Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of this resolution. Over a quarter of a century ago when I served in my first term during my first period of service in Congress, I remember making a very difficult phone call. That phone call was to the parents of a young man in uniform who had died in our failed attempt in the desert to attempt to rescue our hostages in Iran. I recall the feeling of helplessness we had at that moment, not understanding what we were doing, not having a strategy as to how we respond to what was, very simply put, a terrorist attack. I recall being awakened one morning to learn that we had suffered the loss of our marines in Beirut. I recall the attack on the USS Cole. And then, of course, I recall with all of us the terrible tragedy of 9/11. Say what you will about the President's policies and say what you will about the imperfections involved, the fact of the matter is since 9/11 this President, this administration, has embarked on a strategy that says we will not wait to be attacked. We will not wait to respond exactly where they attacked us. We will change the rules of the game, and we will decide where and when we will attack. We understand that this is a global war on terror. Those who suggest that the war in Iraq is not essential to our defense in the war on terror should only listen to the words of Mr. Zarqawi and the correspondence that he had last October where he suggested one of the very first objectives of al Qaeda was to make sure we were defeated in Iraq. We should understand that we have done great things in response to this, on a bipartisan basis. We have given the President the tools to use, the PATRIOT Act, intelligence gathering that he did not have the capacity for before. And let me just mention a number of plots that have been deterred. The West coast airliner plot in mid-2002. The U.S. disrupted a plot to attack targets on the West coast of United States using hijacked airplanes. The East Coast airliner plot in mid-2003, The Jose Padilla plot to blow up apartment buildings in the United States in May of 2002. The 2004 U.K. urban targets plot where the U.S. and partners disrupted a plot that involved urban targets in the United Kingdom. The 2003 Karachi plot. The Heathrow Airport plot in 2003. The 2004 U.K. plot. The 2002 Arabian Gulf shipping plot. The 2002 Straits of Hormuz plot, The 2003 tourist site plot where the U.S. and a partner nation disrupted a plot to attack a tourist site outside the United States. We are making progress precisely because we are playing away games, not home games. Let's not forget that as we debate this important resolution.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. It has been my privilege during my lifetime to have three heroes living at the time that I was able to benefit from their example. They are my father, President Ronald Reagan and Henry Hyde. As the gentlelady knows, I served in the Congress for 10 years from 1979 to 1989, where I had the privilege of serving on the Judiciary Committee with Henry Hyde all those 10 years. I served on the subcommittee dealing with civil rights with him, and if it had not been for Henry Hyde we would not have had the extension of the Voting Rights Act of the early 1980s. We had hearings all around the country. It may sound strange today, but at that time there was a question of whether or not that would be extended. It was Henry Hyde who going around the country on field hearings who finally made a statement that he had seen the parade of horribles. He had seen that there was still a need to have this extraordinary law extended. Had it not been for Henry Hyde, the Voting Rights Act would not have been extended. He has never gotten the credit for that. Henry Hyde is a gentle man; a large man, but a gentle man; someone who can argue on the floor of the House vociferously, but when it is over, he goes over and punches you in the arm and tells you a joke; a man who has all the dignity you would look for in a statesman; a man who has the intellect which we can all admire; a man who, when former Governor Cuomo made a well covered speech at the University of Notre Dame talking about the responsibility of a Catholic man or a Catholic woman in politics, Henry Hyde had a slightly different take. So he then, a month later, spoke on the campus of the University of Notre Dame and gave his version. It was one of the most compelling speeches I have ever heard, telling that someone can be a man of faith and a man of the House, a man or woman of faith or a man or woman of the House. He was so eloquent in the way he argued. There was in this House a stillness that came upon this floor when Henry Hyde would get up to speak. Democrat and Republican and independent alike would stand at attention or sit at attention when Henry Hyde came and spoke. It was a capstone of the argument to see Henry Hyde present himself. I am pleased that at one time I was able to have Henry Hyde in my home community to speak to people on the very, very important issue of life. He always did it with a forthrightness, with a concern for the sensitivity of the subject, but always, always so grounded in the principles. One time I asked Henry about whether he ever got tired of dealing with the life issue. He said, ``You know, sometimes I do. You get all this criticism, you get all of this attention that you don't want.'' And he said then, ``But as you get older, you