Pete King

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, let me just state at the outset, again, the great regard I have for Mr. Thompson and also for Mr. Reyes. But in that context, I must say that I strongly disagree with their motion to recommit, primarily because even though this is the Secure Fence Act of 2006, the motion to recommit nowhere even mentions the word ``fence.'' And it is significant that they seem unwilling to address this fundamental issue. We believe on our side and a solid majority of the House of Representatives believed last December, and indeed a majority of the United States Senate believed, that a fence is essential, that a fence is important. And that is why it was passed last December, that is why the overwhelming majority of the American people support it today, and that is why we are bringing it forward now. The reality is that comprehensive legislation is not going to be moving. But, again, the American people are crying out; they are demanding that we take action. This is an issue which goes right to the heart of America today, whether you live on the border or whether you live in the north, the Northeast, Northwest, Midwest, it is an issue. As Members went back to their districts this summer, last spring, the one issue that resonated completely was the issue of stopping illegal immigration. One proven way is to build a fence and to get operational control over the entire border.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to listen as carefully as I can to the debate, and the only real argument that I hear that really make any sense is that building a fence is not the only answer. I think all of us on this side agree. But we also believe it is a very essential part of the answer, a significant step; and the fact that, again I repeat, that we can't do everything, does not mean we should do nothing. That is why it is, I believe, essential to go forward with the legislation today, since there is broad support for it; both here in the House and in the Senate, as well, there is support for it, and also among the American people. Also, as far as the references made to terrorists coming across the southern border, there is no doubt that there have been captured al Qaeda documents which indicate the desire of al Qaeda to bring people across the southern border. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. KING of New York. Actually, we have a pinch hitter. I yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would remind the gentleman from New Jersey that the resolution he voted for 2 years, the 9/11 commemoration resolution, specifically said that Iraq was part of the war on terrorism, that the capture of Saddam Hussein was part of the war against terrorism, all in the ``whereases'' clauses. It also cited the fact of port security achievements we had made there. It mentioned the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, all of which was there in that resolution 2 years ago, which for whatever reason they did not object to then. And I would say one of the reasons we didn't put the immigration bill in the legislation 2 years ago, it was not passed until last year, and the 9/11 Commission specifically stated that addressing border security is a major element of homeland security Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, 9/11, September 11, 2001, was a day unlike any in our history. It was a day which saw the worst tragedy befall our Nation. It was a day and the days thereafter which demonstrated the very best in America, the heroism, the courage, the willingness to fight back, the determination never again to allow ourselves to be attacked the way we were on that day. Since that time, Congress has achieved a lot. The purpose of this resolution today was to show that we are not just going to lament what happened on September 11, we are not just going to mourn what happened on September 11, but we are going to lay the record out as to what has been done and what should be done. And, quite frankly, as the prime author of this resolution, we did not in any way attempt to make it contentious. For instance, I really wonder why at this stage on the fifth anniversary of September 11 my friends in the opposition have chosen to draw the line on this resolution, when 2 years ago, in a bipartisan resolution which was overwhelmingly adopted, there were far more, if you want to call them, partisan matters included. I don't consider them partisan. But if they are applying the standard they are applying today to the 2004 resolution, where it went through so many items, as the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, Libya, port security, border security, Terrorist Threat Information Center, going after financial assets, all of those matters, very few of which are mentioned in our resolution today. But for some reason, I guess with election day less than 60 days away, they have chosen to say what was nonpartisan 2 years ago is extremely partisan today. I regret that, because there is a lot that we still have to do as a Congress, but there is much we achieved, and I believe it is important for us not to just talk about the horror of September 11, but to chronicle for history what we have done, what we intend to do and let history be our judge. That is why we included the PATRIOT Act, that is why we included the Maritime Security Act, the intelligence reform and port security legislation, because we do believe they are significant achievements by Congress. Now, maybe history will show it was not right to break down the wall between the FBI and CIA, or it was not right to have to have intelligence reform, but I am content and I think we have an obligation to lay that out and let the American people decide and let history decide. If we wanted to