[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6908-6917]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4954, SECURITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY 
                           FOR EVERY PORT ACT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 789 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 789

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4954) to improve maritime and cargo security 
     through enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour, with 40 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and 20 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Homeland Security now printed 
     in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no 
     amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.
  The structured rule provides for 1 hour of general debate with 40 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security, and 20 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

                              {time}  1745

  It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and 
provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
by the Committee on Homeland Security now printed in the bill shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall 
be considered as read.
  This rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Homeland 
Security and makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules 
Committee report accompanying the resolution.
  It provides that the amendments printed in the report accompanying 
the

[[Page 6909]]

resolution may be offered only in the order printed in the report and 
may be offered only by a Member designated in the report. They shall be 
considered as read and shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent. 
They shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a 
demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of 
the Whole.
  Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments 
printed in the report and provides the minority with one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this balanced rule 
providing for consideration of the bipartisan Security and 
Accountability for Every Port, or SAFE Port, Act. The rule, which makes 
in order 10 Democrat amendments and five Republican amendments, will 
allow the House to begin its consideration of this bill, which has 80 
bipartisan cosponsors, was approved unanimously through its 
subcommittee and full committee markups in the Committee on Homeland 
Security, and represents a responsible and thoughtful approach to 
providing security at our Nation's ports.
  The SAFE Port Act improves cargo security first by enhancing security 
at United States ports. It requires the Department of Homeland Security 
to deploy nuclear radiological detection systems at 22 seaports by the 
end of fiscal year 2007, covering 98 percent of all incoming maritime 
containers. It provides risk-based funding through a dedicated Port 
Security Grant Program and requires the Secretary of Homeland Security 
to coordinate Federal, State, local, and private sector security 
activities by establishing a streamlined, integrated network of virtual 
and physical command centers.
  Second, this legislation improves cargo security by tracking and 
protecting containers that are en route to the United States. This 
legislation will require the Secretary to develop uniform standards for 
sealing containers entering the United States and provide for the 
improved utilization of private sector advances in security, including 
research and development of new technologies and applications. It also 
improves the International Trade Data System and directs the Department 
to conduct additional research and testing on technology integration, 
access control, and data-sharing capacities.
  Third, this legislation improves our port security by preventing 
threats from ever reaching the United States. It improves the Automated 
Targeting System by collecting enhanced cargo data from importers 
bringing goods through U.S. ports. It codifies the existing Container 
Security Initiative and requires the Secretary to refuse entry to high-
risk cargo that the host nation does not inspect. It also authorizes 
the Department to lend detection equipment and provide training to host 
nations so that our closest trading partners can utilize the best 
technology available anywhere in the world. Obviously, that is meant to 
keep America and our trading partners safe.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation takes a responsible and bipartisan 
approach to protecting American citizens from the threat of terrorism 
being brought to our shores through our ports. It includes a provision 
that requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to continue his 
aggressiveness and ceaseless efforts to evaluate emerging detection and 
screening technologies and measure those technologies against real-
world performance metrics before deploying them in the field to ensure 
that they are effective in protecting the American people.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation to improve our Nation's ports.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions), my friend, for yielding me the time; and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this restrictive 
rule, which permits the House to consider only one half of the 
amendments which were brought to the Rules Committee last night. Under 
this rule, only 15 of the approximately 30 amendments offered by 
Members are made in order, while the remaining half are blocked from 
consideration.
  I find it astonishing, though not surprising, that my friends in the 
majority, who just in the last hour were preaching ethics reform and 
civility here in the House, are coming to the floor again with a 
restrictive rule.
  The rule, which was reported out of the Rules Committee along a 
straight party-line vote, mocks the public's call for reforming the way 
we go about doing business in the people's House. Clearly, the majority 
is good at talking the talk, but as the American people are beginning 
to understand, they are failing miserably to walk the walk.
  In blocking these amendments from being considered by the House 
today, Republicans are sending a message loud and clear that protecting 
their political majority in the House is more important than protecting 
the American people in their own homes.
  Dangerously, the rule prohibits the House from considering a 
Democratic amendment offered by Representatives Nadler, Oberstar, 
Markey, and others which requires that every single shipping container 
be scanned and sealed before being loaded onto a ship destined for the 
United States.
  Today, barely 5 percent of all containers coming into the United 
States through our ports are scanned. Unfortunately, Republicans, again 
along a party-line vote, blocked this commonsense security-based 
amendment from being debated and considered by the full House. In doing 
so, they have signed their names on the dotted line that they do not at 
this time support inspecting 100 percent screening requirements at 
America's ports.
  Mr. Speaker, as someone who represents a district which depends 
greatly upon three major international ports for economic activity, I 
take issue with the majority's not allowing this amendment being 
considered today. I take issue with their conscious decision to block 
the House from considering an amendment which will, without a doubt, 
make my constituents and the American people safer.
  Sadly, the rule also fails to make in order an amendment which was 
offered by the ranking Democrat of the Homeland Security Committee, my 
good friend and trusted advisor on homeland security issues, 
Representative Bennie Thompson from Mississippi. The ranking member's 
amendment recognizes that we cannot continue asking Customs officials 
to do more with less.
  I just had this, coming from an international flight, discussion with 
a fine gentleman in the Customs Department. Thirty-two years he has 
been there, and he indicates to me just how difficult it is for them to 
do more with less.
  The amendment that Mr. Thompson offered authorized funding for U.S. 
Customs and Border Patrol to hire 1,600 more officers at America's 
seaports.
  Representative Langevin offered an amendment that authorized $117 
million for the purchase of advanced radiation portal monitors at all 
our ports to ensure that Customs officials have the most up-to-date 
equipment to do their job.
  I kept hearing all this stuff last night about they do not have this 
technology and everything. Well, I have seen this technology in 
Vilnius, Lithuania, as one example. In Rotterdam, I saw this 
technology. It worked. At the very least, what we need is whatever the 
state of art is at this point in the hopes that it will work and that 
we can improve it as time progresses.
  Under this rule, however, both of these amendments, Mr. Thompson's 
and Mr. Langevin's, and so many others are blocked from consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, as I previously mentioned, I am proud to represent a 
region in our country which is home to some of our largest 
international seaports, Port Everglades, the Port of Palm Beach, and 
the Port of Miami, all within just minutes of my home. They have led 
the way in security improvements in America. The three, Port Everglades 
in particular, have all enjoyed national and international best-
practices recognition.

