Amendment Text: H.Amdt.795 — 109th Congress (2005-2006)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (05/04/2006)

This Amendment appears on page H2141 in the following article from the Congressional Record.

[Pages H2107-H2153]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             SECURITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EVERY PORT ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 789 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4954.

                              {time}  1020


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4954) to improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced 
layered defenses, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Capito in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall not exceed 1 hour, with 40 minutes equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Homeland Security, and 20 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) each will control 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  At the outset before we begin this debate, which will be a very 
positive debate, let me express my thanks to the ranking member, Mr. 
Thompson, for the tremendous cooperation he has given throughout 
deliberations on this bill, and also to the ranking member, Ms. Loretta 
Sanchez, and to Ms. Harman for working so closely with all the Members, 
especially Chairman Dan Lungren who is the prime sponsor of this 
legislation.
  I also want to mention other Members such as Chairman Reichert and 
the ranking member, Mr. Pascrell, for the important amendments that 
they introduced during the committee markup which have made this a very 
significant bill.
  Madam Chairman, on September 11 all of us pledged that we would do 
all we could to prevent another terrorist attack from occurring in this 
country. One of the areas where we are most vulnerable is our ports. 
There are 11 million containers that come into our ports every year 
from foreign countries. Much progress has been made since September 11 
in protecting our ports and improving the inspection process, the 
screening process, the scanning process; but the reality is that more 
has to be done.
  I strongly believe that the SAFE Ports Act is a major step in the 
direction of giving us that level of protection that we need. For 
instance, it provides $400 million a year in risk-based funding for a 
dedicated port security grant program.
  It mandates the deployment of radiation portal monitors which will 
cover 98 percent of the containers entering our country and then going 
out into the country.
  It mandates implementation of the TWIC identity cards, and it sets up 
port training between the employees at the ports and first responders. 
It also requires more cargo data to be given to improve our automated 
targeting system.
  And as far as the Container Security Initiative, CSI, it mandates 
that the Secretary of Homeland Security will not allow any container to 
be loaded onto a ship overseas unless that container is inspected at 
our request. In the past, we have had a number of countries that 
refused to make these inspections. There have been 1,000 containers 
that have entered this country unexamined, uninspected because the 
overseas ports would not carry out the inspection. In the future, that 
will not be allowed to happen.
  Also, we require DHS to continually evaluate emerging radioactive 
detection and imaging technology. We also increase the number of 
inspectors by 1,200. All of these are part of the layered response and 
the layered system of defense that we need to significantly and 
dramatically upgrade the level of protection in our ports.
  This is a bill which I believe warrants the support of the entire 
House. It passed out of the subcommittee unanimously, and it passed out 
of the full committee by a vote of 29-0, and I will be urging its 
adoption today.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, first, I would like to thank Chairman King and 
Chairman Lungren for working with me and other members on the committee 
to produce the bill before us today.
  I especially want to commend my colleagues, Ms. Loretta Sanchez and 
Ms. Harman, for their hard work on this bill and on port security in 
general. Many provisions in this bill came from legislation they have 
introduced over the last 2 years, and for that I thank them. They have 
been leaders on this issue, and we need to give them credit before we 
discuss the full ramifications of this bill.
  Madam Chairman, this bill represents an important step toward 
improving our port security, but it is only a step. We need to do more 
to get it right. I could talk about the good things in the bill; but 
with this limited time, I would like to focus on what is not in the 
bill. These are the things that are going to keep us up at night after 
today's votes are over.
  Yesterday during Rules, it was said by folks on the other side that 
we need to look at where threats exist and do something that makes us a 
little safer. ``A little safer'' is simply not good enough after 9/11, 
and the threats left undone by this bill are significant.
  I worry that unsecured nuclear materials, and there is a lot of that 
wandering around the Russian countryside, will be shipped here hidden 
in a cargo container that sails into Miami, New York, Houston, New 
Orleans, Los Angeles or Oakland. From there, the cargo container will 
be put on a train or truck headed to places like Chicago, St. Louis, 
Austin, Milwaukee, or Detroit. As the train or truck passes by our 
schools, homes, or who knows what else, what is going to stop a 
terrorist from detonating it. If this happens, what will my colleagues 
across the aisle recommend Congress tell Americans, we didn't know it 
would happen?
  After 9/11 when terrorists surprised us by using our own airplanes 
against us, we cannot say we did not expect the unexpected. We must do 
better. It is our job to prevent disaster from happening, not react 
after the fact. We had the opportunity to do that today.
  We could have voted on my amendment increasing the number of Customs 
and Border Patrol officers at our ports, but the amendment was not 
allowed on the floor. All the talk on border and port security means 
little if we do not have the boots on the ground to check what is 
coming into our Nation before it arrives here or before it leaves a 
foreign port.
  And we could have ensured that more than the 5 percent of our cargo 
entering the country is scanned by voting on

[[Page H2108]]

the Markey-Nadler amendment on cargo screening.
  Madam Chairman, 5 percent does not make America a little safer; but 
the 95 percent of cargo left unchecked leaves us a lot less safe. This 
is not rocket science, Madam Chairman. Technology exists to scan cargo. 
It is being used in Hong Kong as we speak. It can be bought over the 
counter, and the amendment offered by my colleagues would have given 
DHS up to 5 years to get it right.
  This bill is a good first step, but we need to start making giant 
steps to keep up with the terrorists.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I include for the Record 
letters of jurisdiction.

                                          House of Representatives


                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                                      Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.
     Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding the 
     Judiciary Committee's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 4954, 
     the SAFE Port Act. The bill was introduced on March 14, 2006, 
     and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security. The 
     Committee on Homeland Security marked up the bill and 
     reported it on April 28, 2006.
       I appreciate your willingness to waive further 
     consideration of H.R. 4954 in order to expedite proceedings 
     on this legislation. I agree that by not exercising your 
     right to request a referral, the Judiciary Committee does not 
     waive any jurisdiction it may have over H.R. 4954. As you 
     have requested, I will support your request for an 
     appropriate appointment of outside conferees from your 
     Committee in the event of a House-Senate conference on this 
     or similar legislation should such a conference be convened.
       I will include a copy of your letter and this response as 
     part of the Congressional Record during consideration of the 
     legislation on the House floor.
       Thank you for your cooperation as we work towards the 
     enactment of H.R. 4954.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Peter T. King,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                      Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.
     Hon. Peter T. King,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of 
         Representatives, HOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman King: In recognition of the desire to 
     expedite consideration of H.R. 4954, the ``SAFE Port Act,'' 
     the Committee on the Judiciary hereby waives consideration of 
     the bill. There are a number of provisions contained in H.R. 
     4954 that implicate the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee 
     on the Judiciary.
       The Committee takes this action with the understanding that 
     by forgoing consideration of H.R. 4954, the Committee on the 
     Judiciary does not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter 
     contained in this or similar legislation. The Committee also 
     reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate 
     conference on this legislation and requests your support if 
     such a request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your 
     including this letter in the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of H.R. 4954 on the House floor. Thank you for 
     your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                      F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                                      Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.
     Hon. Bill Thomas,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding the 
     Ways and Means Committee's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 
     4954, the SAFE Port Act. The bill was introduced on March 14, 
     2006, and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security. The 
     Committee on Homeland Security marked up the bill and 
     reported it on April 28, 2006.
       I appreciate your willingness to waive further 
     consideration of H.R. 4954 in order to expedite proceedings 
     on this legislation. I agree that by not exercising your 
     right to request a referral, the Ways and Means Committee 
     does not waive any of its jurisdictional prerogatives it may 
     have over H.R. 4954. I also acknowledge my commitment 
     regarding conference proceedings as reflected in your letter. 
     I will support your request for an appropriate appointment of 
     outside conferees from your Committee in the event of a 
     House-Senate conference on this or similar legislation should 
     such a conference be convened.
       I will include a copy of your letter and this response as 
     part of the Congressional Record during consideration of the 
     legislation on the House floor.
       Thank you for your cooperation as we work towards the 
     enactment of H.R. 4954.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Peter T. King,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                      Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.
     Hon. Peter T. King,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Adams Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman King: I am writing concerning H.R. 4954, the 
     ``SAFE Port Act,'' which the Committee on Homeland Security 
     reported on April 28, 2006.
       As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has 
     jurisdiction over trade and customs revenue functions. A 
     range of provisions in H.R. 4954 affects the Committee's 
     jurisdiction, including provisions that specifically mandate 
     the use of customs duties for port security grants; authorize 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security to ban certain imports of 
     containerized cargo; establish protocols for resuming 
     international trade; require changes to government 
     international trade data systems; authorize the Department of 
     Homeland Security (DHS) to lessen requirements for continuous 
     entry bonds to secure customs duties and the scoring of 
     imports for inspection for customs duties; establish new 
     confidentiality and advance filing requirements for trade 
     import data; and impose new U.S. requirements and call on the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security to establish international 
     standards regarding imports shipped in containers. All of 
     these provisions significantly impact the trade and customs 
     revenue missions of DHS.
       I am pleased to acknowledge the agreement between our 
     Committees to address various issues, including changes you 
     have included in the Manager's Amendment to the bill. I would 
     like to specifically highlight and confirm your commitment 
     that in the conference on this legislation: (1) Any language 
     related to the use of customs duties to fund programs will be 
     stricken from the bill; (2) language in section 202 of the 
     bill or any similar language authorizing DHS to refuse to 
     accept cargo will be modified to clarify that DHS's existing 
     ``do not load'' authority would be used to enforce the 
     provision; and (3) the Committee on Ways and Means will be 
     represented in all conference activities and discussions on 
     the provisions noted in this letter and all others related to 
     trade and customs revenue functions.
       Thus, in order to expedite this legislation for floor 
     consideration, the Committee on Ways and Means agrees to 
     forgo action on this bill based on the agreement reached by 
     our Committees. This is being done with the understanding 
     that it does not in any way prejudice the Committee with 
     respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional 
     prerogatives on this or similar legislation.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming 
     this understanding with respect to H.R. 4954, and would ask 
     that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be 
     included in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration.
           Best regards,
                                                      Bill Thomas,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                                      Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.
     Hon. Tom Davis,
     Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding the 
     Committee on Government Reform's jurisdictional interest in 
     H.R. 4954, the ``SAFE Port Act,'' and your willingness to 
     forego consideration of H.R. 4954 by the Government Reform 
     Committee.
       I agree that the Government Reform Committee has a valid 
     jurisdictional interest in certain provisions of H.R. 4954 
     and that the Committee's jurisdiction will not be adversely 
     affected by your decision to not request a sequential 
     referral of H.R. 4954. As you have requested, I will support 
     your request for an appropriate appointment of outside 
     conferees from your Committee in the event of a House-Senate 
     conference on this or similar legislation should such a 
     conference be convened.
       Finally, I will include a copy of your letter and this 
     response in the Congressional Record during the floor 
     consideration of this bill. Thank you again for your 
     cooperation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Peter T. King,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Government Reform,

                                      Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.
     Hon. Peter King,
     Chairman, House Committee on Homeland Security, Ford House 
         Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On April 28, 2006, the House Committee 
     on Homeland Security reported H.R. 4954, the ``SAFE Port 
     Act.'' As you know, the bill includes provisions within the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform.
       In the interests of moving this important legislation 
     forward, I agreed to waive sequential consideration of this 
     bill by the Committee on Government Reform. However, I did so 
     only with the understanding that this procedural route would 
     not be construed to prejudice the Committee on Government 
     Reform's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on this 
     bill or any other similar legislation and will not be 
     considered as precedent for consideration of matters of 
     jurisdictional interest to my Committee in the future.

[[Page H2109]]

       I respectfully request your support for the appointment of 
     outside conferees from the Committee on Government Reform 
     should this bill or a similar bill be considered in a 
     conference with the Senate. Finally, I request that you 
     include this letter and your response in the Congressional 
     Record during consideration of the legislation on the House 
     floor.
       Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
     Tom Davis.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                                   Washington, DC, April 28, 2006.
     Hon. Sherwood Boehlert,
     Chairman, Committee on Science, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter 
     regarding the Science Committee's jurisdictional interest in 
     H.R. 4954, the ``SAFE Port'' Act. The Bill was introduced on 
     March 14, 2006, and referred solely to the Committee on 
     Homeland Security. The Committee on Homeland Security marked 
     up the Bill and ordered it reported on April 26, 2006.
       I appreciate your willingness to waive further 
     consideration of H.R. 4954 in order to expedite proceedings 
     on this legislation. I agree that by not exercising your 
     right to request a referral, the Science Committee does not 
     waive any jurisdiction it may have over H.R. 4954. In 
     addition, I agree that if any provisions of the Bill are 
     determined to be within the jurisdiction of the Science 
     Committee, I will support representation for your Committee 
     during conference with the Senate with respect to those 
     provisions.
       As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter 
     and this response as part of the Committee on Homeland 
     Security's Report and the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of the legislation on the House Floor.
       Thank you for your cooperation as we work towards the 
     enactment of H.R. 4954.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Peter T. King,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                         Committee on Science,

                                   Washington, DC, April 28, 2006.
     Hon. Peter T. King
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Ford House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Science Committee in matters 
     being considered in H.R. 4954, the Security and 
     Accountability for Every Port or SAFE Port Act. The Science 
     Committee has particular jurisdictional interest in the 
     sections listed below based on the Committee's black letter 
     jurisdiction over the ``National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology (NIST) and the standardization of weights and 
     measures.'' (Rule X(o)(7). In addition, the Department of 
     Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate (``DHS 
     S'') facilitates and funds the development of standards for 
     container security. The Science Committee has jurisdiction 
     over both the S Directorate and other DHS research and 
     development based on the plain language of Rule X(o)(14) 
     which grants the Science Committee jurisdiction over 
     ``Scientific research, development, and demonstration, and 
     projects therefore.''
       1. Title I, Subtitle B, Section 112, Port Security Training 
     Program--Section 112 adds a new section 802 to the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002. The Science Committee is interested in 
     Section 112 but has particular interest in the language 
     dealing with National Voluntary Consensus Standards which 
     directs the Secretary to ``support the development, 
     promulgation, and regular updating as necessary of national 
     voluntary consensus standards for port security training'' 
     and to ensure that training provided is consistent with such 
     standards.
       2. Certain Items Contained in Title I, Subtitle C, Section 
     201--Section 201 adds a new title to the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002. Within that title (Title XVIII), the Science 
     Committee is interested in the following:
       a. Section 1801, Strategic Plan To Enhance the Security of 
     the International Supply Chain--Subsection 1801(d) on 
     International Standards and Practices encourages the 
     Secretary, as appropriate, ``to establish standards and best 
     practices for the security of containers moving through the 
     International Supply Chain.''
       b. Section 1803, Plan To Improve the Automated Targeting 
     System--Section 1803 requires the Secretary to develop and 
     implement ``a plan to improve the Automated Targeting System 
     for the identification of high-risk containers moving through 
     the International Supply Chain.'' This section contains a 
     number of research and development pieces with the clearest 
     example being the language on the ``Smart System,'' which 
     requires the incorporation of ``smart features, such as more 
     complex algorithms'' instead of relying solely on rule sets. 
     Such an effort to move away from a system solely based on 
     rule sets would necessitate the need for research, 
     development, testing and evaluation of these ``smart 
     features,'' including the more complex algorithms mentioned, 
     This is clearly DHS research and development and would be 
     carried out in coordination with DHS S
       c. Section 1804, Container Standards and Verification 
     Procedures--Section 1804 requires the Secretary ``to review 
     the standards and procedures established'' and ``enhance the 
     security standards and procedures, as appropriate, based on 
     tests of technologies as they become commercially 
     available.'' In addition, the Secretary ``is encouraged to 
     promote and establish international standards for the 
     security of containers.''
       d. Section 1831, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 
     Efforts in Furtherance of Maritime and Cargo Security--
     Section 1831 directs the Secretary to conduct maritime and 
     cargo security research, development, test, and evaluation 
     activities and to consider demonstration projects. It also 
     specifies that the Secretary, acting through the Under 
     Secretary for Science and Technology, will coordinate these 
     efforts within the Department.
       e. Section 1832, Grants Under Operation Safe Commerce--
     Section 1832 directs the Secretary to provide grants ``to 
     test physical access control protocols and technologies'' and 
     ``establish demonstration projects.''
       f. Section 1833, Definitions--Section 1833 provides 
     definitions and other administrative language relating to the 
     prior sections.
       3. Title II, Subtitle C, Section 202, Next Generation 
     Supply Chain Security Technologies--Section 202 directs the 
     Secretary to ``evaluate the development of nuclear and 
     radiological detection systems and other inspection 
     technologies'' and to ``determine if more capable 
     commercially available technology exists'' and meets 
     technical requirements.
       4. Title II, Subtitle C, Section 206, Study and Report on 
     Advanced Imagery Pilot Programs--Section 206 directs the 
     Secretary to ``conduct a study of the merits of current 
     container inspection pilot programs'' and to conduct ``an 
     assessment of the impact of technology.'' The test and 
     evaluation of technologies required to fulfill this section 
     are an element of technology development and a responsibility 
     of DHS S
       5. Title III, Directorate for Policy, Planning, and 
     International Affairs--This title amends the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 and establishes a new directorate at the 
     Department, the position of Under Secretary for Policy and 
     several Assistant Secretary positions. Several provisions in 
     this title are of particular interest to the Science 
     Committee, including language directing the Under 
     Secretary for Policy ``to analyze, evaluate, and review 
     the completed, ongoing, and proposed programs of the 
     Department.'' In addition, the Under Secretary for Policy 
     is directed to promote ``the exchange of information on 
     research and development on homeland security 
     technologies,'' ``to plan and participate in international 
     conferences [and] exchange programs (including the 
     exchange of scientists, engineers and other experts),'' 
     and ``to represent the Department in international 
     negotiations, working groups, and standards-setting 
     bodies.''
       6. Title IV, Office of Domestic Nuclear Detection--This 
     title amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and authorizes 
     the Office of Domestic Nuclear Detection (``DNDO'') at the 
     Department. This amendment transfers from the Under Secretary 
     of Science and Technology to the Director of DNDO ``all 
     Department programs and projects relating to nuclear and 
     radiological detection research, development, testing and 
     evaluation.'' These activities remain within the Science 
     Committee's jurisdiction.
       The Science Committee acknowledges the importance of H.R. 
     4954 and the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
     Therefore, while we have a claim to jurisdiction over at 
     least the sections of the bill listed above, I agree not to 
     request a sequential referral. This, of course, is 
     conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this 
     legislation or my decision to forgo a sequential referral 
     waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the 
     Science Committee, and that a copy of this letter and of your 
     response will be included in the Committee report and in the 
     Congressional Record when the bill is considered on the House 
     Floor.
       The Science Committee also expects that you will support 
     our request to be conferees on any provisions over which we 
     have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference on this 
     legislation.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                Sherwood Boehlert,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                                   Washington, DC, April 28, 2006.
     Hon. Joe Barton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter 
     regarding the Energy and Commerce Committee's jurisdictional 
     interest in H.R. 4954, the ``SAFE Port'' Act. The Bill was 
     introduced on March 14, 2006, and referred solely to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security. The Committee on Homeland 
     Security marked up the Bill and ordered it reported on April 
     26, 2006.
       I appreciate your willingness to waive further 
     consideration of H.R 4954 in order to expedite proceedings on 
     this legislation. I agree that by not exercising your right 
     to request a referral, the Energy and Commerce Committee does 
     not waive any jurisdiction it may have over H.R. 4954. In 
     addition, I agree that if any provisions of the Bill are 
     determined to be within the jurisdiction of the Energy and 
     Commerce Committee, I will support representation for your 
     Committee during conference with the Senate with respect to 
     those provisions.

[[Page H2110]]

       As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter 
     and this response as part of the Committee on Homeland 
     Security's Report and the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of the legislation on the House Floor.
       Thank you for your cooperation as we work towards the 
     enactment of H.R. 4954.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Peter T. King,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                   Washington, DC, April 28, 2006.
     Hon. Peter King,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman King: I understand that you will shortly 
     bring H.R. 4954 as reported by the Committee on Homeland 
     Security, the SAFE Port Act, to the House floor. This 
     legislation contains provisions that fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       I recognize your desire to bring this legislation before 
     the House in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, I will not 
     exercise my Committee's right to a referral. By agreeing to 
     waive its consideration of the bill, however, the Energy and 
     Commerce Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 
     4954. In addition, the Energy and Commerce Committee reserves 
     its right to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill 
     that are within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate 
     conference that may be convened on this or similar 
     legislation. I ask for your commitment to support any request 
     by the Energy and Commerce Committee for conferees on H.R. 
     4954 or similar legislation.
       I request that you include this letter in legislative 
     report and the Congressional Record during consideration of 
     H.R. 4954. Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Joe Barton,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul), chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Investigations.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman 
King, Ranking Member Thompson, and Representatives Lungren and Harman 
for their hard work in bringing this vital and bipartisan piece of 
legislation to the floor.
  I rise today in support of this crucial bill that will build upon 
existing initiatives to improve port and cargo security both abroad and 
here at home.
  In my home State of Texas, the Port of Houston operates as the United 
States' top port for foreign tonnage and our second largest for total 
tonnage, so I know how important this bill is for the protection of the 
American people.
  Madam Chairman, the House of Representatives has repeatedly supported 
measures that provide for risk-based funding for homeland security. The 
SAFE Port Act does just that. It will create a risk-based strategy for 
securing America's ports and will make sure that we are using the best 
technology available to law enforcement today.

                              {time}  1030

  Equally important, this bill will provide $400 million per year in 
risk-based funding through a dedicated Port Security Grant Program to 
harden U.S. ports against terrorist attacks. This kind of funding 
strategy is smart, effective and responsible for our national security 
because it gets the required funding to the ports that are most at risk 
for terrorist attack.
  Unfortunately, right now, it is economically impossible for Customs 
and Border Protection to inspect every container entering U.S. ports. 
However, the SAFE Port Act would require DHS to deploy nuclear and 
radiological detection systems at 22 U.S. seaports by the end of fiscal 
year 2007. This means that 98 percent of all incoming maritime 
containers would be screened without stopping our economy in its 
tracks.
  In addition to securing ports in our homeland, we must also look 
overseas at what we can do to prevent dangerous or threatening cargo 
from ever reaching American soil. The SAFE Port Act will do this by 
improving our tracking system for shipping containers overseas and by 
requiring DHS to examine high-risk maritime cargo at foreign seaports. 
If we can catch them before they reach our shores, we can begin to 
ensure 100 percent security at America's ports.
  The SAFE Port Act is a commonsense, responsible and effective piece 
of legislation that is needed for the security of our Nation, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking member 
of the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection and 
Cybersecurity, who did a lot of work on this bill, particularly the 
section improving the C-TPAT process. Many of the provisions in this 
bill also come from a provision introduced by the gentlewoman, H.R. 
4355, introduced in the 108th Congress.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chairman, I thank Mr. 
Thompson for yielding me the time; and I would like to thank Chairman 
King and you and also Chairman Lungren for working with me and the 
other members of the Committee on Homeland Security to develop this 
SAFE Port Act, to move it through the committee, and to bring it to the 
floor in a very bipartisan manner. It shows that we can accomplish many 
things when we work together.
  I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act, a product 
of years of work on the issue of port security; and I am proud that 
many of the important reforms that were originally in the SECURE Coast 
Act that I introduced in the 108th Congress are in this legislation 
that we are considering today.
  The SAFE Port Act will make a number of significant port security 
enhancements and reforms. We had somebody before our committee, retired 
Chief Cunningham of the port system out there in Los Angeles, and he 
said we really need to worry about two things in particular, one, who 
has access to our ports; and, two, what is in the box, what is in the 
container.
  The SAFE Port Act has requirements for issuing Transportation Worker 
Identification Cards, or TWICs, regulations and implementing the cards 
by the end of 2008, so we will know who is at our ports.
  It also has standards for container seals. It has a pilot program to 
examine the security of empty containers at the port.
  It requires Customs and Border Patrol to review and update, if 
necessary, the minimum requirements for participation in Customs-Trade 
Partnership Against Terrorism program, or the C-TPAT, at least once a 
year.
  And it establishes a pilot program to allow C-TPAT member companies 
to use DHS-approved third-party validators in the validation process.
  What is in the box? These are all issues important to what is in the 
container that goes through your city on that truck.
  I am pleased that all these items are included in the bill. But still 
more needs to be in this port bill.
  I am disappointed at several amendments offered by my Democratic 
colleagues that were not made in order today. These included providing 
adequate staffing levels at the ports, we can't catch things if we 
don't have people doing that work; modernizing the Coast Guard fleet 
through the Deepwater program; and increasing the acquisition of 
radiation portal monitors for seaports.
  It is my hope that our committee will continue to work on these 
issues as this bill moves forward and as we move forward in this year.
  In addition, I will be offering an amendment today to make a critical 
improvement to the C-TPAT program by stopping the current practice of 
granting C-TPAT member companies risk score reductions, letting them 
cut to the front of the line to get their cargo through before their 
security measures have been validated.
  We should not give these companies a free pass to our ports unless we 
have validation that the security measures they told us they were going 
to do are actually in place.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment today which will make 
this great bill even better.
  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) who is one of the original co-
authors of this bill and has worked tirelessly to get us to the floor 
here today.
  Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
want to praise him for his enormous leadership on this issue and praise 
Ms. Sanchez, the ranking member on the

[[Page H2111]]

subcommittee, for her contributions to the issue of port security.
  I also want to thank the chairman for letting me speak out of order. 
I think that is what he just did, and express my gratitude to him and 
to the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Lungren, for their enormous effort.
  I am the co-author of this bill with Mr. Lungren. It is a bipartisan 
product through and through. In fact, it is a bicameral, bipartisan 
product. Many of the ideas came from the House and many of the ideas 
came from the other body.
  One of its grandparents no longer serves here, Representative Doug 
Ose, who contributed the notion that we should dedicate a portion of 
Customs revenues to fund multi-year port security improvements. The 
reason he felt this way, and I surely agree, is that Customs revenues, 
or most of them, are collected at our ports. Should our ports close, 
our ability to collect those revenues ends. So I thought his was an 
inspired idea.
  I co-sponsored the Ose bill some years back. It became an integral 
part of this bill, as did Ms. Sanchez's ideas, as did Mr. Lungren's, 
and as did some of the ideas of Senators Susan Collins and Patty 
Murray, who are the coauthors of the GreenLane bill in the Senate.
  Their bill is moving. Our bill is moving. Within months, just maybe 
we will accomplish what I would call a legislative miracle in this 
session of Congress which has only met 27 days since the beginning of 
the year. We have had 125 days or so of this year, but only 27 days of 
legislative business on the floor of Congress. And this, I would 
proclaim, is the best day, by a lot, that we have had.
  Let me mention that even before the legislation is passed, one of the 
critical issues we address is already generating action. The Department 
of Homeland Security is moving ahead with name checks against terrorist 
and immigration lists of individuals with access to our ports and with 
the transportation worker identification credential, so-called TWIC. 
These are critical ways we can make our ports safer, and it is a good 
thing that the administration is listening. In addition, as Ms. Sanchez 
said, to knowing what is in the box, we need to know who is at our 
ports.
  It has been said over and over again, but let me stress one more 
time, that this bill provides a strategy as well as dedicated funding 
for the critical issue of port security.
  The ports of L.A. and Long Beach, where my district is, handle over 
14 million 20-foot containers annually, representing almost half of the 
Nation's total. That port complex is the fifth busiest in the world, 
the first in the Nation. In addition to containers, the complex handles 
over 1 million cruise passengers, half a million autos and over 50 
percent of California's oil each year.
  At a time of incredibly rising oil and gas prices, let us understand 
that Southern California will run out of oil in 2 weeks if those ports 
close. One out of 24 jobs in southern California relates to the ports.
  So, Madam Chairman, the two most important things about this 
legislation are that it outlines a layered strategy for port security 
and that it creates dedicated, multi-year funding for port security 
projects.
  Let's just look at Katrina. This speaks to an issue all of us worry 
about. We didn't have a plan before. We didn't respond during, and we 
are still struggling to recover now. This bill calls for protocols on 
the resumption of trade if our ports are attacked. A shutdown of West 
Coast ports would cost between 1 to $2 billion a day. We saw that 2 
years ago.
  Since 9/11, the L.A.-Long Beach port complex has only received $58 
million in port security grant funding out of $220 million requested.
  This bill provides the funding, the strategy, the bipartisan, 
bicameral support. I urge its passage. This is the first great day of 
the 2006 legislative calendar.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I join the lady in the 
commemoration of the greatness of this day. And with that, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Management Integration Oversight.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act. And first I would like to commend the 
gentleman and the gentlewoman from California, Mr. Lungren and Ms. 
Harman, for their leadership on this strong, bipartisan bill.
  Also, thanks to the effective leadership of Chairman King, the 
committee passed this bill on April 26 by a vote of 29-0.
  Madam Chairman, this bill is a comprehensive proposal and helps 
safeguard our ports, all without disrupting commerce. For example, the 
bill authorizes the Container Security Initiative. This effort would 
identify and examine high-risk containers at foreign ports before they 
are loaded onto ships bound for the U.S.
  The bill also contains provisions which would help track and protect 
containers on the way to our shores.
  The bill also establishes a new Directorate for Policy, Planning and 
International Affairs at DHS.
  This provision, which is a product of my subcommittee, implements one 
of the findings of Secretary Chertoff's top-to-bottom review. In 
particular, the new Directorate would, A, review all departmental 
cargo, security programs, policies and initiatives; B, develop 
department-wide cargo security policies; and, C, coordinate 
departmental cargo security programs with other Federal departments and 
agencies.
  Madam Chairman, port security is especially critical in my home State 
of Alabama, where the Port of Mobile has an economic impact of at least 
$3 billion per year on my State. It is the 12th busiest port in the 
U.S. and employs more than 118,000 Alabamians. Last year alone, this 
facility imported and exported 42,000 containers and 50 million tons of 
cargo. It is also the largest coal import terminal in the country and 
is expected to process 144,000 cruise ship passengers this year alone.
  The SAFE Port Act is a good bill. It is a bipartisan solution for 
helping strengthen the security of our country, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chairman, there have been a lot of acronyms thrown 
around on the floor this morning, C-TPAT, CSI, TWIC. But there is no 
real technology based security being applied to containers being 
shipped to the United States of America. Less than 5 percent are 
inspected. No one is going to shoot a missile at us, but if they can 
get ahold of a nuclear weapon they will put it in a container and ship 
it here.
  Let's look at the great C-TPAT program they are waxing on about. It 
is an honor system. You fill out an on-line form and your containers 
automatically are ranked less of a threat.
  Now, sometime, 1 to 3 years later, the U.S. might send an inspector 
by, with prior notice, 1 day to look at your factory. That day you shoo 
all the al Qaeda people out and say don't come in tomorrow; the U.S. is 
sending a guy by for 1 day. And then you go back to business. This is 
an incredibly ridiculous program that does not provide real security.
  Is there a threat? Well, I think there is a threat because the Deputy 
Secretary of Homeland Security says the goal of this administration and 
the Republican majority is not to inspect containers before they leave 
foreign ports. His goal, at home, our goal is to have 100 percent 
inspection of all containers as they depart a U.S. port headed into our 
country. The ports are sacrifice zones is what they are telling us 
here, because they might contain a threat. So we have to inspect them 
before they go from Seattle inland to somewhere in the Pacific 
Northwest but not before they get to Seattle.

                              {time}  1045

  The place to inspect is on the other side of the ocean, and it can be 
done without disturbing commerce. It has been proven in Hong Kong. They 
will say it is not technologically feasible. If that is so, then why do 
we endorse this same technology, these same bureaucracies, for the CSI 
program and the Megaports program? The Bush administration's 
bureaucracy says the technologies do work.

[[Page H2112]]

  They say the technologies do not work. They say they will delay 
cargo. They are being used in Hong Kong. You can drive a truck past at 
10 miles per hour.
  They say, well, no one is reading the data. Why is no one reading the 
data? Because the U.S. will not assign people to read the data.
  This is incredible. This loophole-ridden system has to stop. We need 
real security. You should have allowed an amendment. Why are you afraid 
to vote on an amendment for 100 percent screening?
  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
thank the subcommittee chairman for bringing this to the floor with Ms. 
Harman.
  I rise in support of H.R. 4954. While this legislation contains many 
important provisions, it also includes the language of H.R. 5029, a 
bipartisan proposal I introduced earlier this year to authorize the 
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. DNDO is tasked with the job of 
developing a multi-layered global nuclear detection architecture 
designed to detect and prevent a nuclear attack before it gets here.
  Madam Chairman, this is not an easy task. Despite claims by some to 
the contrary, we have heard numerous times in hearings and briefings by 
experts that existing technologies do not fully or effectively detect 
nuclear material. It is not available yet. And yet we are trying to 
insist that 100 percent of them be checked for nuclear material. The 
technology we have today will detect bananas, kitty litter, and tile, 
just as it does low-level radioactive material. There is new technology 
on the scene.
  This bill includes support for a transformational research and 
development program to bring major improvements in the technology 
detection and the cost and ease of use. I also want to point out that 
this bill directs DNDO to deploy successfully tested technologies to 
ports of entry within 1 year of certification.
  The key to next-generation systems is the likelihood that they will 
produce lower false alarm rates, thus minimizing disruptions to port 
operations. Rather than disrupting the flow of commerce to pull open a 
container of kitty litter, we ought to have the new technology, and we 
have got to be patient for it to be here.
  I want to reiterate that this legislation takes a significant step 
forward in our Nation's efforts to counter nuclear and radiological 
threats. As such, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise in support of the SAFE Port Act, and I applaud Mr. Daniel E. 
Lungren of California, Ms. Harman, Ms. Loretta Sanchez for their 
tireless work on this critical endeavor. I also want to commend my good 
friends and their kind remarks this morning, Chairman King and Ranking 
Member Thompson, for the exemplary leadership they have displayed in 
navigating this bill through the legislative maze that is Capitol Hill, 
and it is a maze.
  The urgency of securing our ports cannot be overstated. As the 9/11 
Commission noted in their report: ``While commercial aviation remains a 
possible target, terrorists may turn their attention to other models. 
Opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater, in maritime or 
surface transportation.''
  Let us heed the warning. Let this quote linger in our minds as we 
proceed with our debate today.
  While this measure wisely addresses a variety of concerns that others 
have noted, there are several provisions within the bill that are of 
particular interest, I think. For example, in March, Congressman Frank 
LoBiondo and I introduced H.R. 4880, the Maritime Terminal Security 
Enhancement Act. Components of our bill are now included in the SAFE 
Port Act. We require a port security operator to resubmit a facility 
security plan for approval upon transfer of ownership or operational 
control of that facility. Remember that debate a few weeks ago? This is 
significant. Having this in place will afford the Coast Guard the 
needed opportunity to question entities, foreign and domestic, on any 
changes in security they intend to put into effect at the terminals 
they intend to purchase.
  Likewise, we have included the requirement that facility security 
operators and officers are United States citizens, unless the Secretary 
offers a waiver based on a complete background check and a review of 
terrorist watch lists. The FSO, the facilities security officer, is the 
individual with the legal responsibility for all aspects of security at 
each port. We need to do everything we can to make sure that we have 
the right people in place for these enormously important and sensitive 
positions. This language helps in this regard.
  I am pleased that two amendments I offered with Congressman Dave 
Reichert were accepted when the Homeland Security Committee marked up 
this legislation last week. This bill now requires the Department of 
Homeland Security to establish a training program for local port 
employees on seaport security force operations, security threats and 
trends, and evacuation procedures.
  We have also required DHS to establish an exercise program to test 
and evaluate the capabilities of Federal, State, local, and foreign 
governments. Both provisions will enhance our safety and strengthen our 
security.
  This legislation by and large is an enormous step in the right 
direction. The unfortunate part of it, and we have talked to the Chair 
and we have talked to the ranking member about this, is what happened 
to the Markey-Nadler amendment mandating 100 percent screening.
  I hope in the near future that we can come to agreement on this 
issue. It is sensitive enough, it is important enough that we bring the 
same bipartisanship that we worked with on this bill to a conclusion 
and resolution of that most important and specific thing.
  I hope we can get a commitment from the chairman that we will try to 
work to that end.
  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I am privileged to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), the 
former attorney general of California and the sponsor of the bill.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Madam Chairman, this day is the reason that I decided to come back to 
the Congress. An effort to work together on a bipartisan basis to solve 
one of the great challenges affecting America, that is what this place 
is all about. There are a lot of cynics and skeptics out there who say 
that the Congress of the United States is incapable of doing the work 
that it should do. This day is a refutation of that suggestion. Today 
is an indication that we can work together. And I want to thank 
Chairman King for the work that he has done and the broad flexibility 
that he granted to our subcommittee to put this bill together. I want 
to thank my ranking member, Loretta Sanchez, for the work she has done; 
the ranking member on the full committee, Mr. Thompson; and, of course, 
Jane Harman, my chief co-author on this bill.
  This is the best of bills: legislation written to make a law, not to 
make a political statement. Yes, there are political statements that 
will be made about this bill, but the fact of the matter is we are 
moving forward in an effective way to solve a challenge that is out 
there that the American people recognize and that we recognize.
  In response to 9/11, the natural response was for us to look at where 
we were attacked and to focus most of our attention and energy in that 
direction. That is why we have had, if you will, a heavy response in 
the area of aviation safety. But that does not mean we can ignore the 
other areas.
  As I said on the floor yesterday, the greatness of our ports as an 
integral part of our international trade, the fact that we are leaders 
in the world in international trade, the fact that we benefit from it 
more than anybody else, but we do so because it is so different than it 
was 30, 40, 50 years ago.

