[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 577-594]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      IMPLEMENTING THE 9/11 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS ACT OF 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murtha). Pursuant to Section 507 of 
House Resolution 6, proceedings will now resume on the bill (H.R. 1) to 
provide for the implementation of the recommendations of the National 
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

[[Page 578]]

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murtha). The gentleman will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to what order of the House are 
we considering this resolution, H.R. 1?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House is proceeding under House 
Resolution 6.
  Proceedings will now resume on H.R. 1.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Does that special order of the House waive all points 
of order against H.R. 1, including the newly enacted and much 
advertised pay-as-you-go point of order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All points of order are waived by House 
Resolution 6.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry. 
Does the special order provide for the consideration of any amendments?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. By way of a motion to recommit.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry. 
Does the special order treat the minority's right to offer a motion to 
recommit in the same manner as the bill itself by waiving all points of 
order again, including the much advertised new pay-as-you-go point of 
order against the motion to recommit?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion to recommit is admissible. No 
waivers are provided for such motion.
  When proceedings were postponed earlier today, 11 minutes of debate 
remained on the bill.
  The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) had 6\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) had 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, because her time was 
accidentally cut off earlier, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding and for his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, today belongs to the family members of the attacks of 
September 11 who have worked tirelessly to see these recommendations 
enacted. They spent today in Congress in meetings in support of this 
legislation.
  The 9/11 Commission gave us a blueprint for better security which was 
not meant to be on a shelf gathering dust. With this legislation, 
Congress accomplishes more for security in less than a week than it 
previously could accomplish in more than 2 years.
  Homeland security is a high priority of the first 100 hours agenda, 
and it includes many important and commonsense provisions. It requires 
Homeland Security grants to be based on risk, not politics. And the 
radios that did not work on 9/11 still do not work, and they did not 
work at Katrina. It establishes a grant program specifically for 
communications equipment for first responders.
  It establishes an independent privacy and civil liberties board with 
subpoena power, and it includes the prevention and helps to prevent the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. The bill 
expands the U.S. diplomatic outreach in the Middle East.
  In short, the bill will make our citizens and our country safer. It 
is an important bill, and the 9/11 families thank the leadership of 
this Congress. The responders thank the leadership of this Congress. 
And I am deeply grateful that H.R. 1 is among the first bills in the 
first Democratic Congress to pass. It will make us safer in this 
country. I congratulate the new leadership on their hard work at making 
this happen.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman 
from Mississippi as to how many speakers he has?
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker, and I 
will be prepared to close after that.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, for the last 4 years I have worked to ensure 
that no shipping container should be put on a ship bound for the United 
States until it is scanned for radiation and density, and sealed with a 
tamper-proof seal. The 9/11 Commission insisted on better port security 
measures.
  Last year, along with Mr. Oberstar, I introduced the Sail Only if 
Scanned Act. We tried to insert into the SAFE Port Act, but the 
Republican leadership opposed this provision with near party-line votes 
in committee and on the floor.
  But now, Title V of this bill will implement the Sail Only if Scanned 
Act, and require that every container be scanned and sealed with a 
tamper-proof seal before being placed on a ship bound for the U.S. We 
phase in the requirement, within 3 years for large ports, 5 years for 
small. But it must be done.
  We must be serious about protecting ourselves against the terrorists. 
Studies are not enough. This bill finally takes the threat seriously.
  The cost to scan each container is only about $6.50. The startup cost 
to purchase and install the scanning equipment world wide is about $1.5 
billion. Foreign ports can recover the cost by charging about $20 per 
container. Given the fact that it costs about $4,000 to ship a 
container from Asia to the United States and a container might hold 
$50,000 or $100,000 worth of goods, that is a drop in the bucket.
  This bill also includes critical provisions to strengthen aviation 
security, to distribute homeland security grants based on risk, and it 
will strengthen the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to secure 
nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. For years, some of us 
have been pushing to accelerate counter-proliferation programs. This 
bill will go a long way toward securing loose nuclear materials around 
the world.
  I congratulate the new leadership of this House for pressing this 
bill. I urge all my colleagues to vote for this and finally implement 
the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and make this country 
safer.
  Madam Speaker, for the last four years, I have worked to insure that 
no shipping container should be put on a ship bound for the U.S. until 
it is scanned for radiation and density, and sealed with a tamper-proof 
seal. The 9/11 Commission insisted on better port security measures.
  Last year, along with Chairman Oberstar, I introduced the Sail Only 
if Scanned (SOS) Act. We then tried to insert it into the SAFE Port 
Act. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership opposed this provision, 
with near party-line votes in committee and on the floor.
  But now, Title V of this bill will implement the Sail Only if Scanned 
Act, and require that every container be scanned and sealed with a 
tamper-proof seal before being placed on a ship bound for the U.S. We 
phase in the requirement--within 3 years for large ports, 5 years for 
small. But it must be done.
  We know our port security system is vulnerable. The 9/11 Commission 
said the opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater, in maritime 
transportation than in our aviation system.
  Luckily, the Democratic Leadership is willing to follow through on 
our promise to scan 100 percent of shipping containers so that we can 
prevent nuclear weapons from being smuggled into the United States 
through our ports. We recognize that it is time for Congress to catch 
up to the rest of the World. In Hong Kong, the Integrated Container 
Inspection System (ICIS) pilot program has successfully achieved 100 
percent scanning, proving that the technology works without slowing 
down commerce. Many other ports are already starting to purchase this 
equipment, and many in the shipping industry realize that it is in 
their best interest to secure their cargo before, 
G-d forbid, someone uses our ports to cause harm, and the system has to 
be completely shut down.
  We must be serious about protecting ourselves against the terrorists. 
Studies are not enough. This bill, finally takes the threat seriously.
  The cost to institute this system is minimal. It could be folded into 
the cost of doing business and the consumer would never even notice. 
The cost to scan each container is only

[[Page 579]]

about $6.50. The startup cost to purchase and install the scanning 
equipment worldwide is about $1.5 billion. Foreign ports can recover 
the cost by charging about $20 per container. This is a drop in the 
bucket given that it costs about $4,000 to ship a container from Asia 
to the United States, and that container might hold $50,000-$100,000 or 
more worth of goods. We waste billions of dollars in Iraq and on other 
Defense Programs, such as ``Star Wars,'' but we can protect ourselves 
against this very real threat to our port security system with 
virtually no cost to the U.S. Government.
  We must not wait to impose security measures until containers reach 
the United States. If there is a bomb inside a container, and it is 
detected in Newark, or Miami, or Los Angeles, it may be too late. 
Reading the cargo manifest is not enough. Trusting the shippers is not 
enough. We must verify the contents of the containers at the point of 
origin, before they are loaded onto a ship destined for America. This 
bill will do just that.
  This bill also includes critical provisions to strengthen aviation 
security, to distribute homeland security grants based on risk, and it 
will strengthen the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to secure 
nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union. For years, I have been 
pushing to accelerate counter proliferation programs, and this bill 
will go a long way toward securing loose nuclear materials around the 
world.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1 and finally implement all 
of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset of the debate, I commend the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) on his elevation to the 
position of chairman. He is an outstanding Member of this House, and I 
look forward to working with him in a bipartisan manner throughout the 
next 2 years.
  I must say, however, that I am deeply disappointed in the manner in 
which this bill was brought to the floor today and, indeed, with many 
of the provisions that are in this bill. I say that as someone who lost 
more than 150 friends, neighbors and constituents on September 11th, 
who has a number of staff members working for me who lost relatives on 
September 11th, so no issue is more important to me than getting 
homeland security right and making it work.
  But during the previous 2 years, certainly during the 15 months that 
I was chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, it was bipartisan. 
Every bill that came to the floor went through subcommittee and went 
through the full committee. Port security legislation, FEMA 
restructuring, chemical plant security bill, all went through the 
subcommittee, full committee and were adopted by this House and were 
signed into law.
  In addition to that, we had the risk-based funding bill which went 
through the committee and again passed on the House floor. It was 
blocked in the Senate. But the fact is, we got results, and we got them 
in a bipartisan basis. No bill came to the floor without full 
bipartisan cooperation from day one.
  Now, unfortunately, for whatever reason, as part of the 100 hours 
show, the leadership refuses to allow any bipartisan input, no 
committee involvement at all, no subcommittee involvement and no 
amendments. And in doing that, it is not just a shot at us. We can 
survive that. We will be back in 2 years. But what I am concerned about 
is, what this does for the next 2 years and what it does to the 
Homeland Security Committee, because the 9/11 Commission specifically 
stated that a committee should be given primary jurisdiction. That 
should be the Homeland Security Committee.

                              {time}  1830

  The Democrats could have taken care of that in their rules package. 
They refused to do it. So the most important recommendation of the 9/11 
Commission is not being enacted today. It is not being done at all. In 
fact, they are weakening the committee by bypassing the committee 
process.
  I will use as one example what happens when a bill is rushed to the 
floor without the proper deliberative process. We talk about 100 
percent scanning of all cargo coming into our ports. The fact is in the 
port security bill, which passed the House, passed the Senate and was 
enacted into law, we set up pilot projects around the world to find a 
scanning process that works.
  The fact is there is no current technology that works at 100 percent. 
We don't have it. We want to find what works the best. Nowhere in the 
9/11 Commission report do they call for 100 percent scanning. All of us 
want to have it. The fact is we are not going to be able to scan 11 
million containers coming into our shores.
  Now, last year when this was first raised by the Democratic Party, 
the Washington Post said it is a terrible idea. It is a slogan, not a 
solution. We hope lawmakers resist the temptation to use it in the 
election season to come.
  Now, the Washington Post is not exactly an advocate of the Republican 
Party. Today in their editorial, they talk about what a tough job it is 
to bring about homeland security. They say it will not be done by 
wasting money on the kind of political shenanigans written into the 
sprawling Democratic bill introduced on the House floor today.
  The Democrats don't offer a realistic cost estimate for the mandate 
they will propose, but the cost to the government and the economy is 
sure to be in the tens of billions of dollars and quite possibly 
hundreds of billions annually.
  Luckily, the Senate will give more thought to its homeland security 
bill, the Washington Post says, but House Democrats can figure those 
odds as well as anyone, but why not score some easy political points in 
your first 100 hours.
  Well, the fact is you shouldn't be scoring political points on the 
issue of homeland security. That is too important an issue to be 
trivialized the way you are doing it here today. Now I will, in the 
end, I will vote for this bill despite its faults, because I want to 
send a bipartisan message that the House stands behind homeland 
security.
  But I will hope that in the future, we will have a Homeland Security 
Committee which is empowered the way it should be by the Democratic 
leadership, that a Homeland Security Committee, which I know the 
chairman wants to do, will work in a bipartisan way so we can address 
the scourge of Islamic terrorism as Republicans and Democrats and 
Americans and not having something rammed through to score cheap 
political points in the 100-hour circus.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the 
remainder of the time.
  First of all, I would like to set a couple of things straight for the 
record. For my ranking member, these 9/11 recommendations are not cheap 
political tricks; they are very serious and things that we all take 
very seriously because of that.
  With respect to the 100 percent port cargo screening, it says take 
the lessons learned from the pilots and then implement what you learned 
from the pilots, not go forward, like you say.
  You talk about not bringing bills before the committee. You brought a 
fence bill straight to the floor without going through a subcommittee 
or a committee.
  So I might say to my colleague, I look forward to working with him 
over the next 2 years on making sure that we keep America safe from bad 
people, but also that we are able to respond to natural disasters and 
other things.
  Mr. Speaker, it is fitting and proper that this bill, the first bill 
voted upon by the new Congress, gets the record straight on the 9/11 
Commission's report. We finished the job. Yesterday, former Vice Chair 
Lee Hamilton of the 9/11 Commission made it very clear why we are here 
today.
  He said in his view, ``The terrorists are plotting today on how best 
to strike the United States. They will not wait, and it has been a 
source of very considerable frustration to the members of the 9/11 
Commission that so many of our recommendations, which really are 
commonsense recommendations, like the ability of the first responders 
to communicate with one another, the allocation of funds on the basis 
of risk and not politics, and many

