Pete King

Mr. KING of New York

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

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

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

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

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, let me again commend Chairman Thompson for his very high level of cooperation, for the dedication he has shown to this, and again thank Mr. Lungren, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for his efforts in the previous Congress and this Congress, and also the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her efforts. Mr. Chairman, the country was caught unaware on September 11. We could perhaps say that we did not anticipate the ferocity of the attack or the nature of the attack or the nature of our enemy, but we no longer have that excuse. September 11 certainly made us fully aware of how deadly our enemy is. Since then, whether it be intelligence reports or whether it be the attacks in London, Madrid or Mumbai, we realize also that mass transit is a favorite target of Islamic terrorists. So we have no excuses. We have to move forward, and that is what this legislation does. It sets a coordinated national policy toward dealing with attacks on our public transportation system. It coordinates at the national level with the State and local officials what has to be done. It provides a level of training to our transit workers and to our police. As I mentioned before, in New York, as Ms. Clarke knows well, there are more than 5 million riders on our mass transit system every day. As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) mentioned, he and I and a number of other members of the committee last year visited London and we visited Madrid. We saw the extent of the carnage and the destruction that was caused. We full well realize that the next terrorist attack may very well be launched from the suburbs. It could be brought in on a commuter train to our cities. The subway systems themselves, the mass transit systems themselves are extremely vulnerable to attack. We can never be 100 percent secure. We can probably never reach the same level of protection on a subway system or mass transit system, for instance, that we can at our airports. We do a great deal. And that is what this bill does, it moves us forward. It provides levels of protection that we do not currently have. And it is going to be an ongoing work in progress. It is going to be something that requires our continued dedication, our continued effort. It is going to require continued bipartisan effort, bipartisan support. So I look forward to working with the chairman at least for the next 21 months in his role as chairman and, whatever happens after that, continue to work with him. Because this is, again, an issue, it is a threat that goes far beyond any type of partisan divide. It is something that should bring us all together as Americans. There is so much that we have in common where our values and principles are shared, are in common that, as Democrats and Republicans and, most importantly, as Americans, we can work together. This bill goes very far in that direction. Again, I commend the chairman. I commend all of the members of the committee on both sides for their efforts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, first let me tell the gentleman from New Jersey that we miss him on the committee. We miss his charm and his insights and his lively personality and his dedication. With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, let me again thank Chairman Thompson for his efforts and his cooperation and for his generosity as far as moving this bill forward, and I, again, thank him for that. I think it speaks volumes as to the quality of leadership that he has brought to the committee. I would also be remiss if I did not thank staff on our side, Dr. Diane Berry, Colleen O'Keefe and Adam Paulson for their work in bringing this together, and again, bring it to fruition today. Also, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing today is really a very important continuation of what our governments and other governments have been trying to do. Just several weeks ago, the Secretary of Homeland Security signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Israel's minister of public security, again pledging cooperation. This is codifying that and making clear we want to do more; we want to keep going forward on that. Again, I thank the chairman for his support and his cooperation, and I urge the adoption of H.R. 884.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me thank the gentleman from Mississippi, Chairman Thompson, for his cooperation, not just in the previous Congress on putting this legislation together, but also today in his generosity in allowing me to go forward on it. To me, this is typical and symbolic of the bipartisanship which he has brought to the committee both as ranking member and now as chairman. I thank him for that. And more than his personal kindness and generosity, let me also say that it is so vitally important that on issues such as this that there be bipartisan cooperation working across the aisle because all of our lives changed on September 11. All of us realized we had to change the way we did business, whether it was creating the Department of Homeland Security, whether it was creating the law enforcement agencies at all levels of government to cooperate, whether it meant adopting specific legislation on chemical plants or port security, or any of the other areas included within the umbrella of Homeland Security. But it also requires us to establish firmer relationships with our allies, finding areas of common ground among us and our allies, and that is what H.R. 884 will do. H.R. 884 is the Promoting Antiterrorism Cooperation through Technology and Science Act, PACTS. It is an effort by us to have our Department of Homeland Security and our government work with our allies and friends around the world to find common ways to confront terrorism, to use technology to confront terrorism, and it does that initially by establishing the International Cooperation Programs Office within the Science and Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security. It also authorizes $25 million a year in fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. So $25 million for each of the next four fiscal years. It specifies by name Great Britain, Singapore, Israel, Canada, and Australia as countries that we should especially work more closely with to exchange technology and research, and to work together on a common effort at the government level, at the university level, private foundations, to put aside any technical differences that may separate us, to try to work through any legal impediments there may be to the type of cooperation that we believe is absolutely essential. This legislation did pass our committee in the last Congress and passed the House. Unfortunately, it was blocked in the Senate. We certainly hope that under the leadership of Chairman Thompson it will again pass the House this year, and hopefully the Senate will do the right thing this year and we can get this legislation to the President's desk. The war on terrorism will involve many of us for many years. The more allies and partners and friends we can have working with us, the more we can share our expertise and technology that make us stronger and make the enemy weaker. I urge the adoption of H.R. 884 and thank the gentleman from Mississippi for his cooperation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation, and insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 884) to provide for the establishment of the Science and Technology Homeland Security International Cooperative Programs Office, and for other purposes.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling). (Mr. HENSARLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KING of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this resolution and in strong support of our troops and their mission. This resolution is wrong in every respect. It is wrong constitutionally. Never before in our history has Congress attempted to control or restrict battlefield decisions. It is wrong as a matter of policy, and it will come back to haunt us for years to come. Madam Speaker, wars must not be waged according to opinion polls or applause meters. For instance, just look at the battle of Iwo Jima, an island in the Pacific where in less than 6 weeks, more than twice as many Americans were killed as have been killed throughout the entire Iraq war, and yet Congress didn't jump in to question the policies of the President. And look at the Korean War. There was no declaration of war. The United States and the overwhelming majority of coalition troops in the field, 36,000 Americans were killed and another 8,000 were missing. More than 70 percent of the American people opposed President Truman and his handling of the war. Yet today, President Truman is honored as one of our greatest Presidents, and the Korean War is looked upon as a key turning point in our struggle against communism. Madam Speaker, Iraq cannot be looked upon or looked at in a vacuum. This war in Iraq is an absolutely essential component of the war against Islamic terrorism which must be fought in many places throughout the world, including right here at home. As a Member of Congress who lost upwards of 150 friends, neighbors, and constituents on September 11, 2001, I have seen firsthand how evil this enemy can be. And al Qaeda itself has said that Iraq is a major battleground in this war. Madam Speaker, we cannot allow ourselves to do anything which would undermine our troops who are the frontline soldiers in this war against Islamic terrorism. I know that the resolution expresses support for the troops, but talk is cheap and actions have consequences. You cannot support the troops if you are undermining their mission and challenging their commander in the field. And that is what this resolution does. Speaker after speaker in support of the resolution has said that the new policy in Iraq will not work. But General Petraeus, who is the author of this policy and who has just been unanimously confirmed by the Senate, has said this policy can work and that his troops can carry it out. By opposing this new policy, the supporters of the resolution are clearly undermining a new commander in Iraq at such a vital time in the conduct of this war. As the national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars said earlier this week, ``When military decisions are second-guessed by opinion polls or overruled by politicians, it is the common soldier and their families who pay the price. The VFW is very concerned with the tone and timing of this debate. We need to send the message to our troops that America wants them to succeed in Iraq by giving the buildup a chance to succeed.'' Madam Speaker, what makes this worse is that we know today's resolution is only the first step to prevent General Petraeus and his troops from carrying out their mission. The Democratic leadership has admitted, indeed proudly acknowledged, that it is their goal to impose as many conditions as they can to prevent General Petraeus from getting the troops and the reinforcements he needs to win this war. Madam Speaker, never in our history have the Speaker of the House or the House Appropriations Committee attempted to superimpose their policies on troop training or troop leave, and override the Commander in Chief and the commander in the field. Madam Speaker, this is not the time for sunshine soldiers or summertime patriots. It is time for Members of this body to show at least a small percentage of the courage shown every day by our troops in Iraq. If you want to cut off the funding for our troops who will be in the line of fire, don't be cute, don't try to sneak it through the back door. Have the guts to do it directly. Madam Speaker, this debate is not about this President or this Congress or the next election. It is about our survival as a Nation and our survival as a civilization. Vote for our troops and against this misguided and dangerous resolution.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to work with the Speaker on this, and I recognize the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) for 8 minutes.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).