[[Page H2113]]

The instantaneous communication. The ability to deliver products within 
a short period of time. The fact that inventory is carried on rail, on 
trucks, in ships, rather than sitting static in a warehouse somewhere. 
The world has changed and we have been the leaders in changing the 
world, and we should be pleased and proud of the tremendous 
contribution that our ports make to our economy and to our everyday 
living.
  But the very things that make that possible make us vulnerable to 
those who would destroy everything we stand for. The terrorists do not 
want to see international trade. The terrorists do not want to see an 
exchange of ideas. The terrorists do not want to see cultures mixing 
together. The terrorists do not want to see America shown at its best. 
And that is what we do, as we Americans live every single day with the 
benefits of the trade. It is not the totality of what we do, but it is 
an essential part of what we do. And this bill responds to the attack 
that those would have on us through this very much shining star in our 
constellation of America. So I thank the Members for work on this.
  I would say we are going to have a debate about 100 percent 
inspection, and I would say we all would hope for that day. But I would 
just direct people's attention to the National Journal of this last 
Friday on the inside page where they have something called the 
``Reality Check'' and they refer to this effort to have 100 percent 
container inspection. They say, and this is the National Journal, that 
``it is a nice idea but not very feasible with current technology. 
Eleven million containers are shipped to U.S. ports each year. Of 
those, U.S. Customs and border protection personnel physically screen 
only about 6 percent, 660,000. `It is a noble impulse, but as a 
practical matter, it can't be accomplished right now,' said Jack Riley, 
homeland security expert with RAND.''
  The key to being able to carry this out in the future is better 
equipment that stands faster; and that requirement, that impulse, is in 
this bill as a result of an amendment adopted that was presented by the 
gentlewoman from Florida. We are attempting to make us safer. Let us 
rejoice in this day and let us support this bill.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
  I rise in support of H.R. 4954, the Security and Accountability for 
Every Port Act.
  Let me commend the sponsors for their hard work: Representative 
Harman; Representative Daniel E. Lungren of California; Representative 
Loretta Sanchez, ranking member; and the chairman for their foresight 
in the drafting of this piece of bipartisan port security legislation.
  Although it is a good start, this bill does not go nearly far enough 
to protect our ports. I am very disappointed that the leadership has 
denied the American people the opportunity to debate and vote on an 
amendment that requires the scanning of 100 percent of the containers 
entering this country. This outrageous high-handedness by the 
Republican leadership endangers Americans by continuing the wink-and-
nod approach of container inspection.
  I will vote for H.R. 4954 because it makes modest progress toward 
safer ports in America. Every farmer, every business person, and every 
consumer in America relies on the products that come through our 
Nation's ports. And it is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that 
our country's maritime commerce is cost-effective; efficient; and above 
all, safe. I hope, as this legislative process moves forward, Congress 
can take a more meaningful action to strengthen our port security.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), the former sheriff of King 
County and chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness.
  Mr. REICHERT. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, as a member of the Homeland Security Committee and 
cosponsor of H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act, I am pleased to rise in 
support of this bipartisan legislation.
  My district is home to two of our Nation's most critical seaports, 
the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. Ensuring their security is one of my 
highest priorities. The SAFE Port Act is a comprehensive approach that 
strikes a balance between security and commerce. Unlike other 
approaches to port security, the SAFE Port Act does not impose 
technically impossible solutions and mandates.

                              {time}  1100

  I was pleased that during committee markup of this legislation, the 
two amendments that I offered were included in this legislation. These 
amendments, which were drafted with my good friend from New Jersey, Mr. 
Pascrell, will create a Port Security Exercise and Training Program.
  As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, I have 
repeatedly heard from first responders across our Nation about the 
importance of conducting exercises and training. The exercise portion 
of this legislation requires that the Secretary of Homeland Security 
establish a Port Security Exercise and Training Program for the purpose 
of testing and evaluating emergency capabilities of personnel at our 
Nation's ports.
  The value of exercises cannot be understated. The success or failure 
of our response to acts of terrorism or catastrophic natural disasters 
depends on effective coordination and cooperation. As a former law 
enforcement officer of 33 years, I know the importance of training. The 
Port Security Training Program will use multiple mediums to provide 
validated training at the awareness, performance and planning levels to 
first responders and commercial seaport personnel and management to 
ensure that they are able to do those things and more.
  I would like to thank Chairman King, Ranking Member Thompson, 
Chairman Lungren, Representative Harman and Ranking Member Sanchez for 
their bipartisan work on this important legislation.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), who, as has been 
noted by several of the speakers, has made an extraordinary 
contribution by her amendment at the full committee level.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the bill before us, the SAFE 
Port Act.
  As a Member from Florida, I am extremely conscious of our Nation's 
vulnerability in the area of port security. As a former New Yorker, I 
still am concerned about the ports there. I have several friends who 
worked for at that time just Customs, who had always expressed a 
concern about the security at the ports.
  The SAFE Port Act certainly pushes us leaps and bounds beyond our 
current security system. We fund port of entry inspection offices, a 
port security grant program and port worker identification cards.
  I was especially proud to contribute an amendment in committee that 
does require DHS to aggressively pursue new technology out there for 
screening within 1 year. Once that is there, the Secretary must work 
with foreign governments within 6 months to deploy such technology.
  This amendment and the underlying bill does not falsely promise some 
fantastic pie in the sky technology. When the technology is in place, 
everyone wants to use it. Members of both sides of the aisle want to 
make sure that we do have it there.
  In the meantime, it would be very imprudent to waste taxpayer dollars 
on an unproven technology. Instead, this bill does require the 
Department of Homeland Security to implement realistic technology to 
increase our overseas cargo screening. The bill is the starting line in 
the race that we are running faster than ever to secure America with 
realistic technology for real results.
  I certainly want to thank Chairman King as well as Congressman 
Lungren

[[Page H2114]]

and Congresswoman Harman for the opportunity to work with them on this 
very significant legislation. I urge all Members to support the SAFE 
Port Act.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to enter into 
a colloquy with the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.
  Chairman King, I support your efforts to enhance security at our 
Nation's seaports. The Port of Wilmington in my home State of Delaware 
is among our Nation's busiest terminals, and this legislation truly is 
a comprehensive approach for improving port security. I commend your 
determination in taking on this challenge.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we still have not had success in 
developing a comparable strategy for securing our nation's rail 
systems. In the wake of attacks on rail lines in London and Madrid, it 
is clear that terrorist organizations are intent on disrupting surface 
transportation and mass transit systems around the world.
  Despite these continuing threats, we have not made adequate progress 
in developing a comprehensive national rail security plan. The Federal 
efforts to bolster rail security have been sporadic and unfocused, 
while funding for rail and transit security grants in the annual 
Homeland Security Appropriations bill have remained stagnant.
  Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, our government's transportation 
security efforts have consistently been described as ``fighting the 
last war.'' Clearly, Congress must change course and get a few steps 
ahead, rather than constantly reacting to incidents and attacks once 
they have already occurred. We are very lucky that an attack on rail 
systems has not taken place in this country, and we now have a great 
opportunity to be proactive and pass real rail security legislation 
before it is too late.
  I have introduced legislation to begin the process of addressing rail 
security in this country, and I know we share an interest in fixing 
this extremely inconsistent and flawed system.
  I would appreciate the chairman's thoughts on this.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Castle, I share your concerns. The 
legislation under consideration today is only one part of an aggressive 
campaign to bring common sense to our homeland security efforts. Rail 
security has been one of my highest priorities, certainly coming from 
New York, which has one of the largest subway systems in the world. The 
terrorist attacks on the rail systems in London and Madrid were very 
grim reminders that our enemies are not above exploiting civilian 
targets.
  In the next few weeks, we will be moving TSA reform legislation that 
has provisions designed to enhance rail and transit security. This 
matter is a priority for the committee, and I thank the gentleman for 
his leadership in this area.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from New York for his comments. I appreciate his consideration of these 
very important and timely concerns and obviously share his 
determination to pass effective rail security legislation.
  Since becoming chairman, the gentleman from New York has demonstrated 
strong support for surface transportation security; and I look forward 
to working with him on this matter.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the SAFE Port Act. As 
a member of the Homeland Security Committee and an original cosponsor 
of this legislation, I understand that port security is national 
security.
  Nearly all the foreign imports that enter this country come through 
our seaports and we must know who is handling cargo and what goods are 
being shipped. The port of Providence is located in my district in 
Rhode Island, and every year a wide variety of goods come through the 
port, including machinery, lumber and steel products. It is essential 
to my constituents that our port is secure to prevent unauthorized 
materials from being smuggled into our country. The SAFE Port Act adds 
the needed protections and resources to keep us safe.
  I am pleased that this bipartisan legislation requires the Secretary 
of Homeland Security to develop a strategy for cargo and maritime 
security. This plan will help us prepare for any scenario, as well as 
create a plan for quickly resuming commerce in the event of an attack.
  The legislation doubles the authorized level of port security grants 
to $400 million. By creating a dedicated funding stream, our ports will 
no longer be competing with other critical infrastructure for scarce 
resources.
  The bill also establishes new security standards for all cargo 
containers entering the U.S. Unfortunately, the bill does not go as far 
as I would like in this area. I am disappointed that the Nadler-
Oberstar-Markey amendment was not made in order the rule.
  I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit to ensure the 
scanning of every cargo container at foreign ports and make this good 
bill even better.
  As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of 
Nuclear and Biological Attack, I'm pleased that this legislation 
authorizes the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office for the first time. 
This important office will oversee the country's global nuclear 
detection efforts and ensure that the best technology is deployed to 
find nuclear materials before they enter our borders.
  I still believe there is more work to be done, and I will continue 
working with my colleagues to ensure that DNDO has the funds needed to 
fully deploy radiation detectors at our borders and ports as soon as 
possible. We cannot afford to wait any longer.
  Overall, this bipartisan legislation is an important step towards 
securing our ports, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
the SAFE Port Act.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the author of the Markey amendment, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a champion for 100 percent cargo screening 
here in this Congress.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  This bill has a fatal flaw. It relies upon paperwork checks. If you 
went to the airport with your bags, showed up, showed the person your 
ticket and your ID, and then the person just waived you on to the plane 
with another 150 people and all the bags went on as well, with no 
scanning, no screening, you would sit petrified in your seat.
  Well, that is what is going to happen, unless the recommittal motion 
which Mr. Nadler and I are going to make later on today is in fact 
voted upon successfully.
  The Republican leadership has refused to allow a debate on 100 
percent screening of cargo containers coming into the United States.
  Now, why is that important? It is important because of all of the 
unsecured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union that al Qaeda can 
purchase, take to a port in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, and then, with 
a piece of paper and an ID, waive on a 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 pound 
container and, with the nuclear bomb inside of it, send that ship, that 
container, right to a port in the United States, to New York, to 
Boston, to California, to any other city in America, without being 
screened.
  President Kennedy took on the Soviet Union technologically in the 
1960s. He put a man on the moon in 8 years. The Republicans are saying 
they can't figure out in 8 years, 8 years, from 2001 to 2009, how to 
screen cargo containers coming into the United States and how to put 
tamper-proof seals on them, knowing that al Qaeda has said that 
bringing a nuclear weapon into the United States is their highest goal, 
to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.
  So this vote that we have later on today will decide whether or not 
this fatal flaw in the Republican bill is allowed to stand, if the Bush 
administration is allowed to turn a blind eye to

[[Page H2115]]

the number one threat that al Qaeda poses to our country.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, we went through a very long and productive, bipartisan 
process in arriving at this point today. It trivializes the debate, it 
demeans the process, to be suggesting that anyone, anyone at all in 
this body, certainly anyone on this committee, is not absolutely 
committed to the protection of every American life. Those of us who 
came from districts who lost large numbers of people on September 11 
perhaps have even a more acute interest in doing all we possibly can.
  But we also don't want to do the most cruel thing of all, and that is 
hold out a false hope. The worst thing of all is to adopt legislation 
which is symbolic rather than real. We want results. We are not looking 
for sound bites, we are not looking for headlines, we are not looking 
for the evening news, we are not looking for the tabloids. We are 
looking to get results to save American lives and to make America 
safer.
  That is exactly what this legislation does, through layers of 
defense, through layers of security, through well-thought-out processes 
and urging as quickly as possible the advancement and the use of 
technology that can be done. Not technology that might work or might 
not work, but technology that can work and will work and can be 
implemented in an effective way.
  That is what this is about. That is what the debate should be about. 
As the late morning and early afternoon goes forward, I am sure the 
American voters who are watching this will see that there are those of 
us who do want to maintain the level of debate on both sides of the 
aisle, and that level is going to bring about American security.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment Mr. King in 
the efforts here and Mr. Lungren and, yes, even the minority in this 
case, on working on this legislation.
  I was somewhat taken back by the comments even made by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, because this should not be a partisan issue. This 
should not be railing against the Republicans or should not be railing 
against Bush. If you want to make headlines, go outside and stand on 
your head. That is the best way to make headlines.
  What we are trying to do, as Mr. King said, is try to make our ports 
secure and we are trying to make them secure in a proper time fashion.
  We have already done some of this work that should have been done 
through the Transportation Committee. The Maritime Transportation 
Security Act does a lot of what is in this bill, and we are 
implementing it right now. The ports are more secure than what people 
will say and what you read in the newspapers.
  Yes, we can do better and we will. But Members keep in mind that what 
we are faced with today is how do we do it and do it in a fashion which 
continues to allow us to have a commerce circle. Without commerce, this 
country will fail.
  Now, I can suggest respectfully that there is a way and we will 
continue to do it, if the ports wish to do so, that they will unload 
their ships that have been screened thoroughly 100 percent overseas at 
point of origin.

                              {time}  1115

  It will not take long for those shipping companies to make sure that 
the containers are screened 100 percent. Keep in mind what I said, that 
which has been screened will be first unloaded. I guarantee it will 
happen in the very near future.
  But what we have done here under this bill is try to make the right 
step forward, a good step forward, and to accomplish I believe what is 
correct, that is, eventually total security for our ports.
  I have some concern in the bill, and I have expressed to Mr. Lungren 
and Mr. King there are, and I understand why; but I hope as we go 
through this conference that there will be a recognition that the 
smaller ports will be recognized as much as the larger ports.
  Because under this legislation it primarily concentrates on the 
larger ports. And I do not believe that is what we are seeking. I think 
we should consider all ports that receive cargo containers from 
whatever origin they may be. And if they are not screened, they should 
not be allowed in.
  So I am saying the smaller ports should also be recognized. They are 
not under this bill. And we have to, as time goes by through the 
conference, try to recognize that those smaller ports have equal 
concern as well as the larger ports.
  And, lastly, I would suggest I have a deep concern about the grant 
program. We already have a grant program for port security. It is 
already on the books. It is already down in Homeland Security. And I 
will say in defense of the committee, the Homeland Committee, that 
there is in fact a lack of action through the Department itself.
  But I am hoping that we do not duplicate, that we do not do something 
that costs more money but gets less results. We can work this out 
through the conference, so we will have an opportunity to make sure 
either the Port Security Act itself, Maritime Transportation Security 
Act, which has a grant program in it, that if it is not being 
implemented correctly, that we rectify that, or in fact we might 
eliminate that so there are not two bills on top of one another causing 
more confusion and less real security within our ports.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat comfortable with this legislation 
in the sense that it has been well thought out. Again, I want to 
compliment the minority side and Mr. Lungren, Mr. King, for bringing 
this to the floor in time. I wish to say, if I can, I am a little 
concerned. I have been here probably longer than eight other people, 
and I do not like what I hear in these debates. Because it seems like 
everybody is saying the other guy is the bad guy, and we are the good 
guys. I thought we were here to solve some problems. This is a problem. 
I think this bill does it. I think we ought to keep our eye on the ball 
and protect our people and provide a flow of commerce, which is 
necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the people to consider this bill in total. If 
there would be a recommit, vote against the motion to recommit, and let 
us get forward and get this job done.
  If you only listen to the press outcry over the Dubai Ports World 
now-aborted takeover of certain U.S. port operations, you would not 
know that significant actions have been taken since 9/11 to improve the 
security of U.S. ports.
  Nonetheless, congress and the administration have taken important 
steps towards making our ports safer. These port security initiatives 
may not be as thorough and complete at this point as we would hope, and 
the press may choose to only cover the remaining gaps, but significant 
progress has been made.
  In 2002, congress enacted the Maritime Transportation Security Act 
(MTSA). This legislation originated in the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee and significantly strengthened our ability to 
prevent and respond to maritime security incidents.
  MTSA required U.S. port facilities and the vessels calling at those 
facilities to prepare and submit detailed security plans to the Coast 
Guard. Those plans have been submitted and approved by the Coast Guard. 
This is the first nationwide effort to assess the state of port 
security and plan for improvements in that security. These plans are 
required for each and every U.S. port facility and each and every 
vessel that visits those facilities.
  Recently the administration has also completed the long awaited 
National Maritime Transportation Plan which was mandated by MTSA. In 
conjunction with the national strategy for maritime security, there is 
now a meaningful framework for assessing, planning for, preventing and 
responding to maritime transportation security incidents.
  Of course, all the planning in the world is worthless unless real 
assets are put in place to back up and carry out those plans. Such 
assets are being put in place, some more quickly than others.
  The Administration estimates that spending on maritime security has 
increased 700 percent since 2001. The Coast Guard has dramatically 
increased their security-related patrol hours and established 13 
maritime safety and security teams as authorized in MTSA.
  Congress and the administration have committed to a 20 year 
rebuilding of the Coast

[[Page H2116]]

Guard's ships, planes, and communications infrastructure. These new and 
upgraded assets will greatly improve the service's ability to carry out 
its maritime law enforcement missions, including port security.
  There are still portions of MTSA that have not been implemented in as 
timely a manner as I would wish. Transportation worker identity cards 
are still a work in progress, and virtually no progress has been made 
by the government on implementing long range vessel tracking.
  H.R. 4954, the Safe Port Act, makes some improvements to MTSA. At the 
request of the Coast Guard sub-committee chairman, Mr. LoBiondo, and 
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the bill requires that 
the facility security officers identified in the security plans be U.S. 
citizens and that facility security plans be resubmitted when 
facilities change ownership.
  The bill also sets up a temporary system for verifying the identity 
of individuals with access to secure areas of seaports, and develop 
timelines for the implementation of transportation worker 
identification credentials. Perhaps most importantly, it authorizes 
maritime security command centers. These interagency facilities which 
already exist at several ports are crucial to coordinated Federal, 
State and local port security prevention and response efforts.
  Concerns remain about the safety of cargo entering the United States. 
We can all agree that the cargo must be secured at the earliest 
possible time and monitored throughout its journey.
  By the time it reaches our shores, it is too late to find out what is 
in a container and decide whether it is safe. Much of the Safe Port Act 
is designed to address these cargo supply chain safety concerns, and I 
comment Chairman King for his efforts in this area.
  There is one are in which I strongly disagree with the Safe Port Act. 
The bill removes the existing port security grant program from the 
Maritime Transportation Security Act and replaces it with a less 
focused grant program that is accessible only to very few ports--
ironically those that have the greatest resources available to pay for 
port security improvements.
  The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA), established 
a grant program to make Federal funding available to assist ports, 
terminal facilities, and State and local governments meet maritime 
security requirements imposed by the act.
  This port security grant program is designed to address 
vulnerabilities that are identified through Coast Guard inspections, 
area maritime transportation security plans, and facility security 
plans that are all carried out under the MTSA.
  The Safe Port Act removes the port security grant program from the 
MTSA port security framework. If any changes are made to the program, 
those changes should enhance the connection between the existing 
maritime security framework under the MTSA and federal assistance.

  I hope that as we move towards conference on this bill that we will 
continue to work together to strengthen the existing port security 
grant program.
  I also disagree with the bill's proposal to restrict federal port 
security grants to only select ports or select projects.
  I do agree that we need to have criteria and a competitive process to 
determine which ports and projects should receive the funding; however, 
I object to the idea that any of our ports should be excluded outright 
from competing for this federal funding.
  Each of our Nation's 361 ports is connected to every part of this 
Nation through our intermodal transportation system.
  If we fail to implement real port security at any of our ports, we 
are failing in our efforts to secure our Nation from threats in the 
maritime domain.
  Under the MTSA, each port is required to operate under the same 
maritime security standards regardless of size or location.
  As a result, dedicated funding in the form of federal port security 
grants should be available to address security vulnerabilities at each 
of our Nation's 361 ports.
  In order to allow this important bill to move on an expedited 
schedule, I have decided not to offer an amendment that would return 
fairness, equity and effectiveness to the port security grant program.
  However, I look forward to working with Chairman King and the other 
conferees to make these necessary changes as we move to conference on 
this important bill.
  We can improve the grant program without reinventing the grant 
program.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I concur in the remarks of the distinguished chairman 
of the full committee of Transportation and Infrastructure, the 
gentleman from Alaska. He has got his eye on the ball, his eye on the 
mark. We need more cooperation. We need more sharing and mutual 
understanding than finger- pointing and sloganeering.
  I think left up to him, the Rules Committee would have made in order 
an amendment. It seems to me that the Rules Committee, maybe the House 
leadership, fears more our amendment than a container loaded with a 
potential bomb. What harm is there in debating an amendment that we did 
debate, we had discussion with in the Transportation Committee?
  Why could we not have a debate on it? That does not mean it is going 
to be accepted. We ought to at least put it in play and have a 
discussion on it. So now we will put this into the motion to recommit 
and have a debate there, which is less satisfactory than having a much 
broader debate.
  I am concerned about security in our ports in the maritime arena 
because of the years that I have spent on aviation security. Eighteen 
years ago, Pan Am 103 was blown out of the sky nearly on Christmas Eve, 
December 21, 1988.
  I served on the Pan Am 103 Commission, requested by President Bush I, 
along with our former colleague John Paul Hammerschmidt, Senators 
Alfonse D'Amato and Frank Lautenberg, and three public members.
  As we stood at the abyss in Lockerbie, a trench 14 feet deep, 20 feet 
wide, 40 feet long, 259 people aboard the aircraft and 11 people on the 
ground were incinerated in a fire ball that went 10,000 feet into the 
sky, we vowed we would make aviation safe.
  And all it took to bring a 747 down was that much Semtec, stored in a 
cassette tape recorder, in a suitcase that should never have been 
forwarded on to the 727 in Frankfurt, after it left Malta, and then on 
to London. It should never have gotten on the 747. But it did. And with 
a barometric pressure device and a timer, it blew up over land in 
Lockerbie, Scotland.
  The threat is, yes, to our ports; but it is also to our inland 
cities. The bomb that could be similarly contained in a TEU could be 
timed to go off in Boise, Idaho or St. Louis, Missouri.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) control the remaining amount 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Putnam). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Alaska?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have left on our 
side?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation. I want to thank Mr. King, Mr. Lungren, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. 
Thompson, all of those involved in helping to make this happen. I think 
it is a very good step in the right direction.
  Mr. Chairman, it makes several additions to our Nation's maritime 
security program that enhances the law that we passed a couple of years 
ago. I am very pleased that the bill in the manager's amendment 
includes several provisions that I and Representative Pascrell from New 
Jersey worked on that will help enhance maritime security.
  These provisions will amend the law to require American citizens to 
be in charge of security at each of our ports, require the Coast Guard 
to reexamine each port terminal security plan when the facility 
undergoes a change in ownership, and require the periodic reevaluation 
of security at foreign ports. This will also establish deadlines for 
the implementation of important maritime security programs that we 
included in the original bill, including the Transportation Worker 
Identification Credential program, which the Department has been 
woefully behind on.
  It enhances identification credentials for foreign mariners calling 
on U.S. ports and also a long-range vessel tracking system to improve 
our awareness of activities.
  These programs will dramatically enhance our ability to protect our 
ports, will help the Department, and help the Coast Guard. I want to 
again thank all of the Members responsible.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H2117]]

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very tepid support of this bill. 
It is a very nice bill. It has some nice provisions. None of it matters 
very much if we do not at least electronically scan every container 
before it is put on a ship bound for the United States. All it would 
take is one atomic bomb, one radiological bomb, to make 9/11 look like 
a fire cracker, to kill hundreds of thousands of people, to cost 
hundreds of billions of dollars, to bring commerce to a total halt for 
weeks or months while every ship, every container is not scanned, but 
searched, inspected by hand before they are allowed to proceed into 
this country, because that is what will happen if there is, God forbid, 
a disaster in this country.
  We have no protection against that now. Even with this bill, we 
depend on risk-based analysis, on paper as Mr. Markey said, to defend 
us. What the motion to recommit does is to say that no container can be 
put on a ship bound for the United States until it is scanned for 
radiation and for density, until the result of that scan is transmitted 
electronically in real-time to American inspectors in the United 
States, and until a tamper-proof seal that will tell us whether that 
container has been tampered with after it is scanned is put on that 
container.
  We are told this is not feasible. Mr. King says the technology does 
not exist. But it is done in Hong Kong today. It is done in Hong Kong 
today. The two biggest terminals in Hong Kong have this. Of course, 
nobody bothers reading the scans because the Department of Homeland 
Security cannot be bothered. They are on a hard drive in Hong Kong.
  It is relatively cheap, $6.50 per container, 10 seconds per 
container, no delay. But the DHS has no urgency. Mr. Gingrey, a 
Republican of Georgia at the Rules Committee, said that he had a 
company in his district that makes those tamper-proof seals that can 
talk to the global positioning satellite; but he cannot get DHS to talk 
to them, they are not interested.
  The motion to recommit we are told is irresponsible and partisan. It 
is, in fact, word for word identical as the amendment that was agreed 
to by the chairman of the Transportation Committee and adopted 
unanimously by a bipartisan vote in the Transportation Committee. But 
suddenly when it comes to the floor, it is a partisan amendment.
  The Republicans on the Transportation Committee understood the 
necessity for protecting our homeland. The Republicans on the Homeland 
Security Committee apparently do not, nor does the Republican 
leadership, because they will not agree to this obvious thing to do 
that everyone, bipartisan, on the Transportation Committee agreed to 
do.

  Mr. Chairman, the main risk comes from the so-called low-risk 
containers, not the high-risk containers. Wal-Mart ships a shipment of 
sneakers from a factory in Indonesia. And on the truck on the way to 
the port, the truck driver goes to lunch. And while he is at lunch, 
someone takes out a package of sneakers and puts in an atomic bomb. The 
bill of lading is fine. It is a reliable company. It is low-risk, and 
there is an atomic bomb on that container, and no one sees it because 
that container is not scanned.
  Maybe it is scanned under this bill in Boston or in Los Angeles. It 
is too late to look at it in Los Angeles if there is an atomic bomb on 
board.
  Mr. Chairman, this motion to recommit, which I hope Members will vote 
for on the merits, not vote party line against it because it is a 
procedural motion or some such nonsense, makes this a worthy bill, and 
makes this a bill that will really protect Americans.
  Without the motion to recommit, despite what Mr. King says, this bill 
does a number of things that are nice, but does nothing really to 
protect the United States.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining on our 
side?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the SAFE 
Port Act, and I commend Chairman King and Chairman LoBiondo, Chairman 
Lungren, Chairman Young for all of their work, and certainly the 
ranking member.
  Members of Congress from New York and New Jersey know better than 
most the horrors of September 11, 2001. We would hate to ever have that 
wrought again on so many of our citizens who lost their lives. So it is 
important we get about supporting this legislation.
  The SAFE Port Act authorizes programs that will protect the safety of 
American ports, the personnel literally, hundreds of thousands of 
people who operate those ports, and the goods that move through them.
  In our home State of New Jersey, the Port of New York and New Jersey 
is literally the commercial gateway to the east coast. This bipartisan 
legislation takes steps to make sure that the ports security 
initiatives are as strong as its economic stability.
  This bill recognizes the importance of implementing the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and recommendations of the 
President and Department of Homeland Security, and, finally, 
legislation I introduced that port security grants be distributed based 
on risk.
  This legislation is an important step to achieving that version, to 
ensure port resources are spent wisely and efficiently. This 
legislation adheres to the need to create a risk-based or a threat-
based port security grant program.
  This grant program will distribute over $400 million a year to the 
most strategically significant and economically important ports facing 
the greatest threats.
  Thanks to a 700 percent increase, and I serve on the House 
Appropriations Committee in port security funding since 9/11, our U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection offices are now using several 
interlocking initiatives and new cutting-edge technology to better 
defend our homeland and protect our citizens.
  The SAFE Port Act puts in place a multi-layered port and cargo 
security strategy that builds upon these programs which Congress has 
already established. I urge strong support for this bill.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  I spoke earlier about our experience with Pan Am 103, the report that 
the Commission issued, the 63 recommendations of the Commission that 
did not sit on a shelf gathering dust but were enacted into law by the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  We wanted all checked bags to be screened for explosives, but we did 
not get it. We did not get it worked out in the operation of the law. 
So, over the next 13 years, under both Democratic majority in the 
committee and Republican majority in the committee, we passed bill 
after bipartisan bill requiring that all checked baggage be screened 
for explosives, but we did not impose statutory deadlines.
  FAA tried to move ahead with the requirements we imposed upon them 
through the law, but the airlines interceded again and again and again 
to effectively kill implementation: Technology was too expensive, too 
high a false alarm rate, caused delays in the baggage handling.
  So on the eve of September 11, 2001, there was only limited screening 
of checked baggage. There was only limited requirement and prohibition 
on types of materials permitted to board aircraft, such as box cutters. 
The red flags were gone.
  Then came September 11, and no one wanted to get aboard an airplane 
unless we had better security, and it did not take long for legislation 
to be passed requiring that all checked luggage be screened. It did not 
take long for us to get a Federal screener workforce in place. It was a 
matter of months to get it done.
  It was not partisan. It was bipartisan. This was American. This was 
American security that we were all seeking to improve.
  By December 28, 2004, all checked and carry on baggage was screened 
going

[[Page H2118]]

aboard aircraft, tougher standards, higher standards.
  What we have in this bill, pilot project, studies, exhortations, is a 
slow road to good security. The lesson of Pan Am 103, of aviation 
security in general, was to push the borders of protection further out 
from our shores overseas, to check airplanes, passengers, luggage 
before it goes on the plane so that does not come into this country to 
destroy us, harm us here at home.
  The same principle is included in our port security act that our 
committee and the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman, who was part 
of shaping that bill, moving it through conference, getting it to 
signature by the President 3 years ago, well, we did not have in that 
bill the one element that is missing that we want to include in, and 
that is mandatory screening.
  The Democratic motion to recommit will require that all screeners be 
scanned before loading. Vote for this. This is your only opportunity. 
Vote for it.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, whatever the merits of the 
recent controversy surrounding the proposed acquisition of American 
port terminals by Dubai Ports World, one very good thing came out of 
that controversy, and that was an enhanced focus on the needs to better 
defend America's ports.
  We recognize that the incredible amount of cargo that passes through 
our ports could serve as an entry point to be used by terrorists to 
smuggle in weapons to harm Americans. Of particular concern are nuclear 
or radiological substances or devices.
  During the DP World debate, many came to the erroneous conclusion 
that we were actually outsourcing port security. Nothing could be 
further from the truth.
  Let me just tell you about a company in my district called Burtek. 
This is an American company and American workers who are doing great 
work to enhance our port security.
  Burtek is producing something called Mobile Radiation Portal 
Monitors, the first of which they delivered to the Customs and Border 
Protection Agency just last week. These devices will be placed at our 
ports and allow CBP to scan containers quickly and efficiently for any 
radioactive cargo.
  An American company and skilled American workers supplying a very 
important device to American security personnel to protect America's 
ports. We are not outsourcing this job to anyone, Mr. Chairman, and the 
great workers of my district are doing their part to defend our Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation and 
to continue the effort to better secure our Nation's ports.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, in closing, again, I would like to thank 
Chairman King for being so open to so many ideas and Congressman 
Lungren also, to again thank Mr. Oberstar for all of his help and Mr. 
Young of Alaska for the hard work in putting this together.
  These are serious issues that we are making great progress on, and 
there is not a Member in this House that would not like to guarantee 
the American public that we can completely assure everyone that 
everything is totally 100 percent safe. It is an impossibility to do 
that.
  We are moving forward. This is an extremely good bill. We should move 
forward with it, and I am asking every Member to please support it.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
SAFE Port Act.
  My colleagues, this bill is a good start, and I will support it, but 
it is not a comprehensive solution to port security.
  Last year, customs officials screened only five percent of the 11 
million cargo containers entering the United States. That rate is both 
unacceptable and dangerous to our national and economic interests.
  I represent the Port of Philadelphia, and I know firsthand the 
important role that ports play in the national and global economy. I 
have also seen how simple accidents can have devastating impacts on the 
port system.
  Just 24 days after I was elected to the House of Representatives, an 
oil tanker struck a submerged object and spilled 265,000 gallons of oil 
into the Delaware River. This spill halted commerce, temporarily shut 
down a nuclear power plant, and put area drinking water at risk. All of 
this was caused by an inanimate and rusty anchor sitting at the bottom 
of the river.
  All told, this incident cost an estimated $150 million. In contrast, 
the damage and destruction caused by smuggling a weapon of mass 
destruction into a port could cost as much as $1 trillion.
  Democrats have a proposal that would prevent such a devastating 
device from ever entering U.S. waters or a U.S. port. Under our plan, 
every cargo container--100 percent--would be screened prior to arrival 
in the United States.
  We put this proposal on the table months ago and, today, the 
Republican Leadership has refused to embrace it--jeopardizing security 
at 361 U.S. ports and putting at risk 75 percent of the international 
trade entering our country.
  But we must take a step forward, and the bill under consideration 
will improve many elements of security at our ports, which I have 
actively supported such as establishing a risk-based port security 
grant program and setting deadlines for a mandatory security 
identification card for port employees.
  For this reason, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill. And, I will keep 
working to ensure security at all American ports.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, as a co-sponsor of H.R. 4954, I rise 
today to express my support for the security improvements that this 
measure would require.
  In particular, this bill would require the Department of Homeland 
Security to develop a strategic plan to resume trade in the event of 
some type of terrorist attack that disrupted international shipping to 
the United States.
  In addition to providing for national planning, this measure would 
also strengthen the Coast Guard's oversight of port facility security 
plans by requiring the Coast Guard to verify the effectiveness of each 
port's plan at least twice each year.
  Further, this measure would significantly increase funding for the 
federal grants that ports use to meet federal requirements for physical 
security on terminals, including perimeter security.
  Since 9/11, more than $20 billion in federal funding has been 
directed to aviation security while just over $630 million has been 
directed to port security. I am therefore pleased that H.R. 4954 would 
also increase the funding for port security grants by $200 million per 
year.
  Unfortunately, despite the improvements it would make, H.R. 4954 does 
not do all that could or should be done at this point to increase 
security at our ports.
  The recent discussion over the proposed sale of a terminal operating 
firm working at several U.S. ports--including the Port of Baltimore--to 
a firm owned by the government of Dubai has raised awareness across our 
nation of the inadequacy of our current regime for inspecting cargo--
particularly containerized cargo.
  At the present time, our nation physically inspects only 5% of the 
nearly 11 million containers that come into our nation each year. This 
means that more than 10,400,000 containers enter the U.S. without 
having been physically inspected--and without any physical proof that 
the contents of the container are truly those described on the 
container's manifest.
  The motion to recommit that will be offered by my Democratic 
colleagues would require that all containers destined for the U.S. be 
scanned before they are loaded on a ship--and that they be sealed in a 
way that would immediately show if the container had been tampered with 
prior to its arrival in the United States.
  The adoption of this motion to recommit would immeasurably enhance 
the underlying bill--and would close one of the most significant gaps 
in our homeland security regime that we have continued to leave open 
since 9/11.
  I therefore urge my colleagues to adopt the Democratic motion to 
recommit to ensure that H.R. 4954 will truly make our ports SAFE.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of 
this comprehensive, bipartisan legislation which will address one of 
the most significant challenges identified by the 9/11 Commission: an 
attack at our ports. I commend my colleagues for working together to 
bring forth this important piece of legislation that will enhance our 
security, improve the efficiency of trade and provide necessary funding 
for the critical missions of our Coast Guard, Customs and Border 
Agents, and others involved in the maritime industry.
  The Puget Sound region has a long maritime history. As we've moved 
towards a global economy, Washington state had responded accordingly 
and has become an important global partner in facilitating and 
improving international commerce. It is estimated that 95 percent of 
U.S. trade flows through the nation's 361 ports, equaling almost $1 
trillion annually.