[[Page 580]]

other recommendations, are simply common sense. It has puzzled us and 
frustrated us that they have not been enacted into law.''
  Let us be very clear, Mr. Speaker, today's bill fixes these problems 
and fulfills many of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. In short, 
as 9/11 Vice Chair Lee Hamilton said yesterday, if this bill is 
enacted, funded and implemented, the American people will be safer.
  I urge support of the bill.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of an important bill that 
will make America safer and more secure.
  Today's legislation ends years of gridlock by finally enacting 
recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission over 2 years ago. H.R. 1 
will distribute homeland security grants based on risk, enhance nuclear 
non-proliferation, and improve education and economic development in 
Arab and Muslim countries.
  Under the Republican regime, I was never one to jump on the homeland 
security bandwagon as Congress passed meaningless resolutions intended 
to frighten and divide the American people, repeatedly and falsely 
claimed progress was being made in Iraq, and conducted no oversight of 
the Department of Homeland Security. In contrast, the Democratic 
Congress is already taking meaningful action to improve American 
security. H.R. 1 is short on rhetoric and long on reforms and tough new 
security requirements.
  The 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act contains common sense, 
bipartisan ideas. Opponents may argue that this bill is too ambitious, 
but they won't find a single provision inserted merely to instigate a 
political fight.
  In the recent election, Democrats pledged to work across the aisle to 
pass substantive legislation that will affect the everyday lives of all 
Americans. This first bill meets that pledge. I urge my colleagues to 
heed the pleas of our constituents to stop posturing and start 
legislating by voting yes to make America more secure.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, and I 
urge all my colleagues to join me in voting to pass this vitally 
important legislation to implement the recommendations of the 
bipartisan 9/11 Commission.
  Keeping all Americans safe should be the top priority of the 
government. Congress cannot wait for another attack to take steps to 
protect our nation from terrorism. I have worked on the Homeland 
Security Committee to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, 
and I hope that the rest of my colleagues will join me in supporting 
these critical reforms.
  The bill includes a number of steps to improve homeland security, 
including:
  Requiring major improvements in aviation security, border security, 
and infrastructure security;
  Requiring 100 percent inspection of cargo at ports and on passenger 
aircraft;
  Providing first responders the equipment and training they need 
including the critical issue of communications interoperability;
  Increasing efforts to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of 
mass destruction;
  Significantly expanding diplomatic, economic and educational 
strategies designed to counter Islamic terrorism;
  Strengthening privacy and civil liberties protections; and
  Restoring America's moral leaderships throughout the world.
  As North Carolina's only Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I 
worked with my colleagues in the 109th session of Congress to implement 
many of the reforms included in today's legislation. In particular, I 
joined my colleagues on the committee in supporting legislation to 
screen 100 percent of all containers entering U.S. ports, and to 
provide first responders with interoperable communications equipment.
  The bipartisan 9/11 Commission was created by Congress to provide 
recommendations on preventing another terrorist attack. The 
recommendations were released in 2004. Congress implemented several of 
the recommendations in December 2004, however the Republican-controlled 
Congress did not implement many, and only partially implemented others. 
In its final report card, the 9/11 Commissioners gave the 
Administration and Congress many poor grades on implementing the 
recommendations, and this legislation will make America safer by 
putting these new policies into place.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people want bipartisan action to provide 
real solutions for a safe and secure country, and I urge my colleagues 
to join me in voting to pass H.R. 1.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 1, a long awaited legislative package that will finally 
fulfill our duty to protect the people of our nation by fully 
implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  After months of careful investigation into the security weakness that 
led to the 9/11 attacks, the bipartisan and independent 9/11 Commission 
proposed a series of reforms necessary to secure our country and 
prevent future terrorist attacks. These recommendations addressed a 
number of areas, including revamping the way we fund homeland security, 
preventing nuclear materials and WMD from falling in the worst hands, 
and targeting the root causes of terrorism. Yet, despite bipartisan 
public support for their work, 20 of the Commission's 41 
recommendations--nearly half--have gone unfulfilled.
  Over the past two years, the 9/11 Commission has rated Congress' 
implementation of their recommendations with failing grades. Protecting 
the American people is the primary responsibility of our government, 
and I am proud that one of the first bills considered by the new 
Congress is the implementation of all of the 9/11 recommendations. This 
bill meets our duty to protect the nation we serve by requiring the 
scanning of all air and maritime cargo, increasing resources that will 
enable our first responders to communicate with each other in times of 
crisis, and ensuring that we distribute our homeland security funding 
where it is needed the most.
  I am particularly grateful that this bill increases our commitment to 
preventing the worst weapons from falling into the worst hands. During 
public forums on nuclear nonproliferation I have hosted in the past 
year at St. Joseph College and Trinity College, many of my constituents 
expressed their concerns about nuclear materials falling into the hands 
of terrorists. That threat to our nation is real, and this bill 
fulfills the 9/11 Commission recommendation to prevent terrorists from 
acquiring weapons of mass destruction and strengthen our 
nonproliferation programs around the world.
  More than sixty Connecticut residents lost their lives on that tragic 
September day in 2001. Over five years later, we owe it to them and 
their families to finally implement these measures and ensure that such 
a day will never happen again.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend this body for 
considering legislation which with finally get us back on track to 
fully implement all of the recommendations made by the bipartisan 9/11 
Commission in 2004.
  The 9/11 Commission provided our nation an objective and eye-opening 
assessment of how terrorists were able to exploit our security 
vulnerabilities on September 11th and made 41 key recommendations to 
address these shortcomings.
  Unfortunately, two and a half years after the Commission's 
recommendations, there are still glaring threats that remain to be 
addressed. In fact, just over a year ago, the 9/11 Public Discourse 
Project issued a report card that gave the Administration D's and F's 
in some of the most critical areas.
  Today, we finally have an opportunity to ensure that the 9/11 
Commission's tireless efforts were not in vain. The legislation before 
us would shore up remaining vulnerabilities and implement 
recommendations that have been ignored completely or only partially 
addressed until now.
  As the former Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Prevention of 
Nuclear and Biological Attack, I am particularly pleased that this bill 
contains several provisions to make our nation more secure from the 
threat of a nuclear attack. H.R. 1 strengthens our most effective 
global non-proliferation programs, like Cooperative Threat Reduction 
and the Global Threat Reduction Initiative. These programs have proven 
successful in securing the most dangerous nuclear material abroad, 
before it can get into the hands of those who would do us harm.
  Additionally, this measure gives the United States the power to 
sanction individuals involved in the illegal trade of nuclear material. 
It also builds upon the recently enacted SAFE Ports Act by requiring 
all cargo containers be scanned before leaving their port of origin and 
improves the quality of their inspections.
  Today we are also taking a long-overdue, comprehensive approach to 
the vulnerabilities that remain in our aviation system. Under this 
measure, we will finally screen 100 percent of cargo on passenger 
planes and improve airline screening checkpoints to detect explosives. 
This measure will also create a redress process for passengers 
misidentified against the ``No Fly'' or ``Selectee'' watchlists who 
have been wrongfully delayed or prohibited from boarding a flight.
  This measure provides significant support to first responders, who 
place their lives on the

[[Page 581]]

line each day, by funding state and local efforts to obtain the 
interoperable communication systems essential for emergency response. 
Additionally, our bill will considerably improve information sharing, 
which is one of our most effective forms of defense. H.R. 1 will 
strengthen fusion centers across the country, helping state and local 
law enforcement build relationships across every level and discipline 
of government and with the private sector to help ensure that criminal 
intelligence and other information is shared with those who can put it 
to the best use.
  Finally, this legislation will protect the privacy and civil 
liberties of Americans, while effectively combating terrorism. Under 
this measure, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board will be 
reestablished as an independent agency, which will greatly enhance the 
Board's oversight functions and help to ensure that we do not sacrifice 
freedom in the name of security.
  The best way to honor those who died in the attacks of September 11th 
is to learn from the lessons of that tragic day, and this bill brings 
us much closer towards achieving this goal.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1.
  I am deeply disappointed that it has taken more than 5 years since 
the terrible events of September 11, 2001, to implement the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  However, by making legislation implementing these recommendations the 
first measure brought to the floor, our Democratic leadership has 
affirmed what will be our unwavering commitment to homeland security 
throughout the 110th Congress.
  I am also deeply heartened that this bill would exceed the 9/11 
Commission's recommendations by finally requiring the examination of 
all shipping containers bound for the United States.
  Only a small percentage of the 11 million containers delivered during 
the more than 62,000 port calls made annually at U.S. ports is 
physically inspected upon arrival. It is therefore critical that all 
possible measures be taken to interdict containers that could pose a 
threat to our Nation's security before they ever set sail for our 
shores.
  I urge the passage of H.R. 1 and I commend Speaker Pelosi, Leader 
Hoyer, and Chairman Thompson for their dedication to port security. I 
look forward to working with our distinguished Chair, Mr. Oberstar and 
the leadership to strengthen the security of every facet of our 
Nation's transportation network.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1, the ``Fully Implementing the 9/11 
Commission Recommendations Act,'' does not achieve what it advertises. 
In fact, in many cases, it inhibits our Nation's ability to secure our 
citizens against attack. This bill neglects to address many 
recommendations, including classified oversight of the Homeland 
Security Department, declassification of the intelligence budget, and a 
shift of paramilitary operations from the CIA to the Defense 
Department. There are other provisions inserted in this bill, that do 
not appear anywhere in the 9/11 Commission Report, including 
unionization of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees, 
100 percent screening of cargo containers, and several foreign policy 
initiatives, some of which have already been passed into law.
  Incredibly, a provision in this bill would cede one of our Nation's 
most critical and effective national security initiatives to regulation 
by the United Nations. The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) is a 
4-year-old program created and run by the United States to coordinate 
nonproliferation efforts by ourselves and our allies. This program's 
effectiveness was a key deterrent to Libya's nuclear program, and was 
directly responsible to uncovering the large Pakistani nuclear black 
market ring run by A.Q. Khan. Transferring this program to the United 
Nations would require participants in the program to seek the approval 
of these foreign governments prior to interdicting illicit WMD 
material, creating yet another hurdle that agencies would have to 
overcome prior to intercepting illegal WMD shipments.
  This program relies heavily on shared intelligence, which is the 
primary reason it must not be handed over to the UN Security Council. 
This would jeopardize the intelligence, routes, methods and sources 
used by U.S. and allied forces to prevent proliferation of WMDs by 
rogue regimes and terrorist organizations. Allowing members of the 
United Nations Security Council, which in the past has counted Syria 
and Pakistan as members, will compromise operations, cripple the 
program's effectiveness and endanger our citizens.
  In yet another disparity, the 9/11 Commission does not recommend 100 
percent screening of cargo containers. However, the last Congress 
determined that greater security was a need, and therefore passed, with 
bipartisan support, the SAFE Ports Act. Under these expanded security 
measures, all cargo entering the country is assessed for risk long 
before it reaches our shores, and when designated as questionable, 
those shipments are thoroughly inspected. In fact, current best 
practices by the Customs and Border Patrol also includes random 
inspections both at dockside during loading and unloading, and of the 
trucks as they leave the port.
  This 100 percent mandate is also incredibly burdensome financially. 
House Democrats expect industry, and possibly foreign governments, to 
cover the costs of ensuring 100 percent cargo screening of containers 
entering the United States by air or sea. The airlines would be 
expected to pay for air cargo inspections; while foreign port terminal 
operators would be expected to pay for scanning U.S. bound sea cargo. 
The bill does not estimate how much this will cost, but DHS is already 
spending $60 million a year to scan sea cargo at six foreign ports. 
According to DHS, there are more than 700 I seaports that ship to the 
U.S., raising estimates of the costs of this program into the tens of 
billions.
  Funding for Homeland Security must be split to address a wide array 
of threats against the United States to minimize risk as best possible. 
To allocate funding on any program that has little likelihood of 
effectiveness is egregiously irresponsible. Container-screening 
technology is improving, but is not yet proficient enough to scan all 
of those containers in a useful, accurate, and speedy manner. That is 
why in the SAFE Ports Act, Congress included provisions to conduct 
feasibility studies of the 100% container-screening proposal and of 
emerging screening technology. The results of these studies have not 
even been reported, and yet the Democratic leadership insists on 
pushing through this incredibly ill advised mandate without the full 
information, without hearings and without mark-up sessions in 
committee. This illogical, ill-informed approach to our national 
security is being pursued with only one discernable purpose, political 
clout by achieving passage of the Democrats' ``100 hours agenda''.
  There is also the extraordinarily troubling provision that would 
grant collective bargaining rights to TSA employees. On the surface, 
this may seem reasonable, but it poses a clear danger to our national 
security. Granting unionization rights to TSA employees would allow 
them to strike when negotiating their contracts. Imagine a strike of 
TSA screeners at airports across the nation at Thanksgiving, or the 
during the Fourth of July holiday. It would be a nightmare--airport 
operations would cease or the security of our flights would be 
threatened from lack of adequate passenger and luggage screening. That 
is one reason why federal employees in positions impacting National 
Security were purposely excluded from collective bargaining rights when 
Congress passed the Labor-Management Relations Act in 1947, and 
affirmed again when the TSA was re-established under the Department of 
Homeland Security in 2002.
  DHS must have the flexibility to move and retrain employees at will 
in response to the changing nature of threats against the United 
States. Following last July's intelligence revelation that terrorists 
were plotting action against U.S. flights from the United Kingdom, one 
critical advantage that DHS cited was the ability to shift employees to 
respond to this new emerging threat. Should TSA employees unionize, DHS 
would no longer have this speed and flexibility, weakening our 
responses to terrorist threats.
  This bill is touted by democrats to implement many of the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, but not only does it not 
accomplish this, it fails to identify funding for the initiatives. In 
fact, only one provision in the entire bill contains a defined funding 
authorization: the checkpoint screening security fund, which would 
authorize $250 million for FY2008. Therefore, this legislation could 
end up only as an exercise in futility should appropriators not 
allocate funds for these programs. House Homeland Security Chairman 
Bennie Thompson conceded that he may have included more authorization 
levels had there been more time, ``But, in the spirit of `let's get it 
done,' we'll work it out.'' Ramming through legislation with the 
expectation that legitimate concerns and problems with legislation will 
be addressed at some later date is not the way to protect our citizens, 
and it is certainly a haphazard manner in which to pass laws.
  National security is not an issue that should hinge on ``rough 
drafts'' of proposals awaiting future refinement. If there is a need to 
reform our nationals security procedures, which I believe there is, it 
is imperative that we thoroughly consider these issues in Committee 
with hearings and legislation mark-up sessions. We must always consider 
national security issues with due deference and the humbling knowledge 
that every initiative we pass