make this partisan, we could have certainly put in about the NSA electronic surveillance, which the overwhelming majority of Americans support because they believe it makes common sense to listen to the conversations of foreign terrorists. But because of the controversy of that, it was not put in. Nor was the SWIFT Plan, which was illegally disclosed by the New York Times. Did we include that in our resolution, even though that has also been extraordinarily effective? As far as the issue of whether or not we are safer today than on September 11, both the chairman and cochairman of the 9/11 Commission say we are, the junior Senator from New York says we are, any number of people say we are. We can debate that. But I think it is certainly fair comment to put that in this 9/11 resolution. Mr. Speaker, I will end on this before I finish my remarks. But I just want to say no one has any monopoly on grief in this Chamber. I lost well over 150 friends, neighbors and constituents on September 11, 2001. I spent all day Monday at cemeteries and commemorations and meeting with families. I think it is really wrong to somehow attack this resolution as our attempt to be partisan. We could have found much more ways to be partisan if we wanted to. It was an attempt to come together. For whatever reason, the opposition has chosen to draw the line today on the fifth anniversary, when they could have done it 2 years ago. For whatever reason they decided now is the time. I think history will show they are wrong. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 994.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, as the designee of the majority leader and pursuant to H. Res. 996, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 994) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, quite frankly I have been both shocked and disappointed by the reaction we have seen on the House floor today. Not that we cannot have honest differences over the resolution, not that we cannot have honest differences about various whereas clauses. I have certainly voted for many resolutions where I did not agree with everything that was in there. I have also opposed certain resolutions because there was too much in there that I could not support, without questioning the motives and impugning the character of those who drafted the resolution. Quite frankly, in working on this resolution and working with the Speaker and working with Members on the other side, the model that we tried to use in putting this resolution together was the resolution which was adopted 2 years ago which did have some contentious language in it, but quite frankly listed far more achievements, if you will, or far more actions taken by the Congress than ours did today. What we did today was try to strike the balance by commemorating the memories of those who died, by honoring those who gave their lives, by expressing our deep sorrow and support and solidarity with the families who lost relatives on September 11 and lost friends on September 11. And then also, not just rely on words but also to show actions, and lay out how we in Congress have tried to deal with the issues that involve homeland security and fighting terrorism. We did avoid any reference to the war in Iraq, other than to say we support the men and women who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. No mention at all of Iraq being part of the war against terrorism. No mention at all of the NSA electronic surveillance program. No mention at all of the swift program. What we did was try to lay out exactly what Congress has done so it would be out there for history to see what we have done, what we have tried to do, where we have succeeded, perhaps where we haven't. I am content to let history be our judge. But to somehow say this is part of some conspiracy or campaign, to me, it really does cheapen the memory of September 11. As I said before, no one has a monopoly on grief. I certainly lost many, many friends and neighbors and constituents on September 11, as did other Members of this body. And probably everyone here at least knows someone who died that day, or knows someone who knows someone who died that day or suffered from the horrific events of September 11. I really thought on September 11 and September 12, 2001 that we would try to work together. This resolution is an attempt to do that, an honest attempt from the heart to do it. I am proud of this resolution. I urge the adoption of this resolution so we can send a message not just to those who died on September 11, to the families of those who died on September 11, but indeed a message to the world that we are united against Islamic terrorism. We are united as one to prevent another attack from ever occurring in this country. And there has not been an attack for 5 years. And, yes, there is much more that must be done, that has to be done. We are safer than we were on September 11, but not as safe as we should be. There is so much more that we can do, but we have made this start. Let us stand behind what we have done together. Those honest differences that we have, let us treat them as honest differences and not try to make shameful partisan attacks. