Pete King

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to recognize for 4 minutes the gentleman from Florida who has done such an outstanding job in a brief time on the committee, Mr. Bilirakis.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, to demonstrate the bipartisanship of the committee, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) for the free advice he just gave me. With that, I recognize the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown- Waite) for 3 minutes.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the majority leader for his kind words. And would just add that this was genuinely bipartisan, and it did increase spending by $2.1 billion more than the President of our party was recommending, and yet we as Republicans did that because we wanted to act in a bipartisan way, which makes the fact that we were shut out of the manager's amendment much more painful. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I recognize myself for as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, at the outset, let me express my deep admiration for Chairman Thompson and for the bipartisan spirit he has shown in his running of the committee, both as chairman and during the previous 2 years as ranking member. This is one committee of the House which I believe functions very affirmatively in a bipartisan manner because, as Chairman Thompson has said, that when the terrorists come, they don't care whether you are Democrat or Republican, they want to kill all of us. That's why I commend him again for the spirit of bipartisanship. It was that spirit of bipartisanship that resulted in H.R. 1684 being passed out of committee by a unanimous 26-0 vote. It was a bipartisan effort, there was hard work on both sides, there was compromise on both sides, innovations on both sides. We came together, I believe, with a very strong package. I am, however, very concerned about the manager's amendment, which is going to be coming up for a vote today, because of the 86 provisions in the bill, 42, 49.8 percent, of the provisions of the bill have either been eliminated or changed dramatically. Some of the key ones on the issue of interoperability, in our legislation, the committee legislation, we provided that $1 billion in grants for interoperability could be used for training exercise, for training as well as for the purchase of hardware. This was demanded, strongly requested by local law enforcement, local law authorities. It is essential to interoperability. Yet that has been stricken from the legislation. On the ``sense of Congress'' language which has been so strongly recommended by the 9/11 Commission, that the Committee on Homeland Security be the focal point for oversight of the Department of Homeland Security and for being the central committee on the issue of homeland security, just the ``sense of Congress'' language was eliminated from the bill. We go down the list, as far as authorization for Secret Service, especially considering the increased amount which will be necessary in this year to protect Presidential candidates. So many other amendments, so much other language, even, for instance, on the issue of employees who leave the Department, lobbying restrictions, which quite honestly was proposed by a Democratic Congressman, Mr. DeFazio, that has been stricken out. Now, I realize what has happened here; I went through this during the time that I was chairman, but I think we approached it a little differently. There are other committees which are objecting to the jurisdiction of Homeland Security. There are others which are defying the wish of the 9/11 Commission, which is to have power vested in the Committee on Homeland Security. And, unfortunately, it appeased it at every juncture where objection was raised; those provisions were taken out. Now, in the last Congress, we adopted the Port Security Bill. That was a long, hard fight. We had jurisdictional battles with other committees; but we stayed with it, and the final package tremendously increased the position of the Committee on Homeland Security and resulted in very strong legislation. On the restructuring of FEMA, that also caused severe conflicts with other committees of jurisdiction. We stayed with it, and the final product enhanced the position of the Committee on Homeland Security. On the issue of chemical plants security, similarly, there were severe conflicts with other committees. We worked with the leadership at the time, Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner, and that resulted also in ultimate legislation which significantly enhanced the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security. By acquiescing so quickly to the objections or the positions of other committees, I think we have weakened our committee. And that to me is not a turf battle or not a power struggle; the issue of life and death is too important for that. But the fact is, we did not stand firm in fighting for jurisdiction of the committee. I know the chairman has mentioned that there was not an authorization bill passed by the House last year. I agree with that. We did pass one out of committee, there was one passed in 2005. The Senate has never passed an authorization bill. I made the judgment last year that we had an opportunity, a window of opportunity to pass significant legislation which could be brought to the House floor, which could be brought to the Senate floor, and which could pass, and that was port security, chemical plants and FEMA restructuring, and we did that. As far as this year now, we do have the H.R. 1, which still has not moved; it hasn't even gone to conference yet, and we have this legislation today, which was a fine product of the committee, but unfortunately, it has been dramatically weakened with, I must say, no input at all from the Republican side. And considering the extent to which Chairman Thompson does reach out at the committee level and there is such a bipartisan level of cooperation at the committee level, I would have hoped that we would have at least had something to say when it went to the Rules Committee when the manager's amendment was being constructed. Instead, this was done totally behind closed doors, totally to the exclusion of any Republican input. Again, perhaps it would be fine if we were an adversarial type committee, but we are not. This is a collegial committee. It is a bipartisan committee, and everything we do, every word of every provision both during the time when Chairman Cox was chairman, when I was chairman and certainly now under Chairman Thompson, it has been bipartisan. I regret that has not been the situation in bringing the legislation before the House today. So I will be later urging a vote against the manager's amendment. But I again want to express my regard for Chairman Thompson, and hope that when this is over, when this is resolved today or tomorrow or whenever the final vote comes, we can go forward from there and work in a bipartisan way at the committee level the way we have done for the last 3\1/2\ years. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, this is the first I have heard. All I heard from leadership staff several minutes ago was that there might be a unanimous consent request. We were not told any of the details of it whatsoever. I have not seen the language that is proposed to be put back in. And, again, regrettably, at this time, I would have to continue reserving the right to object. Again, we had almost 20 minutes in the motion to recommit, and if someone would have shown it to us, we could have looked at it. We have not seen it. I have no idea what the language is.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) for yielding. I thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Matsui) for her kind remarks. And particularly I want to thank Ranking Member Thompson, excuse me, former Ranking Member, current Chairman Thompson for the outstanding job I believe he is doing as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and certainly for the level of bipartisanship which he has demonstrated. Having said that, I have to reluctantly but strongly urge defeat of the rule today. The reason I say that, Mr. Speaker, is that the bill which did pass through the Homeland Security Committee under Chairman Thompson's leadership, passed by a vote of 26-0, was a truly bipartisan effort. There was cooperation from all sides, and we came together to fashion what I believe was a very constructive and significant piece of legislation in an area which obviously is of vital importance to our Nation. The Department of Homeland Security has been in existence now only several years. It is in its fourth year. We are talking about 22 different Departments and agencies, 180,000 employees. And it is making progress, but much more has to be done. And to address it, we have to do it in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, the bill that comes to the floor today has been either stripped or dramatically modified up to 50 percent of the original provisions. And some of these are very significant provisions, probably none more significant than just the sense of Congress, which was so strongly recommended by the 9/11 Commission, saying that the Committee on Homeland Security should be the focal point of legislative activity regarding the Department of Homeland Security, rather than having offices and officials of the Department having to testify before 84 or 86 or 88 various committees and subcommittees of the House. Also, a number of significant provisions in addition to that that were taken out, for instance, an increase in funding for the Secret Service; prohibiting grants to universities that bar Coast Guard recruiters; and, as Mr. Diaz-Balart pointed out, a very significant legislation which, by the way, came from Congressman DeFazio, which would codify the existing lobbying ban on Department of Homeland Security officials to ensure accountability. And we can go down the list of so many, I believe, significant provisions that were taken out. Now, the reason for this, I understand where Chairman Thompson is coming from. There was resistance from other committees. But I believe we should have withstood that resistance. For instance, in the prior Congress when we did pass port security legislation, when we did pass legislation restructuring FEMA, when we did pass legislation involving chemical plant security, we met that same resistance from other committees. But we stood up to it, and we were largely successful. And we did it by working through the leadership to not just back away from these confrontations, but I believe that when we do it so quickly and we do back away, we really weaken the status of the committee. Not that we are looking to build turf, not that it is a power grab, but, again, following the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, if there is one committee which should have primary jurisdiction on homeland security matters, it is the Committee on Homeland Security. Also, there were amendments proposed that were rejected by the Rules Committee: Congressman Dent's amendment on the Automated Targeting System, which was strongly supported by the 9/11 Commission; Congressman Shays' proposed amendment involving cooperation with Interpol, very important, that was also disallowed; Congressman Dave Davis, his amendment to expand the 287(g) program, which would provide funding for local law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws; and Congressman Poe's amendment regarding appropriate procedures for Customs and Border Protection agents. So these are a number of very solid amendments that were disallowed. We come here today with a bill which is really barely half of what it was when it left the committee. So I am strongly urging a ``no'' vote on the rule. In no way is this a reflection on my good friend Chairman Thompson. And after we go through today and maybe even tomorrow, I pledge to him we will continue to work in a bipartisan way. But I really hope that the leadership of the other side would realize the significance of the Committee on Homeland Security and not just give in to various barons throughout the House who are trying to just hold on to their own turf and their own power.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Bob Beckwith on the upcoming celebration of his 75th Birthday on April 16th. Bob personifies the very best of the FDNY and has been a source of strength for so many grieving Americans, whether he was standing with President Bush at Ground Zero just days after September 11th or traveling across the country to raise funds for the New York Firefighters Burn Center Foundation. I wish him all the best and I am proud to call him my friend!