[[Page 582]]

here in Washington will directly impact the security of our 
constituents at home.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1. 
The 9/11 Commission made its recommendations over two and a half years 
ago, and I am pleased this legislation to implement those 
recommendations is a top priority in this Congress.
  Among other things, this legislation will address the allocation of 
Homeland Security grants to ensure risk-based distribution of funds to 
provide the most vulnerable areas with the resources necessary to 
protect citizens and infrastructure. Section 2001 of this bill defines 
what critical sectors should be used to determine high risk areas, and 
representing a district that is home to many of these sectors, I have 
long supported these changes.
  This bill will also improve information sharing among different 
levels of law enforcement, improve the interoperability of 
communications for first responders, and strengthen aviation and cargo 
security.
  As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, these are all important steps 
toward securing our homeland. But I am concerned about how some of 
these objectives are accomplished and the jurisdictional implications 
in this bill.
  In particular, this bill provides the Department of Homeland Security 
with broad authority over public health, electric transmission, site 
security, and communications. The agencies and departments that 
currently oversee these areas have expertise working with these issues 
and it is not clear that DHS is better prepared to regulate, advise or 
award grants in these areas.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure these issues 
are worked out either in conference or through committee oversight.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, after more than 2 years of needless delay, the 
House is finally taking action on the balance of the recommendations 
made by the 9/11 Commission. This is a large bill that tackles a range 
of critical issues, but I want to comment on three areas in particular: 
risk-based funding for homeland security needs, making our first 
responder's communications truly interoperable, and measures we need to 
take overseas to stop the terrorist from getting here in the first 
place.
  For the past several years, I've sponsored a series of homeland 
security grant writing workshops for first responder organizations in 
my district. These workshops are always well attended and I'm pleased 
that they've been of value in helping various fire, EMS, and police 
departments cross central New Jersey become competitive in applying for 
these grants. However, the one question I get most often from these 
professionals is ``Why aren't these grants allocated on the basis of 
risk?'' I know many of my colleagues were hearing the same thing from 
their first responders, which is why last year I joined a number of my 
colleagues in sending a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security 
Michael Chertoff asking him to make grant award decisions on the basis 
of risk. While DHS has made some progress in this area, it hasn't come 
far enough quickly enough. That's why I'm pleased that this bill 
requires DHS to use a risk-based funding formula when allocating these 
grants. New Jersey is at far greater risk of attack--and it has more 
infrastructure targets, like chemical plants--than more rural, less 
densely populated states. Our vulnerabilities require commensurately 
greater resources.
  Another critical fix contained in this bill is a grant program 
dedicated to communications interoperability. As incredible as it may 
seem, 5 years after the 9/11 attacks, and one year after Hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita, the Department of Homeland Security still does not 
allocate funds specifically for the purpose of helping local first 
responders coordinate in an emergency. As a result, states and 
localities are forced to rob Peter to pay Paul by using large chunks of 
homeland security grant funding--in some instances 80 percent--to 
purchase communications equipment. As a result, fewer resources are 
spent securing bridges, ports, and buildings. This is a false choice 
being forced upon local officials. Today's legislation is a down 
payment on those needs.
  Importantly, the federal grants can be used only for equipment, 
technology, and systems that have been determined by the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to meet emergency communications equipment and 
technology standards. Therefore, State and local governments will be 
protected from relying solely on the claims of vendors, and can use the 
grants to invest in emerging technologies, not the same dinosaur 
systems that first responders historically have been forced to rely on. 
Also, this bill also takes steps to ensure the completion of a National 
Emergency Communication Plan. Such a plan will help to ensure that 
Federal, State, and local governments are developing plans and systems 
to improve multi-jurisdictions communications in an emergency that is 
truly ``National'' in scope.
  Finally, while this bill includes useful provisions for strengthening 
our outreach to the Islamic world, we have to recognize that defensive 
measures at home are necessary in part because of a failure of our 
policies abroad.
  For decades, our government has had a devil's bargain with a number 
of corrupt, despotic regimes in the Middle East and South Asia: they 
help us maintain order in the region, and we help them maintain order 
at home. We don't like to talk about this hypocritical double standard, 
but it exists, and it is impossible to truly quantify how much damage 
that hypocrisy and our support for such dictatorial regimes has cost 
us.
  This is another legacy of the Cold War, where any country--no matter 
how brutal its government--was a potential ally for us against the 
Soviets. The same misguided approach is now being applied in our 
relationships with various countries with corrupt, brutal governments 
that ruthlessly suppress dissent at home even as they proclaim their 
solidarity with us in the war against Al Qaeda and like-minded groups.
  The reality is that by viciously obliterating the voices of 
moderation in their societies, these despotic regimes are paving the 
way for Al Qaeda. By eliminating those calling for a free press and 
free elections, these governments are driving ever-greater numbers of 
Muslims into bin Laden's ranks. So long as we stand by and let them 
repress or destroy the voices of moderation in these countries, will we 
be complicit in the creation of the next generation of people who 
reject democracy in favor of the Kalishnikov rifle or the car bomb.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that the House will pass this bill today and 
I will gladly support it. But we must know that even if this bill 
becomes law, the work of protecting our citizens and restoring our 
country's standing in the world has only begun.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the new Congress has begun and today we 
debate the first piece of our 100 hours agenda, H.R. 1--the 
implementation of some of the long-overdue bipartisan 9/11 Commission 
recommendations.
  As I have stated on numerous occasions, national security is our 
highest priority. By passing these long-overdue 9/11 Commission 
recommendations today, we will be taking significant steps towards 
better protecting our country. This means scanning all air cargo loaded 
onto passenger planes and seaborne cargo containers shipped into the 
United States, as well as encouraging intelligence information sharing 
among federal, state and local agencies.
  Further, it will increase the share of state homeland security grants 
provided to our communities, based on risk--an issue of particular 
concern to my home state of California. The current formula results in 
40 percent of funding equally distributed to each state with the 
remainder allocated based on risk. With H.R. 1, each state is 
guaranteed a minimum of .25 percent of funding, while states that share 
an international border, or are connected to a body of water with an 
international border would receive at least .45 percent. This strikes a 
balance between risk-based allocations and ensuring a funding minimum 
for all states. Another result of this new distribution is that more 
funding will be directed towards essential programs such as the Urban 
Area Security Initiative, the State Homeland Security Grant program and 
the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention program.
  Concerns have also been raised about the gaps in the Department of 
Homeland Security's critical infrastructure asset database. Over the 
past year, I have repeatedly highlighted overlooked infrastructure with 
DHS, which led to the Department making changes to the Urban Area 
Security Initiative Grant. This bill will begin to close this gap by 
requiring annual assessments of information regarding critical 
infrastructure and the creation of a regularly updated asset databases.
  As I have repeatedly stated, the federal government needs to do its 
job of protecting the American people. Part of that is providing 
leadership by setting standards as incorporated in H.R. 1 and the other 
is to provide resources.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress has had far too long to implement these 
critical reforms recommended by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. I am 
pleased to be able to vote today in favor of H.R. 1. I know that these 
reforms will direct our limited federal funds toward areas facing 
higher threats, and ensure further safety standards for our 
transportation systems. Through H.R. 1 we will ensure that our country 
is better protected against and prepared for any future terrorist 
attack.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of provisions in this 
bill that I believe

[[Page 583]]

will improve our national security. For instance, I support increasing 
protections at our most important infrastructure facilities, like dams 
and power plants, and improving the Homeland Security grant allocation 
process so that it is truly risk-based. I also agree with the 
provisions in the bill that would strengthen sanctions on countries 
that participate in the proliferation of nuclear materials, equipment 
and weapons technology.
  However, I do have concerns with the bill's cargo inspection 
provision. We need to arrive at a system that ensures that all cargo 
entering the U.S. is safe. I believe the best way to approach supply 
chain security is through a risk-based approach, as endorsed by the 
SAFE Ports Act, which became law last fall. In particular, the SAFE 
Ports Act establishes a pilot program to test a system of 100 percent 
scanning at three ports. Then, based on lessons learned from that 
program, we could deploy a broader functioning inspection system.
  Although the goal of today's legislation is laudable, I am concerned 
that it imposes an arbitrary deadline for its new requirement for 100 
percent scanning in all ports without first considering the 
effectiveness of such a proposal or our ability to carry it out. We 
must also consider who will pay for this new program--both inside and 
outside the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I remain committed to working with others in the House 
to see that the provisions of last year's SAFE Ports Act are 
implemented, and believe that the feasibility of any new measures and 
mandates should be demonstrated before they're passed into law.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, during this past campaign, Democrats 
pledged to move legislation through the regular committee process and 
to allow Republicans more latitude to offer amendments on the House 
floor. They broke this promise last week, again today, and they intend 
to do it next week as well. Today, as the House considers H.R. 1, the 
Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007, Members 
are not allowed to offer any amendments. Formal committee process, 
rather than a closed rule and no committee consideration, would have 
identified the absurdity of providing an unelected board with an 
administrative subpoena authority that exceeds that of the FBI.
  An administrative subpoena is an order from a government official to 
a third party, instructing the recipient to produce certain 
information. Congress has granted subpoena authority to many agencies 
that exercise regulatory powers. One problem with administrative 
subpoenas is that they are not reviewed by courts unless challenged or 
for enforcement reasons.
  The 9/11 Commission's final report recommended that ``there should be 
a board within the executive branch to oversee adherence to the 
guidelines we recommend and the commitment the government makes to 
defend our civil liberties.'' H.R. 1 makes the Privacy and Civil 
Liberties Oversight Board an independent agency within the executive 
branch.
  I generally oppose administrative subpoenas within the executive 
branch, specifically those for law enforcement. I opposed granting the 
FBI administrative subpoena authority during consideration of the 
PATRIOT Act and I oppose it in this case.
  During a Judiciary Committee markup of H.R. 10 in September 2004, I 
offered an amendment to establish a Privacy and Civil Liberties 
Oversight Board to provide advice and counsel on policy development and 
implementation as it pertains to privacy and civil liberties 
implications of executive branch actions, proposed legislation, 
regulations, and policies related to efforts to protect the Nation from 
terrorism. My amendment was a complete substitute for an amendment 
offered by Mr. Watt that would have provided for a similar board with 
broad administrative subpoena power and provided nearly unlimited 
authority to analyze all aspects of the Nation's war on terrorism.
  While it is necessary to provide the proper tools and resources 
needed to fight and win the war on terror, giving an unelected board 
broad administrative subpoena authority is not the answer.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am greatly pleased that the 
first priority of this legislation is to continue the efforts of the 
109th Congress to fundamentally change the way in which Homeland 
Security grants are dispersed. By current formulae, only 60 percent of 
grants are assigned on the basis of risk, meaning that we are spending 
hundreds of millions of dollars that should be protecting our most 
vulnerable citizens and infrastructure on political priorities.
  Restructuring this grant program to better protect the regions at 
highest risk of terrorist threat has been amongst my highest priorities 
since coming to Congress. North Jersey, which I represent, lost many 
residents and family members in the 9/11 attacks and, in fact, sent 
many of its own first responders over the Hudson River to respond to 
those attacks. While those same brave New Jersey first responders have 
struggled to purchase the communications and safety equipment that are 
necessary to deal with any future attacks, operating with outdated air 
packs and obsolete radio equipment, other areas of the country with 
less risk of terrorist attack have had the luxury of using these funds 
for far less necessary purchases.
  Three times the 109th Congress passed legislation to fix this gross 
oversight. I hope that the current leadership will stand strong and 
insist that their colleagues in the Senate take the appropriate steps 
to better prioritize our limited funds and make our people safer.
  I am further concerned that this large and expensive bill has come to 
floor outside of any normal procedure. There are a number of new 
programs, panels, reports, and procedures contained in the bill that 
have never come before the Committee on Homeland Security. Some of 
these programs may be effective in enhancing our security, but without 
expert testimony or any comment from the department officials who will 
carry out these directives, we can have no confidence in their value.
  In fact, there is no real way to even determine what all these 
provisions will cost since the bill fails to appropriate or authorize 
specific sums. Given the claims of our new leadership that they are 
retaking the mantle of fiscal responsibility, it is disturbing to see 
that their first piece of legislation, H.R. 1, comes to the floor 
without any plan for how much is to be spent and where all this new 
funding is supposed to come from.
  Security for the American people should be our number one priority, 
but we absolve ourselves of our responsibility as legislators by 
writing a blank check. I hope that in the coming months we can work 
together to bring real solutions to the House floor and work with the 
Senate to send strong legislation to the President.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, the 
Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act.
  I am pleased that in the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, the 
Democratic leadership is taking up legislation of enormous importance: 
how to make our Nation safe from future terrorist attacks.
  As a Nation, we must work harder to close the security gaps that 
still exist. For example, we know that transportation systems are a 
frequent target of terrorist attacks. In fact, one third of the 
terrorist attacks that take place around the world's largest 
transportation systems.
  As many have observed, our Nation's security is only as strong as our 
weakest link. This bill will help strengthen some of our weakest links, 
especially with respect to security at our ports.
  Today only about 5 percent of the more than 11 million shipping 
containers destined for the United States are inspected or scanned. We 
cannot own or control the entire global trade network, but we can and 
should ensure the security of containers destined for this country.
  Security experts agree that nuclear weapons, or bomb-making 
materials, could easily be smuggled into the country under the current 
regime.
  Beyond the human toll, an attack on or through our ports would have a 
dramatic economic impact and could bring the flow of commerce to a dead 
stop. A terrorist attack on our ports--or an attack carried out through 
a cargo container system--would undermine our Nation's confidence in 
the hundreds of thousands of containers that crisscross our country 
every day.
  I'm proud to represent one of the busiest commercial ports on the 
West Coast--the Port of Hueneme. The employees at the Port and the 
people that live and work around it appreciate that this bill will 
finally close this glaring security gap.
  H.R. 1 ensures that every container is scanned using the best 
available technology before being loaded onto a ship destined for our 
country. And it mandates a gradual implementation to ensure that 
overseas ports have the time to purchase and install new scanning 
equipment. These measures will ensure that commerce will continue to 
flow as these important security measures are taken.
  As you know, this legislation is modeled on the operations conducted 
at container terminals in Hong Kong, which scans 100 percent of cargo 
containers without impeding commerce. The cost of creating this 
security system is quite minimal. In fact, the estimated cost to scan a 
container is only $6.50--a drop in the bucket given it costs about 
$4,000 to ship a container from Asia to the United States.
  All Congress needs to do is make 100 percent scanning the policy of 
the United States. And this legislation would do just that