[[Page H2119]]

  As trade with Asia continues to grow, west coast ports, like the Port 
of Tacoma, are playing an ever larger role. I am proud to have the Port 
of Tacoma located in my district. It is the nation's sixth largest port 
by cargo container volume, it handled over 2.1 million containers last 
year and continues to be a major economic engine in the South Sound 
region. In addition to its growing capacity, the Port of Tacoma is also 
one of the nation's strategic military ports, helping to transport Fort 
Lewis-related cargo overseas in support of our troops. I commend the 
Port of Tacoma for taking the necessary steps to tighten facility 
security and continue to serve the vital role in the national homeland 
security efforts.
  With the Port of Seattle to the north and the Port of Olympia to the 
south, the Port of Tacoma works collaboratively with its sister ports 
and takes a regional approach to improve the security in and around the 
facilities. In fact, the Port of Tacoma and Port of Seattle worked 
together in Operation Safe Commerce, a federal program designed to 
create the knowledge base required for international standards for 
containerized shipping. Both ports are actively working with private 
and public entities to identify supply chain vulnerabilities and 
develop improved methods and technologies to ensure the security of 
cargo entering and leaving the United States. Many lessons were learned 
in working with manufacturing and shipping partners and this knowledge 
will help us improve our efficiency while protecting our citizens and 
critical infrastructure. I am pleased to see that additional funds are 
available in this legislation to continue this important program.
  The SAFE Port Act takes many critically important steps to prevent 
another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. This bill strengthens our 
domestic and international security efforts by making improvements to 
high-risk cargo targeting and tracking systems. The bill requires the 
Department of Homeland Security to deploy nuclear and radiological 
detection systems to our major ports by the end of next year. Ports 
will also have the much needed resources they need through the Port 
Security Grant Program to improve facility security.
  Screening containers prior to its arrival at our U.S. ports is 
critical and I am pleased to see that the Department of Homeland 
Security is working to evaluate new radiological and other detection 
devices for use at foreign seaports. I believe these new technologies 
will arm our security officers with improved information and allow us 
to better protect our critical infrastructure. The bill also includes 
improvements to our international screening programs: the Container 
Security Initiative (CSI) and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against 
Terrorism (C-TPAT).
  The important role that our ports play in security and commerce has 
too often not received the appropriate level of priority. As a result, 
funding for the security of our ports has been sorely inadequate. This 
legislation moves forward in the right direction. We must do all we can 
to protect our communities, our critical infrastructure and our 
homeland. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the SAFE Port 
Act today.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act, falls far 
short of what's needed. Because the Republican majority operates 
largely as a subsidiary of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, they refuse to 
take the only step that will ensure the safety of our ports: 100 
percent scanning of containers. Instead, this bill mandates more 
reports that will tell us what hundreds of experts already have: you 
can't ensure safety if you don't verify the contents of every 
container. The studies, further reorganization of the Department of 
Homeland Security, and micromanaging of port operations in this 
legislation are a paltry substitute for real security.
  Apparently the Majority feared that common sense would prevail, as 
they won't even allow a vote on a Democratic amendment to scan 100 
percent of containers within five years, following the model set by 
Hong Kong's successful Integrated Container Inspection System, which 
has operated since 2005 without significantly increasing costs or 
causing delays. The shipping industry itself admits that the maximum 
cost of 100 percent scanning would be $125 per container. It could be 
as low as $6.50 per container. Either way, it's a small price to pay 
for security when compared to the $4,000 cost of shipping a container 
from Asia.
  I will vote in favor of this bill because it is an improvement over 
the current system and sends more federal money to ports to improve 
their security. However, unlike my Republican colleagues, I will not 
claim ``mission accomplished'' on port security until we know what's in 
every container entering this country.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the 
ongoing debate of whether our port system can accommodate 100 percent 
screening of shipping containers headed through United States ports.
  The case for 100 percent screening is not hard to make. Approximately 
95 percent of our nation's trade, worth nearly $1 trillion, enters or 
leaves through our seaports. Foreign vessels carry the bulk of the 
approximately 800 million tons of goods that come into our country. In 
fiscal year 2005 alone, more than 11 million containers arrived on 
American soil by sea, and this number is growing at a rate of over 10 
percent a year. Given this enormous amount of traffic the need to 
ensure our nation's security is considerable.
  Any assertion that technology does not exist to screen 100 percent of 
the cargo coming to the United States is simply incorrect. For several 
years, innovative small businesses have been busy improving upon 
existing technology. Just this month in my district, TMC Services, a 
small company located in Los Alamos, unveiled a prototype of an 
advanced spectroscopic radiation detection system. This mobile platform 
is designed to provide for 100 percent screening without unduly 
affecting port operations. The mobile and versatile system provides 
drive-through or drive-over inspection of containers and is intended 
for integration into the global detection network connected to a 
centralized nuclear data analysis center which is being developed by 
the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) at the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  Mobile Point of Needs Detector System (MPONDS) is a unique systems 
engineered solution to the container screening problem and ahead of its 
time in terms of looking at all the pieces necessary to put together a 
coherent and effective port protection system. I saw first-hand a 
demonstration of the technology and believe this technology has the 
potential to contribute to our goal of detecting cargo which would harm 
the United States.
  I believe we should not be focusing on whether 100 percent screening 
is achievable, as it clearly is, but rather on how rapidly we can 
deploy this new, existing, advanced technology at all U.S. ports. I was 
greatly disappointed to learn that the restrictive rule for today's 
debate of H.R. 4954 did not make in order an amendment offered by 
Representative Nadler to require that every shipping container be 
scanned and sealed before being loaded onto a ship destined for the 
U.S. It is unfortunate that the majority leadership of the Rules 
Committee continues to ignore the strong need for debate and action on 
this issue, and I would strongly urge my colleagues to take the 
responsible step of insisting that the U.S. government protect its 
citizens by screening all of the cargo entering the United States 
ports.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Armed Services 
Committee and a representative of a coastal district in South Texas, I 
rise in support of the SAFE Port Act.
  I also want to make a particular point today. This Congress has 
promised all manner of border security and port security to the tune of 
billions of dollars . . . yet we have--to date--funded our promises for 
port security at only $900 million. That's quite a distance between 
what we say and what we actually do.
  I'm for the bill before us today; but more than that, I am for 
actually spending the bill's $7.4 billion for port and cargo security 
programs. Many members, including myself, are disappointed that the 
bill did not contain language to have 100% of port cargo screened. I 
will support the amendment to add the requirement to screen 100% of 
port cargo.
  Over the last five years, the Administration and the majority in 
Congress have appropriated less than $900 million for port security 
grants--despite the Coast Guard's determination that $5.4 billion is 
needed over 10 years. Over the last five years, the Presidential budget 
has never requested dedicated funding for port security.
  In South Texas, we understand how vital port security is and we fear 
the day a weapon of mass destruction could be brought into a U.S. port 
in a container and cause hundreds of thousands of casualties. We cannot 
continue to tolerate the vulnerabilities in our port system. U.S. 
seaports handle more than 95 percent of our nation's foreign trade--
with millions of containers arriving in our ports each year.
  We should include a comprehensive global container scanning system 
that scans the contents of every single container bound for the United 
States before it leaves an overseas port. The proposal of 100% scanning 
of containers is not unrealistic; it is endorsed by two experts in port 
security--Stephen Flynn, a former commander in the Coast Guard, and 
Adm. James Loy, the former head of the Coast Guard.
  Two of the busiest terminals in the world--both in Hong Kong--scan 
100% of cargo containers. Cmdr. Flynn and Adm. Loy wrote in an op-ed in 
the New York Times

[[Page H2120]]

 in February saying, ``This is not a pie-in-the-sky idea. Since January 
2005, every container entering the truck gates of two of the world's 
busiest container terminals, in Hong Kong, has passed through scanning 
and radiation detection devices. Images of the containers' contents are 
then stored on computers so that they can be scrutinized by American or 
other customs authorities almost in real time. Customs inspectors can 
then issue orders not to load a container that worries them.''
  If Hong Kong terminals can do it, certainly America can require other 
terminals to do it. The Hong Kong pilot program has shown that 100% 
scanning can work without slowing down commerce. If two of the busiest 
terminals in the world have been successful at 100% scanning, it is 
time that Congress insists on it for those who wish to ship to our 
ports--it is what we must do to protect the lives of all Americans.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Security and 
Accountability for Every Port (SAFE Port) Act, H.R. 4954. In the wake 
of the Dubai Ports World controversy, it is long past time to seriously 
address the issue of port security.
  The ports of the United States are an economic gateway to the rest of 
the globe. They are vital to our economy and to our national security. 
Today, seaports handle 95 percent of our nation's foreign trade valued 
at over $1 trillion. This is an issue that is important to my 
constituents and to all citizens of New Jersey. The security of Port 
Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal, which is the 15th busiest port in the 
world, is something we need to address.
  Yet, five years after the terrible attacks of September 11th, our 
nation's seaports remain remarkably vulnerable and real security 
concerns persist. Only 5 percent of the cargo containers that enter the 
United States are inspected despite the potential presence of dangerous 
cargo, including nuclear weapons. This national security risk is a 
result of the failure of the current Administration to seriously 
address this essential issue. This bill takes important steps necessary 
to help secure out nation's ports and prevent dangerous materials from 
entering our country.
  However, the bill is far from perfect. The Republican Majority wants 
to play word games with port security rather than provide real security 
to all Americans. Today they will try to convince Americans that 100 
percent of all cargo containers are screened. But, it is important to 
notice that they are only talking about screening, meaning a review of 
the paper manifest of the cargo container--not a physical inspection. I 
support the inspection of 100 percent of all containers, and tragically 
we only inspect 5 percent of all cargo containers entering the United 
States today. That means that 95 percent of the cargo containers 
entering our country could contain nuclear, biological or chemical 
weapons but because we have not inspected them we would never know. 
This needs to change.
  Hong Kong has successfully implemented a 100 percent inspection 
program at its ports. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues denied 
Democrats the opportunity to offer an amendment that would require the 
United States to implement a similar program with 100 percent 
inspection of containers coming in to our country. Americans want real 
security, not word games.
  The 9/11 Commission recently gave the Administration and Republican-
controlled Congress a ``D'' for cargo screening. Still, the Congress 
has only appropriated a total of $883 million for port security despite 
the Coast Guard's stated need of $5.4 billion over 10 years to 
adequately secure our seaports. Last year, I voted for the Democratic 
Homeland Security substitute that would have appropriated an additional 
$400 million for port security funding for Fiscal Year 2006, but it was 
rejected by the Republican Majority, who is more interested in giving 
tax breaks the wealthiest Americans. We can and must do better for the 
security of the American people.
  That is why I am glad that the SAFE Port Act would authorize $400 
million annually for port security grant programs to be distributed 
based on risk. This money is desperately needed by our nation's ports 
to ensure that terrorist do not smuggle dangerous materials in to our 
country. Further, this bill requires the Department of Homeland 
Security to hire an additional 200 port-of-entry inspectors every year 
for the next six years. These additional employees will help ensure 
that high risk containers are actually inspected.
  The SAFE Port Act represents a bipartisan and thoughtful effort to 
address the important issue of port security. I am pleased that this 
bill authorizes approximately $5 billion over six years to improve port 
and cargo security programs. This bill requires the Department of 
Homeland Security to finally develop a plan to deploy radiation 
detection systems at all American ports. It also strengthens the 
Container Security Initiative. Further, it authorizes almost $2 billion 
for the Coast Guard to upgrade and replace its deteriorating equipment 
and ships.
  The SAFE Port Act is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support 
it. But we need more work remains to be done. We need to require 100 
percent inspection of all cargo coming in to the United States. 
Anything less jeopardizes the security of the American people.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4954, SAFE 
Ports Act. Port Security has been on everyone's lips for the past two 
months with the proposed sale of the six major U.S. ports to the Dubai 
World Ports, a state-sponsored company backed by The United Arab 
Emirates. However, we all realize that port security was not really 
addressed by the outcome on that deal. What we still have at our ports 
is the free movement of cargo from just about every place in the world. 
Something must be done to establish security at our American ports. 
Today, we have an opportunity to do just that by supporting, H.R. 4954, 
SAFE Ports Act.
  The major provisions of the bill address a number of issues that 
became even more relevant after the Dubai debacle. One, the bill 
establishes security standards for all cargo containers entering the 
U.S. after six months of enactment. This is long overdue, since 
containers represent the major device being handled by our Ports. The 
Port of Los Angeles handled 7.3 million containers in 2005, and is 
expected to handle even more this year, setting new records. The bill 
also authorizes a study of the current radiation and nuclear detection 
scanning technology. It came to light that this type of technology in 
this country is not up to par with many of our trading partners. 
Moreover, the bill creates a dedicated stream of funding for port 
security, which is necessary to maintain the level of security 
recommended by our own Coast Guard.
  In addition, the bill would establish a Port security worker training 
and exercise program. This would ensure the readiness of these workers, 
particularly in a changing threat environment. Port security personnel 
must be prepared for these threats. The bill also accelerates the U.S. 
Coast Guard Deepwater program. Further, the bill established maritime 
command centers to ensure a coordinated response to our Port security 
needs.
  Similar measures have advanced in the Senate, where Senators Stevens 
and Inouye have introduced S. 1052, the Transportation Security 
Improvement Act of 2005, and Senators Collins and Murray the Greenlane 
Maritime Act, S. 2008. These bills require marine terminal operators to 
comply with Coast Guard regulations to secure cargo and terminal 
facilities at all of our nation's ports, regardless of who operates 
them.
  Inspections of all containers and security measures like the security 
IDs are important to security. Port Security is a major issue in the 
State of California, and of major concern to me is security at the Port 
of Los Angeles, one of the nation's busiest ports. The Port of Los 
Angeles is the largest container complex operating in the U.S., and the 
8th busiest container port in the world. When combined with the Port of 
Long Beach the two ports rank as the 5th busiest in the world. The Los 
Angeles Port handles 162 million metric tons of cargo (7.3 million 
containers) in 2005, representing approximately $150 billion.
  What is astounding is that the Los Angeles Port covers 7500 areas, 
8300--water and--4200 land. This means that the Port of Los Angeles has 
43 miles of water front facilities to secure. The City of Los Angeles 
cannot provide adequate security alone for the Port, but in cooperation 
with the federal government we can begin to address the concerns of 
workers, port and terminal operators, and others, by supporting this 
bill.
  Mr. KING of New York, Mr. Chairman, I have discussed this issue with 
the ranking member, Mr. Thompson, and it is important to note today, as 
we consider the SAFE Port Act, that the Committee on Homeland Security 
is concerned that the list of criminal offenses that will initially 
disqualify a worker from holding a maritime transportation security 
card includes vague and overly broad crimes. The proposed list of 
disqualifying offenses appears to go significantly beyond the already 
existing mandate of exclusion and we hope that TSA and the Coast Guard, 
as it finalizes its rules, will narrow and limit the list of 
disqualifying criminal offenses to more accurately identify individuals 
that pose a terrorism security risk and who are therefore unworthy to 
hold a maritime transportation security card.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, 5 years after the 
September 11th attack, our nation remains vulnerable to an attack, an 
attack that could come through our ports. Our maritime system consists 
of more than 300 sea and river ports with more than 3,700 cargo and 
passenger terminals nationwide. Additionally, thousands of shipments to 
the United States originate in the ports of nations that may harbor 
terrorists. Although Customs and Border Protection analyzes cargo

[[Page H2121]]

and other information to target specific shipments for closer 
inspection, it still physically inspects only a small fraction of the 
containers under its purview.
  We cannot allow the threat that our current port security system 
allows to continue. Terrorists have already attacked our Nation once. 
There is every reason to believe that they will try again--possibly 
with a weapon of mass destruction; a weapon that could be smuggled into 
our ports. That is why I support the three tiered approach H.R. 4954, 
the ``SAFE Port Act of 2006'' takes to address port security.
  We must secure our ports and the containers that travel through them 
at home, abroad and in transit to the United States. H.R. 4954 takes 
important strides to accomplish this by requiring the Department of 
Homeland Security to deploy nuclear and radiological detection systems 
at 22 important seaports by the end of FY07. Additionally, this 
legislation puts an emphasis on training--a key component to readiness. 
Our port police, local law enforcement, and longshoremen need an 
established training program with set guidelines from Homeland Security 
to deal with security breaches and terrorist attacks. This bill will 
create one.
  For containers in transit to our shores, this legislation requires 
the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop standards for sealing 
containers en route to the United States. The SAFE Ports Act boosts 
private sector investment into security by devoting $25 million a year 
to forge private/public partnerships to bring new technologies and 
techniques to market faster.
  For overseas ports, this bill realizes that our homeland security 
does not end at our borders. Instead, we need to take a global approach 
to the way we protect our nation, including our ports. This legislation 
requires DHS to gather more information from cargo importers. It 
codifies the existing Container Security Initiative which enables DHS 
to examine high risk maritime cargo at foreign ports.
  H.R. 4954 represents an important step in enhancing our homeland 
security systems. As a representative from Southeastern Pennsylvania 
whose lies within an hour's distance or less from the ports of 
Philadelphia, and Newark. Additionally, my own district is home to a 
deepwater port that is badly in need of enhanced security measures. I 
am voting for this act so that my backyard and the backyards of my 
constituents will not become the site of the next terrorist attack. I 
call on my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the bill we have on the 
floor today is a good start to protecting our ports and waterways, but 
until this Congress has the fortitude to demand total cargo scanning 
and to dedicating real dollars to fully securing our ports, the 
American people remain vulnerable to a terrorist attack via our ports.
  This legislation should have been on the floor on September 12, 2001, 
not May 4, 2006. Like so many other security needs of this country, 
this is too little too late. If we're not scanning cargo before it gets 
to this county, were closing the barn door long after the horse gets 
out.
  I hear the complaints that scanning all cargo will slow commerce, but 
I would ask what these people think a nuclear bomb going off in a U.S. 
port would do to the flow of commerce. The shipping industry would be 
stopped in its tracks the way the aviation industry was after September 
11th.
  To me, nowhere is additional port security funding more important 
than in my home state of Florida, whose 14 major ports are the gateway 
to the United States. These ports play a crucial role in transporting 
ammunitions, supplies, and military equipment to our men and women 
fighting all over the world. In fact, ports serve as the main economic 
engine for many of the areas in which they're found, making an attack 
not only extremely dangerous for local citizens, but economically 
disastrous for the local economy as well.
  Unfortunately, the administration's concentration of terrorism 
prevention funding on the aviation industry has jeopardized the safety 
of other modes of transportation. Last year TSA spent $4.4 billion 
alone on Aviation security, while spending only $36 million on all 
Surface Transportation security programs. Even after the rail bombings 
in Madrid and London we're still failing to provide adequate funding to 
protect our rail infrastructure. I just don't understand why it takes a 
tragedy in this county for us to react to security deficiencies.
  I am hopeful that the Administration and this Congress will start to 
provide real dollars for the protection of our port ,and waterways. The 
citizens of this nation. deserve no less.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Putnam). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 4954

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Security 
     and Accountability For Every Port Act'' or ``SAFE Port Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

              TITLE I--SECURITY OF UNITED STATES SEAPORTS

                     Subtitle A--General Provisions

Sec. 101. Definition of transportation security incident.
Sec. 102. Protocols for resumption of trade.
Sec. 103. Requirements relating to maritime facility security plans.
Sec. 104. Unannounced inspections of maritime facilities.
Sec. 105. Verification of individuals with access to secure areas of 
              seaports.
Sec. 106. Clarification on eligibility for transportation security 
              cards.
Sec. 107. Long-range vessel tracking.
Sec. 108. Maritime security command centers.

                Subtitle B--Grant and Training Programs

Sec. 111. Port security grant program.
Sec. 112. Port security training program.
Sec. 113. Port security exercise program.
Sec. 114. Reserve officers and junior reserve officers training pilot 
              project.

                  Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 121. Increase in port of entry inspection officers.
Sec. 122. Acceleration of Integrated Deepwater System.
Sec. 123. Border Patrol unit for United States Virgin Islands.
Sec. 124. Report on ownership and operation of United States seaports.
Sec. 125. Report on security operations at certain United States 
              seaports.
Sec. 126. Report on arrival and departure manifests for certain 
              commercial vessels in the United States Virgin Islands.

          TITLE II--SECURITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CHAIN

Sec. 201. Security of the international supply chain.
Sec. 202. Next generation supply chain security technologies.
Sec. 203. Uniform data system for import and export information.
Sec. 204. Foreign port assessments.
Sec. 205. Pilot program to improve the security of empty containers.
Sec. 206. Study and report on advanced imagery pilot programs.

 TITLE III--DIRECTORATE FOR POLICY, PLANNING, AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Sec. 301. Establishment of Directorate.

             TITLE IV--OFFICE OF DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION

Sec. 401. Establishment of Office.
Sec. 402. Nuclear and radiological detection systems.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Maritime vessels are the primary mode of transportation 
     for international trade and they carry over 80 percent of 
     international trade by volume.
       (2) In 2004, maritime vessels carried approximately 
     9,700,000 shipping containers into United States seaports at 
     an average of 27,000 containers per day.
       (3) The security of the international container supply 
     chain and the maritime transportation system is critical for 
     the prosperity and liberty of all countries.
       (4) In its final report, the National Commission on 
     Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States noted, ``While 
     commercial aviation remains a possible target, terrorists may 
     turn their attention to other modes of transportation. 
     Opportunities to do harm are as great, or greater in maritime 
     or surface transportation.''.
       (5) In May 2002, the Brookings Institution estimated that 
     costs associated with United States port closures from a 
     detonated terrorist weapon could add up to $1 trillion from 
     the resulting economic slump and changes in our Nation's 
     inability to trade. Anticipated port closures on the west 
     coast of the United States could cost the United States 
     economy $1 billion per day for the first five days after a 
     terrorist attack.
       (6) Significant steps have been taken since the terrorist 
     attacks against the United States that occurred on September 
     11, 2001:
       (A) Congress passed the Maritime Transportation Security 
     Act of 2002 on November 14, 2002.
       (B) The Coast Guard issued a comprehensive set of port 
     security regulations on October 22, 2003.
       (C) The International Maritime Organization adopted the 
     International Ship and Port Facility (ISPS) Code in December 
     2002.
       (D) The White House issued Homeland Security Presidential 
     Directive-13 in September 2005 which lays out requirements 
     for a comprehensive maritime security policy.
       (7) Through both public and private projects, the private 
     sector in the United States and overseas has worked with the 
     Department of Homeland Security to improve the security of 
     the movement of cargo through the international supply chain.
       (8) Despite these steps, security gaps in the maritime 
     transportation system remain, resulting in high-risk 
     container systems not being

[[Page H2122]]

     checked overseas or domestically and ports that are 
     vulnerable to terrorist attacks similar to the attack on the 
     U.S.S. Cole.
       (9) Significant enhancements can be achieved by applying a 
     multi-layered approach to supply chain security, in a 
     coordinated fashion. Current supply chain programs within the 
     Federal Government have been independently operated, often 
     falling short of gains which could have been made if such 
     programs were operated in a coordinated manner with clear 
     system standards and a framework that creates incentives for 
     security investments.
       (10) While it is impossible to completely remove the risk 
     of a terrorist attack, security measures in the supply chain 
     can add certainty and stability to the global economy, raise 
     investor confidence, and facilitate trade. Some 
     counterterrorism costs are integral to the price that must be 
     paid to protect society. However, counterterrorism measures 
     also present an opportunity to increase the efficiency of the 
     global trade system through international harmonization of 
     such measures. These efficiency gains are maximized when all 
     countries adopt such counterterrorism measures.
       (11) Increasing transparency in the supply chain will 
     assist in mitigating the impact of a terrorist attack by 
     allowing for a targeted shutdown of the international supply 
     chain and expedited restoration of commercial traffic.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 2(2) of the Homeland Security Act 
     of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(2)).
       (2) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the 
     Department of Homeland Security.
       (3) International supply chain.--The term ``international 
     supply chain'' means the end-to-end process for shipping 
     goods from a point of origin overseas to and from the United 
     States.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security.

              TITLE I--SECURITY OF UNITED STATES SEAPORTS

                     Subtitle A--General Provisions

     SEC. 101. DEFINITION OF TRANSPORTATION SECURITY INCIDENT.

       Section 70101(6) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after ``economic disruption'' the 
     following ``(other than economic disruption caused by acts 
     that are unrelated to terrorism and are committed during a 
     labor strike, demonstration, or other type of labor 
     unrest)''.

     SEC. 102. PROTOCOLS FOR RESUMPTION OF TRADE.

       (a) In General.--Section 70103(a)(2)(J) of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(J)'' and inserting ``(J)(i)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(ii) The plan required by clause (i) shall include 
     protocols for the resumption of trade in the event of a 
     transportation security incident that necessitates the 
     suspension of trade through contingency and continuity 
     planning that ensures trade lanes are restored as quickly as 
     possible. The protocols shall provide for--
       ``(I) coordination with appropriate Federal, State, and 
     local agencies, the private sector, and appropriate overseas 
     entities in developing such contingency and continuity 
     planning;
       ``(II) coordination with appropriate Federal, State, and 
     local agencies and the private sector on law enforcement 
     actions, inter-modal rerouting plans, and identification and 
     prioritization of goods that may enter the United States; and
       ``(III) designation of appropriate Federal officials to 
     work with port authorities to reestablish the flow of cargo 
     by prioritizing shipments based on appropriate factors, 
     including factors relating to public health, national 
     security, and economic need.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall develop the protocols described in section 
     70103(a)(2)(J)(ii) of title 46, United States Code, as added 
     by subsection (a), not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 103. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO MARITIME FACILITY SECURITY 
                   PLANS.

       (a) Facility Security Plans.--The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall require that a security plan for a facility 
     required under section 70103(c) of title 46, United States 
     Code, shall be resubmitted for approval upon transfer of 
     ownership or operation of such facility.
       (b) Facility Security Officers.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall require that the 
     qualified individual having full authority to implement 
     security actions who is required to be identified under 
     section 70103(c)(3)(B) of title 46, United States Code, for a 
     facility described in section 70103(c)(2) of that title shall 
     be a citizen of the United States.
       (2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the requirement of 
     paragraph (1) with respect to an individual if the Secretary 
     determines that it is appropriate to do so based on a 
     complete background check of the individual and a review of 
     all terrorist watchlists to ensure that the individual is not 
     identified on any such terrorist watchlist.
       (c) Facility Security Access.--Section 70103(c)(3)(C)(ii) 
     of title 46, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end before the semicolon the following: ``, including access 
     by individuals engaged in the surface transportation of 
     intermodal containers in or out of a port facility''.

     SEC. 104. UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS OF MARITIME FACILITIES.

       Subparagraph (D) of section 70103(c)(4) of title 46, United 
     States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(D) verify the effectiveness of each such facility 
     security plan periodically, but not less than twice annually, 
     at least one of which shall be an inspection of the facility 
     that is conducted without notice to the facility.''.

     SEC. 105. VERIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS WITH ACCESS TO SECURE 
                   AREAS OF SEAPORTS.

       (a) Implementation of Requirements.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall--
       (1) not later than July 15, 2006, issue a notice of 
     proposed rulemaking for regulations required to implement 
     section 70105 of title 46, United States Code;
       (2) not later than November 15, 2006, issue final 
     regulations required to implement that section; and
       (3) begin issuing transportation security cards to 
     individuals at seaports facilities under subsection (b) of 
     that section in accordance with the schedule contained in 
     subsection (b)(2) of this section.
       (b) Transportation Security Cards.--
       (1) Management.--Final regulations issued under subsection 
     (a)(2) shall provide for Federal management of the system for 
     issuing transportation security cards.
       (2) Schedule for issuing transportation security cards at 
     seaports.--
       (A) Not later than May 15, 2007, the Secretary shall begin 
     issuing transportation security cards to individuals at the 
     first 25 seaport facilities listed on the facility 
     vulnerability assessment issued by the Secretary under 
     section 70102 of title 46, United States Code.
       (B) Not later than November 15, 2007, the Secretary shall 
     begin issuing transportation security cards to individuals at 
     the next 30 seaport facilities listed on that assessment.
       (C) Not later than November 15, 2008, the Secretary shall 
     issue transportation security cards to individuals at all 
     other seaport facilities.
       (c) Interim Verification of Individuals.--
       (1) Terrorist watch list comparison and immigration records 
     check.--Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall--
       (A) complete a comparison of each individual who has 
     unescorted access to a secure area of a seaport facility (as 
     designated in an approved facility security plan in 
     accordance with section 70103(c) of title 46, United States 
     Code) against terrorist watch lists to determine if the 
     individual poses a threat; and
       (B) determine whether each such individual may be denied 
     admission to the United States, or removed from the United 
     States, under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101 et seq.).
       (2) Continuing requirement.--In the case of an individual 
     who is given unescorted access to a secure area of a seaport 
     facility after the date on which the Secretary completes the 
     requirements of paragraph (1) and before the date on which 
     the Secretary begins issuing transportation security cards at 
     the seaport facility, the Secretary shall conduct a 
     comparison of the individual against terrorist watch lists 
     and determine whether the individual is lawfully present in 
     the United States.
       (3) Interim final regulations.--In order to carry out this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall issue interim final 
     regulations to require submission to the Secretary of 
     information necessary to carry out the requirements of 
     paragraph (1).
       (4) Privacy requirements.--Terrorist watch list comparisons 
     and immigration records checks under this subsection shall be 
     carried out in accordance with the requirements of section 
     552a of title 5, United States Code.
       (5) Restrictions on use and maintenance of information.--
       (A) Restriction on disclosure.--Information obtained by the 
     Secretary in the course of comparing the individual against 
     terrorist watch lists under this subsection may not be made 
     available to the public, including the individual's employer.
       (B) Confidentiality; use.--Any information constituting 
     grounds for prohibiting the employment of an individual in a 
     position described in paragraph (1)(A) shall be maintained 
     confidentially by the Secretary and may be used only for 
     making determinations under this section. The Secretary may 
     share any such information with appropriate Federal, State, 
     local, and tribal law enforcement agencies.
       (6) Terrorist watch lists defined.--In this subsection, the 
     term ``terrorist watch lists'' means all available 
     information on known or suspected terrorists or terrorist 
     threats.
       (d) Reporting.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report containing 
     information on--
       (1) the number of matches made in conducting terrorist 
     watch list comparisons, and the number of individuals found 
     to be unlawfully present in the United States, under 
     subsection (c);
       (2) the corresponding seaport facilities at which the 
     matches and unlawfully present individuals were identified; 
     and
       (3) the actions taken as a result of the terrorist 
     watchlist comparisons and immigration records checks under 
     subsection (c).
       (e) Treatment of Individuals Receiving Hazardous Materials 
     Endorsements.--
       (1) In general.--To the extent the Secretary determines 
     that the background records check conducted under section 
     5103a of title 49, United States Code, and the background 
     records check conducted under section 70105 of title 46, 
     United States Code, are equivalent, the Secretary shall 
     determine that an individual does not pose a risk warranting 
     denial of a transportation security card issued under section 
     70105 of title 46, United States Code, if such individual--
       (A) has successfully completed a background records check 
     under section 5103a of title 49, United States Code; and
       (B) possesses a current and valid hazardous materials 
     endorsement in accordance with section 1572 of title 49, Code 
     of Federal Regulations.

[[Page H2123]]

       (2) Limitations.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary may deny an individual a transportation security 
     card under section 70105 of title 46, United States Code, if 
     the Secretary has substantial evidence that the individual 
     poses a risk to national security.
       (3) Reduction in fees.--The Secretary shall reduce, to the 
     extent practicable, any fees associated with obtaining a 
     transportation security card under section 70105 of title 46, 
     United States Code, for any individual referred to in 
     paragraph (1).
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 to carry 
     out this section.

     SEC. 106. CLARIFICATION ON ELIGIBILITY FOR TRANSPORTATION 
                   SECURITY CARDS.

       Section 70105(c)(2) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``subparagraph (A), (B), or (D) of'' 
     before ``paragraph (1)''.

     SEC. 107. LONG-RANGE VESSEL TRACKING.

       (a) Regulations.--Section 70115 of title 46, United States 
     Code is amended in the first sentence by striking ``The 
     Secretary'' and inserting ``Not later than April 1, 2007, the 
     Secretary''.
       (b) Voluntary Program.--The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     may issue regulations to establish a voluntary long-range 
     automated vessel tracking system for vessels described in 
     section 70115 of title 46, United States Code, during the 
     period before regulations are issued under subsection (a) of 
     such section.