think of that day in the future where, if hopefully you get to heaven, all those unborn children are there to greet you to say thank you for what you have done.'' That is Henry Hyde. It is from the heart. It is from the head, because he has got a great intellect, but it is from the heart, because he truly believes it. If there is one person that I admire most in this House, if there is one person who is the embodiment of all that is good in this House, if there is one person that compelled me to return to the Congress, it is Henry Hyde; a friend, a statesman, a leader, a man of courage, someone who has fought his whole life for what is good and right about America, and someone I am happy to call a friend; but, more than that, someone I am happy to call a leader in this House, who has stood for everything great about this country. This is a man who has dedicated himself to this country; a man who dedicated himself to his family; a man who dedicated himself to the principles that we all espouse. But he lived those principles as much as anybody I have ever met. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, Memorial Day weekend offers many Americans the opportunity to spend much needed time with friends and family, as well as a break from the routine and hustle and bustle of everyday life. This weekend, as we gather for cookouts, take advantage of holiday sales and welcome the arrival of summer, we should refocus our attention and recognize the day's true purpose. This is a national day of thanks, remembrance, and tribute. Thanks for the gift of safety offered by our Nation's veterans. Remembrance for those who have fought and died for our freedom. And tribute to the men and women whose service in our armed forces has secured America's future. Set aside as a yearly reminder to be proud of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who have accepted our security as their duty, Memorial Day is a unique celebration of both life and death. Recognized by all Americans, regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity, Memorial Day is a national holiday dedicated to celebrating the lives of our fallen soldiers by honoring their memory. Throughout our history, we have met and overcome each threat to our sovereignty and way of life with dignity. While our forces overseas and at home are engaged in a Global War on Terror, this Memorial Day is all made the more poignant by the nature of our enemy. Islamo-fascists committed to the destruction of our Nation and our way of life should clearly remind all Americans that it is our solemn duty to honor the brave men and women in uniform who are fighting to secure the future of American generations. Through their sacrifice, Americans yet unborn will know greater peace, prosperity, and hope. Giving what President Lincoln called the last full measure of devotion, the sacrifice of America's armed forces has secured more than two centuries of liberty. Today, we honor those who have given their lives so our freedom could endure. Our commitment to the men and women of our Armed Forces should reflect their dedication to us all.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 536, page 62, lines 1 through 17. This provision violates House rule XXI, clause 2, which prohibits legislation in a general appropriations bill. Section 536 requires the Department of Homeland Security to issue security requirements for chemical facilities that the Department deems highest risk within 6 months of enactment of the bill. This constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and is therefore in violation of clause 2, rule XXI. The Committee on Homeland Security is actively engaged in developing comprehensive legislation to address the issue of chemical site security, and section 536 would undermine the committee's efforts to provide commonsense risk-based solutions to the problem.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 536.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, in assessing the effectiveness of immigration policy, it is helpful to look at both the push factors and the pull factors which contribute to the phenomenon of illegal immigration. In assessing the push factors, we must not overlook the role of the government of Mexico. On a human level, it is a sad fact that people are motivated to make what is often a dangerous trek north to the United States because of the absence of economic opportunity in Mexico itself. Yet this flow of illegal immigration into the United States acts as a pressure relief valve by allowing the Mexican government to escape political accountability to those it has failed. Ironically, the Mexican government's laissez fare attitude towards immigration out of Mexico is not reflected in its policy concerning its own southern border. When you hear the President of Mexico or other Mexican politicians rail against the House-passed border control bill, please keep in mind that when it comes to their own border policies, all of the rhetoric concerning the right to migration is suddenly nowhere to be found. In the end, the Mexican government's policy will prove to be shortsighted and will ultimately cause serious damage to their own country. Imagine the long-term effects of a nation losing millions of its hardest working younger people. The future of Mexico is sending its government a clear and unmistakable message of adios as they vote with their feet. Furthermore, when