[[Page 6910]]

  So when I come to the floor today and consider the underlying 
legislation, I have to ask, does this legislation get our ports to 
where they need to be regarding security? The answer to this question 
is a resounding no.
  I have traveled all over this world visiting international ports to 
learn about their operations and how they secure their cargo. Among the 
places that I visited have been Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo, Rotterdam, 
Lisbon, and others. These are some of the largest ports in the world 
outside of the United States, and all of them manage to inspect more 
cargo than we do without slowing down their port operations.
  It was interesting to me, in the run-up to the Singapore Trade 
Agreement, we required in that agreement that Singapore inspect more of 
their cargo than we do in our own country. So I ask, if they can do it, 
why can we not?
  The rhetoric from the other side of the aisle is at an all-time high. 
They talk about bipartisanship, but they shy away from working 
together. I give credit at least to the ranking member and Chair of 
this committee for trying. We give them opportunities to make good 
bills better, but then they block the House from considering our ideas. 
They talk about securing America, but then balk when it comes time to 
actually do something about it.
  Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today to do something about a 
real problem which we all know exists at America's seaports. This is 
not about showing the terrorists our weaknesses, as some in the 
majority have suggested. Rather, it is about giving our Customs and 
Border Patrol officers the necessary tools and directives to do 
everything that they possibly can to stop attacks from happening here 
in the United States.
  The sad thing is, Mr. Speaker, it may not be until an attack occurs 
that we will actually get this right.
  This rule and the underlying legislation fails to meet the needs of 
our ports and the expectations of the American people, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this fair and balanced rule is one that involves a bunch 
of cosponsors of Democrats and Republicans. It has been well thought 
out. It has required a lot of thought process. This afternoon you are 
going to hear from a number of Members on the Republican side who will 
articulate how balanced and wonderful and how we have taken time to 
make sure that we dealt with the minority, that we dealt with the 
administration, that we looked at other ports around the world, that we 
are trying to do those things that are best that will secure our ports 
and get them done as quickly as possible but will also present 
something that can be done in a balanced and proper way. I think that 
that is the argument you are going to hear today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear 
friend, Mr. Sessions, for the time.
  I rise today in strong support of the rule and the underlying 
legislation.

                              {time}  1800

  Chairman Peter King has worked in an extraordinary fashion to create 
a piece of legislation with the help of his ranking member, Mr. 
Thompson, and the entire committee, that is worthy of our support. They 
are the first ones to admit it is not perfect, but it certainly moves 
us forward in an important way toward further port security.
  For example, in the community that I am honored to represent, Mr. 
Speaker, the Port of Miami, that port alone, of course, is one of the 
largest in the country and in the world, and its annual operating 
security costs have increased from $4 million in 2001 to $16 million in 
the last year.
  This legislation, for example, authorizes $400 million annually to be 
awarded to high-risk ports, such as the Port of Miami, in grants. It 
will be used precisely for purchasing and upgrading security equipment 
and enhancing terrorism preparedness.
  There are amendments. We made 10 Democrat amendments in order and 
five Republican amendments in order. It is a fair rule. It is a fair 
rule that we bring forth today.
  For example, the Bass amendment would allow State and local agencies 
to apply for reimbursement for operational expenses and overhead costs, 
such as, for example, waterborne patrols. Those are functions that used 
to be carried out and paid for by the Coast Guard. Now the ports have 
to pay for them. So it is taken care of by that amendment.
  So it is a fair rule, bringing forth a very important piece of 
legislation, making in order twice as many Democrat amendments as 
Republican amendments. Nevertheless, it is still a good rule. I support 
the rule. I strongly support the underlying legislation and would ask 
all of our colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  My colleague from Florida says that they made 10 Democrat amendments 
in order and five Republican amendments, and that is true. But not a 
single one of those is more important than the three that you did not 
make in order.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the distinguished 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the SAFE Port Act, 
because it is important for the security of our Nation, but I rise in 
reluctant opposition to this restrictive rule.
  As a member of the Homeland Security Committee and an original 
cosponsor of the underlying legislation, I understand that port 
security is national security. We need this bill, Mr. Speaker, to keep 
America safe. However, this rule does not permit debate on an important 
amendment that I attempted to offer.
  My amendment would strengthen our security by requiring the Domestic 
Nuclear Detection Office to develop a report back to Congress of a plan 
to purchase and deploy radiation portal detectors at our ports of 
entry. My amendment would also authorize additional funds to help pay 
for these detectors.
  Our intelligence analysts tell us one of the greatest risks our 
country faces is the threat that a terrorist will smuggle nuclear 
material across our borders or through our ports and detonate a dirty 
bomb or a nuclear device in one of our cities. The technology, Mr. 
Speaker, exists to scan cargo for this radioactive material, and DHS is 
in the process of deploying it.
  In addition, DHS is in the process of awarding a contract for the 
next generation of detectors, which will cost at least twice as much as 
the current generation. However, a recent GAO report determined that 
DHS needs an additional $300 million to purchase and deploy the 3,000 
current generation monitors.
  The report indicated that with current funding, DHS will be unable to 
deploy the monitors by its target date of 2009. In December I offered 
an amendment to require the full deployment of these monitors within 1 
year. This amendment passed the Homeland Security Committee with 
bipartisan support. The amendment that I offered to the Rules Committee 
is a less drastic step but goes a long way towards keeping us safe. By 
requiring DHS to figure out what types of monitors they need at 
different locations, DHS will provide us with a better assessment of 
exactly how much this program will actually cost.
  Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot afford to wait any longer. Defeating 
the previous question will allow the House to consider both my 
amendment and Ranking Member Thompson's important amendment to increase 
the number of port inspectors over the next 5 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the 
previous question, voting to protect our ports and border crossings 
from nuclear material being smuggled across our borders and passing the 
SAFE Port Act.

