Pete King

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Could I inquire of the gentleman from Mississippi how many speakers he has remaining.

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

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first of all thank the gentleman from Michigan for his undying affection that he shows for me so often, especially tonight. It really warms my heart, and I want to thank him especially for it. I would, however, just like to touch on a few things. First of all, this is the SAFE Port Act. I have listened as carefully as I possibly can. I have listened; I have asked Mr. Lungren to listen; I have asked staff to listen. I have not heard even one remote criticism of the port security aspects of this bill. This is a port security bill. We had staff negotiations going on day after day after day. Now, the gentleman from Michigan raised the question of last night. Let us explain this right now. It was explained before. We will try again. The fact is last night there was no legislative text incorporating the staff recommendations. The Senate assured us they would provide it. The Senate did not have it last night. The Senate refused to provide it. The first we saw it was 3 o'clock this afternoon. What is going on in the Senate is up to them, but that is where the final text was. Now, if the gentleman is saying that when they came back in at 3 o'clock this afternoon, rather than take advantage of a bill which has been worked on for 6 months, which has gone through subcommittee, which has gone through committee and which has gone through the House floor, which was worked out so carefully with Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman and Senator Murray, which had strong bipartisan support, that because of the fact that the Senate language was not over here in time for the gentleman from Michigan, that we should put that aside, and taking the risk of not taking advantage of this moment, of not seizing the moment and passing this historic legislation to save our Nation, I have heard of people who cannot take ``yes'' for an answer. We said last March, let us put together a port security bill. We did it. We put together a good bill and all we get tonight is begrudgery. Well, it is good, it is this, it is that, but it is not good enough because it does not cover rail, it does not cover transit or it does not cover this. Also, as the gentleman from California reminded me, it does not contain the cure for cancer either. But the fact is it is a very good port security bill. As the gentlewoman from California said, it is the real deal. If you want to turn your back on the real deal, if you want to vote and say I really wanted something else, this is not good enough for me, the real deal should be good enough for me. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would add that, again, I have been listening and listening, and there is no criticism at all of the port security. And again, rather than to take yes for an answer, we are talking about going around our committee process. The fact is, one of the reasons this bill is so good is because it was at the subcommittee level, the committee level, and then it went to the floor. This was a long process on the port security aspect of it. Rather than just accept something coming over from the Senate at the last minute, I have enough respect for the integrity of the process of our committee that I want to replicate that when we are dealing with transit and when we are dealing with rail and working, of course, with Mr. Young. I don't want to get him nervous while he is sitting here. But it is essential that we do do it in a deliberative process. Again, it is beyond me why, after a 6-month process where there was such bipartisanship, such working together, both here and in the Senate, that the begrudgers of the world have arrived on the floor tonight and all they can say is there is something here that is good, though they are afraid to acknowledge it, and then they talk about something which was never part of our bill to begin with. We dedicated ourselves to port security, and we got it done. We should be proud of that. And, again, there is a special place in life for begrudgers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his kind remarks about the bill, and I especially want to tell him how much it means to me that he commented on my great Irish singing voice as I was delivering my oration tonight. So, Mr. Pascrell, you are a man of great ethnic perspicacity and my admiration for you is unbounded. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. KING of New York. First of all, I am not responsible for the germaneness rules in the Senate. Secondly, this is the bill that came back to us from the Senate.

Mr. KING of New York. I would just add, if the gentlewoman will yield, this is the bill that came back to us from the Senate, and I would remind the gentlewoman that unlike the transit and rail provisions, which never passed this House, the Internet gambling bill legislation did pass this House by a vote of 317-93. There was at least some nexus which was lacking with the others.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I was just trying to answer the gentlewoman's question. She thought I was giving her a break.

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

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

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct. But let me say at the outset that I commend the gentleman from Mississippi for the cooperation he has given throughout this legislative process. I want to commend Ms. Harman, Ms. Sanchez, and certainly Mr. Lungren, who are the prime movers of this legislation at the subcommittee and committee level. Several points have to be made. The first is port security bill is completed. None of the items referenced by the gentleman from Mississippi relate to port security. Port security matters have been resolved. Among other things, the port security legislation will provide $400 million in grants for U.S. ports. It requires scanning of all containers coming to the U.S. for radiation at the Nation's 22 top ports, which covers 98 percent of containers entering the United States. It sets a firm timetable for implementing the Transportation Worker Identification Card, TWIC, and requires a pilot program to scan 100 percent of cargo at three foreign seaports. Using the results of this pilot, the bill requires a widespread implementation. Mr. Speaker, many of the items or a number of the items referenced in the motion to instruct, taken by themselves, many Members on this side, including myself, would agree to. Also, for instance, with reference to title 6 in the National Alert System, we have reached agreement on that, and that will be included in the final legislation. On matters such as 1103, that is redundant in certain respects with the FEMA reforms which have been already approved by the conference committee and are included in the Homeland Security appropriations bill. There are other matters such as section 1104, which I strongly support and I am still hoping can be included in the final package. We are working toward that, and we are negotiating. There are other items also that are still on the table and we are trying to find accord on. Having said that, I think it is important to note, for instance, with the transportation provisions that they even added on to the port security bill and yet in some cases they can be redundant. It should be noted, for instance, that through the transit security grant we have provided $375 million to the country's rail, mass transit, ferry, and inner city bus systems across the country and this year voted to appropriate $200 million in grants specifically targeting mass transit agencies. Since 9/11, we granted more than $11 billion, $11.5 billion, in homeland security assistance. Much of this has gone to transit. The point is, Mr. Speaker, if there were more time, there are a number of these items which I could support, I know many members of the committee on our side could support, but we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. We have a port security bill. Those of us who went through the trauma of Dubai Ports know the way the country came to a fevered pitch, and rightly so, over the issue of our Nation's security. We have addressed that. We passed legislation on this floor by a vote of 421-2, legislation that was worked on at a tremendous pace by Mr. Lungren, Ms. Harman, Ms. Sanchez. That went through. It was a truly bipartisan effort. We have now reached the one-half yard line on that legislation. Let us not allow other issues, as important as they may be, to stop us from getting across the goal line with port security, comprehensive port security legislation which the American people have asked for. They demand it. We have satisfied that request. This is excellent legislation. It is bipartisan legislation. We should be all proud of it. Let us not allow other issues to impede that, especially when a number of those issues I believe still can be resolved. But we don't want to, again, put the final product in jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I will just make several remarks before I reserve the balance of my time. With reference to the gentleman from Massachusetts, unfortunately nothing he said in his statement relates to the motion to instruct. If he had read our bill and read the motion to instruct, he would know that nothing he said was germane to the motion to instruct. Secondly, as to the issue of bipartisanship and 100 percent screening, I would also advise the gentleman that the language that is adopted in the SAFE Ports Act which is going to conference was the language proposed by Democrats in the Senate which provides for three pilot projects of 100 percent screening at three foreign ports. So we are adopting Democratic language. We had one in ours, and they had three in theirs. We are accepting the three. To me that is the essence of bipartisanship. With that, I would have to dismiss the comments of the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