     SEC. 108. MARITIME SECURITY COMMAND CENTERS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 701 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 70122. Maritime security command centers

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish an 
     integrated network of virtual and physical maritime security 
     command centers at appropriate United States seaports and 
     maritime regions, as determined by the Secretary, to--
       ``(1) enhance information sharing;
       ``(2) facilitate day-to-day operational coordination; and
       ``(3) in the case of a transportation security incident, 
     facilitate incident management and response.
       ``(b) Characteristics.--Each maritime security command 
     center described in subsection (a) shall--
       ``(1) be regionally based and utilize where available the 
     compositional and operational characteristics, facilities and 
     information technology systems of current operational centers 
     for port and maritime security and other similar existing 
     facilities and systems;
       ``(2) be adapted to meet the security needs, requirements, 
     and resources of the seaport and maritime region the center 
     will cover; and
       ``(3) to the maximum extent practicable, not involve the 
     construction of new facilities, but shall utilize information 
     technology, virtual connectivity, and existing facilities to 
     create an integrated, real-time communication and information 
     sharing network.
       ``(c) Participation.--The following entities shall 
     participate in the integrated network of maritime security 
     command centers described in subsection (a):
       ``(1) The Coast Guard.
       ``(2) U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
       ``(3) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
       ``(4) Other appropriate Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement agencies.
       ``(d) Responsibilities.--Each maritime security command 
     center described in subsection (a) shall--
       ``(1) assist, as appropriate, in the implementation of 
     maritime transportation security plans developed under 
     section 70103;
       ``(2) implement the transportation security incident 
     response plans required under section 70104;
       ``(3) carry out information sharing activities consistent 
     with those activities required under section 1016 of the 
     National Security Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (6 U.S.C. 
     485) and the Homeland Security Information Sharing Act (6 
     U.S.C. 481 et seq.);
       ``(4) conduct short- and long-range vessel tracking under 
     sections 70114 and 70115; and
       ``(5) carry out such other responsibilities as determined 
     by the Secretary.
       ``(e) Security Clearances.--The Secretary shall sponsor and 
     expedite individuals participating in a maritime security 
     command center described in subsection (a) in gaining or 
     maintaining their security clearances. Through the Captain of 
     the Port, the Secretary may identify key individuals who 
     should participate. In addition, the port or other entities 
     may appeal to the Captain of the Port for sponsorship.
       ``(f) Security Incidents.--During a transportation security 
     incident involving the port, the Coast Guard Captain of the 
     Port designated by the Commandant of the Coast Guard in a 
     maritime security command center described in subsection (a) 
     shall act as the incident commander, unless otherwise 
     directed by the President.
       ``(g) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to affect the normal command and control 
     procedures for operational entities in the Department, unless 
     so directed by the Secretary.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated $60,000,000 for each of the 
     fiscal years 2007 through 2012 to carry out this section and 
     section 108(c) of the Security and Accountability For Every 
     Port Act.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 701 of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``70122. Maritime security command centers.''.
       (c) Implementation Plan and Budget Analysis.--The Secretary 
     of Homeland Security shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a plan for the implementation of 
     section 70122 of title 46, United States Code, as added by 
     subsection (a), and a budget analysis for the implementation 
     of such section, including additional cost-sharing 
     arrangements with other Federal departments and agencies and 
     other participants involved in the maritime security command 
     centers described in such section, not later than 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                Subtitle B--Grant and Training Programs

     SEC. 111. PORT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Title V of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 (6 U.S.C. 311 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating the second section 510 (as added by 
     section 7303(d) of Public Law 108-458 (118 Stat. 3844)) as 
     section 511; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 512. PORT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     grant program to allocate Federal financial assistance to 
     United States seaports on the basis of risk and need.
       ``(b) Prioritization Process.--In awarding grants under 
     this section, the Secretary shall conduct an assessment of 
     United States seaports to develop a prioritization for 
     awarding grants authorized under subsection (a) based upon--
       ``(1) the most current risk assessment available from the 
     Department;
       ``(2) the national economic and strategic defense 
     considerations of individual ports; and
       ``(3) any other factors that the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(c) Application.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any entity or facility subject to an 
     Area Maritime Transportation Security Plan required under 
     subsection (b) or (c) of section 70103 of title 46, United 
     States Code, may submit an application for a grant under this 
     section, at such time, in such form, and containing such 
     information and assurances as the Secretary may require.
       ``(2) Minimum standards for payment or reimbursement.--Each 
     application submitted under paragraph (1) shall include--
       ``(A) a comprehensive description of--
       ``(i) the purpose of the project for which the applicant 
     seeks a grant under this section and why the applicant needs 
     the grant;
       ``(ii) the applicability of the project to the Area 
     Maritime Transportation Security Plan and other homeland 
     security plans;
       ``(iii) the methodology for coordinating the project into 
     the security of the greater port area, as identified in the 
     Area Maritime Transportation Security Plan;
       ``(iv) any existing cooperation or mutual aid agreements 
     with other port facilities, vessels, organizations, or State, 
     territorial, and local governments as such agreements relate 
     to port security; and
       ``(v) a capital budget showing how the applicant intends to 
     allocate and expend the grant funds;
       ``(B) a determination by the Captain of the Port that the 
     project--
       ``(i) addresses or corrects port security vulnerabilities; 
     and
       ``(ii) helps to ensure compliance with the Area Maritime 
     Transportation Security Plan.
       ``(3) Procedural safeguards.--The Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Office of the Inspector General and the 
     Office of Grants and Training, shall issue guidelines to 
     establish appropriate accounting, reporting, and review 
     procedures to ensure that--
       ``(A) grant funds are used for the purposes for which they 
     were made available;
       ``(B) grantees have properly accounted for all expenditures 
     of grant funds; and
       ``(C) grant funds not used for such purposes and amounts 
     not obligated or expended are returned.
       ``(d) Use of Funds.--Grants awarded under this section may 
     be used--
       ``(1) to help implement Area Maritime Transportation 
     Security Plans required under section 70103(b) of title 46, 
     United States Code;
       ``(2) to remedy port security vulnerabilities identified 
     through vulnerability assessments approved by the Secretary;
       ``(3) for non-Federal projects contributing to the overall 
     security of a seaport or a system of United States seaports, 
     as determined by the Secretary;
       ``(4) for the salaries, benefits, overtime compensation, 
     and other costs of additional security personnel for State 
     and local agencies for activities required by the Area 
     Maritime Transportation Security Plan for a seaport area if 
     the Secretary--
       ``(A) increases the threat level under the Homeland 
     Security Advisory System to Code Orange or Code Red; or
       ``(B) raises the Maritime Security level to MARSEC Level 2 
     or 3;
       ``(5) for the cost of acquisition, operation, and 
     maintenance of equipment that contributes to the overall 
     security of the port area, as identified in the Area Maritime 
     Transportation Security Plan, if the need is based upon 
     vulnerability assessments approved by the Secretary or 
     identified in the Area Maritime Security Plan;
       ``(6) to conduct vulnerability assessments approved by the 
     Secretary;
       ``(7) to purchase or upgrade equipment, including computer 
     software, to enhance terrorism preparedness;
       ``(8) to conduct exercises or training for prevention and 
     detection of, preparedness for, response to, or recovery from 
     terrorist attacks;
       ``(9) to establish or enhance mechanisms for sharing 
     terrorism threat information;
       ``(10) for the cost of equipment (including software) 
     required to receive, transmit, handle, and store classified 
     information;
       ``(11) for the protection of critical infrastructure 
     against potential attack by the addition of

[[Page H2124]]

     barriers, fences, gates, and other such devices, except that 
     the cost of such measures may not exceed the greater of--
       ``(A) $1,000,000 per project; or
       ``(B) such greater amount as may be approved by the 
     Secretary, which may not exceed 10 percent of the total 
     amount of the grant; and
       ``(12) to conduct port-wide exercises to strengthen 
     emergency preparedness of Federal, State, territorial, and 
     local officials responsible for port security, including law 
     enforcement personnel and firefighters and other first 
     responders, in support of the Area Maritime Security Plan.
       ``(e) Prohibited Uses.--Grants awarded under this section 
     may not be used to--
       ``(1) supplant State or local funds for activities of the 
     type described in subsection (d);
       ``(2) construct buildings or other physical facilities;
       ``(3) acquire land; or
       ``(4) make any State or local government cost-sharing 
     contribution.
       ``(f) Matching Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (A) 
     or (B) of paragraph (2), Federal funds for any eligible 
     project under this section shall not exceed 75 percent of the 
     total cost of such project.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--
       ``(A) Small projects.--The requirement of paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply with respect to a project with a total cost 
     of not more than $25,000.
       ``(B) Higher level of federal support required.--The 
     requirement of paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to 
     a project if the Secretary determines that the project merits 
     support and cannot be undertaken without a higher rate of 
     Federal support than the rate described in paragraph (1).
       ``(3) In-kind contributions.--Each recipient of a grant 
     under this section may meet the requirement of paragraph (1) 
     by making in-kind contributions of goods or services that are 
     directly linked with the purpose for which the grant is made, 
     as determined by the Secretary, including any necessary 
     personnel expenses, contractor services, administrative 
     costs, equipment, fuel, or maintenance, and rental space.
       ``(g) Multiple Phase Projects.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may award grants under 
     this section for projects that span multiple years.
       ``(2) Funding limitation.--Not more than 20 percent of the 
     total grant funds awarded under this section in any fiscal 
     year may be awarded for projects that span multiple years.
       ``(h) Consistency With Plans.--The Secretary shall ensure 
     that each grant awarded under this section--
       ``(1) is used to supplement and support, in a consistent 
     and coordinated manner, the applicable Area Maritime 
     Transportation Security Plan; and
       ``(2) is coordinated with any applicable State or Urban 
     Area Homeland Security Plan.
       ``(i) Coordination and Cooperation.--The Secretary--
       ``(1) shall ensure that all projects that receive grant 
     funding under this section within any area defined in an Area 
     Maritime Transportation Security Plan are coordinated with 
     other projects in such area; and
       ``(2) may require cooperative agreements among users of the 
     seaport and seaport facilities with respect to projects 
     funded under this section.
       ``(j) Review and Audits.--The Secretary shall require all 
     grantees under this section to maintain such records as the 
     Secretary may require and make such records available for 
     review and audit by the Secretary, the Comptroller General of 
     the United States, or the Inspector General of the 
     Department.
       ``(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     $400,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 to 
     carry out this section.
       ``(2) Source of funds.--Amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated under paragraph (1) shall originate from duties 
     collected by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 2135) is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 509 
     the following:

``Sec. 510. Procurement of security countermeasures for strategic 
              national stockpile.
``Sec. 511. Urban and other high risk area communications capabilities.
``Sec. 512. Port security grant program.''.

       (c) Repeal.--
       (1) In general.--Section 70107 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is hereby repealed.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 701 of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 70107.

     SEC. 112. PORT SECURITY TRAINING PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle A of title VIII of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 361) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 802. PORT SECURITY TRAINING PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Assistant Secretary for Grants and Training and in 
     coordination with components of the Department with maritime 
     security expertise, including the Coast Guard, the 
     Transportation Security Administration, and U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection, shall establish a Port Security Training 
     Program (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 
     `Program') for the purpose of enhancing the capabilities of 
     each of the Nation's commercial seaports to prevent, prepare 
     for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from 
     threatened or actual acts of terrorism, natural disasters, 
     and other emergencies.
       ``(b) Requirements.--The Program shall provide validated 
     training that--
       ``(1) reaches multiple disciplines, including Federal, 
     State, and local government officials, commercial seaport 
     personnel and management, and governmental and 
     nongovernmental emergency response providers;
       ``(2) provides training at the awareness, performance, and 
     management and planning levels;
       ``(3) utilizes multiple training mediums and methods, 
     including--
       ``(A) direct delivery;
       ``(B) train-the-trainer;
       ``(C) computer-based training;
       ``(D) web-based training; and
       ``(E) video teleconferencing;
       ``(4) addresses port security topics, including--
       ``(A) seaport security plans and procedures, including how 
     security plans and procedures are adjusted when threat levels 
     increase;
       ``(B) seaport security force operations and management;
       ``(C) physical security and access control at seaports;
       ``(D) methods of security for preventing and countering 
     cargo theft;
       ``(E) container security;
       ``(F) recognition and detection of weapons, dangerous 
     substances, and devices;
       ``(G) operation and maintenance of security equipment and 
     systems;
       ``(H) security threats and patterns;
       ``(I) security incident procedures, including procedures 
     for communicating with governmental and nongovernmental 
     emergency response providers; and
       ``(J) evacuation procedures;
       ``(5) is consistent with, and supports implementation of, 
     the National Incident Management System, the National 
     Response Plan, the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, 
     the National Preparedness Guidance, the National Preparedness 
     Goal, and other such national initiatives;
       ``(6) is evaluated against clear and consistent performance 
     measures; and
       ``(7) addresses security requirements under facility 
     security plans.
       ``(c) National Voluntary Consensus Standards.--The 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(1) support the development, promulgation, and regular 
     updating as necessary of national voluntary consensus 
     standards for port security training; and
       ``(2) ensure that the training provided under this section 
     is consistent with such standards.
       ``(d) Training Partners.--In developing and delivering 
     training under the Program, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) work with government training facilities, academic 
     institutions, private organizations, employee organizations, 
     and other entities that provide specialized, state-of-the-art 
     training for governmental and nongovernmental emergency 
     responder providers or commercial seaport personnel and 
     management; and
       ``(2) utilize, as appropriate, training courses provided by 
     community colleges, public safety academies, State and 
     private universities, and other facilities.
       ``(e) Consultation.--The Secretary shall ensure that, in 
     carrying out the Program, the Office of Grants and Training 
     shall consult with--
       ``(1) a geographic and substantive cross section of 
     governmental and nongovernmental emergency response 
     providers; and
       ``(2) commercial seaport personnel and management.
       ``(f) Commercial Seaport Personnel Defined.--For purposes 
     of this section, the term `commercial seaport personnel' 
     means any person engaged in an activity relating to the 
     loading or unloading of cargo, the movement or tracking of 
     cargo, the maintenance and repair of intermodal equipment, 
     the operation of cargo-related equipment (whether or not 
     integral to the vessel), and the handling of mooring lines on 
     the dock when a vessel is made fast or let go, in the United 
     States or the coastal waters thereof.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 2135) is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 801 
     the following:

``Sec. 802. Port security training program.''.

       (c) Vessel and Facility Security Plans.--Section 
     70103(c)(3) of title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``the training, 
     periodic unannounced drills, and''
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) and (G) as 
     subparagraphs (G) and (H), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(F) provide a strategy and timeline for conducting 
     training and periodic unannounced drills for persons on the 
     vessel or at the facility to be carried out under the plan to 
     deter, to the maximum extent practicable, a transportation 
     security incident or a substantial threat of such a 
     transportation security incident;''.

     SEC. 113. PORT SECURITY EXERCISE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle A of title VIII of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 361), as amended by section 
     112, is further amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 803. PORT SECURITY EXERCISE PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Assistant Secretary for Grants and Training, shall establish 
     a Port Security Exercise Program (hereinafter in this section 
     referred to as the `Program') for the purpose of testing and 
     evaluating the capabilities of Federal, State, local, and 
     foreign governments, commercial seaport personnel and 
     management, governmental and nongovernmental emergency 
     response providers, the private sector, or any other 
     organization or entity, as the Secretary

[[Page H2125]]

     determines to be appropriate, to prevent, prepare for, 
     mitigate against, respond to, and recover from acts of 
     terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies at 
     commercial seaports.
       ``(b) Requirements.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Assistant Secretary for Grants and Training and in 
     coordination with components of the Department with maritime 
     security expertise, including the Coast Guard, the 
     Transportation Security Administration, and U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection, shall ensure that the Program--
       ``(1) consolidates all existing port security exercise 
     programs administered by the Department;
       ``(2) conducts, on a periodic basis, port security 
     exercises at commercial seaports that are--
       ``(A) scaled and tailored to the needs of each port;
       ``(B) live in the case of the most at-risk ports;
       ``(C) as realistic as practicable and based on current risk 
     assessments, including credible threats, vulnerabilities, and 
     consequences;
       ``(D) consistent with the National Incident Management 
     System, the National Response Plan, the National 
     Infrastructure Protection Plan, the National Preparedness 
     Guidance, the National Preparedness Goal, and other such 
     national initiatives;
       ``(E) evaluated against clear and consistent performance 
     measures;
       ``(F) assessed to learn best practices, which shall be 
     shared with appropriate Federal, State, and local officials, 
     seaport personnel and management; governmental and 
     nongovernmental emergency response providers, and the private 
     sector; and
       ``(G) followed by remedial action in response to lessons 
     learned; and
       ``(3) assists State and local governments and commercial 
     seaports in designing, implementing, and evaluating exercises 
     that--
       ``(A) conform to the requirements of paragraph (2); and
       ``(B) are consistent with any applicable Area Maritime 
     Transportation Security Plan and State or Urban Area Homeland 
     Security Plan.
       ``(c) Remedial Action Management System.--The Secretary, 
     acting through the Assistant Secretary for Grants and 
     Training, shall establish a Remedial Action Management System 
     to--
       ``(1) identify and analyze each port security exercise for 
     lessons learned and best practices;
       ``(2) disseminate lessons learned and best practices to 
     participants in the Program;
       ``(3) monitor the implementation of lessons learned and 
     best practices by participants in the Program; and
       ``(4) conduct remedial action tracking and long-term trend 
     analysis.
       ``(d) Grant Program Factor.--In evaluating and prioritizing 
     applications for Federal financial assistance under section 
     512, the Secretary shall give additional consideration to 
     those applicants that have conducted port security exercises 
     under this section.
       ``(e) Consultation.--The Secretary shall ensure that, in 
     carrying out the Program, the Office of Grants and Training 
     shall consult with--
       ``(1) a geographic and substantive cross section of 
     governmental and nongovernmental emergency response 
     providers; and
       ``(2) commercial seaport personnel and management.
       ``(f) Commercial Seaport Personnel Defined.--For purposes 
     of this section, the term `commercial seaport personnel' 
     means any person engaged in an activity relating to the 
     loading or unloading of cargo, the movement or tracking of 
     cargo, the maintenance and repair of intermodal equipment, 
     the operation of cargo-related equipment (whether or not 
     integral to the vessel), and the handling of mooring lines on 
     the dock when a vessel is made fast or let go, in the United 
     States or the coastal waters thereof.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 2135), 
     as amended by section 112, is further amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 802 the following:

``Sec. 803. Port security exercise program.''.

     SEC. 114. RESERVE OFFICERS AND JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICERS 
                   TRAINING PILOT PROJECT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the department in which 
     the Coast Guard is operating (in this section referred to as 
     the ``Secretary'') may carry out a pilot project to establish 
     and maintain a reserve officers and a junior reserve officers 
     training program in locations determined by the Secretary.
       (b) Criteria for Selection.--The Secretary shall establish 
     and maintain a training program under this section in each 
     Coast Guard District, preferably in a location that has a 
     Coast Guard district headquarters. The Secretary shall ensure 
     that at least one program is established at each of an 
     historically black college or university, an hispanic serving 
     institution, and a high school with majority-minority 
     population.
       (c) Program Requirements.--A pilot program carried out by 
     the Secretary under this section shall provide students--
       (1) instruction in subject areas relating to operations of 
     the Coast Guard; and
       (2) training in skills that are useful and appropriate for 
     a career in the Coast Guard.
       (d) Provision of Additional Support.--To carry out a pilot 
     program under this section, the Secretary may provide--
       (1) assistance in course development, instruction, and 
     other support activities;
       (2) commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast 
     Guard to serve as administrators and instructors; and
       (3) necessary and appropriate course materials, equipment, 
     and uniforms.
       (e) Employment of Retired Coast Guard Personnel.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     may authorize a selected college, university, or high school 
     to employ as administrators and instructors for the pilot 
     program retired Coast Guard and Coast Guard Reserve 
     commissioned, warrant, and petty officers who request that 
     employment and who are approved by the Secretary.
       (2) Authorized pay.--
       (A) In general.--Retired members employed pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) may receive their retired or retainer pay and 
     an additional amount of not more than the difference 
     between--
       (i) the amount the individual would be paid as pay and 
     allowance if they were considered to have been ordered to 
     active duty with the Coast Guard during that period of 
     employment; and
       (ii) the amount of retired pay the individual is entitled 
     to receive during that period.
       (B) Payment to the school.--The Secretary shall pay to a 
     selected college, university, or high school an amount equal 
     to one half of the amount described in subparagraph (A), from 
     funds appropriated for that purpose.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out this 
     section there is authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Secretary such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal 
     years 2007 through 2010.

                  Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions

     SEC. 121. INCREASE IN PORT OF ENTRY INSPECTION OFFICERS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     increase by not less than 200 the number of positions for 
     full-time active duty port of entry inspection officers of 
     the Department of Homeland Security for each of the fiscal 
     years 2007 through 2012.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out subsection 
     (a) the following amounts for the following fiscal years:
       (1) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
       (2) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
       (3) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (4) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
       (5) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
       (6) $120,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.

     SEC. 122. ACCELERATION OF INTEGRATED DEEPWATER SYSTEM.

       In addition to any other amounts authorized by law, there 
     is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security $1,892,000,000 for the acquisition and construction 
     of vessels, aircraft, shore and offshore facilities and other 
     components associated with the Integrated Deepwater System in 
     accordance with the report required by section 888 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 2250).

     SEC. 123. BORDER PATROL UNIT FOR UNITED STATES VIRGIN 
                   ISLANDS.

        Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish 
     at least one Border Patrol unit for the Virgin Islands of the 
     United States.

     SEC. 124. REPORT ON OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF UNITED STATES 
                   SEAPORTS.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to 
     the appropriate congressional committees a report that 
     contains--
       (1) the name of each individual or entity that leases, 
     operates, manages, or owns real property or facilities at 
     each United States seaport; and
       (2) any other information that the Secretary determines to 
     be appropriate.

     SEC. 125. REPORT ON SECURITY OPERATIONS AT CERTAIN UNITED 
                   STATES SEAPORTS.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     conduct a study on the adequacy of security operations at the 
     ten United States seaports that load and unload the largest 
     amount of containers.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 270 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report on the results 
     of the study required by subsection (a).

     SEC. 126. REPORT ON ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE MANIFESTS FOR 
                   CERTAIN COMMERCIAL VESSELS IN THE UNITED STATES 
                   VIRGIN ISLANDS.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to 
     the appropriate congressional committees a report on the 
     impact of implementing the requirements of section 231 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1221) (relating to 
     providing United States border officers with arrival and 
     departure manifests) with respect to commercial vessels that 
     are fewer than 300 gross tons and operate exclusively between 
     the territorial waters of the United States Virgin Islands 
     and the territorial waters of the British Virgin Islands.

          TITLE II--SECURITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CHAIN

     SEC. 201. SECURITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CHAIN.

       (a) In General.--The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new title:

       ``TITLE XVIII--SECURITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CHAIN

                    ``Subtitle A--General Provisions

     ``SEC. 1801. STRATEGIC PLAN TO ENHANCE THE SECURITY OF THE 
                   INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CHAIN.

       ``(a) Strategic Plan.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
     appropriate Federal, State, local, and tribal government 
     agencies and private sector stakeholders responsible for 
     security matters that affect or relate to the movement of 
     containers through the international supply chain, shall 
     develop and implement, and update as appropriate, a strategic 
     plan to enhance the security of the international supply 
     chain.
       ``(b) Requirements.--The strategic plan required under 
     subsection (a) shall--

[[Page H2126]]

       ``(1) describe the roles, responsibilities, and authorities 
     of Federal, State, local, and tribal government agencies and 
     private sector stakeholders that relate to the security of 
     the movement of containers through the international supply 
     chain;
       ``(2) identify and address gaps and unnecessary overlaps in 
     the roles, responsibilities, or authorities described in 
     paragraph (1);
       ``(3) identify and make recommendations regarding 
     legislative, regulatory, and organizational changes necessary 
     to improve coordination among the entities or to enhance the 
     security of the international supply chain;
       ``(4) provide measurable goals, including objectives, 
     mechanisms, and a schedule, for furthering the security of 
     commercial operations from point of origin to point of 
     destination;
       ``(5) build on available resources and consider costs and 
     benefits;
       ``(6) provide incentives for additional voluntary measures 
     to enhance cargo security, as determined by the Secretary;
       ``(7) consider the impact of supply chain security 
     requirements on small and medium size companies;
       ``(8) include a process for sharing intelligence and 
     information with private sector stakeholders to assist in 
     their security efforts;
       ``(9) identify a framework for prudent and measured 
     response in the event of a transportation security incident 
     involving the international supply chain;
       ``(10) provide a plan for the expeditious resumption of the 
     flow of legitimate trade in accordance with section 
     70103(a)(2)(J)(ii) of title 46, United States Code;
       ``(11) consider the linkages between supply chain security 
     and security programs within other systems of movement, 
     including travel security and terrorism finance programs; and
       ``(12) expand upon and relate to existing strategies and 
     plans, including the National Strategy for Maritime Security 
     and the eight supporting plans of the Strategy, as required 
     by Homeland Security Presidential Directive-13 (September 
     2005).
       ``(c) Utilization of Advisory Committees.--As part of the 
     consultations described in subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall, to the extent practicable, utilize the Homeland 
     Security Advisory Committee, the National Maritime Security 
     Advisory Committee, and the Commercial Operations Advisory 
     Committee to review, as necessary, the draft strategic plan 
     and any subsequent updates to the strategic plan.
       ``(d) International Standards and Practices.--In 
     furtherance of the strategic plan required under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary is encouraged to consider proposed or 
     established standards and practices of foreign governments 
     and international organizations, including the International 
     Maritime Organization, the World Customs Organization, the 
     International Labor Organization, and the International 
     Organization for Standardization, as appropriate, to 
     establish standards and best practices for the security of 
     containers moving through the international supply chain.
       ``(e) Report.--
       ``(1) Initial report.--The Secretary shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report that contains 
     the strategic plan required by subsection (a).
       ``(2) Final report.--Not later than three years after the 
     date on which the strategic plan is submitted under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report that contains an update of 
     the strategic plan.
       ``(f) Definition.--In this section, the term 
     `transportation security incident' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 70101(6) of title 46, United States Code.

     ``SEC. 1802. TRANSMISSION OF ADDITIONAL DATA ELEMENTS FOR 
                   IMPROVED HIGH RISK TARGETING.

       ``(a) Requirement.--The Secretary shall require 
     transmission to the Department, through an electronic data 
     interchange system, of additional data elements for improved 
     high risk targeting, including appropriate security elements 
     of entry data, as determined by the Secretary, to be provided 
     as advanced information with respect to cargo destined for 
     importation into the United States prior to loading of such 
     cargo on vessels at foreign seaports.
       ``(b) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations to carry out this section. In promulgating such 
     regulations, the Secretary shall adhere to the parameters 
     applicable to the development of regulations under section 
     343(a) of the Trade Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 2071 note), 
     including provisions relating to consultation, technology, 
     analysis, use of information, confidentiality, and timing 
     requirements.

     ``SEC. 1803. PLAN TO IMPROVE THE AUTOMATED TARGETING SYSTEM.

       ``(a) Plan.--The Secretary shall develop and implement a 
     plan to improve the Automated Targeting System for the 
     identification of high-risk containers moving through the 
     international supply chain.
       ``(b) Contents.--
       ``(1) Treatment of recommendations.--The Secretary shall 
     include in the plan required under subsection (a) a schedule 
     to address the recommendations of the Comptroller General of 
     the United States, the Inspector General of the Department of 
     the Treasury, and the Inspector General of the Department of 
     Homeland Security with respect to the operation of the 
     Automated Targeting System.
       ``(2) Information submissions.--In developing the plan 
     required under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider 
     the cost, benefit, and feasibility of--
       ``(A) requiring additional nonmanifest documentation for 
     each container;
       ``(B) adjusting the time period allowed by law for 
     revisions to a container cargo manifest;
       ``(C) adjusting the time period allowed by law for 
     submission of entry data for vessel or cargo; and
       ``(D) such other actions the Secretary considers beneficial 
     for improving the information relied upon for the Automated 
     Targeting System and any other targeting systems in 
     furthering the security and integrity of the international 
     supply chain.
       ``(3) Outside review.--The Secretary shall conduct, through 
     an independent panel, a review of the Automated Targeting 
     System. The results of this review shall be included in the 
     plan required under subsection (a).
       ``(4) Smart system.--The Secretary shall consider future 
     iterations of the Automated Targeting System, which would 
     incorporate smart features, such as more complex algorithms 
     and real-time intelligence, instead of relying solely on rule 
     sets that are periodically updated. The Secretary shall also 
     consider how the Automated Targeting System could be improved 
     through linkages with targeting systems in existence on the 
     date of the enactment of the Security and Accountability For 
     Every Port Act for travel security and terrorism finance 
     programs.
       ``(c) New or Expanded Information Submissions.--In 
     considering any new or expanded information submission 
     requirements, the Secretary shall consult with stakeholders 
     and identify the need for such information, appropriate 
     confidentiality requirements with respect to such 
     information, and appropriate timing of the submission of such 
     information, in the plan required under subsection (a).
       ``(d) Secure Transmission of Certain Information.--All 
     information required by the Department from supply chain 
     partners shall be transmitted in a secure fashion, as 
     determined by the Secretary, so as to protect the information 
     from unauthorized access.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of the 
     fiscal years 2007 through 2012 to carry out this section.

     ``SEC. 1804. CONTAINER STANDARDS AND VERIFICATION PROCEDURES.

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish minimum 
     standards and verification procedures for securing containers 
     in transit to the United States relating to the sealing of 
     containers.
       ``(2) Deadline for enforcement.--Not later than two years 
     after the date on which the standards and procedures are 
     established pursuant to paragraph (1), all containers bound 
     for ports of entry in the United States shall meet such 
     standards and procedures.
       ``(b) Review and Enhancement.--The Secretary shall 
     regularly--
       ``(1) review the standards and procedures established 
     pursuant to subsection (a); and
       ``(2) enhance the security standards and procedures, as 
     appropriate, based on tests of technologies as they become 
     commercially available to detect container intrusion and the 
     highest consequence threats, particularly weapons of mass 
     destruction.
       ``(c) International Cargo Security Standards.--The 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is 
     encouraged to promote and establish international standards 
     for the security of containers moving through the 
     international supply chain with foreign governments and 
     international organizations, including the International 
     Maritime Organization and the World Customs Organization.
       ``(d) International Trade and Other Obligations.--In 
     carrying out this section, the Secretary shall consult with 
     appropriate Federal departments and agencies and private 
     sector stakeholders to ensure that actions under this section 
     do not violate international trade obligations or other 
     international obligations of the United States.

     ``SEC. 1805. CONTAINER SECURITY INITIATIVE (CSI).

       ``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     establish and implement a program (to be known as the 
     `Container Security Initiative' or `CSI') to identify and 
     examine maritime containers that pose a risk for terrorism at 
     foreign ports before the containers are shipped to the United 
     States.
       ``(b) Assessment.--Before the Secretary designates any 
     foreign port under CSI, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     other Federal officials, as appropriate, shall conduct an 
     assessment of the port, including--
       ``(1) the level of risk for the potential compromise of 
     containers by terrorists or terrorist weapons;
       ``(2) the volume of regular container traffic to United 
     States ports;
       ``(3) the results of the Coast Guard assessments conducted 
     pursuant to section 70108 of title 46, United States Code;
       ``(4) the commitment of the host nation to cooperating with 
     the Department in sharing critical data and risk management 
     information and to maintain programs to ensure employee 
     integrity; and
       ``(5) the potential for validation of security practices by 
     the Department.
       ``(c) Notification.--The Secretary shall notify the 
     appropriate congressional committees prior to notifying the 
     public of the designation of a foreign port under CSI.
       ``(d) Inspections.--
       ``(1) Requirements and procedures.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) establish technical capability criteria and standard 
     operating procedures for the use of nonintrusive inspection 
     and nuclear and radiological detection systems in conjunction 
     with CSI;
       ``(B) require each port designated under CSI to operate 
     nonintrusive inspection and nuclear and radiological 
     detection systems in accordance with the technical capability 
     criteria and standard operating procedures established under 
     subparagraph (A); and

[[Page H2127]]

       ``(C) continually monitor the technologies, processes, and 
     techniques used to inspect cargo at ports designated under 
     CSI.
       ``(2) Consistency of standards and procedures.--The 
     Secretary shall ensure that the technical capability criteria 
     and standard operating procedures established under paragraph 
     (1)(A) are consistent with such standards and procedures of 
     any other department or agency of the Federal government with 
     respect to deployment of nuclear and radiological detection 
     systems outside the United States.
       ``(3) Foreign assistance.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of State, the Secretary of Energy, and the heads of 
     other Federal agencies, shall identify foreign assistance 
     programs that could facilitate the implementation of cargo 
     security antiterrorism measures at ports designated under CSI 
     and foreign ports not designated under CSI that lack 
     effective antiterrorism measures.
       ``(B) Acquisition.--The Secretary is authorized to loan or 
     otherwise assist in the deployment of nonintrusive inspection 
     or nuclear and radiological detection systems for cargo 
     containers at each designated CSI port under such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate and 
     to provide training for foreign personnel involved in CSI.
       ``(e) Prohibition.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall issue a `do not 
     load' order to each port designated under CSI to prevent the 
     onload of any cargo that has been identified as higher risk 
     by the Automated Targeting System unless the cargo--
       ``(A) is scanned with a non intrusive imagery device and 
     nuclear or radiological detection equipment;
       ``(B) is devanned and inspected with nuclear or 
     radiological detection equipment; or
       ``(C) is determined to be of lower risk following 
     additional inquiries by appropriate personnel of U.S. Customs 
     and Border Protection.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed to interfere with the ability of the 
     Secretary to deny entry of any cargo into the United States.
       ``(f) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees not later than March 1 
     of each year a report on the status of CSI, including--
       ``(1) a description of the security improvements gained 
     through CSI;
       ``(2) the rationale for the continuance of each port 
     designated under CSI;
       ``(3) an assessment of the personnel needs at each port 
     designated under CSI; and
       ``(4) a description of the potential for remote targeting 
     to decrease the number of personnel who are deployed at 
     foreign ports under CSI.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated $196,000,000 for each of the 
     fiscal years 2007 through 2012 to carry out this section.

     ``SEC. 1806. INFORMATION SHARING RELATING TO SUPPLY CHAIN 
                   SECURITY COOPERATION.

       ``(a)  Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       ``(1) to establish continuing liaison and to provide for 
     supply chain security cooperation between Department and the 
     private sector; and
       ``(2) to provide for regular and timely interchange of 
     information between the private sector and the Department 
     concerning developments and security risks in the supply 
     chain environment.
       ``(b) Secure System.--The Secretary shall develop a secure 
     electronic data interchange system to collect from and share 
     appropriate risk information related to securing the supply 
     chain with the private sector entities determined appropriate 
     by the Secretary.
       ``(c) Consultation.--In developing the system under 
     subsection (b), the Secretary shall consult with the 
     Commercial Operations Advisory Committee and a broad range of 
     public and private sector entities likely to utilize the 
     system, including importers, exporters, carriers, customs 
     brokers, and freight forwarders, among other parties.
       ``(d) Procedures.--The Secretary shall establish uniform 
     procedures for the receipt, care, and storage of supply chain 
     security information that is voluntarily submitted to the 
     Department through the system developed under subsection (b).
       ``(e) Limitations.--The voluntary information collected 
     through the system developed under subsection (b) shall be 
     used exclusively for ensuring security and shall not be used 
     for determining entry or for any other commercial enforcement 
     purpose. The voluntary information submitted to the 
     Department through the system developed under subsection (b) 
     shall not be construed to constitute compliance with any 
     requirement to submit such information to a Federal agency 
     under any other provision of law.
       ``(f) Participants.--The Secretary shall develop protocols 
     for determining appropriate private sector personnel who 
     shall have access to the system developed under subsection 
     (b). Such personnel shall include designated security 
     officers within companies that are determined to be low risk 
     through participation in the Customs-Trade Partnership 
     Against Terrorism program established pursuant to subtitle B 
     of this title.
       ``(g) Confidentiality.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, information that is voluntarily submitted by the 
     private sector to the Department through the system developed 
     under subsection (b)--
       ``(1) shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of 
     title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the 
     Freedom of Information Act);
       ``(2) shall not, without the written consent of the person 
     or entity submitting such information, be used directly by 
     the Department or a third party, in any civil action arising 
     under Federal or State law if such information is submitted 
     in good faith; and
       ``(3) shall not, without the written consent of the person 
     or entity submitting such information, be used or disclosed 
     by any officer or employee of the United States for purposes 
     other than the purposes of this section, except--
       ``(A) in furtherance of an investigation or other 
     prosecution of a criminal act; or
       ``(B) when disclosure of the information would be--
       ``(i) to either House of Congress, or to the extent of 
     matter within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee 
     thereof, any joint committee thereof or subcommittee of any 
     such joint committee; or
       ``(ii) to the Comptroller General, or any authorized 
     representative of the Comptroller General, in the course of 
     the performance of the duties of the Comptroller General.
       ``(h)  Independently Obtained Information.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to limit or otherwise affect the 
     ability of a Federal, State, or local, government entity, 
     under applicable law, to obtain supply chain security 
     information, including any information lawfully and properly 
     disclosed generally or broadly to the public and to use such 
     information in any manner permitted by law.
       ``(i) Penalties.--Whoever, being an officer or employee of 
     the United States or of any department or agency thereof, 
     knowingly publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes known in 
     any manner or to any extent not authorized by law, any supply 
     chain security information protected in this section from 
     disclosure, shall be fined under title 18, United States 
     Code, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, and shall be 
     removed from office or employment.
       ``(j) Authority to Issue Warnings.--The Secretary may 
     provide advisories, alerts, and warnings to relevant 
     companies, targeted sectors, other governmental entities, or 
     the general public regarding potential risks to the supply 
     chain as appropriate. In issuing a warning, the Secretary 
     shall take appropriate actions to protect from disclosure--
       ``(1) the source of any voluntarily submitted supply chain 
     security information that forms the basis for the warning; 
     and
       ``(2) information that is proprietary, business sensitive, 
     relates specifically to the submitting person or entity, or 
     is otherwise not appropriately in the public domain.

   ``Subtitle B--Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT)

     ``SEC. 1811. ESTABLISHMENT.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     establish a voluntary program (to be known as the `Customs-
     Trade Partnership Against Terrorism' or `C-TPAT') to 
     strengthen and improve the overall security of the 
     international supply chain and United States border security.
       ``(b) Minimum Security Requirements.--The Secretary shall 
     review the minimum security requirements of C-TPAT at least 
     once every year and update such requirements as necessary.

     ``SEC. 1812. ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.

       ``Importers, brokers, forwarders, air, sea, land carriers, 
     and other entities in the international supply chain and 
     intermodal transportation system are eligible to apply to 
     voluntarily enter into partnerships with the Department under 
     C-TPAT.

     ``SEC. 1813. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.

       ``An applicant seeking to participate in C-TPAT shall--
       ``(1) demonstrate a history of moving commerce in the 
     international supply chain;
       ``(2) conduct an assessment of its supply chains based upon 
     security criteria established by the Secretary, including--
       ``(A) business partner requirements;
       ``(B) container security;
       ``(C) physical security and access controls;
       ``(D) personnel security;
       ``(E) procedural security;
       ``(F) security training and threat awareness; and
       ``(G) information technology security;
       ``(3) implement and maintain security measures and supply 
     chain security practices meeting security criteria; and
       ``(4) meet all other requirements established by the 
     Secretary.

     ``SEC. 1814. TIER ONE PARTICIPANTS.

       ``(a) Benefits.--The Secretary may offer limited benefits 
     to C-TPAT participants whose security measures and supply 
     chain security practices have been certified in accordance 
     with the guidelines established pursuant to subsection (b).
       ``(b) Guidelines.--The Secretary shall update guidelines 
     for certifying a C-TPAT participant's security measures and 
     supply chain security practices under this section.

     ``SEC. 1815. TIER TWO PARTICIPANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Not later than one year after a C-TPAT 
     participant has been certified under section 1814, the 
     Secretary shall validate, directly or through third party 
     entities certified in accordance with section 1817, the 
     security measures and supply chain security practices of that 
     participant. Such validation shall include assessments at 
     appropriate foreign locations utilized by the participant as 
     part of the supply chain.
       ``(b) Consequences for Failed Validation.--If a C-TPAT 
     participant's security measures and supply chain security 
     practices fail to meet the validation requirements under this 
     section, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection may--
       ``(1) deny the participant benefits under C-TPAT on a 
     temporary or permanent basis; or
       ``(2) suspend or expel the participant from C-TPAT.
       ``(c) Right of Appeal.--A C-TPAT participant described in 
     subsection (b) may file an appeal with the Secretary of the 
     Commissioner's

[[Page H2128]]

     decision under subsection (b)(1) to deny benefits under C-
     TPAT or under subsection (b)(2) to suspend or expel the 
     participant from C-TPAT.
       ``(d) Benefits.--The Secretary shall extend benefits to 
     each C-TPAT participant that has been validated under this 
     section, which may include--
       ``(1) reduced examinations; and
       ``(2) priority processing for searches.