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution, and I pray to God that we will find a way to come together and not resort to the type of cheap demagoguery that I think characterized the debate on the floor today Mr. Speaker, I yield 28 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the International Relations Committee, who will do so much to elevate the level of rhetoric on our side than what we have seen in the last half hour from me; 28 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the chairman of the Intelligence Committee; and the balance of the time to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble); and I ask unanimous consent that each Member be allowed to control that time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just urge my friends on the other side to perhaps read the resolution instead of just reading Democratic talking points. The fact is there was nothing in this resolution at all that talks about the war in Iraq other than to commend the soldiers who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the overwhelming majority of Democrats 2 years ago did vote for the resolution which said Iraq was an integral part of the war against terrorism. Again, I wonder why this disconnect between 2004 and 2006. Also, the gentlewoman from California seems very concerned about the fact that bin Laden has not been captured. Yet, the leader of her party yesterday said that capturing bin Laden would have no impact on the security of the United States. Also, talking of the families, as far as the impact this would have on the families, this resolution, I have talked to the families in my district, the Boyle family, the Haskell family, the Cain family, the Vigiano family, or the Howard family, or any of them, who I can assure you strongly stand behind this resolution Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would just again remind my friends on the other side that we are definitely safer than we were on September 11. It is not just me saying that or the Republican majority saying that. It is the chairman and cochairman of the 9/11 Commission, people such as the junior Senator from New York who was saying that. As far as our resolution, it certainly goes out of its way, and appropriately so, to extend the deepest sympathies to all those who lost their lives, to their family members and friends. It honors the heroic actions of the first responders. If we made a mistake in drafting this resolution, it was I guess laboring under the misconception that the people on the other side would adhere to the same standards and principles that we set for ourselves 2 years ago when we adopted the 9/11 resolution at that time, which again goes into far more detail than anything we mentioned at all today. And I would also mention to the gentleman from California who said that we should speak to the families of those who lost relatives on September 11. I spent Monday morning to night with those families, and I can tell you, after speaking with them, I am more proud than ever to have introduced and sponsored this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a member of the committee.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would remind my friend from Massachusetts, or at least suggest to him, that you don't have to agree with every word of every resolution to vote for it. For instance, the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted for the 9/ 11 resolution 2 years ago, which specifically cited the war in Iraq as being an effective part of the war against terrorism. It also cited the arrest of Saddam Hussein and also cited the many accomplishments that had been made by Congress, and they voted for that then. For some reason they have now chosen to make this a very partisan issue. Also, the gentleman said that Democrats have supported every recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. In fact, 152 Democrats voted against the REAL ID Act, which was supported by the 9/11 Commission. And as far as the whole issue of the nuclear screening, even the Washington Post said that is nothing but a grandstand. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, again I would remind my friends on the Democratic side that the resolution that the overwhelming majority of them voted for 2 years ago, for instance, on the issue of port security, in the whereas clauses specifically cited the innovative programs which have done so much to make our ports more secure and to screen cargo. And, again, we don't have to agree with every aspect of every bill, but if it was good enough 2 years ago for them to cite it, I don't know why it suddenly now becomes such an extreme partisan issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut, who I must say is an extremely strong and very independent voice and advocate for Homeland Security

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I in particular appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak on this issue, an issue which I believe is vital to the history of our Nation and indeed to the future of our Nation. As the sponsor of the legislation and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, I took a special interest in doing all that I could to ensure that this resolution would reflect the thinking of the Congress and would not be at all provocative. But the fact is, September 11 was the darkest day in our Nation's history. It was also a day of exceptional bravery and courage, and year after year since September 11, 2001, we have expressed this sense of the Congress, we have expressed the sense of the House. We have pointed to the tremendous bravery that occurred that day, the actions of the police and the fire and the emergency workers. We have certainly referred to the terrible suffering that occurred that day. But also, it is essential we not just lament what happened that day, not just acknowledge the suffering of that day, but I believe we owe it to history to show what Congress has done. It is not enough just to say we feel sorry for what happened. It is important we show what we are doing, what we are doing as Members of Congress, to respond to the horrors of that day. In putting together this resolution, the leadership on our side of the aisle reached out to the other leaders certainly. On my committee, we reached out to Democratic members of our committee