one factors Mexico's demographic future into the equation, a dire picture emerges. According to an article by Philip Longman in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs, ``Mexican fertility rates have dropped so dramatically, the country is now aging five times faster than is the United States. It took 50 years for the American median age to rise just five years, from 30 to 35. By contrast, between 2000 and 2050, Mexico's median age, according to U.N. projections, will increase by 20 years, leaving half the population over 42. Meanwhile, the median American age in the year 2050 is expected to be 39.7.'' Thus, ultimately illegal immigration from Mexico into the U.S. is not good for either Mexico or the United States. According to the Associated Press, President Fox has characterized the House immigration bill as, quote, stupid. To his credit, the same AP story quoted President Fox as acknowledging that his government must ``generate opportunities here in Mexico.'' However, it is the responsibility of the United States Government to control our own borders and to take action to reduce the pull factors which draw people to the United States. We must demagnetize the attraction of illegal employment in the U.S. Unfortunately, our track record here reflects a failure of government policy on our side of the border. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, IRCA, or Simpson- Mazzoli, for the first time imposed sanctions on employers for the hiring of those ineligible to work in the United States. Yet since the passage of that bill, administrations of both political parties have failed to enforce the law. The fact that there were only three cases last year, three, of a notice to file a prosecution for the unlawful hiring of illegal aliens is utterly indefensible. There must be a will to enforce the law. I wish to recount what in retrospect was the death knell to an effective regime of employer sanctions. An amendment to Simpson-Mazzoli was accepted which completely undermined the employment verification system. In its place, a series of documents required to be submitted with the I-9 employment eligibility verification form was substituted. The end result was the creation of a new cottage industry for the production of false documentation. I would like to emphasize once again that it was the negation of an effective employer verification system, which in combination with the lack of enforcement, undermined the usefulness of employer sanctions as an immigration enforcement tool. It was for this reason that the basic pilot project was created in 1996 by this Congress. The system allows employers to voluntarily check the names and Social Security numbers of its employees against the records maintained by the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. Building on this project, H.R. 4437, the House-passed bill, would create a nationwide mandatory program. Unlike the watered-down language in the 1986 bill, the employment verification provisions in the House-passed bill offers a genuine prospect for effective employer sanctions necessary to demagnetize the attraction of unlawful employment in the U.S. An effective employer sanctions regime, coupled with the need to fully fund the additional 2,000 Border Patrol positions authorized this year and in the out years, is essential if we are going to control illegal immigration. At the same time if we are to maximize the cooperation of employers with the implementation of an effective system of employer sanctions, it is necessary to ensure that in those cases where U.S. workers are unavailable, employers have the option of employing temporary foreign workers. Let me suggest that regulating the stream of workers which have crossed back and forth our southern border since the 1870s will facilitate the job of a larger Border Patrol and the implementation of an effective system of employer sanctions. By definition however, in a temporary worker program, the workers should be temporary. Along the lines of an amendment I offered unsuccessfully in 1986, workers could work in the United States for up to 10 months of the year. During that time a portion of their wages could be withheld. The money would be placed in an escrow account and would only be returned to the workers upon their return to their home country--in most cases--Mexico. The proposal has a built in incentive for the temporary workers to return home to work their own small farms and to reunite with their families. In fact, Mexico and Canada have entered into a temporary agricultural worker program along these lines, which by all accounts has operated quite successfully. Finally, we cannot avoid the issue of what we will do with those who have entered our country illegally and have settled in our communities. I certainly do not favor an amnesty. But the use of the word ``amnesty'' does not excuse anyone on this side of the argument from explaining exactly what they propose to do with as many as 11 million people. By the same token, those who have violated our laws should not be allowed to cut in line in front of those who have obeyed them. A middle ground solution would allow those undocumented persons with sufficient equities in our society to remain. They could continue to work and travel back and forth between the United States and their home country. They would be legal residents, ``blue card'' holders if you will. However, they