     ``SEC. 1816. TIER THREE PARTICIPANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a third 
     tier of C-TPAT that offers additional benefits to C-TPAT 
     participants that demonstrate a sustained commitment beyond 
     the minimum criteria for participation in C-TPAT.
       ``(b) Additional Criteria.--The Secretary shall designate 
     criteria for C-TPAT participants under this section that may 
     include criteria to ensure--
       ``(1) cargo is loaded on a vessel with a vessel security 
     plan approved under section 70103(c) of title 46, United 
     States Code, or on a vessel with a valid International 
     Ship Security Certificate as provided for under part 104 
     of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations;
       ``(2) container security devices and related policies and 
     practices that exceed the standards and procedures 
     established by the Secretary are utilized; and
       ``(3) cargo complies with any other requirements determined 
     by the Secretary.
       ``(c) Benefits.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Commercial Operations Advisory Committee and the National 
     Maritime Security Advisory Committee, may provide benefits to 
     C-TPAT participants under this section, which may include--
       ``(1) the expedited release of tier three cargo into 
     destination ports within the United States during all threat 
     levels designated by the Secretary;
       ``(2) reduced or streamlined bonding requirements that are 
     consistent with obligations under other applicable provisions 
     of law;
       ``(3) preference to vessels;
       ``(4) further reduced examinations;
       ``(5) priority processing for examinations;
       ``(6) further reduced scores in the Automated Targeting 
     System; and
       ``(7) streamlined billing of any customs duties or fees.
       ``(d) Definition.--In this section, the term `container 
     security device' means a mechanical or electronic device 
     designed to, at a minimum, detect unauthorized intrusion of 
     containers.

     ``SEC. 1817. CONSEQUENCES FOR LACK OF COMPLIANCE.

       ``(a) In General.--If a C-TPAT participant's security 
     measures and supply chain security practices fail to meet any 
     of the requirements under this subtitle, the Secretary may 
     deny the participant benefits in whole or in part under this 
     subtitle.
       ``(b) False or Misleading Information.--If a C-TPAT 
     participant intentionally provides false or misleading 
     information to the Secretary or a third party entity during 
     the validation process of the participant under this 
     subtitle, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection shall suspend or expel the participant from C-TPAT 
     for a period of not less than five years.
       ``(c) Right of Appeal.--A C-TPAT participant described in 
     subsection (a) may file an appeal with the Secretary of the 
     Secretary's decision under subsection (a) to deny benefits 
     under this subtitle. A C-TPAT participant described in 
     subsection (b) may file an appeal with the Secretary of the 
     Commissioner's decision under subsection (b) to suspend or 
     expel the participant from C-TPAT.

     ``SEC. 1818. VALIDATIONS BY THIRD PARTY ENTITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--In conducting the pilot program under 
     subsection (f), and if the Secretary determines to expand the 
     use of third party entities to conduct validations of C-TPAT 
     participants upon completion of the pilot program under 
     subsection (f), the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) develop, document, and update, as necessary, minimum 
     standard operating procedures and requirements applicable to 
     such entities for the conduct of such validations; and
       ``(2) meet all requirements under subtitle G of the title 
     VIII of this Act to review and designate such minimum 
     standard operating procedures as a qualified anti-terrorism 
     technology for purposes of such subtitle.
       ``(b) Certification of Third Party Entities.--
       ``(1) Issuance of certificate of conformance.--In 
     accordance with section 863(d)(3) of this Act, the Secretary 
     shall issue a certificate of conformance to a third party 
     entity to conduct validations under this subtitle if the 
     entity--
       ``(A) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary the 
     ability to perform validations in accordance with standard 
     operating procedures and requirements (or updates thereto) 
     designated as a qualified anti-terrorism technology by the 
     Secretary under subsection (a); and
       ``(B) agrees--
       ``(I) to perform validations in accordance with such 
     standard operating procedures and requirements (or updates 
     thereto); and
       ``(ii) to maintain liability insurance coverage at policy 
     limits and in accordance with conditions to be established by 
     the Secretary pursuant to section 864 of this Act; and
       ``(C) signs an agreement to protect all proprietary 
     information of C-TPAT participants with respect to which the 
     entity will conduct validations.
       ``(2) Litigation and risk management protections.--A third 
     party entity that maintains liability insurance coverage at 
     policy limits and in accordance with conditions to be 
     established by the Secretary pursuant to section 864 of this 
     Act and receives a certificate of conformance under paragraph 
     (1) shall receive all applicable litigation and risk 
     management protections under sections 863 and 864 of this 
     Act.
       ``(3) Reciprocal waiver of claims.--A reciprocal waiver of 
     claims shall be deemed to have been entered into between a 
     third party entity that receives a certificate of conformance 
     under paragraph (1) and its contractors, subcontractors, 
     suppliers, vendors, customers, and contractors and 
     subcontractors of customers involved in the use or operation 
     of the validation services of the third party entity.
       ``(c) Information for Establishing Limits of Liability 
     Insurance.--A third party entity seeking a certificate of 
     conformance under subsection (b)(1) shall provide to the 
     Secretary necessary information for establishing the limits 
     of liability insurance required to be maintained by the 
     entity under section 864(a) of this Act.
       ``(d) Additional Requirements.--The Secretary shall ensure 
     that--
       ``(1) any third party entity under this section--
       ``(A) has no beneficial interest in or any direct or 
     indirect control over the C-TPAT participant that is 
     contracting for the validation services; and
       ``(B) has no other conflict of interest with respect to the 
     C-TPAT participant; and
       ``(2) the C-TPAT participant has entered into a contract 
     with the third party entity under which the C-TPAT 
     participant agrees to pay all costs associated with the 
     validation.
       ``(e) Monitoring.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall regularly monitor 
     and inspect the operations of a third party entity conducting 
     validations under this subtitle to ensure that the entity is 
     meeting the minimum standard operating procedures and 
     requirements for the validation of C-TPAT participants 
     established under subsection (a) and all other applicable 
     requirements for validation services under this subtitle.
       ``(2) Revocation.--If the Secretary finds that a third 
     party entity is not meeting the minimum standard operating 
     procedures and requirements, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) revoke the entity's certificate of conformance issued 
     under subsection (b)(1); and
       ``(B) review any validations conducted by the entity.
       ``(f) Pilot Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a pilot 
     program to test the feasibility, costs, and benefits of 
     utilizing third party entities to conduct validations of C-
     TPAT participants. In conducting the pilot program, the 
     Secretary shall comply with all applicable requirements of 
     this section with respect to eligibility of third party 
     entities to conduct validations of C-TPAT participants.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the completion 
     of the pilot program conducted pursuant to paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report that contains--
       ``(A) the results of the pilot program; and
       ``(B) the determination of the Secretary whether or not to 
     expand the use of third party entities to conduct validations 
     of C-TPAT participants.

     ``SEC. 1819. REVALIDATION.

       ``The Secretary shall establish a process for revalidating 
     C-TPAT participants under this subtitle. Such revalidation 
     shall occur not less frequently than once during every 3-year 
     period following the initial validation.

     ``SEC. 1820. NON-CONTAINERIZED CARGO.

       ``The Secretary may consider the potential for 
     participation in C-TPAT by importers of non-containerized 
     cargoes that otherwise meet the requirements under this 
     subtitle.

     ``SEC. 1821. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated $75,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2012 to carry out this 
     subtitle.

                 ``Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions

     ``SEC. 1831. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 
                   EFFORTS IN FURTHERANCE OF MARITIME AND CARGO 
                   SECURITY.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) direct research, development, test, and evaluation 
     efforts in furtherance of maritime and cargo security;
       ``(2) encourage the ingenuity of the private sector in 
     developing and testing technologies and process innovations 
     in furtherance of these objectives; and
       ``(3) evaluate such technologies.
       ``(b) Coordination.--The Secretary, in coordination with 
     the Undersecretary for Science and Technology, the Director 
     of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office of the Department, 
     and the heads of other appropriate offices or entities of the 
     Department, shall ensure that--
       ``(1) research, development, test, and evaluation efforts 
     funded by the Department in furtherance of maritime and cargo 
     security are coordinated to avoid duplication of efforts; and
       ``(2) the results of such efforts are shared throughout the 
     Department and other Federal, State, and local agencies, as 
     appropriate.

[[Page H2129]]

     ``SEC. 1832. GRANTS UNDER OPERATION SAFE COMMERCE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide grants, as 
     part of Operation Safe Commerce, to--
       ``(1) integrate nonintrusive imaging inspection and nuclear 
     and radiological detection systems with automatic 
     identification methods for containers, vessels, and vehicles;
       ``(2) test physical access control protocols and 
     technologies to include continuous tracking devices that 
     provide real-time monitoring and reporting;
       ``(3) create a data sharing network capable of transmitting 
     data required by entities participating in the international 
     supply chain from every intermodal transfer point to the 
     National Targeting Center of the Department; and
       ``(4) otherwise further maritime and cargo security, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(b) Supply Chain Security for Special Container and 
     Noncontainerized Cargo.--In providing grants under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall establish demonstration projects 
     that further the security of the international supply chain, 
     including refrigerated containers, and noncontainerized 
     cargo, including roll-on/roll-off, break-bulk, liquid, and 
     dry bulk cargo, through real-time, continuous tracking 
     technology for special or high-risk container cargo that 
     poses unusual potential for human or environmental harm.
       ``(c) Competitive Selection Process.--The Secretary shall 
     select recipients of grants under subsection (a) through a 
     competitive process on the basis of the following criteria:
       ``(1) The extent to which the applicant can demonstrate 
     that personnel, laboratory, and organizational resources will 
     be available to the applicant to carry out the activities 
     authorized under this section.
       ``(2) The applicant's capability to provide leadership in 
     making national and regional contributions to the solution of 
     maritime and cargo security issues.
       ``(3) The extent to which the applicant's programs, 
     projects, and activities under the grant will address highest 
     risk priorities as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(4) The extent to which the applicant has a strategic 
     plan for carrying out the programs, projects, and activities 
     under the grant.
       ``(5) Any other criteria the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(d) Administrative Provisions.--
       ``(1) Prohibition on duplication of effort.--Before 
     providing any grant under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     coordinate with other Federal departments and agencies to 
     ensure the grant will not duplicate work already being 
     carried out with Federal funding.
       ``(2) Accounting, reporting, and review procedures.--The 
     Secretary shall establish accounting, reporting, and review 
     procedures to ensure that--
       ``(A) amounts made available under a grant provided under 
     subsection (a)--
       ``(i) are used for the purpose for which such amounts were 
     made available; and
       ``(ii) are properly accounted for; and
       ``(B) amounts not used for such purpose and amounts not 
     expended are recovered.
       ``(3) Recordkeeping.--The recipient of a grant under 
     subsection (a) shall keep all records related to expenditures 
     and obligations of amounts provided under the grant and make 
     such records available upon request to the Secretary for 
     audit and examination.
       ``(4) Review.--The Secretary shall annually review the 
     programs, projects, and activities carried out using amounts 
     made available under grants provided under subsection (a) to 
     ensure that obligations and expenditures of such amounts are 
     consistent with the purposes for which such amounts are made 
     available.
       ``(e) Annual Report.--Not later than March 1 of each year, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report detailing the results of Operation Safe 
     Commerce.
       ``(f) Definition.--In this section, the term `Operation 
     Safe Commerce' means the research, development, test, and 
     evaluation grant program that brings together private sector 
     shareholders, port officials, and Federal, State, and local 
     representatives to analyze existing security procedures for 
     cargo and develop new security protocols that have the 
     potential to increase the security of cargo shipments by 
     monitoring the movement and integrity of cargo through the 
     international supply chain.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), there are 
     authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2007 through 2012 to carry out this section.
       ``(2) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall be effective 
     beginning on the date on which the Secretary submits to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report on the 
     implementation and results of grants provided under Operation 
     Safe Commerce before the date of the enactment of the 
     Security and Accountability For Every Port Act.

     ``SEC. 1833. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title, the following definitions apply:
       ``(1) Automated targeting system.--The term `Automated 
     Targeting System' means the rules-based system incorporating 
     intelligence material and import transaction history, 
     established by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to target 
     high risk shipments of cargo.
       ``(2) Examination.--The term `examination' means a physical 
     inspection or the imaging and radiation screening of a 
     conveyance using non-intrusive inspection (NII) technology, 
     for the presence of contraband.
       ``(3) Inspection.--The term `inspection' means the 
     comprehensive process used by U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection for assessing goods entering the United States to 
     appraise them for duty purposes, to detect the presence of 
     restricted or prohibited items, and to ensure compliance with 
     all applicable laws. This process may include screening, 
     conducting an examination, or conducting a search.
       ``(4) International supply chain.--The term `international 
     supply chain' means the end-to-end process for shipping goods 
     from a point of origin overseas to and from the United 
     States.
       ``(5) Nuclear and radiological detection system.--The term 
     `nuclear and radiological detection system' means any 
     technology that is capable of detecting or identifying 
     nuclear and radiological material or explosive devices.
       ``(6) Screening.--The term `screening' means a visual or 
     automated review of information about goods, including 
     manifest or entry documentation accompanying a shipment being 
     imported into the United States, to determine or assess the 
     threat of such cargo.
       ``(7) Search.--The term `search' means an intrusive 
     examination in which a container is opened and its contents 
     are de-vanned and visually inspected for the presence of 
     misdeclared, restricted, or prohibited items.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 2135) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

       ``TITLE XVIII--SECURITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CHAIN

                    ``Subtitle A--General Provisions

``Sec. 1801. Strategic plan to enhance the security of the 
              international supply chain.
``Sec. 1802. Transmission of additional data elements for improved high 
              risk targeting.
``Sec. 1803. Plan to improve the Automated Targeting System.
``Sec. 1804. Container standards and verification procedures.
``Sec. 1805. Container Security Initiative (CSI).
``Sec. 1806. Information sharing relating to supply chain security 
              cooperation.

   ``Subtitle B--Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT)

``Sec. 1811. Establishment.
``Sec. 1812. Eligible entities.
``Sec. 1813. Minimum requirements.
``Sec. 1814. Tier one participants.
``Sec. 1815. Tier two participants.
``Sec. 1816. Tier three participants.
``Sec. 1817. Consequences for lack of compliance.
``Sec. 1818. Validations by third party entities.
``Sec. 1819. Revalidation.
``Sec. 1820. Non-containerized cargo.
``Sec. 1821. Authorization of appropriations.

                 ``Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions

``Sec. 1831. Research, development, test, and evaluation efforts in 
              furtherance of maritime and cargo security.
``Sec. 1832. Grants under Operation Safe Commerce.
``Sec. 1833. Definitions.''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall--
       (1) submit to the appropriate congressional committees the 
     report required by section 1801(e)(1) of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002, as added by subsection (a), not later 
     than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act;
       (2) promulgate regulations under section 1802(b) of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002, as added by subsection (a), 
     not later than one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act;
       (3) develop and implement the plan to improve the Automated 
     Targeting System under section 1803(a) of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002, as added by subsection (a), not later 
     than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
       (4) develop the standards and verification procedures 
     described in section 1804(a)(1) of the Homeland Security Act 
     of 2002, as added by subsection (a), not later than 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act;
       (5) begin exercising authority to issue a ``do not load'' 
     order to each port designated under CSI pursuant to section 
     1805(e) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as added by 
     subsection (a), not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act;
       (6) develop the secure electronic data interchange system 
     under section 1806(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 
     as added by subsection (a), not later than one year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act;
       (7) update guidelines for certifying a C-TPAT participant's 
     security measures and supply chain security practices under 
     section 1814(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as 
     added by subsection (a), not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act;
       (8) develop a schedule and update guidelines for validating 
     a C-TPAT participant's security measures and supply chain 
     security practices under section 1815 of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002, as added by subsection (a), not later 
     than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act;
       (9) provide appropriate benefits described in subsection 
     (d) of section 1816 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as 
     added by subsection (a), to C-TPAT participants under section 
     1816 of

[[Page H2130]]

     such Act beginning not later than two years after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act; and
       (10) carry out the pilot program described in section 
     1818(f) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as added by 
     subsection (a), beginning not later than one year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act for a duration of not less 
     than a one-year period.

     SEC. 202. NEXT GENERATION SUPPLY CHAIN SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES.

       (a) Evaluation of Emerging Technologies.--While maintaining 
     the current layered, risk-based approach to screening, 
     scanning, and inspecting cargo at foreign ports bound for the 
     United States in accordance with existing statutory 
     provisions, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall evaluate 
     the development of nuclear and radiological detection systems 
     and other inspection technologies for use at foreign seaports 
     to increase the volume of containers scanned prior to loading 
     on vessels bound for the United States.
       (b) Emerging Technology.--Not later than one year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, 
     having evaluated emerging technologies under subsection (a), 
     determine if more capable, commercially available technology 
     exists, and whether such technology--
       (1) has a sufficiently low false alarm rate for use in the 
     supply chain;
       (2) is capable of being deployed and operated at ports 
     overseas;
       (3) is capable of integrating, where necessary, with 
     existing systems;
       (4) does not significantly impact trade capacity and flow 
     of cargo at foreign or United States ports; and
       (5) provides an automated notification of questionable or 
     high-risk cargo as a trigger for further inspection by 
     appropriately trained personnel.
       (c) Contingent Implementation.--If the Secretary determines 
     the available technology meets the criteria outlined in 
     subsection (b), the Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Secretary of State, shall within 180 days of such 
     determination, seek to secure the cooperation of foreign 
     governments to initiate and maximize the use of such 
     technology at foreign ports to scan all cargo possible.
       (d) International Cooperation.--If the Secretary determines 
     that a proposed technology meets the requirements of 
     subsection (b), but cannot be implemented as a result of a 
     foreign government's refusal to cooperate in the phased 
     deployment, the Secretary may refuse to accept containerized 
     cargo from that port.
       (e) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees on an annual basis a report on the 
     evaluation performed under subsections (a) and (b), the 
     status of any implementation initiated in accordance with 
     subsection (c), and a detailed assessment of the level of 
     cooperation of foreign governments, as well as any actions 
     taken by the Secretary under subsection (d).
       (f) Definition.--In this section, the term ``nuclear and 
     radiological detection system'' means any technology that is 
     capable of detecting or identifying nuclear and radiological 
     material or explosive devices.

     SEC. 203. UNIFORM DATA SYSTEM FOR IMPORT AND EXPORT 
                   INFORMATION.

       (a) Establishment.--The President shall establish and 
     implement a single, uniform data system for the electronic 
     collection, dissemination, and sharing of import and export 
     information to increase the efficiency of data submission and 
     the security of such data related to border security, trade, 
     and public health and safety of international cargoes.
       (b) Private Sector Consultation.--The President shall 
     consult with private sector stakeholders in developing 
     uniform data submission requirements, procedures, and 
     schedules under the system established pursuant to subsection 
     (a).
       (c) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall transmit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report on the schedule 
     for full implementation of the system established pursuant to 
     subsection (a).
       (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to prevent any Federal department or agency from 
     collecting import and export information under any other 
     provision of law.

     SEC. 204. FOREIGN PORT ASSESSMENTS.

       Section 70108 of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Periodic Reassessment.--The Secretary, acting through 
     the Commandant of the Coast Guard, shall reassess the 
     effectiveness of antiterrorism measures maintained at ports 
     as described under subsection (a) and of procedures described 
     in subsection (b) not less than every 3 years.''.

     SEC. 205. PILOT PROGRAM TO IMPROVE THE SECURITY OF EMPTY 
                   CONTAINERS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     conduct a one-year pilot program to evaluate and improve the 
     security of empty containers at United States seaports to 
     ensure the safe and secure delivery of cargo and to prevent 
     potential acts of terrorism involving such containers. The 
     pilot program shall include the use of visual searches of 
     empty containers at United States seaports.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the completion of 
     the pilot program under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     prepare and submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a report that contains--
       (1) the results of pilot program; and
       (2) the determination of the Secretary whether or not to 
     expand the pilot program.

     SEC. 206. STUDY AND REPORT ON ADVANCED IMAGERY PILOT 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     consultation with the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection, shall conduct a study of the merits of current 
     container inspection pilot programs which include nuclear or 
     radiological detection, non-intrusive imagery, and density 
     scanning capabilities.
       (2) Requirements.--The study required under paragraph (1) 
     shall include, at a minimum--
       (A) an evaluation of the cost, personnel, and 
     infrastructure required to operate the pilot programs, as 
     well as the cost, personnel, and infrastructure required to 
     move the pilot programs into full-scale deployment to screen 
     all cargo imported from foreign ports;
       (B) an evaluation of the cost, personnel, and 
     infrastructure required by U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
     to validate the data generated from the pilot programs;
       (C) a summary of best practices and technological advances 
     of the pilot programs that could be integrated into the 
     Container Security Initiative and other container security 
     programs; and
       (D) an assessment of the impact of technology or processes 
     utilized in the pilot programs on improving cargo operations 
     and security.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report that contains--
       (1) the results of the study required under subsection (a); 
     and
       (2) recommendations to improve container security programs 
     within the Department of Homeland Security.

 TITLE III--DIRECTORATE FOR POLICY, PLANNING, AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

     SEC. 301. ESTABLISHMENT OF DIRECTORATE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating title VI as title XIX, and moving such 
     title so as to appear after title XVIII, as added by section 
     201;
       (2) by striking the heading for such title and inserting 
     the following:

                ``TITLE XIX--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS''.

       (3) by redesignating section 601 as section 1901; and
       (4) by inserting after title V the following new title:

        ``TITLE VI--POLICY, PLANNING, AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

     ``SEC. 601. DIRECTORATE FOR POLICY, PLANNING, AND 
                   INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There shall be in the Department a 
     Directorate for Policy, Planning, and International Affairs.
       ``(b) Under Secretary for Policy.--
       ``(1) In general.--The head of the Directorate shall be the 
     Under Secretary for Policy, who shall be appointed by the 
     President.
       ``(2) Qualifications.--No individual shall be appointed 
     Under Secretary for Policy under paragraph (1) unless the 
     individual has, by education and experience, demonstrated 
     knowledge, ability, and skill in the fields of policy and 
     strategic planning.
       ``(c) Responsibilities of Under Secretary.--
       ``(1) Policy responsibilities.--Subject to the direction 
     and control of the Secretary, the policy responsibilities of 
     the Under Secretary for Policy shall be as follows:
       ``(A) To serve as the principal policy advisor to the 
     Secretary.
       ``(B) To provide overall direction and supervision of 
     policy development for the programs, offices, and activities 
     of the Department.
       ``(C) To establish and implement a formal policymaking 
     process for the Department.
       ``(D) To analyze, evaluate, and review the completed, 
     ongoing, and proposed programs of the Department to ensure 
     they are compatible with the statutory and regulatory 
     responsibilities of the Department and with the Secretary's 
     priorities, strategic plans, and policies.
       ``(E) To ensure that the budget of the Department 
     (including the development of future year budgets and 
     interaction with the Office of Management and Budget and with 
     Congress) is compatible with the statutory and regulatory 
     responsibilities of the Department and with the Secretary's 
     priorities, strategic plans, and policies.
       ``(F) To represent the Department in any development of 
     policy that requires the Department to consult with another 
     Federal agency, the Office of the President, a foreign 
     government, or any other governmental or private sector 
     entity.
       ``(G) To supervise and oversee policy development 
     undertaken by the component agencies and offices of the 
     Department.
       ``(2) Strategic planning responsibilities.--Subject to the 
     direction and control of the Secretary, the strategic 
     planning responsibilities of the Under Secretary for Policy 
     shall be as follows:
       ``(A) To conduct long-range, strategic planning for the 
     Department.
       ``(B) To prepare national and Department strategies, as 
     appropriate.
       ``(C) To conduct net assessments of issues facing the 
     Department.
       ``(3) International responsibilities.--Subject to the 
     direction and control of the Secretary, the international 
     responsibilities of the Under Secretary for Policy shall be 
     as follows:
       ``(A) To promote the exchange of information and the 
     sharing of best practices and technology relating to homeland 
     security with nations friendly to the United States, 
     including--
       ``(i) the exchange of information on research and 
     development on homeland security technologies;
       ``(ii) joint training exercises of first responders in 
     coordination with the Assistant Secretary for Grants and 
     Training; and
       ``(iii) exchanging expertise and information on terrorism 
     prevention, response, and crisis management.

[[Page H2131]]

       ``(B) To identify any homeland security-related area in 
     which the United States and other nations and appropriate 
     international organizations could collaborate to improve 
     capabilities and to encourage the exchange of information or 
     sharing of best practices and technology relating to that 
     area.
       ``(C) To plan and participate in international conferences, 
     exchange programs (including the exchange of scientists, 
     engineers, and other experts), and other training activities 
     with friendly nations
       ``(D) To manage international activities within the 
     Department in coordination with other Federal officials with 
     responsibility for counterterrorism matters.
       ``(E) To oversee the activities of Department personnel 
     operating in other countries or traveling to other countries,
       ``(F) To represent the Department in international 
     negotiations, working groups, and standards-setting bodies.
       ``(4) Private sector.--
       ``(A) To create and foster strategic communications with 
     the private sector to enhance the primary mission of the 
     Department to protect the United States.
       ``(B) To advise the Secretary on the impact on the private 
     sector of the policies, regulations, processes, and actions 
     of the Department.
       ``(C) To create and manage private sector advisory councils 
     composed of representatives of industries and associations 
     designated by the Secretary--
       ``(i) to advise the Secretary on private sector products, 
     applications, and solutions as they relate to homeland 
     security challenges; and
       ``(ii) to advise the Secretary on homeland security 
     policies, regulations, processes, and actions that affect the 
     participating industries and associations.
       ``(D) To promote existing public-private partnerships and 
     develop new public-private partnerships to provide for 
     collaboration and mutual support to address homeland security 
     challenges.
       ``(E) To identify private sector resources and capabilities 
     that could be effective in supplementing functions of the 
     Department and State and local governments to prevent or 
     respond to acts of terrorism.
       ``(F) To coordinate among the Department's operating 
     entities and with the Assistant Secretary for Trade 
     Development of the Department of Commerce on issues related 
     to the travel and tourism industries.

     ``SEC. 602. OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Directorate of Policy, Planning, and International Affairs an 
     Office of International Affairs. The Office shall be headed 
     by an Assistant Secretary, who shall be appointed by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(b) Duties of the Assistant Secretary.--The Assistant 
     Secretary shall have the following duties:
       ``(1) To promote information and education exchange with 
     nations friendly to the United States in order to promote 
     sharing of best practices and technologies relating to 
     homeland security. Such exchange shall include the following:
       ``(A) Exchange of information on research and development 
     on homeland security technologies.
       ``(B) Joint training exercises of first responders.
       ``(C) Exchange of expertise on terrorism prevention, 
     response, and crisis management.
       ``(2) To identify areas for homeland security information 
     and training exchange where the United States has a 
     demonstrated weakness and another friendly nation or nations 
     have a demonstrated expertise.
       ``(3) To plan and undertake international conferences, 
     exchange programs, and training activities.
       ``(4) To manage international activities within the 
     Department in coordination with other Federal officials with 
     responsibility for counter-terrorism matters.

     ``SEC. 603. OTHER OFFICES AND OFFICIALS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Under Secretary for Policy shall 
     establish the following offices in the Directorate for 
     Policy, Planning, and International Affairs:
       ``(1) The Office of Policy, which shall be administered by 
     an Assistant Secretary for Policy.
       ``(2) The Office of Strategic Plans, which shall be 
     administered by an Assistant Secretary for Strategic Plans 
     and which shall include--
       ``(A) a Secure Border Initiative Program Office; and
       ``(B) a Screening Coordination and Operations Office.
       ``(3) The Office of the Private Sector, which shall be 
     administered by an Assistant Secretary for the Private 
     Sector.
       ``(4) The Victim Assistance Officer.
       ``(5) The Tribal Security Officer.
       ``(6) Such other offices as considered necessary by the 
     Under Secretary for Policy.
       ``(b) Director of Cargo Security Policy.--
       ``(1) In general.--There shall be in the Directorate for 
     Policy, Planning, and International Affairs a Director of 
     Cargo Security Policy (hereinafter in this section referred 
     to as the `Director'), who shall be subject to the direction 
     and control of the Under Secretary for Policy.
       ``(2) Responsibilities.--The Director shall--
       ``(A) advise the Assistant Secretary for Policy regarding 
     all aspects of Department programs relating to cargo 
     security;
       ``(B) develop Department-wide policies regarding cargo 
     security; and
       ``(C) coordinate the cargo security policies and programs 
     of the Department with other Federal departments and 
     agencies, including by working with officials of the 
     Department of Energy and the Department of State, as 
     appropriate, in negotiating international agreements relating 
     to cargo security.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 879 of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 459) is repealed.
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of such Act is amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to section 879;
       (2) by striking the items relating to title VI and 
     inserting the following:

        ``TITLE VI--POLICY, PLANNING, AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

``Sec. 601. Directorate for Policy, Planning, and International 
              Affairs.
``Sec. 602. Office of International Affairs.
``Sec. 603. Other offices and officials.'';
     and
       (3) by inserting after the items relating to title XVIII 
     the following:

                 ``TITLE XIX--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

``Sec. 1901. Treatment of charitable trusts for members of the armed 
              forces of the United States and other governmental 
              organizations.''.

             TITLE IV--OFFICE OF DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION

     SEC. 401. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new title:

            ``TITLE XX--OFFICE OF DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION

     ``SEC. 2001. DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION OFFICE.

       ``(a) In General.--There shall be in the Department of 
     Homeland Security a Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.
       ``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the Office shall be to 
     protect against the unauthorized importation, possession, 
     storage, transportation, development, or use of a nuclear 
     explosive device, fissile material, or radiological material 
     against the United States.
       ``(c) Director.--The Office shall be headed by a Director 
     of Domestic Nuclear Detection, who shall be appointed by the 
     President from among individuals nominated by the Secretary.
       ``(d) Limitation.--This title shall not be construed to 
     affect the performance, by directorates and agencies of the 
     Department other than the Office, of functions that are not 
     related to detection and prevention of nuclear and 
     radiological terrorism.

     ``SEC. 2002. FUNCTIONS OF DIRECTOR OF THE DOMESTIC NUCLEAR 
                   DETECTION OFFICE, GENERALLY.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall vest in the Director 
     the primary responsibility in the Department for--
       ``(1) administering all nuclear and radiological detection 
     and prevention functions and assets of the Department, 
     including those functions vested in the Department before the 
     enactment of the Security and Accountability For Every Port 
     Act; and
       ``(2) for coordinating such administration with nuclear and 
     radiological detection and prevention activities of other 
     Federal departments and agencies.
       ``(b) Transfer of Functions.--The Secretary shall transfer 
     to the Director the authority to administer, or supervise the 
     administration of, all functions, personnel, assets, and 
     liabilities of all Department programs and projects relating 
     to nuclear and radiological detection research, development, 
     testing, and evaluation, and nuclear and radiological 
     detection system acquisition and deployment, including with 
     respect to functions and assets transferred by section 
     303(1)(B), (C), and (E) and functions, assets, and personnel 
     transferred pursuant to section 2010(c).

     ``SEC. 2003. GLOBAL NUCLEAR DETECTION ARCHITECTURE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director shall coordinate the 
     Federal Government's implementation of a global nuclear 
     detection architecture.
       ``(b) Functions of Director.--The Director shall, under 
     subsection (a)--
       ``(1) design a strategy that will guide deployment of the 
     global nuclear detection architecture;
       ``(2) implement the strategy in the United States; and
       ``(3) coordinate Department and Federal interagency efforts 
     to deploy the elements of the global nuclear detection 
     architecture outside the United States.
       ``(c) Relationship to Other Departments and Agencies.--The 
     authority of the Director under this section shall not affect 
     an authority or responsibility of any other department or 
     agency of the Federal Government with respect to the 
     deployment of nuclear and radiological detection systems 
     outside the United States under any program administered by 
     that department or agency.

     ``SEC. 2004. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director shall carry out a research 
     and development program to achieve transformational and 
     evolutionary improvements in detection capabilities for 
     shielded and unshielded nuclear explosive devices and 
     radiological dispersion devices.
       ``(b) High-Risk Projects.--The program shall include 
     funding for transformational research and development 
     projects that may have a high risk of failure but have the 
     potential to provide significant benefits.
       ``(c) Long-Term Projects.--In order to reflect a long-term 
     commitment to the development of more effective detection 
     technologies, the program shall include the provision of 
     funding for projects having a duration of more than 3 years, 
     as appropriate.
       ``(d) Coordination With Other Federal Programs.--The 
     Director shall coordinate implementation of the program with 
     other Federal

[[Page H2132]]

     agencies performing similar research and development in order 
     to accelerate the development of effective technologies, 
     promote technology sharing, and to avoid duplication, 
     including through the use of the interagency coordination 
     council established under section 2013.

     ``SEC. 2005. SYSTEM ASSESSMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director shall carry out a program 
     to test and evaluate technology for detecting nuclear 
     explosive devices and fissile or radiological material.
       ``(b) Performance Metrics.--The Director shall establish 
     performance metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of 
     individual detectors and detection systems in detecting 
     nuclear explosive devices or fissile or radiological 
     material--
       ``(1) under realistic operational and environmental 
     conditions; and
       ``(2) against realistic adversary tactics and 
     countermeasures.
       ``(c) Provision of Testing Services.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director may, under the program, 
     make available testing services to commercial developers of 
     detection devices.
       ``(2) Fees.--The Director may charge fees, as appropriate, 
     for performance of services under this subsection.
       ``(d) System Assessments.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall periodically perform 
     system-wide assessments of the global nuclear detection 
     architecture to identify vulnerabilities and to gauge overall 
     system performance against nuclear and radiological threats.
       ``(2) Included activities.--The assessments shall include--
       ``(A) red teaming activities to identify vulnerabilities 
     and possible modes of attack and concealment methods; and
       ``(B) net assessments to determine architecture performance 
     against adversary tactics and concealment methods.
       ``(3) Use.--The Director shall use the assessments to guide 
     deployment of the global nuclear detection architecture and 
     the research and development activities of the Office.

     ``SEC. 2006. TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION, DEPLOYMENT, SUPPORT, AND 
                   TRAINING.

       ``(a) Acquisition Strategy.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall develop and, subject 
     to the availability of appropriations, execute a strategy for 
     the acquisition and deployment of detection systems in order 
     to implement the Department components of the global nuclear 
     detection architecture developed under section 2003.
       ``(2) Use of available contracting procedures.--The 
     Director shall make use of all contracting procedures 
     available to the Secretary to implement the acquisition 
     strategy.
       ``(3) Determination of qualified anti-terrorism 
     technology.--The Director shall make recommendations based on 
     the criteria included in section 862(b) as to whether the 
     detection systems acquired pursuant to this subsection shall 
     be designated by the Secretary as anti-terrorism technologies 
     that qualify for protection under the system of risk 
     management set forth in subtitle G of title VIII. The 
     Undersecretary for Science and Technology shall consider the 
     Director's recommendations and expedite the process of 
     determining whether such detection systems shall be 
     designated as anti-terrorism technologies that qualify for 
     such protection.
       ``(b) Deployment.--The Director shall deploy detection 
     systems for use by Department operational units and other 
     end-users in implementing the global nuclear detection 
     architecture.
       ``(c) Operational Support and Protocols.--
       ``(1) Operational support.--The Director shall provide 
     operational support for all systems acquired to implement the 
     acquisition strategy developed under subsection (a).
       ``(2) Operational protocols.--The Director shall develop 
     operational protocols for detection technology acquired and 
     deployed to implement the acquisition strategy, including 
     procedures for alarm resolution and notification of 
     appropriate response agencies in the event that illicit 
     nuclear, radioactive, or fissile materials are detected by 
     such a product or service.
       ``(3) Technical reachback.--The Director will ensure that 
     the expertise necessary to accurately interpret detection 
     data is made available in a timely manner for all technology 
     deployed to implement the global nuclear detection 
     architecture.
       ``(d) Training.--The Director shall develop and distribute 
     training materials and provide training to all end-users of 
     technology acquired by the Director under the acquisition 
     strategy.
       ``(e) Solicitation of End-User Input.--In developing 
     requirements for the research and development program of 
     section 2004 and requirements for the acquisition of 
     detection systems to implement the strategy in subsection 
     (a), the Director shall solicit input from end-users of such 
     systems.
       ``(f) State and Local Support.--Upon request, the Director 
     shall provide guidance regarding radiation detection 
     technology acquisitions to be made by State, territorial, 
     tribal and local governments and emergency response 
     providers.

     ``SEC. 2007. SITUATIONAL AWARENESS.