[[Page 584]]

  To protect the security of our Nation, Congress must act to implement 
this recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, and the others included in 
this legislation, to further secure our homeland.
  Mr. Speaker, we continue to confront grave threats, and there is no 
greater priority than ensuring the safety of our country.
  I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important 
legislation to make Americans safer.
  One of the most important functions of government is to protect 
people.
  On September 11, 2001, our Nation suffered the devastating terrorist 
attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and at the Pentagon. 
Thousands of people were killed, many were injured, and all of us were 
scarred.
  We vowed to do whatever was necessary to protect our homeland. We owe 
it to the victims and their families. We owe it to all Americans.
  And we are taking a big step to make Americans safe.
  Congress is now following the recommendations made by the bipartisan 
commission formed to report on the 9/11 failures.
  This Commission had both Republicans and Democrats, men and women who 
have served our country well. They worked hard to produce a report that 
would help us understand what needed to be done.
  The 9/11 Commission issued 41 recommendations to the Administration 
and Congress that were designed to improve homeland security, prevent 
terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and develop 
strategies for preventing the spread of Islamic terrorism.
  Many of these recommendations have only been partially implemented. 
Others have been ignored.
  For more than 5 years after the September 11 attacks, Republican 
leaders refused to take action on many of the recommendations essential 
to the security of the American people.
  The 9/11 Commissioners have routinely given the Bush Administration 
and Congress failing grades on implementing the recommendations and 
taking actions to protect Americans.
  So it is important that we pass this legislation.
  This bill includes many provisions to improve homeland security, 
including steps to prevent terrorist attacks by speeding up the 
installation of explosive detection systems to monitor passengers and 
baggage at airports, requiring 100 percent inspection of air cargo over 
the next 3 years and 100 percent scanning of U.S.-bound shipping 
containers over the next 5 years.
  These steps are especially important to the people I represent in the 
Inland Empire of California because our region is an important 
transportation route for cargo arriving in the United States at the 
ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and at LAX airport.
  We must make sure that dangerous weapons or chemicals or other 
hazardous material are not brought into our country and then traveling 
on highways or railroad tracks or stored in warehouses in the San 
Bernardino area.
  With this legislation, we are also creating a grant program to help 
first responders have the equipment they need and make sure they can 
communicate with one another in an emergency.
  These are just some of the important and necessary ways we are making 
Americans safer by passing this legislation.
  I am proud to support H.R. 1 to implement the recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, on July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission 
released its final report on the 2001 terrorist attacks. That was 2\1/
2\ years ago. Since that time, we have had two elections and two 
Congresses. Yet only today are we beginning to enact most of the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  This is a long and complicated bill that is far from perfect. The 
scope of the bill's language must be addressed before it is finalized 
into law. This is, however, an important step forward.
  The inaction of the previous Congress and the current administration 
has left America vulnerable, with the American people questioning its 
leadership. Cargo remains largely unscreened. Not all first responders 
can communicate effectively. International alliances against terrorism 
are in shambles. Civil protections have been weakened. Any bill that 
attempts to hold the administration accountable for this state of 
affairs is indeed welcome.
  The legislation calls for vulnerability assessments of our Nation's 
infrastructure and seeks to prioritize threats. It establishes grant 
programs involving the private sector and public safety officials, for 
communications, intelligence, and border protection, and encourages a 
common set of criteria for private sector preparedness efforts.
  Some of these functions already occur within Federal agencies that 
regulate sectors of our economy, including energy, public health, 
telecommunications, information technology, drinking water, chemical 
and transportation systems, as well as other commercial facilities. We 
must ensure the bill will not result in wasteful or duplicative efforts 
that may cause further confusion, or compromise our national security.
  H.R. 1 establishes a new grant program at DHS to improve 
communications among public safety organizations during emergencies. 
But true interoperability requires more than just spectrum and 
technology. Stepped-up coordination and planning among public safety 
personnel, accompanied by greater funding, are critical.
  Congress directed the Department of Commerce to use its spectrum and 
communications expertise to administer a $1 billion interoperable 
communications grant program, which is currently underway. Recognizing 
the value of such a grant program, this legislation now seeks to 
emulate this approach within DHS. I hope that doing so will properly 
focus DHS on ways to achieve widespread communications 
interoperability.
  In addition, given the Government Accountability Office's cyber 
security concerns, I fully expect nothing in this bill will distract 
DHS or other Federal agencies from properly preparing for and reacting 
to cyber threats.
  Additionally, my home State of Michigan has one of the busiest--and 
most peaceful--border crossings in the world. Businesses on both sides 
of the border are dependent on smooth and regular transit between the 
U.S. and Canada. We need to consider the costs to the economy of 
northern border States as we strike a balance between open borders and 
security.
  In the weeks following 9/11, the delays at the Ambassador Bridge--
Detroit's only crossing with Canada--cost Michigan billions and forced 
factories to suspend production. Hopefully this legislation can speed 
the technological enhancements and personnel expansion we desperately 
need.
  I also appreciate the independence this legislation provides to the 
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, whose membership will be 
confirmed by the Senate. This should go a long way toward ensuring that 
civil liberties of Americans are truly protected. Without independence, 
opportunities for chicanery will persist.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve upon this 
important first step. As this legislation moves into conference, 
members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce with extensive 
expertise on these matters including issues as diverse as nuclear 
energy, the reliability of our communications systems, and the safety 
of our food supply and drinking water, will enhance these policies for 
the betterment of the American people.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me just thank the 
majority for bringing this bill to the floor because I think that most 
Americans want Democrats and Republicans to work together to ensure 
that all America remains safe and secure and not to repeat another 
September 11.
  And by and large there are some very good elements of the 
legislation, but let me right at the outset request that as we go 
forward there are some specific concerns that New York City has that I 
think need to be addressed. First is the issue that the city itself 
cannot apply directly for the interoperable communications grants, it 
must go through the State without any requirements that the State get 
the funds to the locality like New York City such as exists in the UASI 
process. We know by now that New York City has specific needs and 
therefore I believe this should be addressed.
  The same would apply to what could be a duplicative process in 
relation to the new interoperability grant program under DHS speaking 
as someone who was involved with the establishment of the first 
interoperability grant program under the Department of Commerce where 
as we speak the NTIA is in the process of preparing guidelines. My 
concern is that we don't get in a situation where there are two 
different agencies getting into a bureaucratic trap which will prevent 
the flow of money.
  Most importantly, however, is that we know that one size does not fit 
all and I speak specifically that under current law there could be, and 
I think will be a problem, with relation to section 3006 of Public Law 
109-171. And that is, as much that over the last 10 years New York City 
has allocated a lot of money and in the last 5 years since 9/11 almost 
a billion dollars to upgrade its interoperability capacity to allow 
firefighters and police officers to talk to each other. So now under 
current law we are essentially saying that everyone must use the 700 
MHz in the spectrum. New York City cannot, like I said, they have 
allocated a billion

[[Page 585]]

dollars, in the 400 and the 800 megahertz spectrum, Why? Because they 
found out that it is easier to use that to communicate into subways, 
into high rise buildings. The last thing I think this Congress wants to 
be on the record for is to essentially tie the hands of New York City. 
Undo much of the good work that has taken place over the last 5 years 
and allow New York City and other localities that have unique and 
specific needs to continue to deploy and build on the networks that 
they have put in place. I think it would be a big mistake, I encourage 
the majority to consider using this legislation as a vehicle to clarify 
congressional intent in current law as the process goes forward. I make 
no mistake, I make no hesitation that not acting will hurt and punish 
New York City and the millions, tens of millions of people who come 
there to visit the greatest city in the world.
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 1, Implementing 
the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007. With this legislation 
we finally have a real opportunity to address the unfulfilled 
recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission on improving homeland 
security, preventing terrorists from acquiring WMD, and developing 
strategies for preventing the spread of Islamic terrorism.
  While I support H.R. 1, there is one area of concern that I believe 
we could do more to improve and that involves security improvements to 
our ports and incoming containers. Certainly, screening containers is 
important but it isn't enough. We have to start with the basics.
  The idea of screening 100 percent of all cargo containers is a 
formidable task that is expensive and extremely time consuming. I 
believe we should strive to meet these goals, however, this could take 
many years and cost billions of dollars before we achieve that 
objective. In the meantime, there are many inexpensive basic steps that 
we can take to make our ports and containers more secure. Tampering of 
containers in route to the United States is a genuine threat. Today, 
containers are only protected by a simple bolt seal. All it takes to 
defeat our current container security is bolt cutter. Fortunately 
better technology is available. For over 3 years, the Department of 
Homeland Security and Customs and Border Patrol have been developing a 
Container Security Device or a CSD.
  The job of a CSD is simple. It attaches to the inside of a cargo 
container, protected from the elements and anybody who might want to 
remove or disable it. It monitors and records door openings--authorized 
and unauthorized. The CSD can then report those breaches to port or 
customs authorities. It sounds simple and it is simple. These devices 
are currently being used by the private sector--companies like 
Starbucks--to safeguard their shipments worldwide. But unbelievably, 
despite extensive evaluation by DHS, CBP and commercial entities, it 
still has not been deployed in even a pilot program in the supply 
chain.
  Today, we don't know where a container has been, whether someone has 
opened the doors or who actually stuffed it. CSD technology that is 
available today can provide critical security information. It is also 
important to note that the CSD program is available at little cost to 
the Federal Government and to shippers. At less than $20 per shipment, 
we have a chance to make a real difference in port security. The 
administration should move to deploy CSD technology and do it at soon 
as possible.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, legislation 
to fully implement the remaining recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission. I am pleased the new House leadership has made this one of 
the first major pieces of legislation debated in the 110th Congress.
  In the 5 years since the appalling acts of September 11, our country 
has been fighting terrorism to protect America and our friends and 
allies. On July 22, 2004, the independent and bipartisan 9/11 
Commission provided to Congress and the American public 41 
recommendations to improve homeland security.
  At the end of the 108th Congress, legislation was passed and signed 
into law that implemented some of the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission. I was disappointed that the bill did not implement all of 
the Commission's recommendations. That is why I am pleased to support 
the bill before us today which includes all of the remaining 
recommendations.
  One of the most important subjects the bill addresses is how the U.S. 
Government interacts with the Arab and Muslim world. The United States 
must extend our preemptive strategy to include winning the hearts and 
minds in the developing world; I believe this can be achieved through 
education reform. H.R. 1 would significantly enhance the International 
Arab and Muslim Youth Opportunity Fund, which is designed to improve 
educational opportunities for these youth, by calling for greater 
funding and outlining specific purposes for the fund.
  Education reform in the Arab and Muslim world is of great importance 
to me. In fact during the 109th Congress I introduced the Universal 
Education Act to reform education in the developing world. Despite 
strong evidence that education can make nations more prosperous, 
healthy, stable, and democratic, the total amount spent each year on 
foreign aid directed at education could not even build 20 American high 
schools. If one of our strategic goals is to defeat terrorism around 
the world, we need to drastically increase our foreign aid spending, 
and to help developing nations improve their education systems.
  Additionally, the bill before us improves the capabilities of the 
Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center by authorizing additional 
funding and hiring intelligence analysts experienced in the fields of 
human trafficking and terrorist travel. Cutting off the ability for 
terrorist to leave their country of origin is a first good step to 
stopping another attack on U.S. soil.
  Further, the legislation strengthens several Federal non-
proliferation initiatives so that weapons of mass destruction, WMD, do 
not fall into the hands of terrorists. Moreover, H.R. 1 would enact the 
Nuclear Black Market Counter-Terrorism Act. This bill requires the 
President to impose sanctions on any foreign person who trades nuclear 
enrichment technology to a non-nuclear weapons state or provides items 
that contribute to the development of a nuclear weapon by a non-nuclear 
weapons state or any foreign person. This action sends a clear message 
to would be terrorists that if they do attempt to arm themselves there 
will be serious consequences.
  I praise the Commission for its excellent work, leadership, 
patriotism, and service to our country. We owe it to the families of 
the victims of 9/11 and to the citizens of our country to use the 
report's recommendations to make certain such attacks never happen 
again.
  Again, I would like to congratulate and thank the House leadership 
for making one of the first tasks of the 110th Congress implementing 
the wise reforms suggested by the 9/11 Commission. I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1.
  I am deeply disappointed that it has taken more than 5 years since 
the terrible events of September 11, 2001, to implement the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  However, by making legislation implementing these recommendations the 
first measure brought to the floor, our Democratic leadership has 
affirmed what will be our unwavering commitment to homeland security 
throughout the 110th Congress.
  I am also deeply heartened that this bill would exceed the 9/11 
Commission's recommendations by finally requiring the examination of 
all shipping containers bound for the U.S.
  Only a small percentage of the 11 million containers delivered during 
the more than 62,000 port calls made annually at U.S. ports is 
physically inspected upon arrival. It is therefore critical that all 
possible measures be taken to interdict containers that could pose a 
threat to our Nation's security before they ever set sail for our 
shores.
  I urge the passage of H.R. 1 and I commend Speaker Pelosi, Leader 
Hoyer, and Chairman Thompson for their dedication to port security.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this long-
overdue legislation to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission.
  The war on terror isn't just a military operation--it's also a battle 
to persuade people in Arab and Muslim countries that the universal 
values of freedom and democracy are far superior to radical ideologies 
that preach intolerance, hate and violence.
  This bill includes several important provisions to help us succeed in 
that struggle.
  Building on previous legislation, it establishes an enhanced 
International Arab and Muslim Youth Opportunity Fund to provide 
educational opportunities for young people.
  The Fund will support teacher training, the development of modern 
curricula, and the translation of western publications to help ensure 
that students have alternatives to the radical Madrassas that nurtured 
the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
  A related provision in the bill extends a program I authored with Mr. 
Knollenberg that provides scholarships for Arab and Muslim students to 
attend American-sponsored elementary and secondary schools in their 
home countries.
  This can be a cost-effective means to ensure that needy students 
receive an American-style education and exposure to western ideas and 
values.