[[Page 6911]]


  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I spoke about this fair and balanced rule. 
We have also spoken about how great the legislation is.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman who is the chairman of the Committee on Homeland 
Security, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the rule providing 
for House consideration of the SAFE Port Act.
  Mr. Speaker, none of us will ever forget what happened on September 
11, 2001. Certainly in my district, there were well over 100 people 
were killed. My district is very close to the Port of New York and New 
Jersey, and many Members of this House suffered similarly on September 
11.
  When I was seeking the position of Homeland Security chairman last 
year, I made it a point to emphasize how important it was that we 
address the issue of port security. I am proud to say that prior to the 
whole Dubai Ports controversy, Chairman Dan Lungren, Congresswoman Jane 
Harman, Ranking Member Sanchez began work on this port security bill. 
So we were ready to move, and the Dubai Ports controversy gave us the 
window of opportunity to move forward.
  As a result of that, with very close consultation and cooperation 
throughout this process, both at the subcommittee level and the full 
committee level, we have legislation which passed unanimously out of 
the subcommittee and then passed unanimously by a 29-0 vote last week 
out of the full committee.
  In saying that, let me pay special thanks to the ranking member of 
the full committee, Mr. Thompson, who, again, both he and his staff 
were exceptionally cooperative as this process went forward.
  Now, we operated on the presumption that significant progress has 
been made in port security since September 11. However, we need to 
finish the job, to ensure that these programs and others provide a 
robust, risk-based system for securing our vital international supply 
chain through point of origin of goods until arrival here in U.S. 
seaports.
  The SAFE Port Act addresses port security enhancements in three main 
areas: strengthening security measures at foreign ports and improving 
risk-based targeting of suspicious cargo; improving security of cargo 
in transit; and making much needed security upgrades at U.S. ports.
  I must point out also, Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill includes an 
amendment offered in committee by the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. 
Ginny Brown-Waite, which requires aggressive evaluation and deployment 
of the best available technology to screen incoming cargo. This 
amendment, offered by Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite, passed by a vote 
of 33-0.
  Mr. Speaker, since 9/11, the House has repeatedly voted to support 
risk-based funding decisions with respect to Homeland Security. This 
legislation enhances this risk-based strategy that ensures our dollars 
are spent in areas that provide maximum security benefits.
  I want to emphasize also how there was the spirit of cooperation at 
the subcommittee level, the committee level, and I think it is safe to 
say, in fact I would emphasize the fact that everyone on the Homeland 
Security Committee feels very, very strongly about protecting every 
American life by doing all we can to protect America's ports and indeed 
all of America from any future possible terrorist attack.
  There can be differences about means. There can be differences about 
exactly how we achieve that. I feel very secure, very confident, very 
proud of the legislation that we passed. But it serves no purpose for 
anyone to be suggesting that there is anyone in the committee or House 
who is not absolutely dedicated to preserving every American life and 
doing all we can to enhance American security.
  So I urge my colleagues to adopt this rule, reject any attempt to 
politicize the debate and move forward with this bipartisan bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if we had made one amendment in 
order, it would have been satisfactory on this side, the one that was 
offered by my good friend Mr. Nadler, who I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this rule does not make in order an 
amendment that was defeated 18-16 on a practically party-line vote and 
is the key difference, and it is why this rule ought to be defeated.
  The gentleman from New York says a risk-based strategy. Why should we 
risk the lives of millions of people by assuming that we know which 
container will contain the atomic bomb or the radiological bomb? We 
don't know that. We can't know that.
  The only safety we can have is to inspect 100 percent of the 
containers, not in New York but in Hong Kong, before they are put on a 
ship bound for the United States. That is the essence of the amendment, 
the Nadler-Markey amendment that the Republicans won't accept and won't 
permit us to debate on the floor.
  They say the technology doesn't exist. The technology most certainly 
exists. It is done in Hong Kong today. Mr. Gingrey spoke about a 
company in his district that wants to sell the tamper-proof seals that 
will tell us if the container, once scanned, is tampered with. But the 
Department of Homeland Security is not interested.
  This bill contains a study, an amendment by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite 
that the Department of Homeland Security should study whether it is 
feasible to have 100 percent scanning. We passed that amendment on this 
floor 2 years ago. It was the Nadler amendment. It is in the law. It 
said they should report back in 90 days, 90 days from 2 years ago. They 
haven't bothered reporting back, because they are not interested in 
this. This is another waste of time.
  The fact is, a risk-based strategy, they will simply put the atomic 
bomb or the radiological bomb in a low-risk container from Wal-Mart. 
The greatest risk we face is that a good company will have a container 
with sneakers in Indonesia on the way to the port, and the driver will 
stop for lunch, and while he is stopping for lunch, some terrorist will 
take out the sneakers and put in a bomb and the bill of lading will be 
fine.
  The people who say we can't do this are the same people who told us 2 
years ago we couldn't get a bill of lading for every container 24 hours 
in advance, and they told us we couldn't get every person searched 
before he got on an airplane.
  If we really want to make this country safer, we must debate on this 
floor this amendment, the Nadler-Markey amendment, to say, before any 
container gets put on a ship bound for the United States, it must be 
scanned electronically to see what is in it; it should be sealed with a 
tamper-proof seal that will tell us if it has been tampered with; and 
the results of the scan should be transmitted electronically to people 
in the United States who will look at that seal.
  It is being done now in Hong Kong, except that because no one in the 
Department of Homeland Security is interested, the results of those 
scans are on tapes that are stored there because no one in this country 
has time to read those tapes.
  For shame.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, once again articulating this balanced rule 
and fair and wonderful legislation, we continue to talk about what the 
legislation stands for without attempting to scare people but rather to 
give the substance of what the bill is about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Economic 
Security, Infrastructure Protection and Cybersecurity Subcommittee, Mr. 
Lungren.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that this is an 
attempt to have a balanced bill. I have worked as hard as I can with 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and with the ranking 
member on my subcommittee, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, to try and respond to a 
true challenge that we have before us, and that is the challenge of