would not be afforded the legal equivalent of a diamond lane to citizenship. If they wish to become citizens, they would be required to return home, file an application and get in line like everyone else. Such requirements are necessary to reassure Americans who have been turned off by the ideologically driven multicultural agenda of those groups promoting identification with the Mexican flag, an alternative national anthem, and celebration of May Day in solidarity with leftist Mexican trade unions. It is hard for me to conceive of anything which could do more damage to the case one might make on behalf of those who demand acceptance by us to be equal partners in our society. For the common element of all immigrants who have come to this land has been a deep and burning desire to become Americans. The welcome mat extended to previous generations of immigrants was predicated upon a commitment to a common patrimony. Nothing less should be expected of those who currently seek to become a part of the tapestry of a larger tradition and history of American immigration.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I seek to obtain the time in opposition.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I came to this body with many of you to make sure that we did what was necessary to protect our constituents. I brought this bill to the floor, through the subcommittee, committee and to the floor with that promise in mind. This is not, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, a Republican bill. This is, in fact, a bipartisan bill. Eighty cosponsors. Passed our committee 29-0. There is a dispute with respect to this particular technology, and I might just refer you to the National Journal of this last week talking about this very issue. It said, nice idea, but not very feasible with current technology. Eleven million containers are shipped to the U.S. ports each year. Of those, U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel physically screen, that means inspect, only about 6 percent, or 660,000. It is a noble impulse, but, as a practical matter, it can't be accomplished right now, said Jack Riley, Homeland Security expert with Rand. The key to being able to carry this out in the future is better equipment that scans faster. That is what our bill does. It asks us to accelerate our investigation into new technology. It mandates that the Secretary, if, in fact, he finds that to be usable, practical, adaptable, that he then negotiate with foreign countries to immediately put it into place and, if they refuse, gives our President and our Secretary the right to refuse to allow their cargo into the United States. We don't put a time limit on it. We said as soon as it is feasible to do it. So as a great political philosopher, Don Meredith, once said, ``If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas.'' We don't bring you a hope that cannot be fulfilled. We bring you a promise that can be fulfilled in this bill. Please vote down this motion to recommit.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Chairman, again I would suggest that it is important for us to retain the program as it exists, for the Department to retain the discretion reward a small benefit to the Tier 1 members by reducing their ATS score. They do not move to the head of the line; they get to move up just a little bit. It is an encouragement to participate in the program. The only way I can help the gentlewoman by suggesting that penalties do work is to suggest that deterrence does work. It is recognized in just about every other aspect of our lives, including the criminal justice system; and I don't know why she does not believe it will not work here. As a matter of fact, in response to the GAO report that she referred to, the Department did reduce the amount of the ATS score reduction for Tier 1 members, so they have responded to some concerns that they were moving too far up the line. Not in front of the line, but too far up the line. They get a small, small benefit at the present time. It is an incentive to participate in a voluntary program, which ultimately gives us more information, has more people working with greater security than they had before, and it helps us our a multi-layered approach.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Chairman, I just say in response to the gentleman from Arizona, we have taken into consideration concerns that he has expressed. We have implemented in this bill an at-risk, that is a risk-based, assessment for grant programs. Not everybody gets something. Secondly, I would assure the gentleman that Apache Junction will not get a grant under this program, nor any landlocked city in Kentucky. This is a port bill. The third thing I would say is this is based on the assessment by the Coast Guard of what is necessary for the capital investment improvements from a security standpoint for all the ports in the United States. As a matter of fact, we only provide funds for half of the amount that has been identified by the Coast Guard. This is not one of those grant programs that lasts forever. We have a 6-year sunset on this, and we have a specified revenue stream in this bill to take care of it. So I would suggest that we have looked at the complaints that the gentleman has, but this is a particular area of national security.