Pete King

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Florida. I support his amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume, and I would say at the outset that my understanding is that this is already factored in by the Department of Homeland Security, the whole issue of tourism. Also, similar language is included in H.R. 1 and S. 4 which currently are ready to go to conference. Having said that, no harm, no foul. I have no objection to the language. I think it is unnecessary, but having said that, I will not oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Castle, and all of the others in the House who support this amendment. Because 9/11 changed our lives in many ways, but one of the most dramatic ways is that it made our first responders and our volunteer firefighters front-line warriors in the war against Islamic terrorism. That is why it is essential that they receive the same protections as our warriors fighting overseas. They are at the front line and deserve our support. I am proud to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, can you tell us the current status of the Committee of the Whole, what is being considered at this time?

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KING of New York. I recognize myself for as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I understand the chairman's dilemma. The bottom line is we did pass a very strong bill out of committee. And let's just again delineate some of those provisions which were unanimously agreed to and have been agreed to: Language on maritime alien smuggling; language which would have monitored the activities of foreign students and visitors; biometric identification of illegal aliens; expanding the use of interoperability grants, which is so much needed by our local law enforcement and first responders; authorizing the Secret Service and its functions; increasing the authorizations of the Secret Service to provide security to Presidential candidates; prohibiting grants to universities which bar Coast Guard recruiters. It eliminated a report on Secret Service training facilities. And, as Mr. McCaul said before, it eliminated the provision providing for a National Bio and Agro Defense facility. Also, more significantly, if we go to the heart of the 9/11 Commission, it eliminated the language calling for a sense of Congress that the homeland security be in fact the focal point and the central point when it comes to legislation on homeland security and also when it comes to overseeing the Department of Homeland Security. Now the chairman has gone back in history to talk about what happened in the past. The fact is, this is a growing committee, and we all have to make decisions. We have to make value-based decisions. We have to make prudent decisions. I was the chairman last year; and I did not go for an authorization bill early on in the year because I thought it was important, in establishing the jurisdiction of the committee, that we go forward and adopt the most far-reaching port security bill ever enacted and, in doing so, confronting jurisdictional impediments thrown at us by other committees. We did that. It was a long, hard fight. It began early spring and wasn't concluded until September, but we did conclude it. And not only did we enact solid legislation, but, as importantly, we were able to establish our jurisdiction at the expense of competing committees. And I say that not as part of a turf battle, but if we are going to have real homeland security, we have to have a real Homeland Security Committee. Similarly, when it came to restructuring FEMA, which was a mammoth fight here in the Congress last year, we stood strong through May and June and July and into September; and when the final product came out, it again enhanced the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security Committee. Also, on the issue of chemical plant security, we fought hard on that. We fought hard for our language, and we got it in. It was part of the omnibus appropriation, and that language again established the Committee on Homeland Security as the primary committee on that issue. So these were all solid steps forward made by the committee. Now, I understand the chairman's dilemma. I am not here to take cheap shots. I realize how tough this can be. But my point is, when we had such a solid vote, a unanimous vote coming out of committee, I think more should have been done in resisting the efforts of the other chairmen and of the Democratic leadership to strip so many of the provisions. Almost half of the provisions have been stripped out altogether or dramatically modified. So I do see this, unfortunately, as a step backwards. Certainly not a step forward. I realize the significance of getting the authorization bill done. I am not trying to minimize that. But the fact is, considering the progress we made last year in such significant areas as port security, chemical plant security and the restructuring of FEMA, we could have done better on this authorization bill this year. Again, I will have to urge a ``no'' vote on this manager's amendment because of the damage which I believe it does to the Committee on Homeland Security. And also, Mr. Chairman, to send a signal, not to Chairman Thompson but to the leadership of the House, that we did come forward on our side. We were willing to stand up to the administration and increase spending by over $2 billion more than the administration requests and wants. We did that unanimously on the Republican side. We also again worked with Chairman Thompson on the language that he wanted. He worked with us. So we did make that effort at the committee level. I just wish the same level of bipartisan cooperation was shown at the leadership level of the House of Representatives rather than having the minority excluded altogether, which was never done at the committee level, either under myself or now under Chairman Thompson. Mr. Chairman, with that, I will rest on the eloquence of my previous remarks and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the manager's amendment.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, as we leave general debate and begin to debate the amendments, I would again say I commend the gentleman from Mississippi, the chairman, for the bill that was put forth in the committee which came out of the committee. I am, again, disappointed by the product that came here today. I understand the realities of politics and the realities of governing, but I just wish we could have made more of an effort to move the committee product further along, rather than make the concessions that were made. There are just so many important matters that were either dramatically revised or eliminated, which weakens the thrust of where we're going. We will be debating amendments for the next several hours. The debate will be in good faith, just as our efforts on the committee are in good faith, but I just wish the leadership of the House would do more to improve and to enhance and to further the position of the Homeland Security Committee so we can do the job that we have been chartered to do and we can do the job the 9/11 Commission wants us to do, to do the job that the 9/11 families want us to do, and do the job that the memory of those who were murdered on 9/11 really command that we do. With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the upcoming debate. I am disappointed in the product that is before us. Having said that, I remain enthusiastic about the job that we as a committee can do under the chairmanship of Chairman Thompson and with the strong cooperation from the minority on the committee. Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida for her amendment and urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, regrettably, not being told in advance, I would have to object to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.