trying to put together a resolution, and the fact is the gentleman from Massachusetts, who is a good friend of mine, he acts as if this resolution this year is so markedly different than what was passed in previous years. Well, if you go back to 2004, the resolution referred to introduced by Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos, H. Res. 757, it goes through a long listing of what has been done since September 11, 2001. It refers to the war in Iraq as being part of the war against terrorism. It refers to port security and border security, to the Terrorism Threat Immigration Center. It talks about taking away the financial assets of terrorists. It goes on and on, listing a number of issues which apparently today would be considered extremely controversial. We make no reference at all to Iraq in today's resolution, other than to mention the men and women of our Armed Forces who are in Iraq and Afghanistan. We make no mention of the NSA electronic surveillance program which enjoys the support of the overwhelming majority of American citizens. We make no reference to the SWIFT program, which is going after the terrorist finances, which was to me in violation of the Espionage Act released on the front page of the New York Times. Even though it is entirely legal and entirely effective, we make no reference to that, but we do talk about the PATRIOT Act because that was a response of Congress. Now, history may judge that we did the wrong thing. I am absolutely convinced we did the right thing in passing the PATRIOT Act, and I think we owe it to the American people to let them know what we did. Also, maritime security, intelligence reform, port security, immigration reform, all of these are tied to the issue of international terrorism. This is the way Congress responded, and I think it is not enough just to say it was a tragedy that happened on September 11. Let us talk about what we did. The gentleman from Massachusetts says he objects to the language in here that we are safer since September 11. Okay. Maybe we can have an honest difference of opinion on that. The fact is, even the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission say we are safer today than we were on September 11. The junior Senator from my State has said we are safer now than we were on September 11. These are certainly not Republican apologists. Quite frankly, while I understand the good faith on the other side, I as a person who lost almost 150 friends, neighbors and constituents resent the fact that by us introducing the resolution this is a campaign speech. As I was going to commemoration after commemoration on Monday, I did not say this as being part of the campaign. To me, this is our way of responding. Again, you may be right, and maybe in the future people will say it was wrong to break down the wall between the FBI and CIA and it may be wrong to be going after terrorist assets and it may be wrong to listen in on terrorist conversations. So be it. Let history be our judge. But let this resolution stand for what Congress has done, is doing and wants to do if we are serious about winning the war against international terrorism. If we want to talk about campaigns, I would wonder where were you in 2004 when a resolution, if you want some partisan references, by your definition would be far more partisan than we are introducing here today or is it perhaps that the political party has been changed somehow, and now what was more than acceptable in 2004 is not even remotely acceptable today? So, if we are going to inject politics into it, let us be honest who is raising the political issue. I know that our leadership and the Speaker of the House went out of his way and their way to try to make this a bipartisan resolution. I certainly did. When you compare what we are stating today and what we stated in 2004, to me there is no doubt over who is being partisan and who is trying to exploit this issue. I find that wrong. I am saying I am proud to stand with this resolution. I am proud to support it. I urge the overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats to put aside partisanship, you do not have to agree with every word of our resolution, to say that Congress has responded and has done its best to respond to the attacks of September 11. Again, let history be our judge. I am more than willing for history to be our judge, and I am proud to stand on the record of the Congress, Republicans and Democrats, and I urge the adoption of the rule and urge the adoption of the underlying resolution.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, this is a critical time in our Nation's history. Our Nation is at war, and we have seen serial leaks of very important classified top secret information. It is almost as if we are shadow boxing. We are talking about it in a moot court-type way or a theoretical way. The fact is lives are at risk. The fact is in this particular situation, by the New York Times' own account it was a program that was working. It was a program for which the Times has raised no questions of illegality. It is a program under which the administration, the Secretary of the Treasury, the two cochairmen of the 9/11 Commission went to the New York Times and asked them, in the interest of national security, not to release the details of this program. But they went ahead and did it anyway. And that really, to me, casts a motive over why, questions the motive of the New York Times in doing this. Back in December I strongly objected when they leaked the details of the NSA terrorist surveillance program. At least, in that instance, the Times raised what they thought were questions of legality. But that didn't even exist in this current situation which, to me, goes to the heart of an issue here, is what is the