[[Page 586]]

  H.R. 1 also authorizes the designation of a Middle East Foundation to 
support democracy, human rights, civil society, independent media and 
the rule of law in countries throughout the greater Middle East.
  Like the highly successful Asia Foundation, this non-profit, non-
governmental institution will make it easier for the U.S. to support 
reform-minded organizations and individuals without arousing the 
suspicion and mistrust that often comes with direct government funding.
  Consistent with the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, this 
legislation also calls for a significant expansion of U.S. 
international broadcasting and other public diplomacy in Arab and 
Muslim countries, and provides new authority that will allow the 
Broadcasting Board of Governors to respond quickly to a crisis 
overseas.
  As Congress takes these steps to improve our international 
broadcasting capabilities, I hope the President will appoint a new 
Chairman of the BBG to enhance the credibility and effectiveness of 
that important organization.
  Finally, this bill also contains some very important provisions to 
combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
  It repeals unnecessary restrictions on the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative 
Threat Reduction program, strengthens the Global Threat Reduction 
Initiative, and establishes a U.S. Coordinator for the Prevention of 
WMD Proliferation and Terrorism.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this important 
legislation.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I could not be more pleased that we 
start the hundred legislative hours dealing with the implementation of 
9/11 commission recommendations.
  On the first somber anniversary of 9/11, I asked myself whether we 
had done all we could have as a Congress to make America safe. Sadly I 
did not think so and my feelings were vindicated when the bipartisan 
independent 911 commission later reported that much more was left to be 
done. That was as unacceptable then as it is now.
  The American public expects and deserves better. By moving forward 
with these recommendations today, we are keeping faith with that 
commitment and making long overdue progress. I understand that this is 
the beginning of that commitment rather than the end. There are other 
things that I would do much more quickly including giving the American 
public the budget numbers so they can begin to evaluate our 
stewardship, but I understand that these will take more time.
  We are striking a balance between rapid action, broader consensus and 
bipartisan engagement. Today we're dealing with the lowest hanging 
fruit and setting the stage for more progress. I look forward to the 
committees' of jurisdiction in the House stepping up their efforts, and 
to the Senate joining us in what I hope will be a steady stream of 
further reform. Until that happens, launching the grant program for 
interoperability among first responders refocusing investments based on 
risks and not political power and providing a platform for the 
legislative leadership to coordinate in these critical oversight areas 
are very important first steps.
  We'll continue to work for further streamlining the congressional 
intelligence and security oversight, but I am delighted that this will 
be done in an open legislative platform and moving away from the 
backroom dealing that has shut out the minority.
  This represents an important and long overdue step forward.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, which 
provides for the implementation of remaining recommendations by the 
bipartisan 9/11 Commission.
  Implementation of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations is long 
overdue. In 2004, the 9/11 Commission submitted 41 recommendations to 
the Bush Administration and Congress to fill critical gaps in our 
nation's homeland security. More than two years later, many of these 
recommendations have only been partially implemented and others not at 
all. Troubling gaps in our homeland security still exist. As the Co-
Chairmen of the Commission stated last August, ``we are not as safe as 
we should be.''
  As just one example, the 9/11 Commission found that the inability of 
first responders to communicate with each other and their commanders 
resulted in a loss of life after the planes hit the World Trade Center 
towers five years ago. In an emergency situation, first responders in a 
unit--and across departments--must be able to talk to each other. In 
response, one of the Commission's recommendations stated that 
establishing and funding interoperable communications for first 
responders had to be given a high priority. This hasn't happened; 
indeed, after Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans last year, the 
communications network in that city simply collapsed.
  Securing funding for interoperable radios is the number one homeland 
security priority for my district, but the high cost of establishing 
the required infrastructure and acquiring the necessary equipment has 
greatly slowed this vital effort. For smaller communities, the tens of 
thousands of dollars needed to upgrade their systems is simply too 
great. The stand-alone interoperability grant program included in this 
legislation is a great step forward, and I look forward to working to 
secure appropriations for this critical effort in the future.
  The Commission also criticized the current funding system for federal 
first responder funding--which guarantees States a large portion of 
baseline funding with some additional funding distributed on the basis 
of population--arguing that homeland security assistance should be 
based ``strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.''
  One result of the current funding formula is that States at low risk 
of terrorist attack receive far more money per capita than states at 
much higher risk from terrorism. For example, under the current 
formula, Wyoming received $18.06 per capita in Department of Homeland 
Security grants in 2006 while Michigan, whose border crossings are the 
busiest on the northern border and conduct about $450 million in trade 
every day, received $5.13 per capita.
  The legislation before the House significantly increases that share 
of state homeland security grants provided on the basis of risk. Under 
the bill, most States would be guaranteed a minimum of 0.25 percent of 
Homeland Security grant money, down from 0.75 percent. Eighteen states 
that have international borders, including Michigan, would get a higher 
guaranteed amount of 0.45 percent of the total. The rest of the money 
would be distributed based on the Homeland Security Department's 
assessment of risk and need. I agree with this approach. We must focus 
our resources on high-threat areas where the risk from terrorist attack 
are greatest.
  The most basic job of government is to be ready to respond in the 
event of a disaster, whether natural or man-made. We can't afford 
another response like the one following Hurricane Katrina. I urge all 
my colleagues to join me in voting for this important legislation.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the 9/11 
Commission Fulfillment Act of 2007. Specifically, I strongly support 
the provision in this bill that creates a new Checkpoint Screening 
Security Fund, with $250 million in dedicated funding for explosive 
detection technology at airport checkpoints. This provision is derived 
from H.R. 1818, the Airport Screener Technology Improvement Act of 
2005, which Chairman Oberstar and I introduced last Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, the single greatest security threat to aviation today is 
the suicide-bomber as evidenced by the 9/11 Commission specifically 
recommending that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and 
Congress ``give priority attention to improving the ability of 
screening checkpoints to detect explosives on passengers.''
  Several months later, the Department of Homeland Security Inspector 
General (IG) reported that airport screeners were still having serious 
problems detecting threat items at checkpoints because they lacked the 
technology. Specifically, the IG found that:

       ``Despite the fact that the majority of screeners . . . 
     were diligent in the performance of their duties . . . lack 
     of improvement since our last audit indicates that 
     significant improvement in performance may not be possible 
     without greater use of technology . . . We encourage TSA to 
     expedite its testing programs and give priority to 
     technologies, such as backscatter x- ray, that will enable 
     the screening workforce to better detect both weapons and 
     explosives.''

  In response to the IG's findings, the TSA concurred.
  In September 2005, the 9/11 Commission reiterated its recommendation 
to strengthen passenger security screening declaring that ``minimal 
progress'' had been made. The Commission urged Congress to:

       ``. . . provide the funding for, and TSA needs to move as 
     expeditiously as possible with, the installation of 
     explosives detection trace--portals at more of the nation's 
     441 commercial airports, while both continue to support the 
     development of more advanced screening technology.''

  Mr. Speaker, the recommendations, findings and statements of the DHS 
IG, TSA, and the 9/11 Commission all suggest that technology is sorely 
needed to improve security at our airports. But, limited funding has 
prevented the wide-scale deployment of these technologies.
  We know what needs to be done to improve screener performance, and we 
must take action now. If a U.S. airliner is destroyed by a suicide-
bomber it will not be regarded as a ``failure of imagination''--it will 
be regarded simply as a failure of funding and a failure of

[[Page 587]]