       ``(a) Detection Information.--The Director--
       ``(1) shall continuously monitor detection information 
     received from foreign and domestic detection systems to 
     maintain for the Department a situational awareness of all 
     nuclear threats;
       ``(2) shall gather and archive--
       ``(A) detection data measurements taken of benign 
     activities in the normal flows of commerce; and
       ``(B) alarm data, including false alarms and nuisance 
     alarms.
       ``(b) Information Sharing.--The Director shall coordinate 
     with other governmental agencies to ensure that the detection 
     of unauthorized nuclear explosive devices, fissile material, 
     or radiological material is promptly reported to all 
     appropriate Federal response agencies including the Attorney 
     General, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
     the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Energy.
       ``(c) Incident Resolution.--The Director shall assess 
     nuclear threats communicated by Federal, State, tribal, or 
     local officials and provide adequate technical reachback 
     capability for swift and effective incident resolution.
       ``(d) Security.--The Director shall--
       ``(1) develop and implement security standards and 
     protocols for the control and protection of all classified or 
     sensitive information in possession of the Office; and
       ``(2) ensure that relevant personnel of the Office have the 
     required security clearances to properly handle such 
     information.

     ``SEC. 2008. FORENSIC ANALYSIS.

       ``The Director shall perform all research, development, and 
     acquisition activities of the Department pertaining to 
     forensic analysis and attribution of nuclear and radiological 
     attacks.

     ``SEC. 2009. THREAT INFORMATION.

       ``(a) Threat Assessments.--The Director shall utilize 
     classified and unclassified nuclear and radiological threat 
     assessments in designing the global nuclear detection 
     architecture under section 2003, prioritizing detection 
     system deployments, and testing and optimizing system 
     performance of that architecture, including assessments of--
       ``(1) smuggling routes;
       ``(2) locations of relevant nuclear and radiological 
     material throughout the world;
       ``(3) relevant terrorist tradecraft and concealment 
     methods;
       ``(4) relevant nuclear and radiological threat objects in 
     terms of possible detection signatures.
       ``(b) Access to Information.--The Secretary shall provide 
     the Director access to all information relating to nuclear 
     and radiological threats, including reports, assessments, 
     analyses, and unevaluated intelligence, that is necessary to 
     successfully design, deploy, and support the operation of an 
     effective global detection architecture under section 1903.
       ``(c) Analytical Support.--The Director shall request that 
     the Secretary provide to the Director, pursuant to section 
     201(d)(18), the requisite intelligence and information 
     analysis support necessary to effectively discharge the 
     Director's responsibilities.
       ``(d) Analytical Expertise.--For the purposes of performing 
     any of the assessments required under subsection (a), the 
     Director, subject to the availability of appropriations, may 
     hire professional personnel who are analysts with experience 
     in performing nuclear and radiological threat assessments.
       ``(e) Collection Requests.--The Director shall recommend to 
     the Secretary consultation that should occur pursuant to 
     section 201(d)(10) regarding intelligence collection to 
     design, deploy, and support the operation of the global 
     detection architecture under section 2003.

     ``SEC. 2010. ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES.

       ``(a) Hiring.--In hiring personnel for the Office, the 
     Secretary shall have hiring and management authorities 
     described in section 1101 of the Strom Thurmond National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (5 U.S.C. 3104 
     note; Public Law 105-261). The term of appointments for 
     employees under subsection (c)(1) of that section may not 
     exceed 5 years before granting any extension under subsection 
     (c)(2) of that section.
       ``(b) Detail of Personnel.--In order to assist the Director 
     in discharging the Director's responsibilities, personnel of 
     other Federal agencies may be detailed to the Office for the 
     performance of analytic functions and related duties.
       ``(c) Transfer of Science and Technology Functions, 
     Personnel, and Assets.--
       ``(1) Transfer required.--Except as provided in paragraph 
     (2), the Secretary shall transfer to the Director the 
     functions, assets, and personnel of the Department relating 
     to radiological and nuclear countermeasures, including 
     forensics of contaminated evidence and attack attribution.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--The Secretary shall not transfer under 
     paragraph (1) functions, assets, and personnel relating to 
     consequence management and recovery.
       ``(3) Elimination of duplication of effort.--The Secretary 
     shall ensure that to the extent there are complementary 
     functions vested in the Directorate of Science and Technology 
     and the Office with respect to radiological and nuclear 
     countermeasures, the Under Secretary for Science and 
     Technology and the Director coordinate the programs they 
     administer to eliminate duplication and increase integration 
     opportunities, particularly with respect to technology 
     development and test and evaluation.

     ``SEC. 2011. REPORT REQUIREMENT.

       ``The Director shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees an annual report on the following:
       ``(1) The global detection strategy developed under section 
     2003.
       ``(2) The status of implementation of such architecture.
       ``(3) The schedule for future detection system deployments 
     under such architecture.
       ``(4) The research and development program of the Office.
       ``(5) A summary of actions taken by the Office during the 
     reporting period to counter nuclear and radiological threats.

     ``SEC. 2012. ADVISORY COUNCIL ON NUCLEAR DETECTION.

       ``(a) Establishment.--Pursuant to section 871 of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall establish within the Office an Advisory 
     Council on Nuclear Detection, which shall report to the 
     Director (in this section referred to as the `Advisory 
     Council').

[[Page H2133]]

       ``(b) Functions.--The Advisory Council shall, at the 
     request of the Director--
       ``(1) advise the Director on recommendations for the global 
     nuclear detection architecture developed under section 
     2003(a);
       ``(2) identify research areas for development of next-
     generation and transformational nuclear and radiological 
     detection technologies; and
       ``(3) and have such additional responsibilities as the 
     Director may assign in furtherance of the Department's 
     homeland security mission with respect to enhancing domestic 
     and international nuclear and radiological detection 
     capabilities.
       ``(c) Membership.--The Advisory Council shall consist of 5 
     members appointed by the Director, who shall--
       ``(1) be individuals who have an eminent knowledge and 
     technical expertise related to nuclear and radiological 
     detection research and development and radiation detection; 
     and
       ``(2) be selected solely on the basis of their established 
     record of distinguished service; and
       ``(3) not be employees of the Federal Government, other 
     than employees of National Laboratories.
       ``(d) Conflict of Interest Rules.--The Advisory Council 
     shall establish rules for determining when one of its members 
     has a conflict of interest in a matter being considered by 
     the Advisory Council, and the appropriate course of action to 
     address such conflicts of interest.

     ``SEC. 2013. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION COUNCIL.

       ``The President--
       ``(1) shall establish an interagency coordination council 
     to facilitate interagency cooperation for purposes of 
     implementing this title;
       ``(2) shall appoint the Secretary to chair the interagency 
     coordination council; and
       ``(3) may appoint the Attorney General, the Secretary of 
     Energy, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and 
     the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies to designate 
     members to serve on such council.

     ``SEC. 2014. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     title--
       ``(1) $536,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       ``(2) such sums as may be necessary for each subsequent 
     fiscal year.

     ``SEC. 2015. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) The term `Director' means the Director of the 
     Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.
       ``(2) The term `fissile materials' means materials capable 
     of sustaining a nuclear chain reaction.
       ``(3) The term `global nuclear detection architecture' 
     means a multi-layered system of detectors deployed 
     internationally and domestically to detect and interdict 
     nuclear and radiological materials intended for illicit use.
       ``(4) The term `nuclear and radiological detection system' 
     means any technology that is capable of detecting or 
     identifying nuclear and radiological material or explosive 
     devices.
       ``(5) The term `Office' means the Domestic Nuclear 
     Detection Office.
       ``(6) The term `radiological material' means material that 
     emits nuclear radiation.
       ``(7) The term `nuclear explosive device' means an 
     explosive device capable of producing a nuclear yield.
       ``(8) The term `technical reachback' means technical expert 
     support provided to operational end users for data 
     interpretation and alarm resolution.
       ``(9) The term `transformational' means that, if 
     successful, will produce dramatic technological improvements 
     over existing capabilities in the areas of performance, cost, 
     or ease of use.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 103(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 113(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) A Director of the Domestic Nuclear Detection 
     Office.''.
       (2) Section 302 of such Act (6 U.S.C. 182) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2) by striking ``radiological, 
     nuclear,''; and
       (B) in paragraph (5)(A) by striking ``radiological, 
     nuclear,''.
       (3) Section 305 of such Act (6 U.S.C. 185) is amended by 
     inserting ``and the Director of the Domestic Nuclear 
     Detection Office'' after ``Technology''.
       (4) Section 308 of such Act (6 U.S.C. 188) is amended in 
     each of subsections (a) and (b)(1) by inserting ``and the 
     Director of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office'' after 
     ``Technology''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 2135) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

            ``TITLE XX--OFFICE OF DOMESTIC NUCLEAR DETECTION

``Sec. 2001. Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.
``Sec. 2002. Functions of Director of the Domestic Nuclear Detection 
              Office, generally.
``Sec. 2003. Global nuclear detection architecture.
``Sec. 2004. Research and development.
``Sec. 2005. System assessments.
``Sec. 2006. Technology acquisition, deployment, support, and training.
``Sec. 2007. Situational awareness.
``Sec. 2008. Forensic analysis.
``Sec. 2009. Threat information.
``Sec. 2010. Administrative authorities.
``Sec. 2011. Report requirement.
``Sec. 2012. Advisory Council on Nuclear Detection.
``Sec. 2013. Interagency coordination council.
``Sec. 2014. Authorization of appropriations.
``Sec. 2015. Definitions.''.

     SEC. 402. NUCLEAR AND RADIOLOGICAL DETECTION SYSTEMS.

       (a) Deployment.--Not later than September 30, 2007, the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall deploy nuclear and 
     radiological detection systems at 22 United States seaports. 
     To the extent feasible, the Secretary shall deploy the next-
     generation radiation portal monitors tested in the pilot 
     program under subsection (d) at such United States seaports.
       (b) Strategy.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office of the 
     Department, shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a strategy for the deployment of nuclear and 
     radiological detection systems at all remaining United States 
     seaports.
       (c) Contents.--The strategy submitted under subsection (b) 
     shall include--
       (1) a risk-based prioritization of United States seaports 
     at which nuclear and radiological detection systems will 
     deployed;
       (2) a proposed timeline of when nuclear and radiological 
     detection systems will be deployed at each of the seaports 
     identified under paragraph (1);
       (3) the type of systems to be used at each of the seaports 
     identified under paragraph (1);
       (4) standard operating procedures for examining containers 
     with such systems;
       (5) the Department policy for using nuclear and 
     radiological detection systems;
       (6) a classified annex that details plans for covert 
     testing; and
       (7) a classified annex that outlines the risk-based 
     prioritization of seaports used under paragraph (1).
       (d) Safety Plan.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a plan that--
       (1) details the health and safety impacts of nuclear and 
     radiological detection systems; and
       (2) describes the policy of U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection for using nuclear and radiological detection 
     systems.
       (e) Pilot Program.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than January 1, 2007, the 
     Secretary, acting through the Director of the Domestic 
     Nuclear Detection Office of the Department, shall initiate a 
     pilot program to deploy and test the operational performance 
     of next-generation radiation portal monitors at one or more 
     United States seaports with a high-volume of containerized 
     cargo.
       (2) Report.--Not later than March 31, 2007, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a 
     report that contains--
       (A) a description of the next-generation radiation portal 
     monitors deployed at United States seaports under the pilot 
     program;
       (B) a description of the operational characteristics of the 
     pilot program at selected United States seaports; and
       (C) an evaluation of the operational performance of the 
     next-generation radiation portal monitors, including nuisance 
     alarm rates, and a description of the standards used in such 
     evaluation.
       (f) Deployment of Next-Generation Radiation Portal 
     Monitors.--
       (1) In general.--If the Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office of the 
     Department, determines that the operational performance of 
     the next-generation radiation portal monitors under the pilot 
     program carried out under subsection (e) has met the 
     standards described subsection (e)(2)(C), the Secretary shall 
     deploy next-generation radiation portal monitors, in fixed or 
     other configurations, at all United States seaports with a 
     high-volume of containerized cargo to improve cargo screening 
     capabilities at such seaports not later than September 30, 
     2007.
       (2) Congressional notification.--If any deployment of next-
     generation radiation portal monitors is deemed by the 
     Secretary to be operationally infeasible or would result in 
     ineffective, inefficient, or otherwise wasteful use of 
     resources, the Secretary shall notify the appropriate 
     congressional committees and recommend alternative actions.
       (g) Enhancing Overseas Detection Capabilities.--The 
     Secretary, acting through the Director of the Domestic 
     Nuclear Detection Office of the Department, shall work with 
     appropriate Federal departments and agencies to coordinate 
     the installation of nuclear and radiological detection 
     systems at foreign seaports.
       (h) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Next-generation radiation portal monitors.--The term 
     ``next-generation radiation portal monitors'' means non-
     intrusive, containerized cargo examination technologies that 
     possess radionuclide isotope identification capabilities.
       (2) Nuclear and radiological detection system.--The term 
     ``nuclear and radiological detection system'' means any 
     technology that is capable of detecting or identifying 
     nuclear and radiological material or explosive devices.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in 
order except those printed in House Report 109-450. Each amendment may 
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent of the amendment, shall not be subject to amendment and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.


            Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. King of New York

  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H2134]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by 
     Mr. King of New York:
         Page 6, after line 23, insert the following new 
     paragraphs:
         (12) International trade is vital to the Nation's economy 
     and the well-being and livelihood of United States citizens.
         (13) The Department of Homeland Security's missions, 
     including those related to United States and international 
     borders, involve both building security for United States 
     citizens and facilitating legitimate trade that is critical 
     to the Nation.
         (14) In creating the Department of Homeland Security, 
     Congress clearly mandated in section 412(b) of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 212(b)) that the customs 
     revenue functions described in paragraph (2) of such section 
     shall not be diminished.
         Page 9, strike line 11 and all that follows through line 
     5 on page 10 and insert the following new subsections:
         (a) Facility Security Plans.--Section 70103(c)(3) of 
     title 46, United States Code, is amended--
         (1) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the end;
         (2) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period at the 
     end and inserting ``; and''; and
         (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
         ``(H) in the case of a security plan for a facility, be 
     resubmitted for approval of each change in the ownership or 
     operator of the facility that may substantially affect the 
     security of the facility.''.
         (b) Facility Security Officers.--Section 70103(c) of 
     title 46, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
         ``(8)(A) The Secretary shall require that the qualified 
     individual having full authority to implement security 
     actions for a facility described in paragraph (2) shall be a 
     citizen of the United States.
         ``(B) The Secretary may waive the requirement of 
     subparagraph (A) with respect to an individual if the 
     Secretary determines that it is appropriate to do so based on 
     a complete background check of the individual and a review of 
     all terrorist watchlists to ensure that the individual is not 
     identified on any such terrorist watchlist.''.
         Page 16, after line 19, insert the following new section 
     (and redesignate subsequent sections of subtitle A of title I 
     of the bill, and conform the table of contents of the bill, 
     accordingly):

     SEC. 107. ENHANCED CREWMEMBER IDENTIFICATION.

         Section 70111 of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended--
         (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``The'' and inserting 
     ``Not later than May 15, 2007, the''; and
         (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``The'' and inserting 
     ``Not later than May 15, 2007, the''.
         Page 18, strike line 13 and all that follows through line 
     21 and insert the following new subsection:
         ``(c) Participation.--
         ``(1) Federal participation.--The following entities 
     shall participate in the integrated network of maritime 
     security command centers described in subsection (a):
         ``(A) The Coast Guard.
         ``(B) U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
         ``(C) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
         ``(D) Other appropriate Federal agencies.
         ``(2) State and local participation.--Appropriate State 
     and local law enforcement agencies may participate in the 
     integrated network of maritime security command centers 
     described in subsection (a).''.
         Page 24, line 8, insert at the end before the semicolon 
     the following: ``or the vessel or facility security plans 
     required under section 70103(c) of title 46, United States 
     Code''.
         Page 39, strike line 1 and all that follows through line 
     14 on page 41.
         Page 42, strike line 9 and all that follows through line 
     18.
         Page 44, after line 9, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 127. CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR MARITIME DOMAIN AWARENESS.

         (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Homeland 
     Security shall establish a university-based Center for 
     Excellence for Maritime Domain Awareness following the merit-
     review processes and procedures that have been established by 
     the Secretary for selecting university program centers of 
     excellence.
         (b) Duties.--The Center shall--
         (1) prioritize its activities based on the ``National 
     Plan to Improve Maritime Domain Awareness'' published by the 
     Department of Homeland Security in October 2005;
         (2) recognize the extensive previous and ongoing work and 
     existing competence in the field of maritime domain awareness 
     at numerous academic and research institutions, such as the 
     Naval Postgraduate School;
         (3) leverage existing knowledge and continue development 
     of a broad base of expertise within academia and industry in 
     maritime domain awareness; and
         (4) provide educational, technical, and analytical 
     assistance to Federal agencies with responsibilities for 
     maritime domain awareness, including the Coast Guard, to 
     focus on the need for interoperability, information sharing, 
     and common information technology standards and architecture.
         Page 51, beginning on line 4, strike ``appropriate 
     confidentiality requirements'' and insert ``provide 
     safeguards that ensure confidentiality''.
         Page 51, line 6, insert ``identify'' before ``appropriate 
     timing''.
         Page 52, line 23, strike ``to'' and insert ``and''.
         Page 62, line 2, after ``carriers,'' insert ``contract 
     logistics providers,''.
         Page 65, beginning on line 5, strike ``and related 
     policies and'' and insert ``, policies, or''.
         Page 84, beginning on line 3, strike ``uniform data 
     system for import and export information'' and insert 
     ``international trade data system''.
         Page 84, line 6, after ``implement'' insert ``the 
     International Trade Data System,''.
         Page 84, line 8, insert a comma after ``export 
     information''.
         Page 90, after line 6, insert the following new 
     subparagraph:
         ``(H) To provide for the coordination and maintenance of 
     the trade and customs revenue functions of the Department.''.
         Page 93, after line 17, insert the following new 
     paragraph:
         ``(5) Trade and customs revenue functions.--The Under 
     Secretary for Policy shall--
         ``(A) ensure that the trade and customs revenue functions 
     of the Department are coordinated within the Department and 
     with other Federal departments and agencies, and that the 
     impact on legitimate trade is taken into account in any 
     action impacting these functions; and
         ``(B) monitor and report to Congress on the Department's 
     mandate to ensure that the trade and customs revenue 
     functions of the Department are not diminished, including how 
     spending, operations, and personnel related to these 
     functions have kept pace with the level of trade entering the 
     United States.''.
         Page 95, line 25, strike ``section'' and insert 
     ``subsection''.
         Page 96, after line 15, insert the following new 
     subsection:
         ``(c) Director of Trade Policy.--
         ``(1) In general.--There shall be in the Directorate for 
     Policy, Planning, and International Affairs a Director of 
     Trade Policy (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as 
     the `Director'), who shall be subject to the direction and 
     control of the Under Secretary for Policy.
         ``(2) Responsibilities.--The Director shall--
         ``(A) advise the Assistant Secretary for Policy regarding 
     all aspects of Department programs relating to the trade and 
     customs revenue functions of the Department;
         ``(B) develop Department-wide policies regarding trade 
     and customs revenue functions and trade facilitation; and
         ``(C) coordinate the trade and customs revenue-related 
     programs of the Department with other Federal departments and 
     agencies. ''.
         Page 96, after line 15, insert the following new section:

     ``SEC. 604. CONSULTATION ON TRADE AND CUSTOMS REVENUE 
                   FUNCTIONS.

         ``(a) In General.--The Secretary and the Under Secretary 
     for Policy shall consult with representatives of the business 
     community involved in international trade, including seeking 
     the advice and recommendations of the Commercial Operations 
     Advisory Committee (COAC), on Department policies and actions 
     that have a significant impact on international trade and 
     customs revenue functions.
         ``(b) COAC Consultation and Notification.--
         ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary shall seek the advice and recommendations of COAC 
     on any proposed Department policies, initiatives, actions, or 
     organizational reforms that will have a major impact on trade 
     and customs revenue functions not later than 45 days prior to 
     the finalization of the policies, initiatives, actions, or 
     organizational reforms.
         ``(2) Exception.--If the Secretary determines that it is 
     important to the national security interest of the United 
     States to finalize any proposed Department policies, 
     initiatives, actions, or organizational reforms prior to the 
     provision of advice and recommendations described in 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
         ``(A) seek the advice and recommendations of COAC on the 
     policies, initiatives, actions, or organizational reforms not 
     later than 30 days after the date on which the policies, 
     initiatives, actions, or organizational reforms are 
     finalized; and
         ``(B) to the extent appropriate, modify the policies, 
     initiatives, actions, or organizational reforms based upon 
     the advice and recommendations of COAC.
         ``(c) Congressional Consultation and Notification.--
         ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary shall consult with and provide any recommendations 
     of COAC received under subsection (b) to the appropriate 
     congressional committees not later than 30 days prior to the 
     finalization of any Department policies, initiatives, actions 
     or organizational reforms that will have a major impact on 
     trade and customs revenue functions.
         ``(2) Exception.--If the Secretary determines that it is 
     important to the national security interest of the United 
     States to finalize any Department policies, initiatives, 
     actions, or organizational reforms prior to the consultation 
     described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
         ``(A) consult with and provide any recommendations of 
     COAC received under subsection (b) to the appropriate 
     congressional committees not later than 45 days after the

[[Page H2135]]

     date on which the policies, initiative, actions, or 
     organizational reforms are finalized; and
         ``(B) to the extent appropriate, modify the policies, 
     initiatives, actions, or organizational reforms based upon 
     the consultations with the appropriate congressional 
     committees.''.
         Page 97, after line 2, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 302. STUDY AND REPORT ON CUSTOMS REVENUE FUNCTIONS.

         (a) Study.--
         (1) In general.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a 
     study evaluating the extent to which the Department of 
     Homeland Security is meeting its obligations under section 
     412(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 212(b)) 
     with respect to the maintenance of customs revenue functions.
         (2) Analysis.--The study shall include an analysis of --
         (A) the extent to which the customs revenue functions 
     carried out by the former U.S. Customs Service have been 
     consolidated with other functions of the Department 
     (including the assignment of non-customs revenue functions to 
     personnel responsible for customs revenue collection), 
     discontinued, or diminished following the transfer of the 
     U.S. Customs Service to the Department;
         (B) the extent to which staffing levels or resources 
     attributable to customs revenue functions have decreased 
     since the transfer of the U.S. Customs Service to the 
     Department; and
         (C) the extent to which the management structure created 
     by the Department ensures effective trade facilitation and 
     customs revenue collection.
         (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall 
     submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report 
     on the results of study conducted under subsection (a).
         (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``customs 
     revenue functions'' means the functions described in section 
     412(b)(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 
     212(b)(2)).
         Page 99, line 11, after ``implement'' insert ``Department 
     components of''.
         Page 99, line 21, strike ``outside the United States''.
         Page 101, beginning on line 12, strike ``commercial''.
         Page 101, line 13, strike ``devices'' and insert 
     ``technologies''.
         Page 101, line 13, add at the end the following new 
     sentence: ``The results of the tests performed with services 
     made available under this subsection shall be confidential 
     and may not be disclosed to individuals or entities outside 
     of the Federal government without the consent of the 
     developer for whom the tests are performed.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment makes technical changes, adds 
several new findings on the importance of maintaining vibrant 
international trade, clarifies that port security funds can be used to 
address vulnerabilities in vessel and facility plans in addition to 
maritime security plans, and clarifies that the Domestic Nuclear 
Detection Office is responsible for implementing Department of Homeland 
Security requirements under the Global Nuclear Architecture and that 
any private testing performed by DNDO will be confidential.
  Additionally, the manager's amendment includes two provisions at the 
request of Chairman LoBiondo to set deadlines for the enhanced crew 
member identification cards so that the rollout is on the same 
expedited schedule as the Transportation Worker Identification 
Credential, TWIC, in the base bill. The second provision is the 
establishment of a Center of Excellence for Maritime Domain Awareness.
  The base bill represents the work of the Homeland Security Committee 
and also input from several other committees: Science, Ways and Means, 
Transportation and Infrastructure, Government Reform and others. The 
manager's amendment also includes several changes to the base bill at 
the request of our colleagues from other committees.
  Specifically, given that H.R. 889, the Coast Guard Authorization Bill 
Conference Report, is complete and likely to be considered on the floor 
in the near future, the amendment removes two provisions accepted 
during full committee consideration that relate to the Coast Guard. The 
first establishes a pilot program for training Coast Guard reserve 
officers and, two, the funding for the acceleration of Deepwater. 
Finally, the manager's amendment establishes a Director of Trade Policy 
in the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Policy.
  The changes and additions made in the manager's amendment are 
consistent with the overall goals in the base bill and represent 
perfecting changes at the requests of several of our colleagues. I ask 
my colleagues for their support for the amendment and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time 
in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Mississippi is recognized to control the 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. The provisions on trade and 
maritime domain awareness it contains are strong improvements to the 
bill.
  However, I must express my deep disappointment with one provision in 
the bill removed by this amendment. In committee, we included language 
that would have assured that the Coast Guard did not have to use bubble 
gum, bailing wire, and buckets in the coming years. This language was 
stripped out of the bill, meaning that we are going to have to make the 
Coast Guard spend the next two decades fighting a 21st century war on 
terror with assets built during the Vietnam War.
  The Deepwater Program must be accelerated if our ports and coastlines 
are going to be safe. I know that if Chairman King had had his way this 
would have stayed in, and I thank him for that.
  I am a strong supporter of this program. As a conferee on the last 
two Coast Guard authorization bills, I supported more funding for the 
Deepwater Program each year.
  At one time during Hurricane Katrina, the Coast Guard used 78 
Deepwater assets in Hurricane Katrina relief to save 33,000 people. One 
would think that the administration would be asking for more money for 
this type of equipment, not less.
  The Commandant of the Coast Guard, ADM Thomas Collins, told me in 
February of this year that the Coast Guard can accelerate the 
completion of the Deepwater Program if given the funding, and that it 
would result in a large savings to the taxpayers.
  I hope this Congress will reconsider accelerating Deepwater in the 
conference on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Mississippi and assure him that we strongly support the acceleration of 
the Deepwater Program, but we are very concerned with the way this 
provision is written. As written, the language would require any new 
ships, aircraft and communications equipment procured under the 
Deepwater Program to be used to support the Coast Guard's homeland 
security mission only.
  As my colleagues know, the Coast Guard is a multimission service. 
Their assets need to be multimission. If, in fact, there is a national 
emergency that is unrelated to homeland security, they need to be able 
to use their assets for that.
  I assure my colleagues that when the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure meets to mark up the 2007 Coast Guard authorization bill 
in a few weeks that I will be offering an amendment, as I have each 
year since I have been subcommittee chair, to significantly increase 
the funding for Deepwater.
  This critical program needs to be accelerated. Current Coast Guard 
assets are rapidly aging and failing, as has been noted, under intense 
operation tempos. The Coast Guard is forced to sink more and more 
funding into obsolete legacy assets. We need to increase funding and 
get these critically needed new and more capable assets into the hands 
of our men and women in the Coast Guard as soon as possible, but this 
provision would tie their hands behind their back.

[[Page H2136]]

  I look forward to working with my colleagues to accelerate Deepwater 
as the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure moves forward 
with the 2007 authorization bill, and I look forward to support from 
all of my colleagues to see Deepwater accelerated.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Mississippi, the ranking member, for yielding, and I rise in support of 
H.R. 4954 but to raise some concerns about this amendment.
  I also want to thank him and the chairman of the Homeland Security 
Committee, Chairman King, for their support of two amendments that I 
proposed during consideration of this bill in the committee: One, the 
establishment of a border patrol unit for the Virgin Islands; and the 
other, a study for the impact of the Advanced Passenger Information 
System on the owners and operators of small charter boats in the Virgin 
Islands, which are very important to my constituents and to me.
  While I am pleased that these two amendments continue to be in the 
base bill, I am very disappointed that the third amendment that I 
offered was removed from it by the Rules Committee and not in the 
manager's amendment, even though it was approved by the Homeland 
Security Committee by a voice vote.

                              {time}  1145

  This amendment to authorize an additional $1.8 billion to accelerate 
funding for the Coast Guard's integrated Deepwater program was 
unfortunately not made in order under the rule. This program was 
designed to replace the Coast Guard's aging fleet of cutters and 
aircraft and enable them to operate with the speed and agility required 
to protect our ports from terrorist attacks as well as better perform 
their other missions.
  Accelerating Deepwater would also strengthen the Coast Guard's 
Homeland Security mission by giving those cutters and aircrafters the 
surveillance capability needed to detect and intercept suspicious 
vessels before they reach our shores and harm us.
  America witnessed the heroism of the Coast Guard during Hurricane 
Katrina. They should be rewarded for that heroism by ensuring that they 
don't have to wait two decades or more to have modern cutters and 
aircraft.
  My amendment was removed from the bill and not made in order because 
of questions raised about the ability of the Coast Guard to utilize 
this additional funding. But, Mr. Chairman and Members, the Commandant 
of the Coast Guard indicated in response to a question at a 
subcommittee hearing that, based on this very comprehensive report to 
the Congress of the feasibility of accelerating the integrated 
Deepwater system, that they would be able to spend that additional 
money if they received it as well as receive additional benefits and 
savings through the acceleration.
  I am also very concerned that the Markey amendment that would have 
provided 100 percent of cargo screening within a time certain was not 
adopted or made in order, and I am sure our fellow Americans share that 
concern as well as the one about the funding on Deepwater.
  In spite of this, it is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill. I 
commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Lungren, and ranking 
member, Ms. Sanchez, for crafting this bipartisan bill; and I urge 
support of H.R. 4954.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Mississippi has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, in support of the 
amendment, I would like to compliment our chairman on really pulling 
together a good bill. Even though there were differences, we did the 
best we could to work those differences out in what I consider a very 
fair and reasonable manner; and I want to compliment him for that. I 
was able to in the course of this discussion go to New York and look at 
some of the fine things going there. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you very 
much.
  The gentleman from New Jersey has indicated support for the Deepwater 
Program, additional monies for the assets. I look forward to supporting 
that effort.
  The Coast Guard, as we know, serves a wonderful purpose. We need to 
make sure they have the assets to get the job done. So I look forward 
to working with him on that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of the time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, at the outset, let me thank the gentleman from 
Mississippi for his very kind and generous remarks, and I want to again 
return the compliment by saying it has been an outstanding privilege to 
work with him as the bill has worked its way to this present stage.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for once again 
reaffirming his support of the Deepwater Program and pledging to work 
to get the necessary funding for the Coast Guard. All of us saw the 
outstanding job in Katrina, the outstanding job. They were the true 
heroes of Katrina, certainly from the Federal level. So I think we 
stand as one in urging full funding for the Coast Guard.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support of the 
amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption 
of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. King).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Ruppersberger

  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by 
     Mr. Ruppersberger:
       Page 87, after line 12, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 207. REPORT ON NATIONAL TARGETING CENTER.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     conduct a study to assess the activities of U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection's National Targeting Center (NTC).
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report that contains--
       (1) the results of the study conducted under subsection 
     (a); and
       (2) recommendations to improve and strengthen the 
     activities of NTC.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 783, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend Chairman King, Ranking Member Thompson, 
Congressman Lungren, and Congresswoman Harman for their hard work on 
this legislation. Their work has brought this very important issue to 
the forefront here in Congress.
  This amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security to 
conduct a study and to provide recommendations to make sure that the 
National Targeting Center is doing all it can to protect our country. I 
am a co-chair of the Congressional Port Security Caucus and represent 
the Second District of Maryland that includes the Port of Baltimore. 
The Baltimore Port is one of the biggest economic engines in the State 
of Maryland. It employs more than 30,000 and generates more than $1.5 
billion in revenue each year.
  There are 539 ports in this country, and I believe Congress must work 
to keep our Nation's ports safe while keeping commerce flowing.
  In November, 2001, Congress created the National Targeting Center. 
The NTC has been operating around the clock collecting and analyzing 
intelligence information, everything from Customs logs to crew 
manifests to preventing a terrorist attack. The NTC conducts 
counterterrorism, it collects targets and identifies potentially 
dangerous cargo at the ports of embarkation. The Center flags high-
threat cargo for further examination and physical inspection.

[[Page H2137]]

  The NTC is also working on a demonstration project that will analyze 
scanned images of cargo like the non-invasive screening that is under 
way at the Port of Hong Kong.
  I believe actually analyzing these images is an important step in 
preventing a terrorist attack. Identifying potentially dangerous cargo 
when it is loaded on a ship at the foreign port is one of the best ways 
to protect our families and our communities.
  The NTC is working well right now, but we live in a world where 
threats change every day. This amendment requires the Department of 
Homeland Security to conduct a study and provide recommendations to 
make sure that the NTC is using all of its resources and manpower in 
the most effective way to catch terrorists before they strike. We must 
ensure that the NTC is using the latest in technology and employing the 
best and brightest in the field.
  The NTC goes a long way to protect our country and our Nation's 
ports, but we could always do better. We must always keep improving our 
security operations to be prepared for the future. I believe this study 
and its recommendations will help us do that. I ask that my colleagues 
support this amendment, and let us make sure the National Targeting 
Center is ready for the threats of today as well as the threats of 
tomorrow.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
control the time in opposition to the amendment even though I am not 
opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from New York 
will control the 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Maryland for proposing a study of an important Customs and Border 
Protection initiative. The study of the NTC will assist Congress in 
determining whether the NTC in its current form is accomplishing its 
mission of better coordinating CBP field operations and communications.
  Improving ATS is essential for a robust container security regime. As 
the home to ATS, the National Targeting Center must have appropriate 
resources and management to sufficiently operate the system. As stated, 
I thank the gentleman for offering his amendment, and I am willing to 
accept it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Ruppersberger

  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by 
     Mr. Ruppersberger:
       Page 17, line 12, after ``The Secretary'' insert ``, in 
     consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local 
     officials,''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This bill is a good start that will help America in securing their 
ports. This amendment will strengthen the bill and make our seaports 
safer.
  The legislation before us today instructs the Secretary of the 
Department of Homeland Security to create maritime security centers. 
These centers will bring together the Coast Guard, Customs, and Border 
Patrol and, in many cases, the Navy, National Guard, and State and 
local law enforcement. These centers integrate the technologies and 
personnel of these agencies into one system.
  This amendment directs the Secretary to consult with Federal, State, 
and local officials on where these centers should be placed and what 
should be the appropriate level of coordination. This provides a 
critical link and an open dialogue with DHS.
  Historically, there has been a lack of communication not only between 
government agencies and the private sector but between various levels 
of government. We can't let the lack of communication stop us from 
securing our ports.
  My concern is that this bill allows the Secretary of DHS to solely 
determine where and to what level coordination must occur. He alone 
will decide where the command centers will be located and who should be 
a part of that team. My fear is that DHS will treat our 539 ports the 
same.
  The Port of Baltimore, which has not had a naval presence, does not 
need the same amount of coordination with the Navy as the Port of L.A.-
Long Beach, with their large military deployments. DHS must gather 
input from Navy, Coast Guard, Customs, Border Patrol, National Guard, 
and local and State law enforcement. This amendment provides for and 
requires this coordination.
  Mr. Chairman, these maritime security centers should be created, but 
they should be organized in a way that makes sense. A blanket policy or 
a one-size-fits-all approach is not the best solution. This amendment 
will bring all of the critical players to the table to determine where 
these centers should be placed and how integrated they should be. All 
ports do not need the same level of integration.
  Mr. Chairman, we should be asking the Coast Guard, the Navy, Customs, 
Border Patrol, the FBI, and every other group with a hand in port 
security how they currently interact with other agencies and how we can 
make improvements for the future. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
control the time in opposition to the amendment even though I am not 
opposed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to thank my friend from Maryland for all his efforts in 
relation to this amendment and to his commitment to the establishment 
of maritime security command centers.
  These centers will be vital tools in the war on drugs, will assist in 
preventing illegal immigration, and will monitor possible terrorist 
activity in each region by tracking shipping movements.
  I agree that the close cooperation and coordination between the 
Federal, State, and local governments is an integral part of a 
successful command center structure, and I will be pleased to accept 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Debbie Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, we cannot overestimate the 
importance and vulnerability of the maritime domain. Maritime security 
involves hundreds of ports, thousands of miles of coastlines, tens of 
thousands of commercial and private craft, and millions of shipping 
containers. In addition, many major population centers and critical 
infrastructure are in close proximity to U.S. ports or accessible by 
waterways.
  In the 20th District of Florida that I represent, our ports, 
including Port Everglade in Ft. Lauderdale and the Port of Miami, serve 
as an entryway to millions of tons of cargo and people each year. It is 
clear that our country still needs an adequate overarching approach to 
the challenges of maritime security.