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, with all due respect, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Ms. Sanchez and I have worked together on this bill. We have reached accommodations on a number of different issues. We support the idea of the C-TPAT program. I certainly support her efforts to try and strengthen the C-TPAT program. I certainly have supported and incorporated in my bill the recommendation on her part that we allow for third-party validators so that we can get the manpower necessary to do the validations that are necessary in this program. However, I do oppose her amendment because I think it would cut down on the participation in this program. One must understand that the C-TPAT program, Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program, is one that leverages industry cooperation to increase the security of the global supply chain. It has three tiers: tier 1 being the lowest, tier 3 being the highest. The gentlewoman suggests that any benefits that are recognized under tier 1 to someone who has begun to participate in the program is unnecessary and somehow undercuts the credibility of the program. I would suggest that that is not true. The conditions for obtaining the C-TPAT tier 1 status include that prior to an importer being certified, the importer must complete a comprehensive self-assessment of their current security practices, gauged against the clearly defined and published minimum security criteria. If the security self-assessment completed by the importer reveals any security deficiencies and requires a corrective action plan, admission to the program and no benefits whatsoever are obtained unless those deficiencies are addressed to the satisfaction of the Department. Third, with the security self-assessment completed, and initially identified deficiencies addressed, the Department again reviews for sufficiency with the minimum security criteria and also vets the importer through the law enforcement and trade databases, as well as through the El Paso Intelligence Center, EPIC, for linkage to DEA and other law enforcement databases. If the importer's security profile demonstrates that the company is meeting the criteria, has positively passed vetting, and has a successful importing record, only then will the importer be certified as tier 1 and given a limited ATS score reduction. In response to the concerns raised by the gentlewoman from California, we have incorporated into this bill penalties if, in fact, it is shown that they did not participate in the process completely and honestly; and, in fact, if they have had any misleading or false information in their application, they are mandatorily barred from participation in the program for 5 years. The reason why they get a small benefit in terms of the rating by beginning in the program with their application before they are fully certified is to give encouragement to get them into the program to begin with. It is more than just saying they are handing in a piece of paper. It is, in fact, a document that requires a good deal of work on their part; and we want to encourage participation in this program rather than discourage it. C-TPAT is one of the layers, not the only one, but one of the layers that we have of security in our multi-layered approach, and so I would urge people to reject this amendment. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, with that I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. And, secondly, that we are not limiting this to RFID systems or similar systems to RFID, that other systems of technology could also meet the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Madam Chairman, this day is the reason that I decided to come back to the Congress. An effort to work together on a bipartisan basis to solve one of the great challenges affecting America, that is what this place is all about. There are a lot of cynics and skeptics out there who say that the Congress of the United States is incapable of doing the work that it should do. This day is a refutation of that suggestion. Today is an indication that we can work together. And I want to thank Chairman King for the work that he has done and the broad flexibility that he granted to our subcommittee to put this bill together. I want to thank my ranking member, Loretta Sanchez, for the work she has done; the ranking member on the full committee, Mr. Thompson; and, of course, Jane Harman, my chief co-author on this bill. This is the best of bills: legislation written to make a law, not to make a political statement. Yes, there are political statements that will be made about this bill, but the fact of the matter is we are moving forward in an effective way to solve a challenge that is out there that the American people recognize and that we recognize. In response to 9/11, the natural response was for us to look at where we were attacked and to focus most of our attention and energy in that direction. That is why we have had, if you will, a heavy response in the area of aviation safety. But that does not mean we can ignore the other areas. As I said on the floor yesterday, the greatness of our ports as an integral part of our international trade, the fact that we are leaders in the world in international trade, the fact that we benefit from it more than anybody else, but we do so because it is so different than it was 30, 40, 50 years ago. The instantaneous communication. The ability to deliver products within a short period of time. The fact