[[Page 6912]]

terrorists attempting to do harm to our country by going through our 
ports.
  The very nature of our ports, the very genius of our ports, which is 
the just-in-time delivery, the inventory that is basically carried on 
ships these days, instead of stationary in large buildings on land, the 
very easy transfer of them from ships to trucks to be able to get into 
the middle of our country within the shortest period of time, times 
that would have been unimaginable just years ago, that very ingenuity, 
that creativity, also creates the vulnerability.
  It is true that, following 9/11, we focused, not exclusively but more 
than any other area, on our aviation system. Now we have an opportunity 
to try and put a greater emphasis on security for our ports.
  I was gone from this place for 16 years; 9/11 was the event that 
compelled me to return. I grew up in the shadows of one of the great 
harbors of this country, Long Beach. I worked there one summer when I 
was in college.

                              {time}  1815

  I have been able to see the tremendous growth and the change in the 
way our ports operate. I am proud of our ports. I would do nothing, I 
would do nothing to try and put them at risk. And I would say this base 
bill is a very good bill.
  When I hear some of the discussion about the rule, it reminds me of 
my prior service in the House when I served for 10 years as a minority 
Member, where we did not have a right to a motion to recommit. We were 
given an opportunity for a motion to recommit when the Rules Committee 
decided they would give it to us.
  Under the Republican rules of the House, a motion to recommit is 
given to the minority on every major bill. So those elements of concern 
that have been expressed by the minority side of substance of 
amendments that are not allowed under this bill we know can be put into 
a motion to recommit.
  Now, that does not mean I am going to support it, because I think 
good and sufficient arguments can be made against some of the 
amendments that wish to be presented here in the floor and in the 
substance of the motion to recommit. But I just hope in the discussion 
on this rule and the discussion on the underlying bill we do not lose 
that sense of bipartisanship that has really been a watchword of this 
attempt to provide us with the response to a true challenge in this 
country.
  The very vote that we had, 29-0 coming out of our committee, the fact 
that we have more than 80 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, 
gives the very indication of the bipartisan nature of this bill.
  I get involved in partisan arguments from time to time, as you well 
know. But this institution does itself proud when it responds to the 
challenges that are out there facing our constituents. This committee, 
the Homeland Security Committee, has served this House well by its 
bipartisan approach under first our former chairman, Mr. Cox, and now 
our current chairman, Mr. King.
  The Members on the Democratic side have worked very hard I think to 
work with us in a bipartisan way. So I hope the tenor of the debate 
tonight does not mislead people who may be listening into thinking we 
are not doing the peoples' business. We are doing the peoples' 
business. I am proud of the work that we are doing here. This is a good 
bill. We will debate some additional amendments. We will have a motion 
to recommit. And whatever comes out of that, this will still be a good 
bill.
  Please support this rule and support this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, 
my good friend, Ms. Harman from California.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. 
I commend him for his service on the Rules Committee and also on the 
Intelligence Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule but also in support of 
the comments that just were made by the bill's co-author, Mr. Lungren.
  I support bipartisanship. To my marrow, I support bipartisanship. I 
think that this bill, which he and I have co-authored, is an excellent 
bill; and there will be plenty of time tomorrow to debate it. I hope 
that debate will be in a true bipartisan spirit.
  My opposition to the rule, Mr. Speaker, is that there are missed 
opportunities. There are things we could have and should have done in 
this rule that we did not do. What is wrong with this rule is that the 
legislation will not have the benefit of several important provisions 
which, in fact, were in bills before us. I want to explain what I mean.
  The Homeland Security SAFE Port Act did include a provision to 
accelerate the Coast Guard's Deepwater Program so that we can replace 
outdated planes and boats sometime before my new baby granddaughter 
graduates from college.
  I doubt that a single Member of the House opposes modernizing the 
Coast Guard fleet. All of us know that this Federal agency has done 
more than any other, at least in my view, to defend America and stretch 
scarce dollars to the breaking point after 9/11.
  However, in the manager's amendment made in order under this rule, we 
are deleting the Deepwater Program language. I think that is a mistake.
  Secondly, we have already been talking about the issue of 100 percent 
scanning and sealing of containers. It is something that I strongly 
support. Identical language to language defeated in the Homeland 
Security Committee and not allowed to be presented on the floor, was 
included and reported in legislation by the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee.
  My point here is that, on a bipartisan basis, at least one committee 
of this House has already approved this language. Now it is not in the 
version of the bill before us but also it is not made in order as an 
amendment to this bill. That language would help make a good bill a 
better bill.
  The process to develop the bill is good. The process in the Rules 
Committee was bad. I urge a no vote on the rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, once again continuing, the majority side, 
to present a fair and balanced rule with the substance of the bill, I 
yield 4 minutes to our next speaker, the gentlemen from Lehigh Valley, 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the rule 
and in support of the underlying bill, H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act of 
2006.
  This is a bipartisan bill, as has been stated, that takes a 
commonsense approach to improving the security of America's ports. The 
bill authorizes $821 million annually for port security programs. It 
requires the Department of Homeland Security to deploy nuclear and 
radiological detection systems at 22 U.S. seaports by the end of fiscal 
year 2007, an action that will cover 98 percent of incoming maritime 
containers.
  Further, it makes sure that the people working at our port facilities 
are properly cleared and identified by forcing DHS to set deadlines for 
the implementation of the Transportation Worker Information Credential 
Program, or commonly called TWIC, a biometrically enhanced 
identification card system designed to make sure that those who would 
seek to commit acts of terrorism against us are not allowed to work 
within the U.S. port system.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also happy to see that the bill codifies in law the 
establishment of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, or DNDO. 
Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to visit the DNDO facility at 
the Nevada test site.
  Mr. Speaker, I am firmly convinced of the importance of maintaining 
the vitality of this organization. The DNDO has been one of the most 
important missions within the DHS, the detection and identification of 
nuclear materials. During my visit, I observed firsthand the testing of 
nuclear and radiological countermeasures, including detection devices 
designed to identify vehicles transporting nuclear explosive devices, 
fissile material, radiological material intended for illicit use.