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

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

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close on our side very briefly. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the motion to instruct. I strongly support the underlying bill. The bottom line is we are in full agreement on a port security bill and that is what this is all about. It is a port security bill which would provide $400 million in port security grants. It sets up a risk- based formula for those grants. It establishes a domestic nuclear detection office. It sets up three pilot projects overseas with 100 percent scanning. It is a bipartisan bill. The underlying bill passed this House by a vote of 421-2. We have carried it this far. Let us not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I respect the gentleman. I respect his motion. But at this stage I say let us go on to the conference. Let us do what has to be done. Let us put an end to the entire crisis which resulted out of the Dubai Ports issue. Let us show the American people we can get the job done. Let us finish it. Let us go to conference. With that I urge defeat of the motion. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4954) to improve maritime and cargo security through advanced layered defenses, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. KING of New York

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

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4942) to establish a capability and office to promote cooperation between entities of the United States and its allies in the global war on terrorism for the purpose of engaging in cooperative endeavors focused on the research, development, and commercialization of high-priority technologies intended to detect, prevent, respond to, recover from, and mitigate against acts of terrorism and other high consequence events and to address the homeland security needs of Federal, State, and local governments, as amended.

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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise in support of H.R. 4942. This is really legislation whose time has come. Let me at the very outset commend Ranking Member Thompson, Chairman Reichert of the Emergency Preparedness Subcommittee, and my good friend from New Jersey, Mr. Pascrell, for their tremendous cooperation and leadership on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a battle for survival. There is a war against international terrorism. It is a war in which we must know who our allies are, who our friends are. We have to know those who will stand with us through the tough times. We must know those who are willing to work with us and take risks with us. The purpose of H.R. 4942 is to codify the right to assist in the sharing and developing of technologies, sharing of technologies between and among countries who share common values and who are dedicated to defeating international terrorism. This legislation refers to certain specific allies in the global war on terrorism, such as Israel, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Singapore. They have extensive experience with and technical expertise in homeland security, and we can benefit from them and they can benefit from us. Really, the time has come for us to break down artificial barriers, artificial walls, and use the commonality of our cultures, of our traditions, of our beliefs, and use the benefit of our technological expertise to form a common bond as we go forward to defeat international terrorism. This bill has a wide variety of support, as I believe it should. It is an aggressive step forward. It is a commonsense step forward. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, let me just concur in what the gentleman from New Jersey said about the bipartisan cooperation; and I want to especially thank him and the ranking member for the tremendous cooperation he gave us on this legislation. I yield as much time as he may consume to the author of the legislation, the Chairman of the Emergency Preparedness Subcommittee, Sheriff Reichert from the State of Washington.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we stated, H.R. 4942 will enable us to work with certain allies, Israel, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Singapore, to engage with them in cooperative endeavors, focus on research, development, the commercialization of high-priority technologies, and enable us to prevent acts of terrorism and address the homeland security needs of Federal, State and local governments. The gentleman from New Jersey referenced the $25 million for each of the fiscal years from 2007 to 2010. That money is to be matched in each instance by the foreign partner organizations who participate in this international cooperative activity. This is very significant legislation. It is very vital. I would certainly urge the passage of the bill. But before I yield back my time, I would like to include for the Record letters exchanged between the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Science regarding jurisdiction over H.R. 4942. I certainly thank the Science Committee and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for their input on this bill and thank my colleagues for their bipartisan support. House of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC, September 22, 2006. Hon. Sherwood Boehlert, Chairman, Committee on Science, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter expressing the Science Committee's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 4942, the ``Promoting Antiterrorism Capabilities Through International Cooperation Act.'' The Committee on Homeland Security acknowledges your claim to jurisdiction over provisions contained in this bill, as amended, and appreciates your agreement not to request a sequential referral. The Committee on Homeland Security understands that nothing in this legislation or your 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 our response will be included in the Committee report and in the Congressional Record when the bill is considered on the House Floor. The Committee on Homeland Security will also support your request to be conferees during any House-Senate conference on this legislation. Thank you for your cooperation as we work towards the enactment of H.R. 4942. Sincerely, Peter T. King, Chairman.