that inventory is carried on rail, on trucks, in ships, rather than sitting static in a warehouse somewhere. The world has changed and we have been the leaders in changing the world, and we should be pleased and proud of the tremendous contribution that our ports make to our economy and to our everyday living. But the very things that make that possible make us vulnerable to those who would destroy everything we stand for. The terrorists do not want to see international trade. The terrorists do not want to see an exchange of ideas. The terrorists do not want to see cultures mixing together. The terrorists do not want to see America shown at its best. And that is what we do, as we Americans live every single day with the benefits of the trade. It is not the totality of what we do, but it is an essential part of what we do. And this bill responds to the attack that those would have on us through this very much shining star in our constellation of America. So I thank the Members for work on this. I would say we are going to have a debate about 100 percent inspection, and I would say we all would hope for that day. But I would just direct people's attention to the National Journal of this last Friday on the inside page where they have something called the ``Reality Check'' and they refer to this effort to have 100 percent container inspection. They say, and this is the National Journal, that ``it is a nice idea but not very feasible with current technology. Eleven million containers are shipped to U.S. ports each year. Of those, U.S. Customs and border protection personnel physically screen only about 6 percent, 660,000. `It is a noble impulse, but as a practical matter, it can't be accomplished right now,' said Jack Riley, homeland security expert with RAND.'' The key to being able to carry this out in the future is better equipment that stands faster; and that requirement, that impulse, is in this bill as a result of an amendment adopted that was presented by the gentlewoman from Florida. We are attempting to make us safer. Let us rejoice in this day and let us support this bill.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition because of some lack of clarity on this amendment, and perhaps I can be relieved of my concern. The gentlewoman, in her comments, suggested that the World Shipping Council and the Pacific Maritime Association were in support of this amendment. And yet I have a letter with a contrary conclusion, not based on the fact that they object to the objective of the gentlewoman's amendment but rather some concern that the gentlewoman's amendment would be too restrictive in bringing us to the point of having the best technology available as soon as possible. As I understand the gentlewoman's amendment, it changes the definition of Container Security Device from ``a mechanical or electronic device designed to, at a minimum, detect unauthorized intrusions of containers'' to, ``a mechanical or electronic device designed to, at a minimum, positively identify containers and detect and record unauthorized intrusion of containers'', and then goes on to say, such devices shall have false alarm rates that have been demonstrated to be below 1 percent. In the letter that we received from the Coalition for Secure Ports, they were concerned that the 1 percent false alarm rate may be unacceptable, in that we have between 11 and 12 million containers coming into the United States per year. If you had this device on all of them, a 1 percent false alarm rate would create as many as 120,000 false security alarms in U.S. ports. My concern is whether we are strait-jacketing the Secretary into accepting a device, if, in fact, it reached that 1 percent false alarm rate, or whether it would be at least 1 percent false alarm rate that is the intention of the author. Secondly, the question is whether or not the gentlewoman's language requiring this to be a, ``device that positively identifies containers,'' whether that would restrict this to RFID, or Radio Frequency Identification, systems and not allow, for instance, optical character recognition or similar systems. If that is the gentlewoman's intent and if that is, in fact, the impact of this amendment, I would have to oppose it, because it seems to me it would restrict us to one particular type of device. And I don't have the technology background to understand whether that one device is the silver bullet in this area. I understand that one manufacturer, GE, uses it. They think it works well. But, as I understand, there are other manufacturers that are trying to work in other areas. So those are the concerns I have. And with that, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. So your intent in using the language ``positively identify containers'' is not to eliminate the possibility of optical character recognition or similar systems in meeting this particular demand.