[[Page 6913]]

  The SAFE Port Act requires the DNDO to conduct testing of next-
generation nuclear radiological detection equipment and to put forth a 
time line for completing installation of such equipment at all US 
seaports.
  Finally, I am grateful to Chairman King for his willingness to accept 
my addition to section 1812 of the act, which appears in the manager's 
amendment. My addition to section 1812 allows contract logistics 
providers to be eligible for inclusion in the Customs-Trade Partnership 
Act Against Terrorism, or commonly known as C-TPAT, an important tool 
in the public-private sector alliance designed to make sure that goods 
shipped by manufacturers internationally are safe.
  Contract logistics providers manage the movement and warehousing of 
goods and have access to critical information about the status of 
shipments throughout the supply chain. Given our goal of securing the 
entire supply chain, it is logical that companies providing services 
critical to the overall movement of goods should be allowed to 
voluntarily seek membership in C-TPAT.
  For all of these reasons, I support the rule and underlying bill, 
H.R. 4954.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to 
advise each of us how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
has 14 minutes remaining.
  The gentlemen from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has 11\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), my good friend.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida for allowing me to speak against this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not support this rule as it flies in the face of 
bipartisanship shown by the Homeland Security Committee. It is 
inexcusable to not allow an up or down vote on many of the amendments 
that appeared before the Rules Committee, including my amendment 
increasing the number of Customs inspectors assigned at seaports, the 
Nadler-Markey amendment advocating 100 percent phase-in screening of 
cargo, and the Langevin amendment on radiation portal monitoring.
  Silencing debate on port security and not allowing Republican and 
Democrats of this House to consider those amendments on the floor keep 
all of us from doing our jobs constituents put us here to do.
  If those who refuse to allow these amendments to be considered by the 
House did so because they were afraid that they were not going to pass, 
then I ask them to think about this: maybe these amendments would have 
passed because they are sound policy and the types of things that we 
need to do, serve and protect the American people.
  If they were refused because the majority did not want to take hard 
votes that their constituents might disagree with, I implore those who 
make these decisions to put America's safety first before politics. We 
must remember that homeland security is not a Democratic or Republican 
issue, it is an American issue; and those in this House must treat it 
as so.
  If our ports are attacked, if a cargo container is blown up, those 
affected will be all stripes, colors and political affiliations. It is 
about time this House started legislating as such.
  Mr. Speaker, let us look at the amendments the Rules majority refused 
to give an up or down vote on.
  First, my amendment authorized $67 million for 400 Customs and Border 
Patrol inspectors to be assigned at seaports over the next 4 years. 
With all of the talk of how we need to shore up our ports here and 
abroad, why not put our money where our mouth is and get enough people 
to do the job? One of the major deficiencies of our port security is 
that we do not have enough inspectors at U.S. and foreign seaports.
  Second, the rule rejects Mr. Langevin's amendment which increases 
radiation portal monitors, increases funding by $117 million. What is 
the majority afraid of? That the American people may discover that this 
country spends 57 times the amount of money on a missile defense system 
that does not work?
  Finally, this rule does not include the amendment offered by 
Representatives Nadler, Markey and Oberstar, requiring 100 percent 
container scanning phased in over 5 years. Currently, only about 5 
percent of that cargo is screened; 95 percent is not. This amendment 
would have fixed that.
  Let's stop playing politics with America's security. Let's have an 
open exchange of ideas. It is about time that we stopped hiding behind 
rules that leave America less secure.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule and the substance that we are debating here is 
very important and one which, to support the balance that we have, the 
committee heard many of the amendments that had been discussed in 
subcommittees and in full committee. They were voted down twice as a 
result of substantive debate and all of the members of the committee 
being together.
  The Rules Committees was aware of that. We took testimony, we heard 
from people, and we made a decision. Our rule, the one we are putting 
together, is fair: 10 Democrat amendments, 5 Republican amendments. We 
feel good about what we are doing. The substance of the bill is strong, 
the substance of the bill is balanced, and the substance of the bill 
aims directly at what our national self-interest is as it relates to 
protecting our ports.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
support of the rule for H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act.
  For too long we have been content with minimal upgrades to port 
security while vigorously bolstering our airports and borders. Do not 
get me wrong. These areas of security are vital, but so are our ports. 
As a Member from Florida, I am extremely conscious of the Nation's 
vulnerability in this area.

