castle
     Evans
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gutierrez
     Hefley
     Hyde
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Lewis (GA)
     Meehan
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Sabo
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tancredo
     Wilson (SC)

                              {time}  0032

  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina changed his vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on September 29, 2006, I was 
away from my official duties due to a family mater, and subsequently 
missed a recorded vote on Rollcall No. 516, on final passage of H.R. 
4954, a bill to improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced 
layered defenses, and for other purposes. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________