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentlewoman from Southern California for working with us to modify the language of her original amendment so it achieves the purpose to which she intends and is not objectionable in any way. There is no doubt that we want to make sure that we have layers of security, starting at the foreign ports, through the period of time in which the containers are shipped, to just outside our ports, in our ports, and then as the containers leave our ports. One of the things we have to do in this entire effort is to insert a notion of uncertainty in the minds of would-be terrorists. One the ways we do that is having layers of security all across the globe. The gentlelady has suggested that we be explicit in our language with respect to the possibility of utilizing another tool in our toolbox, as she suggests, where we might be able to devise certain programs that utilize facilities that may exist just outside the port for purposes of looking at trucks for safety purposes, and we might be able to incorporate the terrorist security review at that point as well. If in conjunction with the authorities, local and state authorities, this kind of a grant request is made, we want to make sure that the Department of Homeland Security can, in fact, take a look at it. If it seems to serve the purpose to which we are all dedicated, then it would be allowed under this bill. So I congratulate the gentlelady for introducing the bill. I also congratulate her for representing my hometown, the place I was born and lived in for 42 years. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would just say that, with that understanding that they do not have those limitations of which I have concern, I would not object to this amendment. But I want to make it clear that the record reflect, number one, that if the Secretary believes we have to have a standard that is more precise than a 1 percent false alarm rate, that he have the discretion to do that.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to obtain the time in opposition even though I do not oppose this amendment.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), one of the cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that this is an attempt to have a balanced bill. I have worked as hard as I can with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and with the ranking member on my subcommittee, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, to try and respond to a true challenge that we have before us, and that is the challenge of terrorists attempting to do harm to our country by going through our ports. The very nature of our ports, the very genius of our ports, which is the just-in-time delivery, the inventory that is basically carried on ships these days, instead of stationary in large buildings on land, the very easy transfer of them from ships to trucks to be able to get into the middle of our country within the shortest period of time, times that would have been unimaginable just years ago, that very ingenuity, that creativity, also creates the vulnerability. It is true that, following 9/11, we focused, not exclusively but more than any other area, on our aviation system. Now we have an opportunity to try and put a greater emphasis on security for our ports. I was gone from this place for 16 years; 9/11 was the event that compelled me to return. I grew up in the shadows of one of the great harbors of this country, Long Beach. I worked there one summer when I was in college. I have been able to see the tremendous growth and the change in the way our ports operate. I am proud of our ports. I would do nothing, I would do nothing to try and put them at risk. And I would say this base bill is a very good bill. When I hear some of the discussion about the rule, it reminds me of my prior service in the House when I served for 10 years as a minority Member, where we did not have a right to a motion to recommit. We were given an opportunity for a motion to recommit when the Rules Committee decided they would give it to us. Under the Republican rules of the House, a motion to recommit is given to the minority on every major bill. So those elements of concern that have been expressed by the minority side of substance of amendments that are not allowed under this bill we know can be put into a motion to recommit. Now, that does not mean I am going to support it, because I think good and sufficient arguments can be made against some of the amendments that wish to be presented here in the floor and in the substance of the motion to recommit. But I just hope in the discussion on this rule and the discussion on the underlying bill we do not lose that sense of bipartisanship that has really been a watchword of this attempt to provide us with the response to a true challenge in this country. The very vote that we had, 29-0 coming out of our committee, the fact that we have more than 80 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, gives the very indication of the bipartisan nature of this bill. I get involved in partisan arguments from time to time, as you well know. But this institution does itself proud when it responds to the challenges that are out there facing our constituents. This committee, the Homeland Security Committee, has served this House well by its bipartisan approach under first our former chairman, Mr. Cox, and now our current chairman, Mr. King. The Members on the Democratic side have worked very hard I think to work with us in a bipartisan way. So I hope the tenor of the debate tonight does not mislead people who may be listening into thinking we are not doing the peoples' business. We are doing the peoples' business. I am proud of the work that we are doing here. This is a good bill. We will debate some additional amendments. We will have a motion to recommit. And whatever comes out of that, this will still be a good bill. Please support this rule and support this bill.