Mr. KING of New York

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

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

Mr. KING of New York. This motion is only dealing with civil cases, which is why they would also be indemnified for their reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.

Mr. KING of New York. If the gentleman will yield, a lawsuit is being commenced and John Does are being named in the complaints, the John Does for the purpose of finding out the identity of those passengers, those good-faith passengers who came forward to report the suspicious activity to make them defendants in the case.

Mr. KING of New York. November 20 was the date of the incident in Minnesota where the passengers on the plane reported suspicious activity to the pilots and to the flight attendants.

Mr. KING of New York. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, all our lives changed on September 11. The government tried to react the best that it could; all levels of government have tried to come forward. But one of the most important things we have done is ask our local citizens, to ask the average person to do what they can to avoid a terrorist attack. We have asked them, for instance, there are signs at trains and subways and means of transportation all over the country which say, if you see something, say something. Yet we saw the incident this past November in Minnesota where passengers on a US Airways flight reported what they saw as suspicious activity. That resulted in six imams being removed from the plane. Now, that is a matter that is going to be in litigation between US Airways and those six imams. But what is absolutely disgraceful is to find out that lawyers are coming forward and advocacy groups are coming forward to represent those imams and suing, attempting to find the identity of those passengers, those citizens who acted in good faith, who responded to their government and reported what they deemed to be suspicious activity. Madam Speaker, that is absolutely disgraceful. What this motion to recommit would do would be to provide immunity for any citizen, any individual that comes forward and reports suspicious activity in good faith. If they do, they will be indemnified. This is the very least we can do, to stand by good people who come forward and report suspicious activity. I mean, just think if we had citizens who had seen what was happening on September 11, who saw people sitting not in their assigned seats, who had seen them being disruptive, who had seen them asking for extended seatbelts when they didn't need them and yet, somehow, those people didn't come forward because they were afraid of being sued. If we are going to be serious, as a Nation, about fighting Islamic terrorism, then we have to stand by our people who come forward and report suspicious activity. So I think it is absolutely essential that this motion to recommit be passed. I can't imagine anyone being opposed to it. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) who has been a true leader on this issue.

Mr. KING of New York. I am, Madam Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, let me just make two points. There is nobody on our committee who is more dedicated to this issue than Mr. Rogers. There is also no one in the Congress who I know that is more dedicated to contracting out than Mr. Rogers, his dedication on this issue and the fact that we have to realize that it is more important to know the value of something rather than just the price. The fact is, this is a situation where both the price and the value call for us to go forward with this program. This is an issue of Homeland Security. We can trivialize it. We can have some fun with it. But the fact is it is a very, very important issue. So I ask for defeat of the amendment.

Mr. KING of New York. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman from New York, I commend him for his amendment and I appreciate his concerns. My only thought is that these seem to be primarily safety concerns, as opposed to security, and there are already so many reporting requirements on the Department of Homeland Security that I am reluctant to request another report from the Department of Homeland Security. Having said that, as this legislation goes forward, I would just ask the gentleman to work with us as it goes to conference in the event that after speaking with the Secretary and the Department that they do consider this a burden and perhaps refine it. With that, I have no objection to it. I just would ask the gentleman if he would work with us as the process goes forward.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would claim the time in opposition, even though I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute; and I reluctantly oppose the manager's amendment. The first basic reason is, when the original legislation was passed out of our committee, we would have had funding going directly to police agencies, the police departments who actually do security work. Now the money will have to go through the carriers, and the police will have to seek reimbursement from them. This is an added level of bureaucracy we don't need. It will impede a well-coordinated and structured security response. For that reason alone, I have to oppose it. Also, by having a bifurcated rent distribution system between DOT and DHS, to me this goes against the letter and the spirit of the 9/11 Commission. For those basic reasons, I reluctantly oppose the manager's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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