obligation of a newspaper, how absolute is the first amendment. My belief in a democratic society, where there is always friction between freedom and responsibility, and while we give extensive rein to the first amendment, to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, no freedom can be absolute. With freedom comes responsibility. And to me the New York Times has clearly crossed that line of responsibility. Those who leaked the information, yes, they should certainly be prosecuted. To get to them is going to be very difficult to do, unless, as the gentleman from Kansas pointed out, reporters and editors are brought in before a grand jury and threatened with contempt if they do not disclose the names of their sources. Then we will see if those who say they are so opposed to leaks will stand up and support that. Because reporters should not be sacrosanct. Newspapers should not be sacrosanct. It is fine to launch special investigations and hire special prosecutors to go after any other person in the country. But as soon as anyone focuses on the media, focuses on the New York Times, or the L.A. Times, or the Wall Street Journal, then panic sets in, as if special walls of protection must be set up around them. They are not entitled to that. To me they have a responsibility. The New York Times has woefully failed in its responsibility. I say the jury might still be out on the L.A. Times and the Wall Street Journal as to whether or not, what their motives were. Did they only follow because the New York Times went first? I don't know. But no one should be immune from investigation here. They should be looked into very, very carefully. We should go after the leakers. And to me, the New York Times, is not just the facilitator of the leakers, they are coconspirators of the leakers because it was leaked to the Times and the Times leaked it to the American people and to the world. And because of that, our position as a Nation is weaker. Our people are at risk. Our people suffer and face the further suffering and death, and that will be on the hands of the New York Times. That blood will be on their hands. I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the service of Jim Williams, the Director of the US-VISIT program at the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Williams is leaving his position in the coming weeks to become the Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service at the General Services Administration. I want to thank him for his years of public service and his leadership at the Department of Homeland Security. Since May 2003, Mr. Williams has managed a team to create and maintain the US-VISIT program, a critical border management program that collects point-of-entry and exit information on visitors traveling to and from the United States. The program uses biometric identifiers and digital photographs to aid legitimate tourists, students and business travelers entering the United States, while making it more difficult for those who might do harm to the United States or enter and stay in the country illegally. Though the job of completing the full installation of US-VISIT program is still underway, so far, in two and a half years, it has processed nearly 60 million visitors to date and denied entry to more than 1,100 criminals and immigration violators at our ports of entry, reduced wait times at several land border ports of entry, and provided information to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement leading to the apprehension of more than 200 aliens who overstayed their visas. Mr. Williams has been a model public servant and leader. He has left a tremendous imprint on the US-VISIT program, and on the many people who work with him at US-VISIT and across the government. Mr. Speaker, I urge you and our colleagues to join me in a salute to Jim Williams and the talented team at US-VISIT.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky who has been a leader in strengthening the Department and providing crucial oversight to its activities. I want to thank you and Ranking Member Sabo for your hard work on this bill, and of course join with you in commending Mr. Sabo in his many years of dedication to this Chamber. This bill provides the necessary resources for the Federal Government's effort to protect the homeland. I rise to acknowledge a number of legislative provisions that are included in the bill and fall within the primary jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security. I do not seek to challenge the vast majority of these authorizing provisions, as I believe they are largely necessary to ensure the Department continues to improve its effectiveness. However, I do want to point out the strong jurisdictional interests of the Committee on Homeland Security. As you know, the Committee on Homeland Security is actively working to advance much needed legislation specifically authorizing many of the activities of the Department, particularly in the areas of border security, cargo security, emergency management, and chemical site security. The Committee on Homeland Security will also in the near future advance a broad reauthorization bill for the Department. A full list of my concerns is provided in a letter to the gentleman from Kentucky, which will follow my remarks. Since I became chairman last year, we have had an excellent working relationship, and I appreciate the gentleman from Kentucky's efforts to include me and my staff as you develop the bill. In light of the ongoing authorization activities of the Committee on Homeland Security, I respectfully request your commitment to work together to ensure that the legislative provisions in the homeland security appropriations bill compliment and do not conflict with parallel authorizing legislation.