political will to provide the resources that might have prevented it.
  Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased that H.R. 1 provides dedicated 
funding to improve airport security checkpoints and I ask my colleagues 
to vote yes on this bill so we can work to deploy technologies that 
will help our screeners do their jobs and keep the American traveling 
public safe.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, our Government has no greater 
responsibility to the American people than national security. It is one 
of the few prescribed duties specifically outlined in both the preamble 
and body of the United States Constitution.
  It has been over 5 years since the terrorist attacks of September 11 
and America is safer and much more alert to the dangers that lurk in 
our world. Since 9/11, our military and our intelligence services have 
thwarted dozens of attacks. Their efforts have saved countless lives. 
These successes were possible because of the tools we armed them with 
through the passage of laws on the floor of this House.
  Mere days after September 11, Republicans responded by approving the 
USA PATRIOT Act to address the ways in which American law enforcement 
agencies can combat terrorism. By making necessary changes such as 
modernizing wiretapping laws and allowing more information sharing 
between law enforcement agencies, we increased the likelihood of 
catching terrorists and punishing them accordingly. This law, which we 
recently reauthorized, has enabled the Federal Government to 
effectively deter and punish terrorist acts in the U.S. and around the 
world.
  Following the release of the 9/11 Commission's report and 
recommendations. Members of the House and Senate met to discuss these 
issues. At times, our views differed significantly regarding the 
changes we believed were necessary, but, in the end, we were able to 
find common ground on many of these issues and did what was right for 
America.
  This culminated in the passage of the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act. This legislation provided the largest 
overhaul in the structure of the U.S. intelligence community since the 
creation of the CIA and incorporated most of the recommendations 
offered by the 9/11 Commission. Furthermore, this legislation allowed 
the intelligence community to focus its efforts on 21st century threats 
and was a tremendous step to further protecting the safety of the 
American people.
  As we learned, access to timely and accurate information is critical 
to defeating terrorists and protecting our Nation from other threats. 
As such, the bill created the Office of the National Intelligence 
Director who acts as the unifying central point bringing together U.S. 
intelligence efforts. In addition, the bill addressed the loop-holes 
that existed in our national security structure by making improvements 
to law enforcement, defense intelligence, emergency preparedness, and 
border and aviation security.
  The Intelligence Reform Act also addressed the issue of 
communications interoperability for first responders. The act required 
the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a national strategy for 
public safety interoperability communications, and required the 
Secretary to establish two pilot projects to serve as national models. 
In addition, we passed subsequent legislation to establish an Office of 
Emergency Communications within the Department of Homeland Security.
  Furthermore, we included provisions in the Deficit Reduction Act to 
plan for the release of radio frequency spectrum, and create a fund to 
receive spectrum auction proceeds. Among other things, the fund 
establishes a grant program of up to $1 billion for public safety 
agencies to deploy interoperable systems.
  Nonetheless, we still had important border security and immigration 
provisions to be addressed. To that end, the House passed the REAL ID 
Act of 2005. A key 9/11 Commission recommendation, the REAL ID Act 
federally standardizes the requirements for applying and issuing State 
identification cards. According to the 9/11 Commission, the 19 
hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks carried between 
them 13 valid drivers' licenses and 21 State-issued ID cards. The 
Commission recommended Congress establish Federal standards for sources 
of identification in order to target terrorist travel and better 
prevent another terrorist attack on American soil. This legislation 
addressed that.
  And that's not all--over the past 5 years, this House has passed 
legislation to address maritime and port security, aviation security, 
and research and development of biomedical countermeasures to potential 
biological attacks.
  As President John F. Kennedy once said, ``In the long history of the 
world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending 
freedom in its hour of maximum danger.'' This is a responsibility we 
have never shied away from. America must continue to be vigilant and 
prepared for terrorist threats and attacks. And we will continue to 
work together to that end.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the long-awaited 
legislation this nation has desperately needed since the 9/11 attacks 
on our democracy . . . yet which was pushed to the back burner by the 
previous Congress.
  I'm proud that--within the first 100 legislative hours of this 
Congress--we are considering this bill to make our Nation safer by 
implementing the 9/11 Commission's recommendations left out of the 
Intelligence Reform bill in 2004. The bill also goes beyond the 
Commission's recommendations by requiring, within five years, 100 
percent scanning of U.S.-bound shipping containers.
  I represent two major ports in South Texas--the Port of Brownsville 
and the Port of Corpus Christi, which also has a strategic sealift 
command--and the array of possibilities for terrorists to access our 
Nation through shipping containers is amazing and horrifying.
  Implementing the Commission's recommendations will make us safer by 
enhancing homeland security, strengthening efforts to stop the 
proliferation of WMD, and promoting strategies to reduce the appeal of 
extremism, particularly in Muslim parts of the world.
  Today, we are--at long last--making a number of substantial 
improvements to homeland security, including: distributing homeland 
security grants on the basis of risk alone; creating a stand-alone 
grant program for interoperable communications for first responders; 
requiring a 100 percent inspection of air cargo over the next 3 years; 
accelerating the installation of explosive detection systems for 
checked baggage; and mandating a strategic plan to deploy explosive 
detection equipment at passenger checkpoints.
  Today's bill also offers provisions to prevent terrorists from 
acquiring WMD by creating a U.S. Coordinator for the Prevention of WMD 
Proliferation and Terrorism and a blue-ribbon commission to recommend 
further reforms. We also strengthen efforts to eliminate nuclear black-
market networks, easily the greatest danger to the civilized nations of 
the world.
  Through this bill we offer strategies to reduce the appeal of 
extremism by providing assistance for expanding modern educational 
programs for Arab and other Muslim youth around the world, as well as 
promoting economic opportunities, education reform, human rights, and 
democratic processes in the countries of the Middle East.
  This is a good day for this nation . . . and when the president signs 
this bill into law, we will be a safer nation.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the 
opportunity to make reference to the fact that H.R. 1 includes 
provisions in which the Judiciary Committee has a jurisdictional 
interest. Specifically, I am speaking of provisions that touch on the 
following aspects of the bill: the Human Smuggling and Trafficking 
Center, the Fusion and Law Enforcement Education and Teaming Grant 
Program, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, and the treatment of detainees.
  I appreciate the assistance of my colleague from Michigan, Mr. 
Conyers, in assuring the expedited consideration of this important 
legislation on the House floor, given his Committee's jurisdictional 
interest in the legislation. While it is important to note that I do 
not control the entire process, as there are other House Committees 
involved and the Senate will likely have its own positions on a variety 
of these issues, I am glad to work with the gentleman from Michigan and 
other Members of the Judiciary Committee as this legislation moves 
forward.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 
2001 remain a dark day in our Nation's history, but the tragedy of 9/11 
rallied Americans to the aid of their fellow citizens and showed the 
world our resilience.
  Throughout the country, patriotic Americans responded to the attacks 
by volunteering to serve their country in the armed forces, and I am 
proud to count my son among those who signed up.
  Since 9/11 we've known that we need to do more to expand security 
measures nationwide. The legislation we will be voting on today takes 
us a few steps closer to protecting Americans here at home by 
increasing security at our nation's ports and airports, improving 
communication, and providing funding for our first responders.
  The 9/11 Commission created the blueprint for increasing security 
some time ago, and I'm pleased today that we are implementing these 
critical security recommendations to make America more safe.
  I commend the House for taking up this legislation today, and I urge 
all of my colleagues to support its adoption.

[[Page 588]]


  Mr. SIRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1. My 
district in Northern New Jersey was greatly impacted by the terrorist 
attacks on September 11, 2001. It has been over 5 years since that 
terrible day and we are still mourning for those who were lost. I can 
think of no better way to honor the memories of those who were lost and 
to honor those who were injured than to pass H.R. 1 today.
  Two and half years ago the bipartisan 9/11 Commission released their 
report and submitted 41 recommendations to Congress. As of today, many 
of those recommendations have not been implemented and therefore we 
have not done everything we can to help secure our nation.
  One of the most important recommendations is to change the 
distribution of homeland security funding for high risk States and 
regions. My district has been named one of the areas in the country 
that is most susceptible to terrorist attacks. The risk that we live 
with every day should warrant more federal funding in order to help 
ensure security. The cities and towns in my district need to know that 
they can count on funding for overtime, equipment, and all of the other 
demands that are put on our communities due to these threats.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is long overdue. I strongly support H.R. 1 and 
I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call upon my colleagues to 
address the very real threat to the security of rail passengers in 
America. I am a supporter of the 9/11 Commission Bill and commend the 
Speaker and Chairman Thompson for their leadership in at long last 
implementing the basic reforms directed by the 9/11 Commission.
  But the 9/11 Commission's recommendations were but a first step. 
Since the Commission completed its work, the evolution of terrorism has 
continued in countries around our planet, and we cannot turn a blind 
eye to the vulnerabilities that we face in this Nation--particularly 
those vulnerabilities that are being routinely targeted by terrorists 
in other parts of the world. Most notably, as demonstrated by the 
bombings in Madrid in 2004, London in 2005, and Mumbai in 2006--the 
passenger rail and transit system in this country is a high-risk target 
and we must address this critical security need immediately.
  We rightfully have devoted extensive efforts towards securing 
aviation, but now it is time to devote significant resources towards 
one of this country's most vital economic assets.
  Each weekday, there are 11.3 million passengers using some form of 
rail and mass transit. That's more than 5 times as many people taking 
air passenger trips. At New York's Penn Station alone--there are over 
half a million people passing through; that is more passengers than at 
our two busiest air hubs--Chicago and Atlanta--combined. And yet, on 
average, we have spent $9 per air passenger compared to 1 penny per 
rail and mass transit passenger.
  The Secretary of Homeland Security often states that it is the 
management of risk and not the elimination of risk that is the core 
principle for DHS--and the management of risk requires the 
prioritization of risk based on three key components: threat, 
vulnerability, and consequence.
  Passenger rail facilities have a high passenger density, which 
creates the potential for a spectacular attack that is intended to 
instill fear--we know this is what our enemies look for when planning 
attacks. We know that they have already mounted vicious attacks in 
Madrid, London, and Mumbai over the last 3 years, and even before 9/
11--in Paris and Tokyo. This threat is real, it is serious, and it is 
not going away.
  We also know that if anything were to happen to disrupt our passenger 
rail system, the economic consequences and impacts on our way of life 
would be devastating.
  Finally, we know that most of our major passenger rail facilities are 
old, in some cases falling apart, lack modern security enhancements 
built into the station design, and would be unable to recover quickly 
from even a minor attack. They have not been retrofitted, reinforced, 
or rebuilt in ways consistent with today's threat environment.
  Thus, our passenger rail system is clearly at a high risk based on 
all three components--threat, vulnerability, and consequence. And this 
risk must be managed better.
  Now some people argue that because the rail system in our country is 
open and dynamic and therefore impossible to secure like other parts of 
the transportation system, that we should not spend a lot of money 
trying--that it becomes a ``slippery slope.'' To the contrary, to do 
nothing in the face of such demonstrated high risk is irresponsible.
  Rail and transit authorities have made efforts to improve security. 
However, authorities are having a difficult time identifying resources 
that can be used for capital improvements. In fact, between 2001 and 
2003 over $1.7 billion was spent on security efforts for rail and 
transit by State and local authorities, but 75 percent was used just 
for overtime and other labor-intensive security operating expenses. 
While these measures are a key part of securing open facilities like 
rail stations, their costs leave very little money for the much needed 
capital investments in security.
  The American Public Transportation Association estimated that it cost 
State and local transportation authorities nearly $1 million a day 
during the 36 days of high alert status after the July 2005 London 
bombings--and this number does not even include the costs incurred in 
the additional efforts of New York and New Jersey's random searches.
  No matter what we may have planned, the fact is that we will end up 
devoting tremendous resources should there be a rail attack. I would 
rather see us be strategic in our investments than be reactive every 
time a new threat is evident. Targeted investments in capital security 
enhancements at our most critical, high-risk locations will serve us 
during normal and heightened alerts and can possibly reduce our 
operating costs by leveraging the capability of people on the scene.
  The Federal Government does not have to do this alone. We constantly 
hear about the importance of public-private partnerships, yet we have 
few positive examples to point at. The rail system has the opportunity 
to leverage the investments of private developers who seek to benefit 
from transit-oriented development. As we address capital security 
investments in passenger rail facilities, Congress should acknowledge 
and even encourage these public-private partnerships by providing a way 
for private developers to be guaranteed that the Federal Government's 
commitment to long-term projects is real. The current homeland security 
annual grant cycle is a road block for these larger projects, and it is 
critical to our Nation's security and fiscal well-being that we take 
advantage of such investment opportunities as they arise.
  From 9/11 through 2005 we have spent approximately $20 billion on 
aviation security, but only $500 million on rail and transit security. 
We can and must do better than this. I call on my colleagues to join me 
in this Congress to address the critical issue of capital investments 
in our rail passenger security.
  After Madrid and London, we can have no more excuses.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to Members' attention a 
number of concerns have with the aviation security, emergency 
preparedness, and port security provisions contained in H.R. 1, the 
``Implementing the
9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007.''


                      AVIATION SECURITY PROVISIONS

  Almost all of the aviation security provisions in H.R. 1 address 
requirements previously authorized or mandated by the Republicans in 
the years since September 11th.
  H.R. 1 sets up an unrealistic Cargo Inspection Program that will be 
impossible to implement without bringing commerce to a halt and diverts 
limited funding and attention from higher security threats. Even more, 
Congress already addressed this recommendation in the Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004; provided $200M each year 
2005-2007 to improve cargo security and $100M each year 2005-2007 for 
research and development.
  H.R. 1 will require inspection or a physical search of each piece of 
cargo and will therefore bring commerce to a grinding halt.
  H.R. 1 ignores risk assessments to date that cargo is not a high 
threat area. Rather, passenger and baggage screening has been and 
should continue to be the first priority. Yet, passenger security 
checkpoints are still using 1950's technology with little explosive 
detection capability. Currently, only 28 out of 441 commercial airports 
have full or partial in-line EDS. Of the largest 29 airports that 
handle 75% of all passengers, only 9 have full in-line EDS systems.
  Additionally, even though it is NOT a 9/11 Commission Recommendation, 
H.R. 1 gives TSA employees collective bargaining which will keep in 
place a flawed system and negatively impact the introduction of much 
needed screening technology.
  Only thing worse than government bureaucracy is entrenched government 
bureaucracy. Yet that is exactly what H.R. 1 is seeking to create. In 
fact, H.R. 1 ignores and reverses Congressional direction in the 
Aviation and Transportation Security Act that a flexible personnel 
management system is essential to TSA's critical national security 
role. H.R. 1 also ignores and reverses TSA's January 2003 determination 
that, ``. . . individuals carrying out the security screening function 
. . . , in light of their critical national security responsibilities, 
shall not, . . . be entitled to engage in collective bargaining. . . 
.''

[[Page 589]]

  H.R. 1 will be costly and will keep in place a flawed, security 
system and deny the opportunity to put in place much needed screening 
technology. Europeans learned the hard way and moved from a government-
run airport security system to a private system with government 
oversight. It looks like we are not learning from their efforts.
  Finally, H.R. 1 does not address many important aviation security 
issues such as: Ensuring biometrics operations in identification and 
access control; deploying high technology solutions; improving pilots' 
licenses; setting a term for TSA Deputy Secretary position. We have had 
4 different people in charge in the 5 years since the agency was 
created (Magaw, Loy, Stone and Hawley)--not counting when the post was 
unfilled. For instance, in 2001, the Democrat-lead Senate adjourned for 
the year without taking action to fill this post--the President had to 
make a recess appointment on January 7th, 2002.