                              {time}  1830

  Florida has 14 ports, all of which are in desperate need of the grant 
funding that this bill provides for infrastructure, technology and 
security upgrades.
  The SAFE Port Act pushes us leaps and bounds beyond our current 
security. We fund port of entry inspection offices, port security 
programs and port worker-identification systems.
  I was especially proud to contribute an amendment in the Homeland 
Security Committee to move DHS toward advanced technology. I beg to 
differ with my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle. This is 
not a study. As a matter of fact, the amendment requires the Secretary 
of Homeland Security to aggressively pursue new cargo screening 
technologies within 1 year. The Secretary must then work with foreign 
governments within 6 months to deploy such technology.
  This amendment, and the underlying bill, does not falsely promise 
some fantastic pie-in-the-sky technology. Though the ICIS project of 
100 percent screening in Hong Kong is promising, it is still too 
unproven that we would ever consider demanding immediate implementation 
of it. There are still density problems that exist. Cargo is being 
screened at some of the terminals, but no one is analyzing this data 
because of these problems prior to shipment. When the technology is in 
place, of course we will use it.
  Every Member of this body on both sides of the aisle wants to make 
sure that our screening is adequate, more than adequate, that it is 
state-of-the-art. And when that technology is here, we certainly will 
use it.
  In the meantime, I do not believe that we should waste taxpayer 
dollars on pie-in-the-sky promises. Instead, the bill requires DHS to 
implement realistic technology to increase our overseas cargo 
screening.
  Our constituents require and deserve a secure America, and this bill 
pushes DHS further than ever to deliver that.

[[Page 6914]]

  As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am committed to 
never allowing DHS to become complacent. This bill is not the end of 
port security legislation. Rather, it is a good starting line for us to 
begin the race, running faster than ever to secure America with 
realistic technology and real results.
  I certainly want to thank Chairman King as well as Congressman 
Lungren and Congresswoman Harman for the opportunity to work with them 
on this very significant legislation.
  I urge all Members to vote in favor of the rule and, of course, the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  My colleague, Mr. Sessions, my friend, related earlier that in full 
committee these matters were debated and were voted down. I would 
remind him that the Nadler amendment passed in the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee on a voice vote and that the Lungren amendment 
passed in the Homeland Security Committee, an appropriate jurisdiction.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee), my good friend.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida for his leadership.
  In this debate, I have listened to the encouragement and the 
entreaties to be bipartisan, and let me say that I accept that call. In 
fact, I believe that we have made a step toward national security, but 
I am, like my good friend from Florida and a number of other of my 
colleagues, somewhat frustrated and distraught that, based upon the 
recent reflection of the former Inspector General of the U.S. Homeland 
Security Department; I want to remind my colleague that the IG's office 
is an independent office that is not to be tainted by any partisan 
politics. They indict in a bipartisan way. They criticize without 
partisanship. They call a spade a spade. They suggest what can be 
fixed, and they try to create an atmosphere in which we can improve the 
conditions in which that department operates.
  The Inspector General of the U.S. Homeland Security Department has 
said that the container security initiative is a complete failure; it 
does not work. I think the American people need to know that.
  So the frustration is that we were bipartisan in the committee, and I 
know our good friends know that by supporting the gentlewoman from 
Florida's amendment, but we could not get the Nadler-Markey amendment 
that a number of us are cosponsors on. I am an original cosponsor of 
that amendment.
  The issue that Mr. Markey and Mr. Nadler have raised on a continuous 
basis, but more importantly, forget about Members who may be described 
as having some partisanship, if you will, underlying the backdrop, but 
the Inspector General is saying that we are near the precipice of 
another horrible incident, and that incident could include a tanker 
full of weapons of mass destruction or a container full, which is what 
the Nadler-Markey amendment suggests, 100 percent scrutiny and clearing 
of the containers coming to our ports.
  Let me just conclude by saying, let us see if we can find a way, vote 
for the motion to recommit, but let me just say that, in addition, I am 
grateful for an amendment that talks about including the congested 
neighborhoods near ports in the disaster training, but I am 
disappointed that an amendment that focuses on providing opportunity 
for minority, women-owned and small businesses in doing this disaster 
fix-up was eliminated.
  Let us hope we can make a better bill, and let us hope we do that as 
we move this bill forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on the significant step forward 
toward national security and safety for our seaports that this bill 
represents. 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.
  However, I remain distraught and angered by the fact that the rule 
under which we consider this bill today prevents a true democratic 
debate to take place, and limits participation in crafting this bill to 
be relevant both to all stakeholders and all Americans.
  There are 15 amendments accepted in order, and I am thankful that one 
of my amendments has been included in this list, including 
neighborhoods in at-risk areas surrounding a seaport.
  However, this list should not be so exclusive. I find it hard to 
believe that the other 19 amendments were baseless enough to warrant 
exclusion from floor consideration.
  I find it appalling that among the amendments declined was an 
amendment to preserve consideration of women- and minority-owned 
businesses in the Homeland Security grant program and an amendment that 
removes the restriction on the use of funds received through the Port 
Security Grant Program to pay for the salaries, benefits, overtime 
compensation, and other costs of additional security personnel for 
State and local agencies for activities required by the Area Maritime 
Transportation Security Plan. Lastly, I am frustrated by the decision 
by the Rules committee to not allow debate on an amendment by Mr. 
Markey and Mr. Nadler that requires immediate attention and 
consideration.
  Their amendment requires 100 percent of packages entering our 
Nation's ports to be scanned. We need to make sure the contents of a 
package are indeed what the paperwork says they are. While I support 
the Markey Amendment goal of 100 percent inspection of containers, I 
think it is also important for us to consider and pursue innovative 
technology and supplemental data gathering mechanisms to ensure that we 
are as informed as possible about the packages entering our country.
  Nonetheless, this amendment was an opportunity to bring a crucial 
debate off the TV networks and out of the newspapers and onto the floor 
of the House of Representatives. I am disappointed that the Rules 
committee shut down this debate.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule which unfairly limits 
the involvement of fellow Members of Congress in protecting our 
seaports and preserving our homeland security.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the gentleman from 
Florida that the majority does not have any additional speakers at this 
time and that I would welcome any opportunity that he would have to 
utilize his time up with the knowledge that I then would close as 
appropriate.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend for 
that. Would the Speaker advise how much time I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the most 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who has 
advanced this legislation in a meaningful way, whose amendment was not, 
I repeat, was not allowed.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Nadler, Mr. Oberstar and I requested an amendment to be put in 
order, and the Republicans said no. In the former Soviet Union, there 
is deadly nuclear weapons material that is still unsecured that al 
Qaeda could purchase, bring to a port in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, 
put it on a ship and bring it into the port of the United States and 
detonate a nuclear weapon without ever having been inspected.
  Now, the amendment which we asked the Republicans to put in order was 
one that required all containers coming into the United States to be 
screened overseas before they are put on ships to come into American 
ports so that we can identify which ship has the nuclear weapon.
  In the Homeland Security Committee, our amendment lost 18-16. The 
Republican majority refuses to allow the coastal representatives to 
vote on this issue.
  We should have learned something from the Dubai debacle, the threat 
to our container ships coming into our ports. Our amendment says no 
deadly uranium bombs allowed in, no Dubais. The Republican majority 
says, we are not going to screen any containers coming into the ports 
of the United States.
  It is dangerous. The least that we should be able to say when that 
nuclear weapon goes off is that we tried,

