Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to ensure the rapid deployment of the ``next generation'' Radiation Portal Monitors at our Nation's ports. This bill prohibits the agency from spending funds on this critical port security program. My amendment would strike that prohibition. Earlier this month the House passed the SAFE Port Act to enhance security at United States ports. During consideration of that bill, I tried to offer an amendment to require that every single container be scanned for radiation and density before it is loaded onto a ship bound for the United States. The Republican leadership opposed that effort. One of the main claims made by my friends on the other side of the aisle was that the technology did not exist to adequately scan containers and that current radiation portal monitors create too many false alarms. Imagine my surprise to discover that the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office at the Department of Homeland Security has, in fact, already developed the ``next generation'' Radiation Portal Monitors. These new Advanced Spectroscopic Portal, ASP, monitors use sodium-iodide crystals to detect the unique signature of materials inside a container. They give us more accurate information about what is in the box. They can tell us exactly what is causing the radiation alarm to go off, whether it is a false alarm or not. Port security officials can know if radiation is coming from kitty litter or from construction material or from a real threat, and they will not have to shut down the entire port of New York or Long Beach whenever an alarm goes off. But there is a catch. Only one company, a French company, currently produces sodium-iodide crystals. So DHS plans to spend about $20 million to encourage more companies to increase domestic production of these crystals. This makes perfects sense. DHS needs to do this to assure that full-scale production of ASP monitors can begin next year and to get them installed at our ports as quickly as possible, and we should not be beholden in any event to one foreign company for a product that is so critical to our national security. Shockingly, however, this bill contains language prohibiting DHS from taking steps to increase the domestic production of sodium-iodide crystals until the agency can prove that ASP monitors meet certain criteria, certain extraneous criteria. This delay makes no sense. The Republicans in particular should love these ASP monitors. They were developed by the Bush administration. They reduce false alarms. And if they are really concerned about the cost of these scanners, they should support increasing domestic production of sodium-iodide crystals so that the one French company that makes this material cannot control the cost. We are, after all, at war with the terrorists. We have serious loopholes in our port security system, and we know that terrorists could use shipping containers to bring nuclear bombs into American cities. We must act with urgency to get better container scanning equipment in place, and we must stop creating roadblocks to scanning the containers. Democrats have consistently supported scanning every container to make sure that terrorists do not use them to bring nuclear bombs into American cities. We have tried on several occasions to force the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress to scan every container. The Republicans claim the technology didn't exist. That is untrue. DHS now says they have the technology. This provision that my amendment would eliminate would stop DHS from deploying the best container scanning equipment to port security officials around the country. We must not tolerate and we must not create any delays in protecting the American people from a terrorist attack. So I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment that would permit the spending of the money to deploy the sodium-iodide crystals and the scanning equipment so that we can get this container scanning equipment to our ports as fast as possible. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not require DHS to deploy this equipment. If it is not better, I wonder why we spend half a billion dollars developing it. This lets the DHS make the decision. If they decide this equipment is better, they can deploy it. If they decide it is not better, they do not have to. All this says is that we are not going to put language in the bill that will prevent DHS from using its own judgment to deploy it until they can demonstrate that it would significantly speed commerce and do various other things. If this will significantly improve the protection of our people, we ought to deploy it, but my amendment would leave that decision to the Bush administration. Do they not trust the Bush administration to make the best decision on this? Why should we tie their hands? That is what this amendment says. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, as of today, this House has been in session only 36 days this year. We are scheduled to meet a total of 93 days. That is 15 days less than the do-nothing Congress of 1948. How are we supposed to address the issues most important to all of our fellow countrymen if we are hardly ever in session? This weekend, millions of Americans will take Memorial Day vacations. They will be forced to pay hundreds of dollars more in travel bills, thanks to high prices at the pump. For weeks now, House Republicans have ignored this very serious economic issue. That is, until this week, when the House Republicans plan to offer their second solution. Their first solution a couple years ago was to throw billions of dollars at the oil companies. The second solution is drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Despite the environment havoc this would cause, it will do nothing to lower gas prices today. When Republicans tout this as a solution, they ignore the fact that drilling in ANWR would not be possible for another decade and would provide only 6 months of oil, in any event, for the American consumer. Once again this week, the House Republicans plan to do nothing to address high prices at the pump. They simply refuse to offer any real solutions to our energy problems. It is time for a change in leadership.