Pete King

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Amazing how the truth hurts. I don't need visual aids to remind me what happened on September 11. I can go to my district office and see a woman working at the front desk who lost two cousins. I can talk to another member of my staff who lost a son, or another member who lost two brothers on that day. I can go to church on Sunday and see 10, 15 families who lost people. This is an issue where every Member on both sides of the aisle is committed to doing the right thing. And it is wrong when people on the other side say the Republicans are not trying to stop another nuclear attack. Do they really believe that? Do they so demean the process of debate in this House that they are willing to do anything to get elected, do anything to make points on evening news, the sound bites, the cable TV? The fact is this bill is a real bill. It does not send a false or misleading hope. It is not a cruel hoax. It does what is real. It does what can be done, and that is why I am so proud of this bill. We adopted amendments by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite, by Mr. Shays. And, by the way, the language in our bill is far similar to the amendment adopted on a bipartisan basis sponsored by a member of the opposition party in the Senate yesterday than anything Mr. Markey or Mr. Nadler have introduced today. So I say, do what is right. Stand for real port security, stand for a really strong America. Vote down the motion to recommit and vote for the underlying bill that will bring about real safe ports in this country and we can all be proud of it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr KING of New York

Mr KING of New York. No, I will not yield. I did not interrupt you.

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset commend Ranking Member Thompson, Chairman Lungren, Ranking Member Sanchez, Ms. Harman for the truly bipartisan job they did in putting this together. Let me also commend our staff, Mandy Bowers, Mark Klaassen, Mike Power, Joe Vealencis, Coley O'Brien, Dr. Diane Berry for working together in a solid way to get a real port security bill. I am proud of how bipartisan this was, right up till a few moments ago. Just this afternoon we adopted nine Democratic amendments on this bill. The reality is, though, this is an outstanding port security bill. I came from a district which lost more than 150 friends, neighbors and constituents on September 11. Unlike Mr. Markey, I don't need visual aids to remind me of what happened on September 11.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), the author of the legislation.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Madam Chairman, I understand what the gentleman from Arizona is attempting to do as far as imposing a sense of fiscal order, but the fact is you know sometimes the price of everything, but the value of nothing. I cannot imagine any potential target in this country which would have more of an economic impact on us than our ports. A nuclear attack in one of our major ports could cost up to $1 trillion in loss to our economy. The gentleman refers to money that has definitely been wasted in certain projects around the country under the rubric of homeland security. The fact is, we passed legislation in this House last year, H.R. 1544, which would base funding on threat and risk analysis. It is that exact same philosophy that applies to this port security bill. It is based on threat and risk. As the gentleman from California said, the Coast Guard estimates it would cost over $5 billion for the targeted ports to receive the proper amount of security which they need. This funds slightly less than half of the amount that is required. There is matching money required from the ports. The fact is we are at war, and we cannot be applying the same green eyeshade philosophy to protecting our National home as we do to other projects. I agree that nothing is worse than having $1 of homeland security funding wasted. That is why we passed the legislation last year, that is why we are passing this port security, this bill, this time this year to ensure that money will go where it is needed; but it is only going to be based for security. It is not going to be wasted, and to me, this is clearly money well spent. It will also save human lives. As someone who comes from a district next to the Port of New York and New Jersey, who saw the thousands of people who were killed on September 11, this is a war we cannot afford to hold back in any way. It is essential we go forward. This money is money which is absolutely necessary; and as the gentlewoman from California said, we are taking away the $176 million, adding this. It is money well spent, and I urge defeat of the amendment.

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the coauthor of the legislation.

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

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

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I would like to raise several points. I want to commend my good friend from New York for offering the amendment. Obviously, more oversight is needed. This amendment serves that purpose. I did have some concerns about the danger of potential national security information being listed. But the language of the amendment does provide an exception on that. There is also some concerns about whether or not this could prove burdensome on some local governments. I just want to work with him to ensure the amendment does not impose unnecessary burdens on State and local governments. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

Mr. KING of New York. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I commend the gentleman from New Hampshire for his proposal. It is something that is needed. It fills a very vital need, and I urge the adoption of his amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition even though I am not opposed.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I rise in support of the gentleman from Connecticut's amendment. The type of technology to which he is referring certainly has extraordinary promise. The measured approach he is proposing here, I believe, is the way we should go forward. I understand the Department of Homeland Security may have some concerns, but the fact is, I think, all of us agree the government does not always have the right answer to a particular problem. I believe that the gentleman from Connecticut should be commended for pushing this matter forward and for using his energies and abilities to bring that about. I know that this technology is said to have limitations, but a thorough operational test by independent evaluators will enable us to look at it much more objectively. So with that, I strongly urge the adoption of the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

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

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Including mobile detection capabilities in the evaluation process is vital and will aid search capabilities. Also, these potentially cheap sensors will allow for more widespread application. This detection equipment will be considered under the same criteria and measured against the same real-world performance criteria before they are deployed. The gentleman's amendment raises responsible questions that must be addressed prior to asking our allies to deploy new inspection equipment or for domestic use. I appreciate this thoughtful addition to the bill offered by the gentleman from Kansas, and I am prepared to accept the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KING of New York. Again, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, at the outset let me thank the gentleman from Texas for introducing this amendment and doing it in such a spirit of bipartisanship. To me, it typifies what this issue should be about: good people from both parties working together to resolve one of the most serious issues facing our country today. I agree that such a study is necessary primarily because of the sharp increase of trade that the United States has experienced through its ports in recent years. All forecasts seem to indicate this trend will continue. While this debate largely focuses on seaports, our land ports play a vital role in our economy. Therefore, a comprehensive strategy is needed to address the challenges of efficient trade and land port security. The balance between trade efficiency and adequate security is central to the future success of the United States economy. I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).

Mr. KING of New York

Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4954.