[[Page 6915]]

we really tried to prevent it from happening. The Republicans are not 
only not trying to stop it from happening; they are stopping us from 
having a debate on the floor of Congress on this issue.
  This is the issue that is at the top of the al Qaeda terrorist target 
list, to bring a nuclear weapon into the port of an American city. And 
instead of allowing for this debate to take place, they are saying they 
cannot figure it out. They are going to study it for three more years. 
So that will mean we went from 2001 to 2009 studying this issue.
  When the Soviet Union threatened the United States in 1961 with 
Sputnik, President Kennedy did not say, we are going to study it until 
1969. He said, we will put a man on the Moon and bring him back to 
Earth; we will control the heavens, not the Communists.
  What the Republicans with the Bush White House say is, they are going 
to study the issue of the greatest al Qaeda threat to our country, a 
nuclear bomb in a container in a port in the United States. They are 
going to study it for all 8 years, 2001 to 2009. President Kennedy 
said, rocket science, we will master it. The Republicans say, we cannot 
even figure out how to screen a container; we cannot even figure out 
how to put a tamper-proof seal on a container.
  The price our country will pay will be too high a price. It will be 
the most horrendous event in the history of our Nation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my 
good friend.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  This is ``let's pretend'' time. Let's pretend this is a fair process 
when a meaningful amendment that lost only by two votes in committee to 
screen 100 percent of the containers coming to America is not allowed. 
Are we afraid of the democratic process here on the floor?
  Let's pretend that the unverified paperwork certification of 
shippers, C-TPAT and CIS, are meaningful and provide real security 
despite the numerous reports we have about their extraordinary 
failures, including the most recent one where a C-TPAT, CIS-based 
company and port provided 15 Chinese in a container delivered to the 
United States of America. That could have been 15 tactical nuclear 
weapons in that container instead of people attempting to sneak into 
the United States.
  Here is how it works: you are a foreign company. You want to ship to 
the U.S. You go online on your computer. You fill out a form online. 
You immediately get the score of your products and your shipping 
reduced to the United States of America. It no longer is as much of a 
threat because you filled out a form online, whoever you might be; you 
might be Osama bin Laden in a cave, we don't know.
  Okay. Well, then we are going to send someone around to certify you 
are who you said you are and you really have the paperwork plan you 
told us you have. Unfortunately, we do not have enough people to do 
that. It will be 1 to 3 years before either a U.S. inspector or a 
contractor comes by for one day, one time, to make sure you are not a 
bad guy and you might not ship bad things here.
  That is quite a system. That is C-TPAT. It is a faith-based honor 
system. Here it is: they will send us a manifest. Now a manifest says 
100 concrete bird baths, but what if it is 99 concrete bird baths and 
one tactical nuclear weapon? Well, they are in the C-TPAT program; they 
would not phony up a manifest. Of course, again, you have 6 months to 
adjust your manifest after your product arrives in the United States 
because you know everybody says manifests are not accurate.
  We do not know who the people are, and the manifests are not 
accurate, but that's the security we have today.
  The Deputy Secretary of TSA, Mr. Jackson, admits there is a risk. He 
says, well, they do not want to screen all the containers on the other 
side of the ocean, even though the technology exists. Despite what the 
gentlewoman from Florida said, it exists, it works and it does not 
unduly delay. You can drive by it at 10 miles per hour.
  He says the vision of the Bush administration is, they are going to 
screen ultimately, with technology, 100 percent of the containers 
before they leave United States ports for the interior of the U.S., but 
they might contain threats. Now, wait a minute. We are going to put 
them in our ports, but we think they might have threats, but we will 
inspect them before they go inland? I guess the ports are sacrifice 
zones. I guess most of our ports are in blue States. No, Florida was a 
red State. I am not sure why they want to sacrifice those ports in 
those States.
  This is extraordinary to me that we are not being allowed this one 
simple amendment, and let us pretend that they are not under 
unbelievable pressure from Wal-Mart and other shippers of goods to the 
United States to not do anything meaningful because it will cost a 
couple of bucks more per container.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this point 
and would encourage the gentleman from Florida, if he would choose to 
close at this time, to do that.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rules 
so the House can vote on important amendments offered by Homeland 
Security Ranking Member Thompson and Representative Langevin to 
increase security at our Nation's ports. Rules Committee Republicans 
rejected these amendments when we met last night.
  The amendment would add 1,600 new Customs and Border Protection 
Officers at our Nation's ports. We cannot conduct more container 
inspections at our ports if we do not have more people. The goal of the 
Langevin amendment is to make sure that these Customs officials working 
in our ports are using the best available technology. It authorizes 
funds to speed up the installation of radiation portal monitors in 
domestic ports of entry.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of these 
amendments and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it just seems like common sense 
to me that if you want to make port facilities safer, you put more 
Customs officials on the ground and give them better equipment to 
detect and stop terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee 
has decided that the House is not going to debate these ideas, and in 
my judgment, that is a shame. Members should be aware that a ``no'' 
vote will not prevent consideration of the SAFE Port Act, and it will 
not affect any of the amendments that are in order under this rule. But 
a ``no'' vote will allow us to vote for these responsible amendments to 
increase security at our Nation's ports. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
articulating the Democrats' side this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, we 
understand what they are saying. We get it. As a matter of fact, there 
have been these debates now for several years, and this House, time and 
time again, has said that we support a risk-based funding approach. 
Risk-based.
  We have already shown this where Democrats have voted. In the PATRIOT 
Act reauthorization, 44 Democrats voted for that; first responder 
authorization, 181 Democrats; Homeland Security appropriations bills, 
194 Democrats; and then, on the conference report, 124 Democrats; and 
then in the 2004 intelligence reform bill, 183 Democrats.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not say this bill is perfect. What we try and do 
is aim