                    EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS

  The Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act and past 
appropriations bills already address most of the 9/11 Commission's 
first responder recommendations. Republicans already implemented 
comprehensive emergency management reform. Normal procedure and a 
committee markup would have allowed Congress to address the few 
inconsistencies with the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act 
enacted by the last Congress.
  H.R. 1 makes only minor emergency management reforms. Republicans 
enacted comprehensive emergency management reform last year in the Post 
Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act addressing interoperable 
communications, emergency preparedness standards and FEMA reform. H.R. 
1 authorizes another grant program for communications equipment, 
providing for ``such sums as necessary.'' This is just an 
authorization, not real money. In contrast, the Republicans passed a 
law that will allocate a portion of the digital spectrum sale to 
interoperable communications grants. This is real money, and will be a 
billion dollars.
  H.R. 1 is a first step toward the Federal Government placing unfunded 
mandates for preparedness on private businesses. It is important for 
individuals and businesses to be prepared for disasters, but H.R. 1 
includes a provision that is a first step toward the Federal government 
placing unfunded mandates for preparedness on private businesses. It 
goes well beyond any Congressionally-mandated role and inserts the 
Federal Government into state and local affairs.


                        PORT SECURITY PROVISIONS

  Well before the 9/11 Commission's report in 2004, Congress recognized 
the potential for a maritime-based terrorist attack. In 2002, Congress 
adopted the Maritime Transportation Security Act which established a 
framework of comprehensive port and vessel security. Congress expanded 
the Act in 2004 and adopted the SAFE Port Act last year. The SAFE Port 
Act established a cargo scanning pilot program. That program will start 
scanning containers bound for the United States in at least 5 foreign 
ports later this year.
  So, I am surprised to see the proposal to mandate 100 percent 
screening on the floor today. That is NOT the recommendation of the 9/
11 Commission. The Commission recommends that the government ``identify 
and evaluate the transportation assets that need to be protected, set 
risk-based priorities for defending them, select the most practical and 
cost-effective ways of doing so, and then develop a plan, budget, and 
funding to implement the effort.'' That isn't what this provision does.
  While the proposal before us today would allow the existing pilot 
program to continue, it would also require each and every cargo 
container to be screened in each and every foreign port not later than 
5 years, and as soon as 3 years from enactment. This requirement would 
come into effect regardless of the results of the pilot program and, 
perhaps, regardless of the availability of any sufficient screening 
system.
  When this proposal was first made last year, it was opposed by the 
Administration, the maritime transportation industries, and such voices 
as the Washington Post's editorial page. Instead of enacting any 
blanket requirements on the maritime transportation sector without any 
technologies capable of achieving the standards, Congress rightly 
required the Department of Homeland Security to test the capabilities 
of available scanning technologies.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle are justifying their 
proposal by saying that 100 percent scanning systems are in place at 
two ports overseas. It is not. In these ports, some--but not all--
containers are scanned, and none of the scans are analyzed to determine 
that the container is or is not a risk.
  No system currently in place in any port worldwide is capable of 
scanning and reviewing 100 percent of containers that are bound for the 
United States. What will we do in 3 years if there are no scanning 
technologies available without creating massive backups and delays in 
international maritime commerce? Let's complete the pilot program and 
not establish mandatory requirements that we may not be able to meet.
  Congress has acted to make America's maritime commerce is safer than 
before 9/11. It is unfortunate that this bill has been brought to the 
House Floor with the intention of convincing the American people that 
until now Congress has simply let the 9/11 Commission's recommendations 
languish. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today very pleased that 
we will finally pass legislation to implement in full the 
recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission over 2 years ago. This is 
an important day for our Nation, and an extremely important day for the 
security of our Nation.
  There is much to like about this legislation, but today I would like 
to focus only on a few of the many important provisions in the bill. 
Specifically, I have supported in the past, and continue to support 
today, efforts to screen 100 percent of shipping containers headed 
through United States ports. As I have noted here on the floor of the 
House before, approximately 95 percent of our Nation's trade, worth 
nearly $1 trillion, enters or leaves through our seaports. We must 
secure these ports and do so immediately. We have already waited too 
long.
  I know there is much concern about the feasibility of this provision 
to screen 100 percent, because of cost as well as whether or not it is 
simply possible. But Madame Speaker, I believe it is feasible. There 
are technologies being developed in my district by able small 
businesses to provide for improved screening processes while ensuring 
that port operations continue efficiently and effectively. Our Nation 
has faced challenges to our security before, and industry and our 
citizens have responded. I believe this can be the case again if we 
demonstrate the will to lead. And today we are on the verge of doing 
so.
  Another aspect of H.R. 1 that I would like to highlight today are the 
changes made to the Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Representatives 
Maloney, Shays, and I introduced legislation during the 109th Congress 
to make the Board an independent agency, grant the Board subpoena 
authority, subject all members of the Board to be confirmed by the 
Senate, require that no more than three members of the same political 
party be allowed to serve simultaneously, thus creating a more 
bipartisan and politically diverse board, and require each executive 
department or agency with law enforcement or antiterrorism functions to 
designate a privacy and civil liberties officer. H.R. 1 includes each 
and every one of these provisions.
  Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the many provisions included in 
H.R. 1 that will help secure our nation and I strongly support the 
passage of this legislation today. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1. This 
bill takes an important long-overdue step to implement recommendations 
put forth by the 9/11 Commission. This bill improves interoperability, 
enhances cargo and overall port security, and strengthens U.S. efforts 
to reduce the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
  I do recommend that implementation of this bill be undertaken in such 
a way as to ensure that our rural first responders do not receive less 
funding as a result of the redistribution of the homeland security 
grants in the legislation. First responders across the Nation must be 
equipped to readily deal with and react to security concerns in the 
United States. Therefore, I think it is critical that North Dakota's 
first responders continue to receive the funding that they need and 
deserve to do their job.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to revise and extend my remarks with 
regard to the vote on H.R. 1--Implementing the 9/11 Commission 
Recommendations Act of 2007.
  While I certainly support the goal of this legislation and believe it 
to be imperative that Congress continue to work with the Administration 
to ensure the safety and security of our Nation, I could not in good 
conscience vote in favor of the measure as it was presented. I agree 
there is still work to be done and it would benefit this Congress to 
discuss the continued implementation of the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission; however, I believe H.R. 1 contained some critical flaws 
that prevent it from being a solution to the security dilemmas that we 
face today.
  First and foremost, I believe this legislation is fiscally 
irresponsible. Not only does it create new government spending without 
providing any offsets, it essentially provides a blank check for these 
unfunded mandates by authorizing ``such sums as may be necessary'' for 
an

[[Page 590]]

unspecified number of years. Providing effective and common sense 
security measures is essential; however we cannot do so at the expense 
of fiscal responsibility and subject our Nation to higher government 
spending and a greater Federal deficit.
  Beyond being fiscally irresponsible, I had concerns about the manner 
in which this legislation was considered. Decisions on matters as grave 
and enduring as the security and safety of this Nation should not be 
undertaken hastily or impulsively and should not subvert the normal 
legislative process. This legislation was not afforded the opportunity 
to traverse the regular order and be debated on, amended, or considered 
during the committee process. Further, as no amendments were allowed, 
it cannot be said that the proposal received a fair and open debate.
  Further, the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act contains a provision 
expressing the Sense of Congress that the Proliferation Security 
Initiative (PSI) should be authorized by the United Nations. I believe 
it presents a dangerous situation to allow the UN control over such an 
important program which restricts the transfer of banned weapons and 
technology, given that the UN membership includes some of the nations 
responsible for the violations that PSI seeks to prevent.
  Finally, I am opposed to the provision that extends collective 
bargaining guarantees to the employees of the Transportation Security 
Administration (TSA). It is important to remember this is an idea that 
was explored during the creation of the TSA as the Homeland Security 
Act of 2002 was considered and at that time, it was determined it was 
not in the best interest of the organization and its mission. 
Unionizing TSA employees would tie the hands of the agency and disallow 
it the flexibility to deploy its workforce and change the nature of 
employees' work and locations in response to national emergencies.
  Again, I want to emphasize for the record that I recognize the 
critical and serious nature of the business of protecting and securing 
our Nation and its citizens. However, as previously explained, I could 
not in good conscience vote for legislation that I do not believe to be 
an effective or responsible means in which to address these important 
Issues.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 1, the Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act. The 
safety of our families, our communities and our country is the top 
priority of Americans and today, finally, it is the top priority of 
Congress.
  It is long past time to make the changes and investments necessary to 
improve our homeland security. The Commission submitted 41 
recommendations in 2004. Since then, the Republican-controlled Congress 
has failed to take action. In fact, last year, the bipartisan 9/11 
Commissioners gave Congress failing grades on implementing the 
Commission's recommendations.
  H.R. 1 will both enhance our homeland security and reduce the threat 
overseas. Implementing these recommendations is supported by 9/11 
families and 62 percent of Americans.
  This bill includes several critical elements to improving American 
security. It will establish a grant program to improve interoperability 
and finally allow our first responders to communicate and share 
information with one another. It also ensures that taxpayer dollars are 
used wisely and requires that homeland security grants are awarded 
based on risk. H.R 1. will provide for screening of 100 percent of 
containers bound for the U.S. and establishes an improved system of 
screening the cargo and baggage on aircraft.
  Democrats have also included provisions to act proactively in 
improving stability around the world. This legislation will improve 
prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and 
nuclear technology. It will also take a critical step in reducing the 
appeal of extremism by encouraging educational opportunities in Arab 
and Muslim countries.
  H.R 1. will change Congress' failing grade to an ``A'' from the 9/11 
Commission. This legislation is a comprehensive effort to enhance our 
security and to promote stability and understanding around the world. 
9/11 Commissioner Lee Hamilton said that if H.R. 1 passes, America will 
be safer. I urge my colleagues to join me in making this so.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1 
which will carry out the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  In 2002, Congress passed and funded a distinguished bipartisan panel 
to investigate and report on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks 
on our country. In spite of the urgency and critical nature of the 
panel's report and recommendations, the Bush administration and the 
Republican-led Congress failed to implement key recommendations that 
would improve the defense of our Nation such as enhancing homeland 
security and developing strategies to prevent the spread of Islamic 
terrorism and the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by 
terrorists.
  Putting into action only a few of the Commission's carefully thought 
out recommendations did only half the job. And we all know that 
protecting America is a full-time job requiring full-time vigilance and 
full-time protection. This is especially true in today's 
post-9/11 world.
  For the past 4 years, I have had the privilege of serving on the 
Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. As a member of that 
subcommittee, I heard testimony and attended briefings from officials 
at the Department of Homeland Security that brought to light the 
shortcomings of this Department and its failure to meet its mandate to 
secure our borders and protect our country. The then Chairman of the 
committee even withheld funding due to the Department's 
unresponsiveness and apparent lack of urgency about its mission.
  Mr. Speaker, protecting our country must be our government's number 
one priority. If that mission lacks urgency by the very agency created 
to protect us, we will continue to remain dangerously vulnerable to 
those who would harm us.
  I believe that putting into action all of the Commission's 
recommendations is urgently needed to help protect our country against 
a terrorist attack. And under our new Democratic leadership, which will 
be vigilant in its oversight and in holding the administration 
accountable, I am confident Democrats will push this agency beyond its 
bureaucratic lethargy to take the steps necessary to secure our 
homeland and protect our fellow Americans.
  While I endorse the entire package of recommendations in the bill 
under consideration, I am particularly pleased to note that it includes 
several of the issues I addressed in hearings before the Homeland 
Security Appropriations Subcommittee. These issues are critically 
important to our Nation and the communities I represent in Los Angeles.
  First among them is interoperable communications. Our country lost 
many heroic first responders on that fateful September morning because 
they were unable to receive the message to evacuate the Twin Towers. 
Incredibly, 5 years after 9/11, this serious problem of interoperable 
communications continues to plague our emergency responders. This is 
particularly true for first responders in districts like mine, where 
various communities are covered by multiple jurisdictions of police, 
sheriff, and fire departments.
  I am very pleased that included in this bill is the 9/11 Commission's 
recommendation to create a grant program for interoperable 
communications with a dedicated stream of funding. This will greatly 
enhance the ability of our first responders to close this critically 
serious communications gap.
  Another issue of great concern to my constituents is currently being 
addressed at Los Angeles world airports. It is the installation of in-
line detection systems for checked baggage on commercial airliners. The 
Commission's recommendations in this bill call for accelerating the 
installation of in-line explosive detection systems at all major 
airports.
  The cargo hold of airplanes, filled with baggage, has often been 
called the ``soft underbelly'' of our aviation transportation system. 
By placing state of the art detection systems in our Nation's airport, 
we will harden that vulnerable soft spot and protect the flying public. 
And by consolidating the handling of baggage and screening equipment we 
will accelerate the movement of goods, passengers, and cargo.
  In committee I have also consistently raised my concerns about the 
security of cargo containers entering ports such as the Ports of Los 
Angeles-Long Beach. I am very pleased that this bill goes beyond the 
Commission's recommendations by requiring, within 5 years, 100 percent 
scanning of U.S.-bound shipping containers.
  We are very fortunate there has not been a port-centered attack on 
our Nation. As we saw during the 2002 labor dispute that closed the 
Ports of LA-Long Beach and cost the national economy $1 billion per 
day, any long term disruption of our national maritime trade would have 
a devastating effect on our Nation's economy as well as the rest of the 
world.
  While some critics may complain about the cost involved in scanning 
these cargo containers, we cannot afford to be penny wise and pound 
foolish when it comes to our security. We must make the necessary 
investments. The added cost of security in our post 9/11 era is the 
price we must pay to protect American lives and our Nation. If we do 
not make this investment, the cost could be much higher not just in 
dollars but in lives.
  And finally, among other critical needs addressed by the 9/11 
Commission, is the need