Mr. KING of New York. I thank the gentleman for his commitment. And on a personal note, I want to thank him for the extraordinary cooperation he has given me during the 9 months I have been chairman of the authorizing committee. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC, May 25, 2006. Hon. Harold Rogers, Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Rogers: The House of Representatives has scheduled for consideration today, H.R. 5441, the Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007. This measure contains a number of legislative provisions that are in violation of House Rule XXI, clause 2, which prohibits legislation within a general appropriation bill. These provisions fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee Homeland Security. While I want to make clear the Committee on Homeland Security's strong jurisdictional interests in the legislative provisions summarized below, I do not intend to assert procedural objections to the vast majority of these provisions during House consideration of the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. As you know, the Committee on Homeland Security is actively working to advance legislation specifically authorizing many of the activities of the Department of Homeland Security, particularly in the area of border security, cargo security, emergency management and chemical site security. The Committee on Homeland Security will also, in the near future, advance a broad reauthorization bill for the Department. In light of the ongoing authorization activities of the Committee, I respectfully request your commitment to work together to ensure that the Appropriations Bill complements, and does not conflict with, parallel authorizing legislation. The provisions of interest to the Committee on Homeland Security are as follows: Title I, Departmental Management and Operations (Page 2, Line 16-Page 3, Line 2); withholds $10,000,000 until the Secretary of Homeland Security submits a comprehensive port, container, and cargo security strategic plan to Appropriations and Homeland Committees. This plan must require screening of all inbound cargo, double the percentage of inbound cargo currently inspected, set minimum standards for security inbound cargo and includes the FY 2007 performance requirements for port, container, and cargo security. Title I, Departmental Management and Operations (Page 3, Lines 2-15); provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security must submit a multi-year strategic plan for the Secure Border Initiative that includes a comprehensive mission statement, an identification of long-term goals, an explanation of how long-term goals will be achieved, schedule and resource requirements, an identification of annual performance goals and how they link to long-term goals, an identification of annual performance measures used to gauge effectiveness towards goal achievement by goal and an identification of major capital assets critical to program success. Title I, Departmental Management and Operations (Page 4, Line 8-12); provides that $10,000,000 will be withheld until the Office of Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Homeland Security submits monthly budget execution report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Title I, Departmental Management and Operations (Page 4, Line 25-Page 5, Line 4); provides that none of the funds in this section may be used for US-VISIT or ACE. Title II, U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (Page 6, Line 12-Page 7, Line 14); withholds $312,494,000 until the Secretary of Homeland Security submits a plan for expenditures to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees that must comply with the Department of Homeland Security and procurement regulations, includes a certification by the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Homeland Security and is reviewed by the Department of Homeland Security Investment Review Board and the Government Accountability Office. Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs and Border Protection, Salaries and Expenses account (page 8, Line 17-Page 9, Line 3); notwithstanding any other provisions of law, this section requires that no funds may be provided for Customs and Border Patrol overtime, from any source, if the funds exceed the $35,000 cap, except for specific circumstances determined by Secretary of Homeland Security or his designee. Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs and Border Protection, Salaries and Expenses account (Page 9, Line 6-10); requires the Border Patrol to relocate its checkpoints in the Tucson sector at least once every seven days. Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs and Border Protection, Automation Modernization account (Page 11, Line 8-Page 12, Line 9); withholds funds provided for the Automated Commercial Environment until the Appropriations Committee receives an expenditure plan on the program meeting certain requirements and is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office. Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs and Border Protection, Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement account (Page 13, Lines 2-11); prohibits the transfer of any Customs and Border Protection aircraft or equipment to any other Federal agency without approval of the House Appropriations Committee. Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs and Border Protection, Air and Marine Interdiction, Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement account (Page 13 Lines 11-16); withholds $6.8 million until the House Appropriations and Homeland Security Committees receive a report on the April 25, 2006 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle mishap. Title II, Security, Enforcement, Investigations, Customs and Border Protection, Salaries and Expenses account (Page 14, Line 24-Page 15, Line 5); waives other laws and states that no funds may be provided for Customs and Border Protection overtime, from any source, if the funds exceed the $35,000 cap, except for specific circumstances determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security or his designee. Title II, Transportation Security Administration, Aviation Security (Page 17, Line 1-11); restricts the Government share of costs of projects to 75 percent for medium or large hub airport and 90 percent for any other airport. Title II, Transportation Security Administration, Aviation Security Account (Page 17, Lines 11-20); provides that no funding shall be provided except for items such as air cargo inspectors, canines and screeners until a detailed a detailed air security action plan that includes the criteria outlined in the Bill is submitted to the House Appropriations and Homeland Security Committees. Title II, Transportation Security Administration, Transportation Security Support Account (Page 18, Line 23- Page 19, Line 6); withholds $5 million until the Department of Homeland Security submits a plan for explosive detection systems deployment and spending plan. Title III, Under Secretary for Preparedness (Page 28, Lines 12-17); withholds $4.4 million until the Secretary of Homeland Security submits the final National Preparedness Goal to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Title III, (Page 28, Line 18-Page 31, Line 19); provides that ``notwithstanding any other provision of law,'' grants to State and local governments for terrorism prevention activities shall be allocated as follows: applications for formula-based grants and law enforcement terrorism prevention grants; no less than 80 percent of any formula-based grant and law enforcement terrorism prevention grant awarded to a State shall be made available by the State to local governments within 60 days after the receipt of the funds; discretionary grants for port security shall be limited to $200 million and distributed based on risks and threat; discretionary grants for high-threat, high-density urban areas shall be limited to $750 million; grants under this section shall be made available to states within 45 of the enactment of this act. States shall submit applications within 90 days of the grant announcement; no less than 80 percent of any discretionary grant awarded to a State shall be made available by the State to local governments within 60 days after the receipt of the funds. The Committee Report also directs the Department to guarantee a 0.75 percent ``base'' to States under the State Homeland Security Grant Program and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, thereby eliminating the Department's discretion under the USA PATRIOT Act to provide that guarantee as a ``true minimum.'' Title III, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (Page 32, Line 22-Page 34, Line 1); requires that the methodology for collecting fees under this section be fair and equitable and that such fees should reflect the cost of the collection of such fees. Title III, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (Page 33, Line 18-Line 22); withholds $10 million until the Department of Homeland Security releases the National Infrastructure Protection Plan. Title III, Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (Page 33, Line 22-Page 34, Line 2); withholds $10 million until the Department of Homeland Security has released its national security strategy for the chemical sector report. Title IV, Research and Development, Training and Services, Science and Technology, Management and Administration (Page 41, Lines 15-20); withholds $98 million until the Under Secretary submits a detailed expenditure plan for fiscal year 2007 to the House and Senate Appropriations Committee. Title IV, Research and Development, Training and Services, Science and Technology, Management and Administration (Page 42, Lines 3-9); withholds $400 million until the House Appropriations Committee receives and approves a report prepared by the Under Secretary that describes Science and Technology's progress in areas detailed in the bill. Title IV, Research and Development, Training and Services (Page 42, line 10-Page 43, line 3); provides $500,000,000 for necessary expenses of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, but withholds funds from the Sodium-Iodide Manufacturing Program until DNDO demonstrates that the Advanced Spectroscopic Portals will significantly speed commerce, reduce costs of secondary inspection, or significantly increase sensitivity over current radiation portal monitors. Section 513 (Page 49, Line 17-Page 51, Line 6); withholds funds for Secure Flight until the Secretary certifies that Government Accountability Office has reported on ten CAPPS II points outlined in Sec. 522(a) in P.L. 108-334. Section 518 (Page 52, Line 14-17); directs the Secretary of Homeland Security in consultation with industry stakeholders to develop screening standards and protocols to increase the use of explosive detection equipment to screen air cargo. Section 519 (Page 52, Line 18-Page 53, Line 4); directs the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to use existing explosive detection systems equipment to the greatest extent practicable and to provide quarterly reports on amount of cargo carried on passenger aircraft screened to the House Appropriations Committee. Such reports must be submitted within 45 days of the end of the quarter, each day the reports are late, $100,000 of funding will be withheld from

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

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.