[[Page 6916]]

the resources, the precious resources combined with the technology and 
the desire that the United States of America has to support the efforts 
of protecting this country, not only in our ports, on our borders, in 
our cities, and in the intelligence that we do. And time in and time 
out, we have said we are going to be threat-based. Where the threat is, 
that is where we will put our resources. And a 100 percent check of all 
the cargo that goes in and out of our ports is simply unrealistic.
  What is realistic, that overwhelmingly has been supported by this 
House, that I believe once again this House will be on record to 
support, is the thing that works, and that is to not chase our tail but 
to look at where the threat exists. That is what this committee has 
done. That is what the Rules Committee has done. I am proud to say that 
we have a fair and balanced rule. I am proud to say that the underlying 
legislation that has been supported by these two committees is threat-
based, aims directly at a bipartisan approach and, more importantly, is 
something that will make us a little bit safer now and in our future.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud of what we have done today, and I think this 
House will support that. I urge all my colleagues to support this rule 
and the underlying legislation to give the Department of Homeland 
Security the tools and the direction it needs to keep America's shores 
free from the threat of terrorists.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 739--Rule on H.R. 4954--The SAFE Port Act

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution the two amendments specified in section 3 shall be 
     in order as though printed after the amendment numbered 15 in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules.
       Sec. 3. The amendments referred to in section 2 are as 
     follows:
       An amendment offered by Representative Thompson of 
     Mississippi or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable 
     for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled, by the 
     proponent and an opponent.

    Amendment to H.R. 4954, as Reported Offered by Mr. Thompson of 
                              Mississippi

       Page 44, after line 9, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 127. ADDITIONAL CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION OFFICERS 
                   AT UNITED STATES SEAPORTS.

       (a) In General.--For the period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act and ending September 30, 2010, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall hire approximately 1,600 
     additional Customs and border Protection officers for 
     assignment at United States seaports.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $67,617,200 for each of the fiscal years 
     2007 through 2010 to carry out this section.
       An amendment offered by Representative Langevin of Rhode 
     Island or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable for 
     30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent.

 Amendment to H.R. 4954, as Reported Offered by Mr. Langevin of Rhode 
                                 Island

       Page 103, after line 11, insert the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(4) Additional Requirements.--The Director shall make the 
     following determinations in developing and executing the 
     acquisition strategy under this subsection:
       ``(A) A determination of the ports of entry at which the 
     detection systems will be deployed using a risk analysis of 
     all United States ports of entry.
       ``(B) A determination of the types of detection systems to 
     be deployed at the ports of entry determined under 
     subparagraph (A), including--
       ``(i) radiation portal monitors;
       ``(ii) advanced spectroscopic radiation portal monitors;
       ``(iii) mobile radiation detection systems; and
       ``(iv) human portable radiation detection systems.
       ``(C) A determination of the cost of the detection systems 
     described in subparagraph (B) and a timeline for the 
     deployment of such systems.
       ``(D) A determination of the cost to implement the 
     strategy.
       ``(5) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of the Security and Accountability For Every Port 
     Act, the Director shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report that contains the 
     acquisition strategy developed pursuant to this 
     subsection.''.
       Page 111, line 25, strike ``$536,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$653,000,000''.

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
  Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have 
substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools 
for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to offer an 
alternative plan.

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  We all know that port security has been news across the United States 
in recent weeks, and it should be.
  The U.S. ports are on the front lines of homeland security. My home 
state of Texas has several major seaports, including Galveston, 
Brownsville and Houston, that offer potential routes for dangerous 
cargo and terrorist weapons.
  This bill, the SAFE Ports Act of 2005, will help ensure that 
Americans feel confident that the U.S. Government is protecting them 
from yet another threat.
  It does so by imposing security requirements on overseas shippers and 
ports where cargo starts its journey to the United States, on cargo 
transportation while enroute to the United States, and at the ports 
within the United States--the last staging area before cargo makes its 
way into the country.
  Also, this bill requires the Department of Homeland Security 
Secretary to employ standards for sealing all containers entering the 
Unites States within two years of enactment. It also requires the 
Secretary to deploy nuclear and radiological detection systems at 22 
U.S. seaports by the end of fiscal year 2007.
  These are good ways to ensure port security, and there are many more 
included in the bill.
  I thank Chairman King of Iowa, Chairman Daniel E. Lungren of 
California, and ranking member Harman for their work on much-needed 
legislation, and urge my colleagues to support the Rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I

[[Page 6917]]

move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________