                              {time}  1200

  That is why I am standing today in support of the Ruppersberger 
amendment. Security command centers are vital to the protection of our 
ports and to the safety of all Americans. This

[[Page H2138]]

amendment would help make these centers more efficient, better 
organized, and promote better coordination among the various entities 
responsible for security.
  This amendment just makes sense. Why wouldn't the Secretary of 
Homeland Security seek input and advice from those most intimately 
familiar with the specific mission and needs of a seaport? We must have 
a broad and comprehensive maritime security strategy, and this 
amendment is one step to help us get closer to that goal.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Ruppersberger amendment on 
security command centers. I am pleased that the chairman of the 
committee is in favor of it as well.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Putnam). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Ruppersberger

  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by 
     Mr. Ruppersberger:
       Page 8, line 12, insert after ``as quickly as possible.'' 
     the following new sentence: ``The protocols shall be 
     developed by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate 
     Federal, State, and local officials, including the Coast 
     Guard Captain of the Port involved in the transportation 
     security incident, and representatives of the maritime 
     industry.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of an amendment that requires 
the Secretary of DHS to consult with State and local agencies to create 
a system to reopen the port. Congress should do everything possible to 
prevent an incident from occurring at our seaports.
  A major event would endanger countless Americans and stop commerce 
for weeks. An attack on a U.S. port would result in economic damages 
ranging from $58 billion to $1 trillion. The U.S. Coast Guard estimates 
that for every month just one American port is closed, $60 billion in 
revenue could be lost. We must do everything in our power to prevent 
accidents and attacks on our ports.
  This amendment brings all of the parties involved, the State and 
local governments, the U.S. Coast Guard and the maritime industry, to 
the table to create a plan for how to get our ports up and running 
again in the case there is a terrorist attack or at any time commerce 
is stopped at our ports.
  Historically, there has been a lack of communication between 
government agencies and the private sector, and also between various 
levels of government. The security of our ports is too important to 
allow that kind of limited information sharing. Congress needs to 
ensure that all critical players, those players who know their ports 
best, have a say in how to get the ports back in operation.
  The bill currently allows for protocols to be established to 
determine how Federal, State, and local agencies should work together. 
But DHS is the only agency in the room making those decisions. There is 
no representation from any other Federal agency other than DHS, no 
State or local input, no input from the Coast Guard or those whose 
livelihoods depend upon this maritime industry.
  Currently, all the agencies and organizations and industries will be 
under the sole direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security. They 
will have to rely on the Secretary and hope that he will know their 
agencies and industries well enough to know how and when they should 
work together.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not want to leave port security up to just the DHS 
Secretary. It makes sense that all the partners who have a vested 
interest in getting the ports up and running sit down and determine how 
they should work together before a crisis occurs.
  This amendment plays a critical role in ensuring that the Secretary 
of Homeland Security works together as a team with the appropriate 
Federal, State, and local officials. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
control the time in opposition to the amendment even though I am not 
opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on this 
amendment and also the previous amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), the co-chair of the Port Security Caucus.
  I strongly believe that security command centers are a vital piece of 
the blueprint for the future of port security for our Nation.
  I am proud to represent the Port of Charleston, South Carolina. It is 
the fourth largest port in the Nation, and it is growing every day. 
Within the Port of Charleston, we have our own security command center 
called Project Seahawk.
  Project Seahawk has brought Federal, State, and local officials into 
the process to work together for a common cause, which is the safety of 
the Port of the Charleston. Project Seahawk has proven to be a 
tremendous success, and has helped eliminate the turf wars between the 
many Federal, State, and local officials that have jurisdiction over 
port security.
  I strongly encourage my fellow colleagues to vote in favor of this 
amendment sponsored by the gentleman from Maryland. I believe that by 
incorporating security command centers as part of a broader port 
security policy, we will have a strong plan for the future of how we 
secure our Nation's ports.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to acknowledge and 
thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown) for his involvement 
as the co-chair of the Port Security Caucus. I again urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I speak in support of this amendment as a 
member of the Port Security Caucus.
  There is a port in my district, the Port of Beaumont, that ships out 
one-third of the military cargo that goes to Iraq and Afghanistan. 
Also, that port is largely responsible for 11 percent of the refinery 
capacity in the United States.
  Due to those concerns and the expertise of the people that run the 
refineries, the people that run the port facilities, I think it is 
imperative that we have input from local officials on how to secure the 
safety of our ports. So I support this amendment in its entirety.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Cuellar

  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by 
     Mr. Cuellar:
       Page 44, after line 9, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 127. REPORT ON SECURITY AND TRADE AT UNITED STATES LAND 
                   PORTS.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     conduct a study on the challenges to balance the need for 
     greater security while maintaining the efficient flow of 
     trade at United States land ports.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report on the results 
     of the study required by subsection (a).


[[Page H2139]]


  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank the chairman of the 
Homeland Security Committee and the ranking member, Mr. Thompson, for 
allowing me to present this particular amendment. I believe this 
amendment is acceptable to both gentlemen.
  Ensuring national security and promoting economic trade is critical 
to our Nation's future. Balancing security aspects while maintaining 
the efficient flow of trade at the United States land ports is 
critical.
  My amendment provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security look at 
the challenges for implementing border security programs while not 
hindering or negatively impacting the flow of trade and business at 
land ports. This is critical to land ports because in 2004, for 
example, the top 10 U.S. land ports for land trade with Canada and 
Mexico totaled over $635 billion. Land ports handle more than 20,000 
containers coming through international ports of entry every day.
  The Port of Laredo in my hometown, for example, is the fourth busiest 
port overall in the United States, and the Nation's busiest inland port 
with $131 billion worth of goods and merchandise processed in 2004 
alone.
  The Transportation Bureau of Statistics report for Laredo for 2004 
reveals crossings of over 1.4 million commercial trucks, 3,400 trains 
with 317,000 containers, 38,000 buses, 4.5 million pedestrians, and 6.7 
million private vehicles that cross the Laredo area.
  These statistics show the urgent need to examine and address the 
unique security challenges faced at land ports. H.R. 4954 is a good 
bill, and I certainly support this bill. I hope we can add this 
amendment, which is acceptable to both the chairman and the ranking 
member.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
control the time in opposition even though I am not opposed to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, at the outset let me thank the gentleman from Texas for 
introducing this amendment and doing it in such a spirit of 
bipartisanship. To me, it typifies what this issue should be about: 
good people from both parties working together to resolve one of the 
most serious issues facing our country today.
  I agree that such a study is necessary primarily because of the sharp 
increase of trade that the United States has experienced through its 
ports in recent years. All forecasts seem to indicate this trend will 
continue.
  While this debate largely focuses on seaports, our land ports play a 
vital role in our economy. Therefore, a comprehensive strategy is 
needed to address the challenges of efficient trade and land port 
security. The balance between trade efficiency and adequate security is 
central to the future success of the United States economy. I urge 
adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman King and 
Mr. Thompson, also, for working in a bipartisan approach. I ask for 
approval of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Ryun of Kansas

  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by 
     Mr. Ryun of Kansas:
       Page 82, line 12, add at the end the following new 
     sentence: ``In carrying out this section, the Secretary's 
     evaluation shall include an analysis of battery powered 
     portable neutron and gamma-ray detection devices that can be 
     inexpensively mass produced.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the gentleman 
from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that will help us 
find ways to identify and stop shipping containers that contain nuclear 
material.
  Section 202 of this bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security 
to evaluate emerging technologies for container security. My amendment 
simply stipulates that as part of the Secretary's evaluation of 
emerging technology, he should analyze portable battery powered nuclear 
detection devices that can be mass produced inexpensively.
  We have a clear need to know what is in the containers coming into 
our country. Many of the available technologies to screen nuclear 
devices, however, are difficult and are very expensive.
  To my knowledge, the Department of Homeland Security has focused on 
detection devices that are large, expensive, use a large amount of 
energy, and cannot easily be placed in or on a shipping container. 
These technologies may work, but it may not be easy for them to be 
used, and it may not be possible to procure enough of these types of 
devices to examine shipping containers headed into our ports. That is 
why we need to review emerging technology, including portable devices.
  I know this type of technology exists because Kansas State University 
in my district is doing some exciting research in this area. In fact, 
they have developed nuclear detection devices that are the size of a 
dime which they believe they can produce for about $20 each. These 
types of devices are easily placed in shipping containers, and can be 
used to detect nuclear material before it enters any port.
  For this reason, it is prudent to ask the Secretary to thoroughly 
review this type of technology. We all know that rogue nations and 
terrorist cells may try at some point in the future to send nuclear 
materials to our shores. In fact, Iran's pursuit of nuclear materials 
makes the need to secure our shipping containers even more urgent.
  This is a simple amendment that only asks the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to examine portable nuclear detection devices when he 
evaluates emerging technology. I ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Again, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
control the time even though I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Including mobile detection capabilities in the evaluation process is 
vital and will aid search capabilities. Also, these potentially cheap 
sensors will allow for more widespread application. This detection 
equipment will be considered under the same criteria and measured 
against the same real-world performance criteria before they are 
deployed.
  The gentleman's amendment raises responsible questions that must be 
addressed prior to asking our allies to deploy new inspection equipment 
or for domestic use.
  I appreciate this thoughtful addition to the bill offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas, and I am prepared to accept the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).

[[Page H2140]]

  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Hooley

  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows: 
       Amendment No. 7 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by 
     Ms. Hooley:
       Page 66, beginning on line 5, strike ``detect unauthorized 
     intrusion of containers.'' and insert ``positively identify 
     containers and detect and record unauthorized intrusion of 
     containers. Such devices shall have false alarm rates that 
     have been demonstrated to be below one percent.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the 
gentlewoman from Oregon and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon.
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member.
  Container Security Devices, or CSDs, represent a ``today'' solution 
to secure the 14 million containers in circulation worldwide. The 
technology has been developed in conjunction with Customs and Border 
Protection and has been extensively tested and determined to be 
reliable.
  Container Security Devices are a vast improvement over the bolt seal, 
which is the low-tech guard against tampering used today.
  In addition to guarding against unauthorized container intrusions, 
many CSDs will be able to provide a wealth of additional data to U.S. 
Customs and DHS officials at U.S. ports. They can provide data on where 
a container has traveled from, the ports it has traveled through, and 
provide a unique, encrypted container ID.
  Throughout its journey, the status of a CSD, tampered with or not, 
can be verified.
  The amendment I am offering today is simple and straightforward. 
Currently, the bill, as written, simply defines a Container Security 
Device as a ``mechanical or electronic device designed to detect 
unauthorized intrusion of containers.''
  My amendment changes that definition of a Container Security Device 
so it accomplishes three things. It will require a CSD positively 
identifies the container; that it detect and record any unauthorized 
intrusion of the container; have a false alarm rate that is 
demonstrated to be below 1 percent. Now, this is a minimum requirement. 
As written right now, this bill doesn't put a minimum requirement for 
the performances of container security devices.
  Over the past year, DHS has conducted tests on multiple technologies 
from multiple vendors that would be capable of tracking, monitoring and 
securing containers against compromise. The Department has been very 
clear that, before incorporating these devices into government-
sponsored programs, the device must meet a strict 1 percent false-
positive threshold.
  In addition to DHS, a coalition of industry groups supports this 
minimum requirement. The group includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 
Worldwide Shipping Council, National Customs Brokers and Forwarders 
Association of America, Business Alliance for Customs Modernization, 
and the American Trucking Association.
  In the comments the coalition submitted to Senator Collins and 
Senator Murray of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security on the 
GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act, the companion bill to the SAFE 
Port Act, they explicitly state, ``Only Container Security Devices that 
meet the Department of Homeland Security's 99 percent false-positive 
and overall reliability requirements should be deemed qualified under 
this legislation.''
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I seek to obtain 
the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
reluctant opposition because of some lack of clarity on this amendment, 
and perhaps I can be relieved of my concern.
  The gentlewoman, in her comments, suggested that the World Shipping 
Council and the Pacific Maritime Association were in support of this 
amendment. And yet I have a letter with a contrary conclusion, not 
based on the fact that they object to the objective of the 
gentlewoman's amendment but rather some concern that the gentlewoman's 
amendment would be too restrictive in bringing us to the point of 
having the best technology available as soon as possible.
  As I understand the gentlewoman's amendment, it changes the 
definition of Container Security Device from ``a mechanical or 
electronic device designed to, at a minimum, detect unauthorized 
intrusions of containers'' to, ``a mechanical or electronic device 
designed to, at a minimum, positively identify containers and detect 
and record unauthorized intrusion of containers'', and then goes on to 
say, such devices shall have false alarm rates that have been 
demonstrated to be below 1 percent.
  In the letter that we received from the Coalition for Secure Ports, 
they were concerned that the 1 percent false alarm rate may be 
unacceptable, in that we have between 11 and 12 million containers 
coming into the United States per year. If you had this device on all 
of them, a 1 percent false alarm rate would create as many as 120,000 
false security alarms in U.S. ports.
  My concern is whether we are strait-jacketing the Secretary into 
accepting a device, if, in fact, it reached that 1 percent false alarm 
rate, or whether it would be at least 1 percent false alarm rate that 
is the intention of the author.
  Secondly, the question is whether or not the gentlewoman's language 
requiring this to be a, ``device that positively identifies 
containers,'' whether that would restrict this to RFID, or Radio 
Frequency Identification, systems and not allow, for instance, optical 
character recognition or similar systems.
  If that is the gentlewoman's intent and if that is, in fact, the 
impact of this amendment, I would have to oppose it, because it seems 
to me it would restrict us to one particular type of device. And I 
don't have the technology background to understand whether that one 
device is the silver bullet in this area.
  I understand that one manufacturer, GE, uses it. They think it works 
well. But, as I understand, there are other manufacturers that are 
trying to work in other areas.
  So those are the concerns I have.
  And with that, I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to answer the 
gentleman's question.
  First of all, there is a definition in this bill.
  Secondly, it doesn't have a minimum standard.
  Now, the 1 percent is what the Department of Homeland Security asked 
for, that it is 99 percent accurate. However, it can be more than that. 
It can be 99.2, 99.5. That is the very minimum that has to happen. So 
it can go well beyond that.
  Again, it is trying to make sure that you can take into account 
anything that has either been developed or on the market today or will 
be on the market so you have some flexibility and some competition 
amongst the companies.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the 
gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. HOOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. So your intent in using the 
language ``positively identify containers'' is not to eliminate the 
possibility of optical character recognition or similar systems in 
meeting this particular demand.
  Ms. HOOLEY. No, it doesn't mandate that it needs to be an RFID 
device. It doesn't mandate that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would just say that, with that 
understanding that they do not have those limitations of which I have 
concern, I would not object to this amendment. But I want to make it 
clear that the record reflect, number one, that if the Secretary 
believes we have to have a standard that is more precise than a 1 
percent false alarm rate, that he have the discretion to do that.
  Ms. HOOLEY. Absolutely.

[[Page H2141]]

  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. And, secondly, that we are not 
limiting this to RFID systems or similar systems to RFID, that other 
systems of technology could also meet the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Ms. HOOLEY. Correct.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, with that I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  The amendment was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
offer the Stupak amendment at this time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may rise as the designee for the 
Stupak amendment.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by 
     Mr. Thompson of Mississippi:
       Page 25, beginning on line 10, after ``including'' insert 
     the following: ``communications equipment that is 
     interoperable with Federal, State, and local agencies and''.
       Page 25, line 17, insert at the end before the semicolon 
     the following: ``and to ensure that the mechanisms are 
     interoperable with Federal, State, and local agencies''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment 
which will ensure that port security grant funds be used by ports to 
purchase communication equipment that is interoperable with Federal, 
State and local communication systems.
  I have been in countless hearings in the Department of Homeland 
Security Committee where first responders have told us how year after 
year they have not been able to communicate with each other.
  I have also heard testimony from the operators of critical 
infrastructure such as hospitals affected by Hurricane Katrina who also 
still cannot communicate with government officials in an emergency.
  We have not yet had a terrorist attack on a port in the United 
States, but I do not want to wait until one occurs to find out whether 
port operators face similar challenges.
  Allowing port security grants funds to be used by ports to build 
interoperable communication systems will ensure that if an attack does 
occur at a U.S. port we are ready for it.
  As a result, Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition to this amendment even though I am not opposed to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the Subcommittee of 
Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology, I rise in support of 
this amendment.
  When I came here to Washington and first participated in one of many 
hearings on interoperability and operability, I learned from one of 
witnesses that this has been a struggle that Congress has been mulling 
over and struggling with more 10 years. And I interrupted the witness 
and said, this has been a problem that first responders have been 
struggling with for over 30 years.

                              {time}  1230

  As a new police officer in 1972, interoperability and operability was 
a huge problem for us and still is today. It is intolerable that first 
responders are still struggling with this issue.
  The current language in the bill provides that grants may be used to 
purchase or upgrade equipment and to establish or enhance mechanisms 
for sharing terrorism threat information. This amendment supplements 
that language by providing that all equipment purchased be 
interoperable with Federal, State, and local agencies. Additionally, 
this amendment ensures mechanisms for sharing terrorism threat 
information, that they be interoperable with all Federal, State, and 
local agencies.
  The Department of Homeland Security has already spent $2 billion in 
moving this country forward to become interoperable. It is time that we 
make this commitment.
  I congratulate Mr. Stupak for bringing this amendment to the floor, 
and I support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of 
making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak).
  (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank both the subcommittee Chair and 
ranking member for taking care of this matter for me as I was trying to 
get here from a committee as we are dealing with high fuel prices, 
energy prices, gas prices. I just did not make it in time, but I 
appreciate the assistance of the ranking member and chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that would add to the 
Congress's efforts to strengthen communications interoperability.
  The SAFE Port Act creates a new Port Security Grant Program. These 
grants may be awarded for twelve different purposes, including 
purchasing equipment and creating threat information systems.
  My amendment makes two simple improvements to the bill. The amendment 
requires that communications equipment authorized for purchase under 
the Grant Program is interoperable with local, state, and federal 
governments.
  Second, my amendment would require that the ``mechanisms for sharing 
terrorism threat information'' funded under these grants are also 
interoperable with local, state, and federal agencies.
  We know that the problem of interoperability has plagued this country 
for too long. The lack of interoperability contributed to the death of 
121 firefighters on September 11th. It contributed to the chaos after 
Hurricane Katrina.
  Our ports are vulnerable targets for attack. As we work to give our 
ports the tools they need to prevent and respond to attacks, we must 
ensure that port systems are interoperable with the federal, state, and 
local agencies that work everyday with these ports.
  Adding an interoperable standard to the equipment and threat 
information systems authorized under these grants is consistent with 
efforts by the Administration and Congress.
  An interoperable communications standard is already required under 
the Urban Area Securities Initiative, the State Homeland Security, and 
the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Grant Programs.
  I fear without this amendment we may have every port in the United 
States purchasing equipment that does not communicate with local, 
state, and federal officials on the ground. What good does this do the 
next time there is a terrorist attack or natural disaster involving a 
U.S. port?
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to add an interoperable 
standard to the equipment and threat information systems authorized 
under these grants.
  This is a good bill that would be made better with the adoption of my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Shays

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by 
     Mr. Shays:
       Page 87, after line 12, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 207. INTEGRATED CONTAINER INSPECTION SYSTEM PILOT 
                   PROJECT.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a 
     pilot project at an overseas port similar to the Integrated 
     Container Inspection System being tested at the port in Hong 
     Kong.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.

[[Page H2142]]

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The amendment I have introduced would require the Department of 
Homeland Security to conduct a pilot project at an overseas port 
similar to the Integrated Container Inspection System, ICIS, in Hong 
Kong.
  In Hong Kong, the second busiest port in the world behind Singapore, 
the ICIS program scans every container of cargo at the two terminals of 
the facility with advanced radiation and gamma-ray screening.
  In Hong Kong, container trucks pass under two giant portals. The 
first portal scans for radioactivity. The second portal uses gamma-ray 
imaging to check for odd-sized objects that might conceal weapons. An 
optical scanner retrieves the ID numbers on the container while a 
computer integrates data into a database that could be accessed by 
ports worldwide.
  Since late 2004, this program has generated 1.4 million digital 
profiles of outbound containers at the port. The ICIS system can scan 
nearly 400 container trucks an hour and provide real-time data to help 
identify suspicious cargo, all the while keeping detailed records of 
what passes through the port.
  It is not my intention, I want to point out, to limit this pilot 
program to one company. I understand that Science Applications 
International Corporation designed the ICIS program currently being run 
in Hong Kong, but other companies have begun to develop similar 
technology. In the text of my amendment, the language states the 
program must be similar to the ICIS program, but it does not mandate 
that it be the program developed by Science Applications International.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
control the time in opposition even though I am not opposed to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Shays for offering his amendment, and I 
support his efforts to enhance our Nation's ability to detect the 
movement of illicit nuclear material at foreign ports before it reaches 
the United States.
  Also, like the gentleman, I believe in testing and validating a 
detection system's performance before we fund a large-scale deployment, 
as a great deal of money can be wasted on systems that do not work as 
advertised.
  I believe the gentleman's amendment could be improved if we stipulate 
that the technology tested in the pilot program goes beyond that which 
has been used in the ICIS program in Hong Kong. We should look to 
validate the performance of other more advanced systems, which I should 
note is the goal of the language for a radiation detection pilot 
program for high-volume domestic ports, which is already in this bill.
  My hope is that the foreign pilot program in this amendment will be 
strengthened by incorporating next-generation technology and that 
coordination of this amendment with the domestic pilot program will be 
considered during conference. This approach would, I believe, build 
confidence among our foreign partners in the technology and help us 
expand our detection capabilities around the globe.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LINDER. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to thank him for his keen 
work on the subcommittee that oversees a good part of the issue and to 
say that it would clearly be the intention of this amendment to do 
that. I certainly will be advocating that the conference committee do 
it. I know the chairman would and the main sponsor of this whole bill. 
So I think we all agree it needs to happen, and I thank the gentleman 
for pointing that out.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Connecticut for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. Many Democrats on the Homeland 
Security Committee have been asking for a long time why DHS is not more 
seriously looking at the ICIS system, and we have never gotten an 
answer from them.
  The ICIS system proves that we can scan every container leaving for 
the U.S. without interrupting the flow of commerce. The Markey-Nadler 
amendment would exactly use technology like this if it had been allowed 
to have been debated here today. Unfortunately, we could not.
  We cannot accept anything less than 100 percent container screening 
coming into this country. So I am in support of Mr. Shays's amendment. 
This at least moves us forward. It is unfortunate that we have to take 
baby steps rather than giant steps. But for the sake of moving forward, 
we support the amendment, and I compliment the gentleman from 
Connecticut for offering the amendment.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I rise in support of the gentleman from Connecticut's amendment. The 
type of technology to which he is referring certainly has extraordinary 
promise. The measured approach he is proposing here, I believe, is the 
way we should go forward. I understand the Department of Homeland 
Security may have some concerns, but the fact is, I think, all of us 
agree the government does not always have the right answer to a 
particular problem. I believe that the gentleman from Connecticut 
should be commended for pushing this matter forward and for using his 
energies and abilities to bring that about.
  I know that this technology is said to have limitations, but a 
thorough operational test by independent evaluators will enable us to 
look at it much more objectively.
  So with that, I strongly urge the adoption of the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to thank Mr. King, the chairman of the committee, for working 
with both sides of the aisle and even working with members within his 
own committee who sometimes have disagreements. He has done an 
extraordinary job.
  I also want to thank his staff that has been very patient in working 
with all of us and then to particularly thank Mr. Lungren, who has kind 
of taken this bill and marshaled it all along the way, has provided 
opportunities for us to cosponsor and also to provide input into the 
bill, to which he has allowed a tremendous amount of input, and I thank 
him for that as well.
  This is an excellent bill, and I think Congress should be proud of 
it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Bass

  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by 
     Mr. Bass:
       Page 26, after line 9, insert the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Reimbursement of Costs.--An applicant for a grant 
     under this section may petition the Secretary for the 
     reimbursement of the cost of any activity relating to 
     prevention (including detection) of, preparedness for, 
     response to, or recovery from acts of terrorism that is a 
     Federal duty and usually performed by a Federal agency, and 
     that is being performed by a State or local government (or 
     both) under agreement with a Federal agency. ''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the gentleman 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank Chairman King and his staff of the Homeland Security 
Committee and my own staff person, Jennifer Warren, for help on this.

[[Page H2143]]

  This amendment would add another use of funds received under the new 
port security grant program created in H.R. 4954. I fully support the 
new grant program and want to emphasize that my amendment does nothing 
to change the prioritization in which awards are granted for port 
security that is based on risk and national economic strategic defense 
considerations.
  What my amendment would do is to allow a State or local agency to 
petition the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to use 
Federal funds from this program for any port security activity relating 
to prevention, detection, preparedness, responsiveness, or recovery 
from acts of terrorism that is a Federal duty usually performed by a 
Federal agency.
  Additionally, an agreement between the State and local organizations 
and Federal agency would have to exist in order for the cost of 
activities to be eligible for reimbursement. This proposed change would 
allow State and local agencies to petition for reimbursement of 
expenses such as salaries, overtime, maintenance, and other overhead 
costs that a State or local agency is spending to perform the Federal 
port security duties that would otherwise not be covered by the 
existing language in the bill we have before us today.
  I think it is really critical in ensuring that funds under this new 
program will be eligible to go to more resources than just Federal 
agencies. I will give you an example: in my home State of New 
Hampshire, the Port of Portsmouth, it is a busy port. Although small, 
it is busy. There is a nuclear power plant nearby, and the New 
Hampshire Marine Patrol does a considerable amount of surveillance and 
spends over $200,000 annually in additional costs relating to the port 
security duties that would otherwise not have to be covered by the U.S. 
Coast Guard. This is just one example.
  The Port of Miami apparently has seen an increase in their 
responsibilities of almost $12 million per year over the past 5 years 
in annual operating security costs and has been advised by the U.S. 
Coast Guard that they now may be responsible for waterborne 
surveillance. So we do have situations in which those other than 
Federal agencies do actually perform these responsibilities and should 
be eligible for compensation under this bill.
  So I hope that the committee will see fit to accept the bill and that 
it will be made a part of this legislation. I urge the adoption of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
control the time in opposition even though I am not opposed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman will control 
the time in opposition.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I commend 
the gentleman from New Hampshire for his proposal. It is something that 
is needed. It fills a very vital need, and I urge the adoption of his 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman again for his 
support, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald

  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by 
     Ms. Millender-McDonald:
       Page 26, line 3, strike ``and''.
       Page 26, line 9, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 26, after line 9, insert the following new paragraph:
       ``(13) to establish or enhance truck inspection stations 
     for seaports and communities with a high percentage of 
     container traffic in coordination with ports, States, and 
     local governments to enable seaport and highway security 
     around seaports.''.
       Page 29, line 6, add at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Of the amount appropriated pursuant to the authorization of 
     appropriations under this paragraph for a fiscal year, up to 
     $20,000,000 is authorized to be made available to provide 
     grants for activities described in subsection (d)(13).''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.


   Modification to Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald

  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
modify my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.

             Modification Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald

       Strike line 1 and all that follows and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       (13) for the purpose of enhancing supply-chain security at 
     truck inspection stations in or near high volume seaports in 
     coordination with States and local government.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, at this time let me thank 
Chairman Lungren, the subcommittee Chair, as well as the full committee 
Chair, Chairman King, for accepting this amendment and its 
modification, along with the ranking member, Congressman Bennie 
Thompson, for his guidance and advice during the process of all of 
this.

                              {time}  1245

  I am happy that this bill has language that was in a port security 
bill that I had for the past 2 years that speaks to the multi-level 
funding for larger port security projects.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment because I do represent the 
region that has the largest port complex in the country and the third 
largest in the world, and it is important that we enhance truck 
inspection facilities located on trade corridors that lead to port 
complexes that support a heavy volume of cargo containers.
  In 2005, 11.4 million containers entered our country and traveled 
along our interstate highway system. On average, that is an increase of 
500,000 containers annually entering our country. In the Ports of Los 
Angeles and Long Beach, 80 percent of goods that come into this country 
from the Pacific rim come through these ports, and 45 percent of 
containerized goods come through these ports. So, Mr. Chairman, it is 
important that we recognize the vital components in our efforts to 
secure these ports, our trade corridors and our communities. It is 
another layer of security. It is about securing the entire supply 
chain.
  In our ongoing efforts as a Nation to establish and maintain a 
security infrastructure, this amendment does make sense. Truck 
inspection facilities have the potential to integrate new technology 
that will make our supply lines safer as well as more secure and 
efficient. In short, truck inspection facilities have the potential to 
be high-tech weight stations. More importantly, this is another tool in 
the toolbox in ensuring that our ports and supply chains are secure.
  Many of you have come out to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach 
and seen the Alameda Corridor. When trucks go down that Alameda 
Corridor, we have to make sure they are secure and that the goods that 
are being moved from that point to the point of distribution are safe 
and secure. This is why this amendment is extremely important.
  I will say that while I cannot go on as a cosponsor at this time, 
given that I would have wanted to, this particular bill is 
extraordinarily important for us and I support the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to obtain the time in opposition even though I do not oppose 
this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Putnam). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
congratulate the gentlewoman from Southern California for working with 
us to modify the language of her original amendment so it achieves the 
purpose to which she intends and is not objectionable in any way.
  There is no doubt that we want to make sure that we have layers of 
security, starting at the foreign ports,

[[Page H2144]]

through the period of time in which the containers are shipped, to just 
outside our ports, in our ports, and then as the containers leave our 
ports.
  One of the things we have to do in this entire effort is to insert a 
notion of uncertainty in the minds of would-be terrorists. One the ways 
we do that is having layers of security all across the globe.
  The gentlelady has suggested that we be explicit in our language with 
respect to the possibility of utilizing another tool in our toolbox, as 
she suggests, where we might be able to devise certain programs that 
utilize facilities that may exist just outside the port for purposes of 
looking at trucks for safety purposes, and we might be able to 
incorporate the terrorist security review at that point as well. If in 
conjunction with the authorities, local and state authorities, this 
kind of a grant request is made, we want to make sure that the 
Department of Homeland Security can, in fact, take a look at it. If it 
seems to serve the purpose to which we are all dedicated, then it would 
be allowed under this bill.
  So I congratulate the gentlelady for introducing the bill. I also 
congratulate her for representing my hometown, the place I was born and 
lived in for 42 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, it is great to have my friend 
who once served so admirably in the southern California area now being 
a part and parcel of this bill that is just so vital. He knows, as I 
know, that our California Highway Patrol commissioner is also amenable 
to this bill as well.
  Mr. Chairman, truck inspection stations will be a consolidation and 
coordination of seaports, community and trade corridors, and both local 
and state representatives are all in favor of this. I am very pleased 
about this important amendment. I thank all of those, the chairmen and 
the ranking members, for accepting this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 12 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by 
     Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 32, line 11, strike ``and''.
       Page 32, line 13, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 32, after line 13, insert the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) educates, trains, and involves populations of at-risk 
     neighborhoods around ports, including training on an annual 
     basis for neighborhoods to learn what to be watchful for in 
     order to be a `citizen corps', if necessary.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, allow me to offer my 
appreciation to the chairman of the full committee and the ranking 
member of the full committee and Ms. Sanchez, Ms. Harman and Mr. 
Lungren of California for the work that they have done on this 
legislation. My good friend, Mr. Reichert from Washington, let me thank 
you very much as we have had an opportunity to work together.
  This bill is about port security. In securing the ports, the reason 
is to prevent a horrific tragedy from occurring similar to the tragedy 
of 9/11. We have come to understand that through containers, or ships 
that are carrying containers, weapons of mass destruction, nuclear 
materials, can be inserted into these particular items coming into our 
ports and a horrific act of terror can occur, killing thousands.
  Mr. Chairman, this chart shows an example of the Nation's ports, a 
port that is surrounded by population, thriving neighborhoods, 
neighborhoods which understand that they are surrounding a local asset 
and a national asset. But they, too, deserve security and deserve 
protection.
  My amendment today, which I urge my colleagues to support, includes 
communities in disaster preparedness by providing for an annual update 
to the Homeland Security Training Program described in this bill. The 
Port Security Training Program is designed for the purpose of enhancing 
the capabilities of each of the Nation's commercial seaports to 
prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate against and recover from 
threatened or actual acts of terrorism, natural disasters and other 
emergencies.
  What I would say to you is, having visited a number of ports, 
including the port in Washington, I am aware of its treasure to the 
community and to the Nation, but I am also aware that it looks just 
like this, populations surrounding our ports. So a danger to ports and 
port security is a danger to our neighborhoods.
  The amendment I offered today extends this training program to 
include communities and neighborhoods in proximity to the seaports by 
educating, training and involving populations at risk, neighborhoods 
around the ports, including training on an annual basis, and, of 
course, collaboration with our local authorities.
  This is to include our neighborhoods in somewhat of a neighborhood 
watch concept, continuing the idea of the citizen corps. It is a moral 
public safety and public health imperative that we assist the public to 
prepare for disasters in order to help facilitate response and relief.
  The point is to be prepared. Local responders are not the only ones 
who can help in time of need. They need help, and we are here to help 
with them in the idea of collaborating with the port and our local 
first responders.
  While 44 percent of Americans say their neighborhood has a plan to 
help reduce crime, only 13 percent report that they have a neighborhood 
plan for disasters. Nearly two-thirds of respondents, 63 percent, 
believe it is important for neighborhoods to have a way to work 
together on emergency preparedness.
  The Port of Houston, for example, is a 25-mile-long complex of public 
and private facilities located just a few hours sailing time from the 
Gulf of Mexico. The port is ranked first in the United States in 
foreign waterborne commerce and second in total tonnage and sixth in 
the world. The Port of Houston is made up of the Port Authority and the 
150-plus private industrial companies along the ship channel. 
Altogether, the Port Authority and its neighbors along the ship channel 
are a large, vibrant community.
  I say that, because of this vibrant community, there is a great need, 
if you will, to provide this nexus in this bill to ensure this kind of 
safety plan. I ask my colleagues to look and see this as a port in your 
neighborhood and to join me in supporting the Jackson-Lee amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition to the amendment, even though I do not oppose it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlelady for 
offering this amendment during committee markup last week on the 
underlying legislation. The committee added language that would 
establish a port security training program.
  Training is essential to our Nation's success in the war on terror. 
It is imperative that our Nation's first responders, longshoremen, 
seaport management and those in the private sector and others learn and 
master the skills necessary to respond to a terrorist attack in our 
Nation's ports, especially those involving weapons of mass destruction.
  This current amendment will provide for the education and training of 
persons in neighborhoods surrounding at-risk ports to learn what to be 
watchful

[[Page H2145]]

for in order to be a citizen corps, if necessary.
  As a former law enforcement officer for over 33 years and the current 
Chair of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science and 
Technology, I certainly appreciate the intent of this amendment.
  While I generally support this amendment and am willing to accept it, 
I do have a few reservations. I have concerns that this amendment could 
potentially divert funds and training away from ports in favor of 
establishing an ad hoc citizen corps. No determination has been made 
that developing a citizen corps would be a more effective use of 
resources. Moreover, unlike the port personnel, a proposed citizen 
corps would not be a full-time service but only a used-as-necessary 
service.
  The amendment lends no guidance as to the level of training that 
would be necessary, the function of the citizens corps or the 
circumstances under which a citizens corps would be necessary.
  While I believe port authorities should undoubtedly perform outreach 
to affected neighborhoods, where appropriate, I am concerned about the 
amendment that requires the training of citizens at the expense of most 
crucial training for port personnel.
  In addition, local law enforcement are currently responsible for 
conducting outreach plans and for training and educating local 
businesses and communities around our Nation's ports. While local law 
enforcement currently work in coordination with our ports, this 
amendment would take some authority away, I believe, from the local law 
enforcement in conducting community outreach.
  I therefore ask to work diligently with the gentlelady as we move 
forward in this process to ensure communities surrounding our ports are 
adequately involved without taking resources away from the training of 
port personnel.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the distinguished ranking 
member.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
gentlelady allowing me to speak in support of her amendment. We 
absolutely need to work with communities around ports. Those 
communities, just like other communities, are at risk, not only to what 
comes into those communities but also many of the people who live in 
the communities.
  So we are happy to support the gentlelady's amendment. Citizen 
preparedness is what we should be about. It is absolutely important. We 
support the amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member, Mr. Reichert. Let me just say we want a seamless 
connection on security and port security, working with local law 
enforcement, working with the neighborhoods around the poverty and 
working with port security. I look forward to working with you to 
ensure that it is collaborative and that the resources are spent in a 
balanced way for the port personnel but also in very effective outreach 
methods that I have seen utilized around the country with effective 
neighborhood and citizens corps, local first responders, as you have 
served for a number of years, and, of course, port security. I ask my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the 
gentlewoman, and certainly agree we need a seamless operation when it 
comes to protecting this Nation's borders and ports. I think the 
training and exercises in and around our port areas, including our 
communities, is essential to the protection and the safety of the 
citizens that live there, and again look forward to working with you 
and appreciate you offering this amendment.