[[Page 591]]

to significantly increase the number of state homeland security grants 
and award them on the basis of risk. While it is true we must make 
every effort to protect all parts of our country, given our limited 
funds, we must prioritize our security weaknesses and allocate these 
scarce funds first to the areas most at risk of an attack.
  It was therefore welcomed news that late last week the Department of 
Homeland Security has announced it will commit more than 55 percent of 
urban area grant funds to the six urban areas facing the highest threat 
of terrorist attacks.
  Mr. Speaker, as the former Homeland Appropriations Subcommittee 
Chairman Hal Rogers often stated, ``those who seek to harm us have to 
get it right only occasionally, while those of us working to protect 
America have to get it right 100 percent of the time. Fully 
implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission is a critical 
step toward ``getting it right'' and moving our Nation forward to our 
100 percent goal of protecting our United States of America.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, on September 11th, 2001, my congressional 
district lost well over one hundred people; and tens of thousands of 
lives were shattered.
  So it is on their behalf that I rise today and support passage of 
this bill, to implement the recommendations of the bipartisan 9-11 
Commission.
  I am grateful that the first bill to be passed in the first hours of 
a new majority is this one. Because America can't afford to wait 
another minute. We've had 5\1/2\ years of excuses, delays, 
postponements and lobbying. That's 5\1/2\ years too long.
  Even today, Mr. Speaker, there are some who doubt we can meet the 
deadlines to screen air cargo in 3 years and shipping cargo in 5 years.
  Mr. Speaker, America's greatest triumphs were not achieved by saying 
``it's too hard.'' They were secured by refusing to take no for an 
answer.
  In 1962, 5 years after Sputnik was launched, John F. Kennedy said, 
``By the end of the decade we will land on the moon.''
  In 2007, over 5 years after 9-11, we are saying, ``by the end of the 
decade we will screen all air cargo on our planes.''
  If we could research, develop, engineer and build the systems that 
lifted people into space, out of orbit, propel them to the moon, land 
them on the moon, bring them back to their capsule, return to earth, 
survive a fiery re-entry and deposit them safely in the ocean--then we 
should be able to figure out how to screen air cargo in a way that 
minimizes risk and inconvenience to people who get on planes.
  Mr. Speaker, when it came to securing America's place in the world, 
President Kennedy didn't say ``I wish we could land a man on the moon 
but it's not easy enough, so instead we'll send a bus to Des Moines.''
  Mr. Speaker, when it came to preserving our national survival, 
President Roosevelt didn't say, ``Yesterday was a day of infamy, so 
let's spend 5\1/2\ years figuring out how to respond with the least 
inconvenience to the American people.''
  Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the safety and security of my 
constituents, there can be no more excuses, no further delay, no higher 
priority.
  And to those who disagree with me, who earnestly and honorably 
believe we must continue to study feasibility and practicalities, I 
will share other words of President Kennedy, from that same speech when 
he told America we would go to the moon:

       We choose to go the moon in this decade and do the other 
     things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, 
     because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best 
     of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one 
     that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to 
     postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, 
     too.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murtha). Pursuant to section 507 of 
House Resolution 6, the bill is considered read and the previous 
question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


             Motion to Recommit Offered by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit with 
instructions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Ros-Lentinen moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1 to the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:
       Page 191, after line 22, insert the following:
       (a) Statement of Policy.--The following shall be the 
     policies of the United States:
       (1) The responsibility for ensuring the security of the 
     American people rests exclusively with the Government of the 
     United States and may not be delegated in whole or in part to 
     any international organization, agency, or tribunal or to the 
     government of any other country.
       (2) The freedom of the Government of the United States to 
     act as it deems appropriate to ensure the security of the 
     American people may not be limited by, or made dependent 
     upon, the act or lack thereof, by any international 
     organization, agency, or tribunal or by the government of any 
     other country.
       (3) The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land 
     and cannot be subordinated to, or superseded by, any act, or 
     lack thereof, by any international organization, agency, or 
     tribunal or by the government of any other country.
       (4) In carrying out its responsibility for ensuring the 
     security of the American people, the Government of the United 
     States has sought and should continue to seek to enlist the 
     cooperation and support of international organizations, 
     agencies, and tribunals, including the United Nations and its 
     affiliated organizations and agencies, as well as the 
     governments of other countries; but no act taken by the 
     Government of the United States regarding its responsibility 
     to ensure the security of the American people may be deemed 
     to require authorization, permission, or approval by any 
     international organization, agency, or tribunal or by the 
     government of any other country.
       Page 191, line 23, redesignate subsection (a) as subsection 
     (b).
       Page 192, strike lines 10 through 12.
       Page 192, line 13, redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph 
     (2).
       Page 192, line 15, redesignate paragraph (4) as paragraph 
     (3).
       Page 193, strike lines 6 through 9.
       Page 193, line 10, redesignate subsection (b) as subsection 
     (c).
       Page 193, line 14, redesignate subsection (c) as subsection 
     (d).
       Page 193, lines 23 to 24, strike ``paragraph (4) of 
     subsection (a)'' and insert ``paragraph (3) of subsection 
     (b)''.
       Page 194, lines 2 to 3, strike ``paragraphs (1), (2), (3), 
     and (5) of subsection (a)'' and insert ``paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) of subsection (b)''.
       Page 194, line 4, redesignate subsection (d) as subsection 
     (e).
       Page 194, line 9, strike ``(a)'' and insert ``(b)''.

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Mississippi?
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk continued to read the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of her motion to recommit.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, since its creation by this 
administration in the year 2002, the Proliferation Security Initiative, 
known as PSI, has quickly become one of this country's most valuable 
tools in helping to stop spread the weapons of mass destruction and 
preventing them falling into the hands of terrorist countries.
  Our PSI partners, working at times with others, have stopped the 
transshipment of materials and equipment that have been bound for 
Iran's ballistic missiles programs and also has prevented Iran from 
procuring goods to support its WMD programs, including its nuclear 
program. Again, it was PSI cooperation between the United States, 
Britain and other European partners that began the demise of the Dr. 
A.Q. Khan network, an action that also contributed to the decision of 
the Libyan Government to stop and abandon its nuclear weapons and 
longer-range missile program.
  However, despite this extraordinary record of success, some of our 
Democratic colleagues tell us, as noted in

[[Page 592]]

the Dear Colleague that they have circulated today, that securing 
United Nations authorization under international law would persuade 
countries that are not currently cooperating with us in the United 
States to prevent this illicit trade in items of proliferation concern 
to somehow cooperate with us.
  They dismissed a coalition of the willing, on which the PSI is based 
as an ad hoc assembly. But the PSI has been a success precisely because 
it is a coalition of the willing.
  Countries that might wish to slow or limit its activities have no 
means of doing so. The fact is that no country that genuinely wishes to 
cooperate with the United States, another PSI participant, is prevented 
from doing so. The idea that there is a need for the United Nations to 
provide legitimacy to the PSI under international law to permit 
countries to cooperate is nonsense.
  I do not share the sentiments of my Democratic colleagues who have 
the surprising faith in the United Nations' desire to advance the 
interests of the United States. Whether it is Iran, Syria, terrorism, 
Middle East peace, the U.N. is rarely a help and more often than not a 
hindrance to the advancement of the goals of the United States. Rather, 
the desire for consensus, an agreement for agreement's sake, as a 
result, is a race to the bottom.
  We have seen this with the so-called Human Rights Council, Mr. 
Speaker. If we allow the section cited in the motion to remain in the 
bill, a similar result is likely to happen with PSI. Some of my 
Democratic colleagues appear to regard U.N. authorization under 
international law as something upon which U.S. action must be 
predicated, that it is a higher authority to which we must turn in 
order to secure authorization for all our actions, a permission which 
may be granted or held as the U.N. sees fit.
  We must reject that interpretation. I am certain that many of our 
constituents do reject it. What troubles me most are statements that 
begin with the phrase ``international law does not allow.''

                              {time}  1845

  We on this side of the aisle do not believe that international law 
controls what the U.S. can and cannot do, what it must do to protect 
the interests of the American people. That is why I have included 
language in this motion to recommit stating that simple truth.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the remaining time to Mr. Wolf of 
Virginia, a man who understands the failures of the United Nations. And 
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this restatement of the 
fundamental principle upon which our Constitution and the foreign 
policy of our country is based.
  Mr. WOLF. Why would you give the United Nations any impact when, in 
Rwanda, 700,000 people died, and the U.N. did nothing? In Srebrenica, 
the U.N. stood by as 700 Muslims were led to their death by the Serbs. 
In Darfur, where I have been, I led the first delegation, 450,000 
people have died, and this House has called it genocide, and genocide 
continues today.
  Why would you give the U.N. any authority when it couldn't stop 
genocide in Darfur, genocide in Srebrenica, and genocide in Darfur 
today? I strongly support the amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LANTOS. Let me first say, I strongly agree with my good friend 
from Virginia in opposing genocide. Genocide has nothing to do with 
this legislation. Let's make that clear.
  Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side are misrepresenting 
provisions in H.R. 1 that strengthen and reform the Proliferation 
Security Initiative. They are attempting to exhume an old tactic: Scare 
the American people with the specter of the all-powerful, irresistible 
military machine that is the United Nations.
  Of course, Mr. Speaker, this characterization is as absurd as ever 
and has about as much substance as Shakespeare's Banquo's Ghost. But it 
is part and parcel of the irrational opposition to all things 
multilateral even when multilateral and international institutions 
clearly benefit American interests.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, our bill seeks to use international law to our 
benefit. Our bill seeks to broaden the Proliferation Security 
Initiative's authorities under international law to help us convince 
more nations to support U.S. efforts to stop and prevent the illicit 
trade in dangerous items of proliferation concern. It does not 
relinquish any responsibility to the United Nations.
  Current international law gives no basis for partners in the 
Proliferation Security Initiative to intercept shipments related to 
weapons of mass destruction. One cannot overcome this weakness by ad 
hoc assemblages of coalitions of the willing.
  Even the White House has admitted that international law is weak in 
this regard and needs to be strengthened.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit would in fact weaken U.S. counter 
proliferation efforts by undermining effective action at the United 
Nations to increase Proliferation Security Initiative's global 
legitimacy and authority.
  Mr. Speaker, we will never allow any other government or 
international organization to control what actions we take to safeguard 
U.S. national security, but we will use international tools that are 
available to us in the real world to protect America regardless of the 
purely ideological preferences of some on the other side.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit, 
and yield the balance of the time to my good friend from Missouri, the 
distinguished chairman of the committee on Armed Services, Ike Skelton.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, as a fellow says back home: You can have 
your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts. As I said to my 
friend the gentlewoman from Florida a few moments ago: Read the 
language. It is not what folks on the other side are saying it is.
  The Proliferation Security Initiative, as established by the 
President in 2003, is among the newer elements of our many efforts to 
stop proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The PSI is all about 
the interdiction of weapons of mass destruction and materials, and 
supports American and international security interests. It is a 
voluntary agreement that we propose, but we have actively encouraged 
other nations to participate.
  It is really pretty simple: It is in American interests to stop ships 
carrying weapons of mass destruction. It is in our own security 
interests, if not other countries', to join this effort and take on 
more of this critical work. The oceans of this earth are vast, and 
sometimes we are not closest to the ship that must be stopped. We need 
states all over the world willing to step in.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198, 
noes 230, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 14]

                               AYES--198

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann

[[Page 593]]


     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--230

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Buyer
     Gillmor
     Knollenberg
     Marchant
     Moran (KS)
     Norwood
     Ortiz

                              {time}  1909

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 14 on H.R. 1, I 
mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yes'' when I should have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 299, 
noes 128, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 15]

                               AYES--299

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--128

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Coble
     Cole (OK)

[[Page 594]]


     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Hastert
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Sali
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Buyer
     Gillmor
     Knollenberg
     Marchant
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Norwood
     Ortiz

                              {time}  1917

  Mr. CARDOZA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 15, I missed 
the rollcall vote inadvertently. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''

                          ____________________