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. We will work together. I ask my colleagues 
to support this amendment to protect the neighborhoods that surround 
our ports. Port security and secure neighborhoods.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support an 
amendment I am offering that includes communities in disaster 
preparedness by providing for an annual community update to the 
Homeland Security Training program described in this bill.
  The Port Security Training Program is designed for the purpose of 
enhancing the capabilities of each of the Nation's commercial seaports 
to prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from 
threatened or actual acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other 
emergencies.
  The amendment I offer today extends this training program to include 
communities and neighborhoods in proximity of the seaports by 
educating, training, and involving populations of at-risk neighborhoods 
around ports, including training on an annual basis to learn what to 
watch for.
  Many communities across the country also have a ``Neighborhood 
Watch'' program that teaches citizens to watch for suspicious activity 
or other signs of danger. This amendment provides for a similar 
``citizens corps'' preparation in anticipation of a national security 
threat. The intent is to mimic the Citizen Corps initiative begun by 
the White House and the Department of Homeland Security in 2002.
  It is a moral, public safety and public health imperative that we 
assist the public to prepare for disasters in order to help facilitate 
response and relief.
  The point is to be prepared. Local responders are not the only ones 
who can help in a time of need.
  While 44 percent of Americans say their neighborhood has a plan to 
help reduce crime, only 13 percent report having a neighborhood plan 
for disasters. Nearly two thirds of respondents, 63 percent, believe it 
is important for neighborhoods to have a way to work together on 
emergency preparedness.
  The Port of Houston is a 25-mile-long complex of public and private 
facilities located just a few hours' sailing time from the Gulf of 
Mexico. The port is ranked first in the United States in foreign 
waterborne commerce, second in total tonnage, and sixth in the world.
  The Port of Houston is made up of the port authority and the 150-plus 
private industrial companies along the ship channel. All together, the 
port authority and its neighbors along the Houston Ship Channel are a 
large and vibrant component to the regional economy.
  About 200 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston in 
2005. A total of 7,057 vessel calls were recorded at the Port of 
Houston during the year 2003.
  Economic studies reveal that ship channel-related businesses support 
more than 287,000 direct and indirect jobs throughout Texas while 
generating nearly $11 billion in economic impact. Additionally, more 
than $649 million in state and local tax revenues are generated by 
business activities related to the port. Approximately 87,000 jobs are 
connected with the Port of Houston itself, and over 80 percent of those 
people live in the Houston metropolitan area.
  Centrally located on the gulf coast, Houston is a strategic gateway 
for cargo originating in or destined for the U.S. West and Midwest. 
Houston lies within close reach of one of the nation's largest 
concentrations of consumers. More than 17 million people live within 
300 miles of the city, and approximately 60 million live within 700 
miles.
  The danger is very real that we may be escorting a weapon of mass 
destruction to its target. For every mile along the Houston Ship 
Channel that dangerous cargo passes, an additional 2000 people are at 
risk. Clearly, once the cargo reaches the city, the risk is greatest.
  In 2002, the Department of Homeland Security established the Citizens 
Corps initiative, and in 2004, over 1,000 communities around the 
country, encompassing 40 percent of the U.S. population, had 
established Citizen Corps Councils to help inform and train citizens in 
emergency preparedness and to coordinate and expand opportunities for 
citizen volunteers to participate in homeland security efforts and make 
our communities safer.
  Fifty-two States and territories have formed state level Citizen 
Corps Councils to support local efforts.
  Maybe before the next disaster, our citizens can be aware and trained 
to react effectively and timely, and perform as local responders 
themselves. Support this amendment, and include the neighborhood in 
disaster preparedness.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Weiner

  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 13 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by 
     Mr. Weiner:
       Page 29, after line 2, insert the following new subsection:

[[Page H2146]]

       ``(k) Quarterly Reports Required as a Condition of Homeland 
     Security Grants.--
       ``(1) Expenditure reports required.--As a condition of 
     receiving a grant under this section, the Secretary shall 
     require the grant recipient to submit quarterly reports to 
     the Secretary that describe each expenditure made by the 
     recipient using grant funds.
       ``(2) Deadline for reports.--Each report required under 
     paragraph (1) shall be submitted not later than 30 days after 
     the last day of a fiscal quarter and shall describe 
     expenditures made during that fiscal quarter.
       ``(3) Publication of expenditures.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than one week after receiving 
     a report under this subsection, the Secretary shall publish 
     and make publicly available on the Internet website of the 
     Department a description of each expenditure described in the 
     report.
       ``(B) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the requirement of 
     subparagraph (A) if the Secretary determines that it is in 
     the national security interests of the United States to do 
     so.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Weiner) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I won't take the full balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we create in this bill a port grant program which 
provides allocation to go to States and localities to take steps to 
ensure homeland security around ports.
  But frankly without this amendment, we will not really have any good 
way of knowing how the moneys are being spent. We have learned through 
grant programs in other elements of the homeland security bill that we 
are finding that once States and localities get the money for these 
grants, they are not spending them in a very wise way.
  For example, when Converse, Texas, got funds for homeland security, 
they used it to spend $3,000 for a trailer which was used to transport 
lawn mowers to lawn mower drag races in that county.
  We found that in Columbus, Ohio, over $7,000 was used to purchase 
bullet-proof vests for dogs. In fact, when the Department of Homeland 
Security Inspector General looked at one State, Indiana, to try find 
out if the funds were being spent prudently, they found that the county 
emergency preparedness coordinator had purchased a $30,000 emergency 
hazardous material trailer truck that he was using as a commuter 
vehicle back and forth to work.
  We found out about a lot of these things not because the process was 
transparent, but because often States and localities bragged about 
them. My amendment would simply say, once we give the money, we have to 
hear back from the States and localities how they spent it, allow 
transparency to be the best disinfectant for boondoggles.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
control the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not 
opposed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Biggert). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I would like to raise several 
points. I want to commend my good friend from New York for offering the 
amendment. Obviously, more oversight is needed. This amendment serves 
that purpose.
  I did have some concerns about the danger of potential national 
security information being listed. But the language of the amendment 
does provide an exception on that. There is also some concerns about 
whether or not this could prove burdensome on some local governments.
  I just want to work with him to ensure the amendment does not impose 
unnecessary burdens on State and local governments.
  Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Fossella).
  Mr. FOSSELLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will be very 
brief in support of the amendment, but also the underlying legislation 
which I think is a natural extension of where this country has gone 
over the last several years as we seek to ensure the safety and 
security of the American people.
  We know that the most fundamental responsibility of our Federal 
Government is to ensure the safety of its people and to protect and 
ensure our National security. And clearly port security has been left 
in limbo.
  But not until today have we seen a more comprehensive and in a way 
bipartisan approach that acknowledges that indeed we are vulnerable in 
our ports. And events over the last couple of months obviously have 
catapulted this to the top of the headlines, if you will.
  But for someone who represents Staten Island and Brooklyn, proudly, 
the mouth of New York-New Jersey Harbor, practically every cargo 
container that comes and finds its way into the northeastern region 
goes underneath the Verrazano Bridge. And I want to know, as much as I 
can, that the people that I represent are safe and secure.
  We recognize the importance of commerce. We recognize the importance 
of jobs and what that cargo means to consumers across the country, 
especially in New York and New Jersey and Connecticut and the 
northeast. But that does not mean we have to keep safety at the door.
  So I commend Chairman King and all of those Members who have worked 
so diligently over the last couple of months to bring this bill to the 
floor. I think, as I say, this is a natural extension to let those who 
want to or are contemplating ways to wreak havoc on the American people 
know that we are serious about protecting its people here, and that we 
are going to do everything possible to ensure that cargo that comes 
into our ports is safe and nonthreatening.
  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of our 
time.
  Mr. WEINER. Madam Chairman, I would point out to my colleagues that 
under this legislation we are going to be considering, containers will 
continue to come under all of the bridges in New York and the New 
Jersey area unchecked, uninspected.
  We had an opportunity in this House to have a discussion about 
whether or not that was a desirable state of affairs, and we chose not 
to have it. There is no reason, none whatsoever, why we should not have 
it as the law of the land: any container, of the millions and millions 
of containers that come here, should not be prescreened in their home 
country before they arrive here.
  We chose not to do it. We made a decision. It is not because the 
technology does not exist. It is not because the desire does not exist. 
It is not because of anything except our decision in this House not 
even to have a discussion on it.
  You know, there are concerns that have been raised. Is the technology 
ready? The answer is, yes. Is it overly burdensome in cost? The answer 
is, no. But that is what we have this Chamber for, to have a discussion 
of these issues.
  If there is one thing that makes Americans scratch their head about 
port security, it is, are we leaving ourselves vulnerable to a 
contaminated container with fissionable material, with nuclear 
material, with just a bomb in there? And they say, check it. And we are 
saying here, not only will we not do it, we will not even have a 
discussion about whether we are going to do it.
  And I think that is most regrettable. I think we should have had a 
chance here today to vote up or down, should we screen containers or 
not? And I think the answer would have been a bipartisan ``yes.''
  But then again, the people who control this House say they will not 
even debate it. So maybe there were going to be people on that side. We 
have to assume then that they were going to vote ``no.''
  But irrespective of that, this is too important an issue at least not 
to debate in the context of this important bill.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H2147]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 14 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by 
     Mr. Flake:
       Page 21, line 5, insert ``REPEAL OF'' before ``PORT 
     SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM''.
       Page 21, strike line 6 and all that follows through line 14 
     on page 29.
       Page 29, strike line 15.
       Page 29, line 16, redesignate paragraph (1) as subsection 
     (a).
       Page 29, line 18, redesignate paragraph (2) as subsection 
     (b).
       Page 37, strike line 23 and all that follows through line 2 
     on page 38.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, in 2005, the Ports of New York and New Jersey 
received $6.7 million for port security. Seattle-Tacoma received $7.3 
million, and the State of California received $33 million.
  The Long Beach-L.A. port received $24.2 million alone from Homeland 
Security. All of these came from Homeland Security grants. These funds 
are also in addition to the funds raised by security fees charged by 
these ports on shipping to pay for port homeland security costs.
  This is a mechanism that the ports can use to cover their costs if 
they need additional money. No major U.S. shipping port is not in 
compliance with Coast Guard security requirements.
  If $400 million is not to get them in compliance, I think we really 
need to ask, what is it for? Now, the White House has some ideas on 
this. They just released the ``Statement of Administration Policy.'' 
And the White House says: ``Given the significant resources dedicated 
to port security today, and requested in the budget, the administration 
believes that a new grant authorization would duplicate existing 
authorities and may inhibit the administration's ability to target 
resources most effectively to the sectors of the Nation's 
infrastructure that face the highest risk.''
  Rather than creating a new Federal homeland security grant program, 
we need to first get control over the grant programs that we have. The 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) just listed some of the grants 
that have been issued.
  And it is simply appalling to see how this money is often being 
spent. In Kentucky, an anti-terror grant was awarded to the State to 
probe bingo halls. Over $500,000 was spent so that the Town of North 
Pole, Alaska, could get security rescue and communications equipment.
  In my home State of Arizona, the town of Peoria got a homeland 
security grant to buy a tactical robot. In my own district, the City of 
Apache Junction received nearly $300,000 for 19 traffic preemption 
devices which are remote controls that change a street light from green 
to red or red to green.
  Madam Chairman, I am not saying that these things are not needed, but 
I am saying that we ought to question whether it is the Federal 
Government's responsibility to fund them or if this money ought to be 
spent in areas with a greater threat.
  I would submit that if we create this new program without first 
getting ahold on the grant programs that we have, we are going to see 
the same problems in port security. We are going to see grants 
frittered away on things that we do not need, rather than things that 
are truly a threat.
  I simply do not believe there has been a clear case made as to why 
the taxpayers should pay $400,000 for this new program given the 
existence of all of the other programs as well.
  Let me just restate. All major ports are in compliance with Coast 
Guard security requirements. The President says that it is duplicative 
and unnecessary and that $173 million has yet to be awarded from 2006 
grants. The fiscal year 2007 budget includes $600 million for targeted 
infrastructure protection grants which include ports.
  Also I point out again that ports charge fees to the shippers. If 
they believe and if they need to increase their security to come into 
compliance, they can charge extra fees, as it should be. Then the users 
are actually paying rather than the taxpayers as a whole and the money 
will be far better spent.
  Madam Chairman, I believe that we need this amendment. We ought to 
have this amendment to have a little fiscal responsibility. Some may 
say, this is just an authorization. It is not saying that we will 
appropriate it. But as soon as we authorize it, then if we do not fully 
appropriate for it, then we are accused of not fully funding the 
program.
  We are bitten by that all the time. I would say, let's step back now 
and say, let's be as fiscally responsible as we can.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment, and I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chairman, I oppose the Flake 
amendment to eliminate the port security grant program in this bill. 
The third largest port in the United States, Long Beach-Los Angeles, in 
the first year after 9/11, the Federal Government actually spent $1.8 
million to help them with their security.
  The fact of the matter is that that local port, those two cities, put 
up their money to fortify, to study, to think about, and to do 
something about port security. The Federal Government basically was not 
even there. $1.8 million.
  Now I remind my colleagues in the House, we spend $1.5 billion a week 
in Iraq. We have not stood up and done the right thing and protected 
our critical infrastructure. That port when it is shut down, because we 
have seen it, is about $2 billion worth of commerce a day. It is 
thousands of jobs. It affects every city and every State in our Nation. 
We need to have moneys directly going to port security.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, in response to that, the Long Beach Port 
received $24.2 million, I believe, the following year from the Federal 
Government. This is in addition to the moneys that they receive by 
charging a fee on shipping.
  The money that the Federal Government pays is minuscule compared to 
that amount that comes charged by fee. What this amendment is about is 
saying that as the President has said, as the White House has said, let 
us target our homeland security money where it is actually needed.
  When we continue to dole out money, these kinds of grants, the kind 
of formula grants that we have, we continue to see the money spent in 
ways like buying fitness facilities for fire departments or whatever 
else.
  We simply have higher priorities. And heaven knows, we have got a 
tight budget and we ought to prioritize here.

                              {time}  1315

  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Chairman, I just say in 
response to the gentleman from Arizona, we have taken into 
consideration concerns that he has expressed. We have implemented in 
this bill an at-risk, that is a risk-based, assessment for grant 
programs. Not everybody gets something.
  Secondly, I would assure the gentleman that Apache Junction will not 
get a grant under this program, nor any landlocked city in Kentucky. 
This is a port bill.
  The third thing I would say is this is based on the assessment by the 
Coast Guard of what is necessary for the capital investment 
improvements from a security standpoint for all the ports in the United 
States. As a matter of fact, we only provide funds for half of the 
amount that has been identified by the Coast Guard.
  This is not one of those grant programs that lasts forever. We have a 
6-year sunset on this, and we have a specified revenue stream in this 
bill to take care of it. So I would suggest that we have looked at the 
complaints that the gentleman has, but this is a particular area of 
national security.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I like sunsets, everybody in Arizona likes 
sunsets; but if we truly believe that this is really going to be 
sunsetted,

[[Page H2148]]

then we are kidding ourselves, and if we spend $400 million on a grant 
program that the President even says that we do not need here, then the 
sun has set on fiscal responsibility.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back.
  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the coauthor of the 
legislation.
  Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
want to say to the amendment sponsor how much I admire him, how much I 
agree with his point that growing debt and deficits are irresponsible; 
but in this case, the dollars we are talking about are much smaller 
than he may believe.
  First of all, we are replacing an annual grant program that was 
appropriated for $175 million last year. Second of all, we are using 
existing Customs revenues, not new money, to fund what we are talking 
about.
  As he knows, our ports are vulnerable. Al Qaeda attacks us 
asymmetrically. I admire his intent, I truly do, but I think he should 
focus on programs that, in the end, will net out as less important and 
will not cost America and American commerce the amounts of money that 
it will cost if one of our ports has an explosion or one of our 
containers contains a radioactive bomb.
  I reluctantly oppose the amendment.
  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
the time.
  Madam Chairman, I understand what the gentleman from Arizona is 
attempting to do as far as imposing a sense of fiscal order, but the 
fact is you know sometimes the price of everything, but the value of 
nothing. I cannot imagine any potential target in this country which 
would have more of an economic impact on us than our ports. A nuclear 
attack in one of our major ports could cost up to $1 trillion in loss 
to our economy.
  The gentleman refers to money that has definitely been wasted in 
certain projects around the country under the rubric of homeland 
security. The fact is, we passed legislation in this House last year, 
H.R. 1544, which would base funding on threat and risk analysis. It is 
that exact same philosophy that applies to this port security bill. It 
is based on threat and risk.
  As the gentleman from California said, the Coast Guard estimates it 
would cost over $5 billion for the targeted ports to receive the proper 
amount of security which they need. This funds slightly less than half 
of the amount that is required. There is matching money required from 
the ports.
  The fact is we are at war, and we cannot be applying the same green 
eyeshade philosophy to protecting our National home as we do to other 
projects.
  I agree that nothing is worse than having $1 of homeland security 
funding wasted. That is why we passed the legislation last year, that 
is why we are passing this port security, this bill, this time this 
year to ensure that money will go where it is needed; but it is only 
going to be based for security. It is not going to be wasted, and to 
me, this is clearly money well spent. It will also save human lives.
  As someone who comes from a district next to the Port of New York and 
New Jersey, who saw the thousands of people who were killed on 
September 11, this is a war we cannot afford to hold back in any way. 
It is essential we go forward. This money is money which is absolutely 
necessary; and as the gentlewoman from California said, we are taking 
away the $176 million, adding this. It is money well spent, and I urge 
defeat of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.


     Amendment No. 15 Offered by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California

  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chairman, I offer an 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 15 printed in House Report 109-450 offered by 
     Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California:
       Page 63, line 8, insert at the end the following new 
     sentence: ``Such benefits may not include reduced scores in 
     the Automated Targeting System.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 789, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chairman, my amendment is a 
very small and simple refinement to this piece of legislation, but I 
think it is a very important refinement and will dramatically 
strengthen the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program, or 
what we call C-TPAT.
  Currently, there are about 5,000 companies that have submitted 
written security plans that Customs Border Protection has reviewed and 
certified. This certification qualifies shippers to be fast-tracked 
through our ports.
  Here is the problem: of those 5,000 companies, only 1,200 have had 
their plans validated, meaning that the Customs has actually gone to 
those sites to ensure that what the company wrote they were doing about 
security measures has actually been implemented.
  Based on that practice, that means that there are 3,800 companies 
whose security measures have not been validated, looked at, et cetera; 
but they are receiving a lowered risk score, and this score is used to 
determine whether containers will be subject to additional screening or 
inspection.
  There has been a lot of talk today about not giving ourselves and the 
American people a false sense of security, but that is exactly what we 
are doing. We are letting containers into our ports with a low 
probability of inspection when we do not have the slightest idea that 
the shipper has any real security measures in place.
  The Sanchez amendment would stop the current practice of granting 
risk score reductions for nonvalidated C-TPAT companies.
  Now, some would argue that the C-TPAT members should receive a 
benefit for just turning in a plan and that taking away the reduced 
risk score for this nonvalidated member would take away their incentive 
to participate in the program.
  Well, think of it as you are driving along and you come to a toll 
road and everybody's backed up to pay in cash and there is the fast 
track. What is the incentive? You would definitely decide to purchase 
if you are going to do this all the time every day, to take that lane. 
So you would sign up for that program and put your money in the bank so 
you can whiz by. It is the same thing. There is an incentive. The 
incentive is that we get our Customs people to review your plan, and 
then you get to go through the fast lane. We should not let these 
companies have their cargo go through the fast lane when we have never 
even checked if they have got a fence around, if they I have done 
background checks on their people, if al Qaeda people are there or not, 
et cetera. We need to go and take a look at that.
  A reduction in their score is unacceptable until we have actually 
visited and validated that their security measures are actually 
happening. We need to trust C-TPAT companies; but as Ronald Reagan 
always said, we must trust but we must verify.
  C-TPAT is a security program, and security does not come from a 
written rubber stamp plan. So I urge my colleagues to support this.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, with all due respect, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment. Ms. Sanchez and I have worked together on this bill. We have 
reached accommodations on a number of different issues. We support the 
idea of the C-TPAT program. I certainly support her efforts to try and 
strengthen the C-TPAT program. I certainly have supported and 
incorporated in my bill the recommendation on her part that we allow 
for third-party validators so that we can get the manpower necessary to 
do the validations that are necessary in this program. However, I do 
oppose her amendment because I think it would cut down on the 
participation in this program.
  One must understand that the C-TPAT program, Customs-Trade 
Partnership Against Terrorism program, is

[[Page H2149]]

one that leverages industry cooperation to increase the security of the 
global supply chain. It has three tiers: tier 1 being the lowest, tier 
3 being the highest.
  The gentlewoman suggests that any benefits that are recognized under 
tier 1 to someone who has begun to participate in the program is 
unnecessary and somehow undercuts the credibility of the program. I 
would suggest that that is not true.
  The conditions for obtaining the C-TPAT tier 1 status include that 
prior to an importer being certified, the importer must complete a 
comprehensive self-assessment of their current security practices, 
gauged against the clearly defined and published minimum security 
criteria.
  If the security self-assessment completed by the importer reveals any 
security deficiencies and requires a corrective action plan, admission 
to the program and no benefits whatsoever are obtained unless those 
deficiencies are addressed to the satisfaction of the Department.
  Third, with the security self-assessment completed, and initially 
identified deficiencies addressed, the Department again reviews for 
sufficiency with the minimum security criteria and also vets the 
importer through the law enforcement and trade databases, as well as 
through the El Paso Intelligence Center, EPIC, for linkage to DEA and 
other law enforcement databases. If the importer's security profile 
demonstrates that the company is meeting the criteria, has positively 
passed vetting, and has a successful importing record, only then will 
the importer be certified as tier 1 and given a limited ATS score 
reduction.
  In response to the concerns raised by the gentlewoman from 
California, we have incorporated into this bill penalties if, in fact, 
it is shown that they did not participate in the process completely and 
honestly; and, in fact, if they have had any misleading or false 
information in their application, they are mandatorily barred from 
participation in the program for 5 years. The reason why they get a 
small benefit in terms of the rating by beginning in the program with 
their application before they are fully certified is to give 
encouragement to get them into the program to begin with. It is more 
than just saying they are handing in a piece of paper. It is, in fact, 
a document that requires a good deal of work on their part; and we want 
to encourage participation in this program rather than discourage it.
  C-TPAT is one of the layers, not the only one, but one of the layers 
that we have of security in our multi-layered approach, and so I would 
urge people to reject this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Aside from the risk reduction score that C-TPAT companies get without 
us verifying what they do and what they said they would do, there are a 
whole lot of a series of other positives they get. They do not sit in 
line for secondary inspections. That means they are not idling and 
wasting their gas, et cetera. They get a lot, but the risk reduction to 
the score I believe is too much.
  Yes, we have a layered approach. We do not have a 100 percent look at 
what is in those containers. So we should make sure that each layer is 
done to the best of our ability, and we can do that by making this 
small change.
  As far as catching them afterwards, well, that is like telling my 
teenage son that if he gives me a plan about how he is going to take 
the driver's written test and a plan about how he is going to then 
after he does that take the driving test, but he does not get around to 
that for 2 years for the company to check, meanwhile he is on the 
highway driving without ever having taken a test.

                              {time}  1330

  It is the same thing. We haven't verified what we are doing, and this 
terrorism issue is too important for us to ignore. I hope that my 
colleagues will vote for the Sanchez amendment.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Chairman, again I would 
suggest that it is important for us to retain the program as it exists, 
for the Department to retain the discretion reward a small benefit to 
the Tier 1 members by reducing their ATS score. They do not move to the 
head of the line; they get to move up just a little bit. It is an 
encouragement to participate in the program.
  The only way I can help the gentlewoman by suggesting that penalties 
do work is to suggest that deterrence does work. It is recognized in 
just about every other aspect of our lives, including the criminal 
justice system; and I don't know why she does not believe it will not 
work here.
  As a matter of fact, in response to the GAO report that she referred 
to, the Department did reduce the amount of the ATS score reduction for 
Tier 1 members, so they have responded to some concerns that they were 
moving too far up the line. Not in front of the line, but too far up 
the line.
  They get a small, small benefit at the present time. It is an 
incentive to participate in a voluntary program, which ultimately gives 
us more information, has more people working with greater security than 
they had before, and it helps us our a multi-layered approach.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chairman, I demand a 
recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195, 
noes 230, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 125]

                               AYES--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--230

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson

[[Page H2150]]


     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Andrews
     Evans
     Frank (MA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Miller, George
     Osborne
     Slaughter


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 
2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1355

  Messrs. BOREN, PICKERING and Otter changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. CUELLAR, BERMAN, OBERSTAR, RUPPERSBERGER and Ms. SCHWARTZ of 
Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. There being no other amendments, the question is 
on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Kline) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Biggert, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4954) to 
improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced layered defenses, 
and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 789, she reported 
the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee 
of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. NADLER. Yes, I am in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Nadler moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4954 to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:
       Page 51, strike line 16 and all that follows through line 
     25 on page 52.
       Page 80, strike line 10 and all that follows through line 
     14.
       Redesignate sections 202 through 206 of the bill as 
     sections 203 through 207, respectively.
       Page 81, after line 23, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 202. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO ENTRY OF CONTAINERS INTO 
                   THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Requirements.--Section 70116 of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Requirements Relating to Entry of Containers.--
       ``(1) In general.--A container may enter the United States, 
     either directly or via a foreign port, only if--
       ``(A) the container is scanned with equipment that meets 
     the standards established pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) and a 
     copy of the scan is provided to the Secretary; and
       ``(B) the container is secured with a seal that meets the 
     standards established pursuant to paragraph (2)(B), before 
     the container is loaded on the vessel for shipment to the 
     United States.
       ``(2) Standards for scanning equipment and seals.--
       ``(A) Scanning equipment.--The Secretary shall establish 
     standards for scanning equipment required to be used under 
     paragraph (1)(A) to ensure that such equipment uses the best-
     available technology, including technology to scan a 
     container for radiation and density and, if appropriate, for 
     atomic elements.
       ``(B) Seals.--The Secretary shall establish standards for 
     seals required to be used under paragraph (1)(B) to ensure 
     that such seals use the best-available technology, including 
     technology to detect any breach into a container and identify 
     the time of such breach.
       ``(C) Review and revision.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(i) review and, if necessary, revise the standards 
     established pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and (B) not less 
     than once every two years; and
       ``(ii) ensure that any such revised standards require the 
     use of technology, as soon as such technology becomes 
     available, to--

       ``(I) identify the place of a breach into a container;
       ``(II) notify the Secretary of such breach before the 
     container enters the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United 
     States; and
       ``(III) track the time and location of the container during 
     transit to the United States, including by truck, rail, or 
     vessel.

       ``(D) Definition.--In subparagraph (C), the term `Exclusive 
     Economic Zone of the United States' has the meaning given the 
     term `Exclusive Economic Zone' in section 2101(10a) of this 
     title.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out section 70116(c) of title 46, 
     United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this 
     section, such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal 
     years 2007 through 2012.
       (c) Regulations; Application.--
       (1) Regulations.--
       (A) Interim final rule.--The Secretary of Homeland Security 
     shall issue an interim final rule as a temporary regulation 
     to implement section 70116(c) of title 46, United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section, not later 
     than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     section, without regard to the provisions of chapter 5 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (B) Final rule.--The Secretary shall issue a final rule as 
     a permanent regulation to implement section 70116(c) of title 
     46, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this 
     section, not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this section, in accordance with the provisions 
     of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code. The final rule 
     issued pursuant to that rulemaking may supersede the interim 
     final rule issued pursuant to subparagraph (A).
       (2) Phased-in application.--
       (A) In general.--The requirements of section 70116(c) of 
     title 46, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of 
     this section, apply with respect to any container entering 
     the United States, either directly or via a foreign port, 
     beginning on--
       (i) the end of the 3-year period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, in the case of a container loaded 
     on a vessel destined for the United States in a country in 
     which more than 75,000 twenty-foot equivalent units of 
     containers were loaded on vessels for shipping to the United 
     States in 2005; and
       (ii) the end of the 5-year period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, in the case of a container loaded 
     on a vessel destined for the United States in any other 
     country.
       (B) Extension.--The Secretary may extend by up to one year 
     the period under clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A) for 
     containers loaded in a port, if the Secretary--
       (i) finds that the scanning equipment required under 
     section 70116(c) of title 46, United States Code, as added by 
     subsection (a) of this section, is not available for purchase 
     and installation in the port; and
       (ii) at least 60 days prior to issuing such extension, 
     transmits such finding to the appropriate congressional 
     committees.
       (d) International Cargo Security Standards.--The Secretary, 
     in consultation with the Secretary of State, is encouraged to 
     promote and establish international standards

[[Page H2151]]

     for the security of containers moving through the 
     international supply chain with foreign governments and 
     international organizations, including the International 
     Maritime Organization and the World Customs Organization.
       (e) International Trade and Other Obligations.--In carrying 
     out section 70116(c) of title 46, United States Code, as 
     added by subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary shall 
     consult with appropriate Federal departments and agencies and 
     private sector stakeholders to ensure that actions under such 
     section do not violate international trade obligations or 
     other international obligations of the United States.

  Mr. NADLER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion to recommit with the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and I thank him for his 
efforts on this issue.
  This is a reasonable bill, but none of it matters much if we don't at 
least electronically scan every shipping container. All it takes is one 
atomic or radiological bomb to make 9/11 look like a firecracker, to 
kill hundreds of thousands of people, to cost hundreds of billions of 
dollars, to bring commerce to a total halt for weeks or months while 
every ship is searched by hand because we don't have in place the means 
to scan every container.

                              {time}  1400

  That is what this motion is about. If we really want to make this 
country safer, we must demand that before any container is put on a 
ship bound for the United States it must be scanned electronically in 
the foreign port. It is too late if we find a nuclear bomb in Los 
Angeles or New York.
  The container must then be sealed with a seal that will tell us if it 
is tampered with after it is scanned, and the results of the scan must 
be transmitted electronically to people in the United States for 
examination.
  This motion is identical to an amendment that was unanimously agreed 
to by Chairman Young and the entire Transportation Committee a month 
ago. This is not a partisan issue, unless you choose to make it so by 
voting ``no.''
  They say the technology doesn't exist. The technology most certainly 
does exist. It is installed right now in Hong Kong. The technology is 
installed in Hong Kong now, except that the results of those scans are 
stored on disks because no one at the Department of Homeland Security 
can be bothered to read them.
  The people who say we can't do this are the same people that told us 
2 years ago that we couldn't get a bill of lading for every container 
24 hours in advance, the same people who told us that if we searched 
every passenger, the airports would be gridlocked, the planes would 
never take off. Scanning every container is feasible, it is relatively 
cheap, and it will not delay global commerce.
  If we continue to rely solely on so-called risk-based strategy, the 
terrorists will simply put the atomic bomb in a low-risk container from 
Wal-Mart. The real risk is that a good company will have a container 
with sneakers on a truck in Indonesia. On the way to a port, the driver 
will stop for lunch; and while he is at lunch terrorists will take out 
some sneakers and put in a bomb. And the bill of lading will be fine.
  The question on this motion is, do we or do we not want to risk 
American cities and American lives on the chairman's confidence in Wal-
Mart's paperwork?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield now to a leader on this issue, Mr. Markey.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from New York for his great 
leadership on this issue.
  This recommital motion deals with the fatal flaw in the Republican 
bill. They have refused to allow a vote on this House floor on this 
issue. This is now the time for the Members to go on record to get real 
about cargo security.
  The threat is that, in the former Soviet Union, with all of the loose 
nuclear material, that al Qaeda purchases a nuclear device, brings it 
to a port in Asia, in Africa, in Europe, places it upon a ship. Using 
the screening which the Republican party supports, the screening would 
be a piece of paper. Oh, you look okay. You can bring it on to the 
ship. No inspection, no scanning. That is what their bill does.
  The Democratic substitute says that no container can be placed on a 
ship coming to the United States which is not scanned for uranium, for 
nuclear materials, for a nuclear bomb, for weapons of mass destruction.
  The screening must be done overseas, and we must seal those 
containers. We must scan and seal overseas so that we do not have to 
duck and cover here in the United States. That is the risk that al 
Qaeda has said they pose to us at the very top of their terrorist 
target list.
  The Republicans are basically saying they are going to put a ``Beware 
of Dog'' sign out on the lawn but not purchase a dog, never do the 
screening, never do the inspection, use a paperwork inspection instead.
  This bill has a loophole big enough to drive a cargo container filled 
with nuclear weapons material through it. This is an historic moment.
  Here is the seal which the Republicans are still approving to be 
placed upon a cargo container. This can be cut by a child's scissors, 
ladies and gentlemen.
  This is what should be placed upon each one of the containers after 
they have been scanned, after they have been sealed, to make sure that 
if it is tampered with an electronic signal goes to the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  The Republican party says no. The Republican party says they will use 
paperwork instead of real, physical scanning of each and every cargo 
container, knowing that it could have a nuclear weapon, knowing that 
these nuclear materials have not been secured in the former Soviet 
Union.
  Vote ``aye'' on the recommital motion and protect the security of our 
country from the single greatest threat that is posed to it. Vote 
``aye'' on the recommital motion.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion 
to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), the author of the legislation.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I came to this body 
with many of you to make sure that we did what was necessary to protect 
our constituents. I brought this bill to the floor, through the 
subcommittee, committee and to the floor with that promise in mind.
  This is not, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, a Republican 
bill. This is, in fact, a bipartisan bill. Eighty cosponsors. Passed 
our committee 29-0.
  There is a dispute with respect to this particular technology, and I 
might just refer you to the National Journal of this last week talking 
about this very issue. It said, nice idea, but not very feasible with 
current technology.
  Eleven million containers are shipped to the U.S. ports each year. Of 
those, U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel physically screen, 
that means inspect, only about 6 percent, or 660,000.
  It is a noble impulse, but, as a practical matter, it can't be 
accomplished right now, said Jack Riley, Homeland Security expert with 
Rand.
  The key to being able to carry this out in the future is better 
equipment that scans faster. That is what our bill does. It asks us to 
accelerate our investigation into new technology. It mandates that the 
Secretary, if, in fact, he finds that to be usable, practical, 
adaptable, that he then negotiate with foreign countries to immediately 
put it into place and, if they refuse, gives our President and our 
Secretary the right to refuse to allow their cargo into the United 
States. We don't put a time limit on it. We said as soon as it is 
feasible to do it.
  So as a great political philosopher, Don Meredith, once said, ``If 
ifs and buts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas.''
  We don't bring you a hope that cannot be fulfilled. We bring you a 
promise that can be fulfilled in this bill. Please vote down this 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset commend 
Ranking

[[Page H2152]]

Member Thompson, Chairman Lungren, Ranking Member Sanchez, Ms. Harman 
for the truly bipartisan job they did in putting this together.
  Let me also commend our staff, Mandy Bowers, Mark Klaassen, Mike 
Power, Joe Vealencis, Coley O'Brien, Dr. Diane Berry for working 
together in a solid way to get a real port security bill.
  I am proud of how bipartisan this was, right up till a few moments 
ago. Just this afternoon we adopted nine Democratic amendments on this 
bill.
  The reality is, though, this is an outstanding port security bill. I 
came from a district which lost more than 150 friends, neighbors and 
constituents on September 11. Unlike Mr. Markey, I don't need visual 
aids to remind me of what happened on September 11.
  Mr. MARKEY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr KING of New York. No, I will not yield. I did not interrupt you.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mohammed Atta started in Boston, my friend. There were 
Bostonians on that plane.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
  Mr. KING of New York. Amazing how the truth hurts.
  I don't need visual aids to remind me what happened on September 11. 
I can go to my district office and see a woman working at the front 
desk who lost two cousins. I can talk to another member of my staff who 
lost a son, or another member who lost two brothers on that day. I can 
go to church on Sunday and see 10, 15 families who lost people.
  This is an issue where every Member on both sides of the aisle is 
committed to doing the right thing. And it is wrong when people on the 
other side say the Republicans are not trying to stop another nuclear 
attack. Do they really believe that? Do they so demean the process of 
debate in this House that they are willing to do anything to get 
elected, do anything to make points on evening news, the sound bites, 
the cable TV?
  The fact is this bill is a real bill. It does not send a false or 
misleading hope. It is not a cruel hoax. It does what is real. It does 
what can be done, and that is why I am so proud of this bill.
  We adopted amendments by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite, by Mr. Shays. And, by 
the way, the language in our bill is far similar to the amendment 
adopted on a bipartisan basis sponsored by a member of the opposition 
party in the Senate yesterday than anything Mr. Markey or Mr. Nadler 
have introduced today.
  So I say, do what is right. Stand for real port security, stand for a 
really strong America. Vote down the motion to recommit and vote for 
the underlying bill that will bring about real safe ports in this 
country and we can all be proud of it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  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.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 202, 
nays 222, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 126]

                               YEAS--202

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--222

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Andrews
     Evans
     Frank (MA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Miller, George
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Slaughter


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1429

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.

[[Page H2153]]

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 421, 
noes 2, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 127]

                               AYES--421

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

                                NOES--2

     Flake
     Markey
       

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Andrews
     Evans
     Frank (MA)
     Gutknecht
     Lewis (GA)
     Miller, George
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1438

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________