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment to increase funding for the NEA by $5 million and the NEH by $5 million. Frankly, this is a modest amendment; I wish this amendment asked for an even greater increase in arts funding. It's astounding that this year the President will spend $60 billion in Cold War-era defense programs, such as a missile defense system that doesn't defend against missiles, and yet each year we have to come to the floor to defend this minimal amount of spending. The amount we are asking for is little more than a fraction of one percent of the Federal budget. This is not controversial funding. The NEA and the NEH are two of the best investments this Nation makes. The NEA distributes grants in all 50 states. These grants fund theatres, orchestras, dance companies, and visual artists that move us, challenge the way we think, foster dialogue, and help us to understand one another. The NEH is the largest single funder of humanities programs in the country. NEH grants help museums, archives, libraries, universities, scholars and documentary filmmakers allow us to understand our rich history and cultural heritage. The cost-benefit ratio of this funding is tremendous. Each year, the arts generate $134 billion in economic activity; arts organizations employ 4.85 million Americans; they generate $89.4 billion in household income; and lead to $24.4 billion in total tax revenues. Not only do the arts and humanities have a positive economic impact, but they strengthen and build communities. They help revitalize our nation's cities, and provide venues for people from disparate communities to come together and share a common experience. Students who are exposed to the arts have higher test scores--in math and sciences as well as liberal arts--and have better attendance at schools and increased self-discipline. At-risk teens who participate in arts programs are half as likely to repeat their crimes. Mr. Speaker, every year, my friends from the other side of the aisle try to slash funding for the arts. I just don't understand their thinking. This modest amendment is the very least we should do today. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and to vote against any attempts to slash funding from the arts that may be offered in other amendments.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion to recommit with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and I thank him for his efforts on this issue. This is a reasonable bill, but none of it matters much if we don't at least electronically scan every shipping container. All it takes is one atomic or radiological bomb to make 9/11 look like a firecracker, to kill hundreds of thousands of people, to cost hundreds of billions of dollars, to bring commerce to a total halt for weeks or months while every ship is searched by hand because we don't have in place the means to scan every container. That is what this motion is about. If we really want to make this country safer, we must demand that before any container is put on a ship bound for the United States it must be scanned electronically in the foreign port. It is too late if we find a nuclear bomb in Los Angeles or New York. The container must then be sealed with a seal that will tell us if it is tampered with after it is scanned, and the results of the scan must be transmitted electronically to people in the United States for examination. This motion is identical to an amendment that was unanimously agreed to by Chairman Young and the entire Transportation Committee a month ago. This is not a partisan issue, unless you choose to make it so by voting ``no.'' They say the technology doesn't exist. The technology most certainly does exist. It is installed right now in Hong Kong. The technology is installed in Hong Kong now, except that the results of those scans are stored on disks because no one at the Department of Homeland Security can be bothered to read them. The people who say we can't do this are the same people that told us 2 years ago that we couldn't get a bill of lading for every container 24 hours in advance, the same people who told us that if we searched every passenger, the airports would be gridlocked, the planes would never take off. Scanning every container is feasible, it is relatively cheap, and it will not delay global commerce. If we continue to rely solely on so-called risk-based strategy, the terrorists will simply put the atomic bomb in a low-risk container from Wal-Mart. The real risk is that a good company will have a container with sneakers on a truck in Indonesia. On the way to a port, the driver will stop for lunch; and while he is at lunch terrorists will take out some sneakers and put in a bomb. And the bill of lading will be fine. The question on this motion is, do we or do we not want to risk American cities and American lives on the chairman's confidence in Wal- Mart's paperwork? Mr. Speaker, I yield now to a leader on this issue, Mr. Markey.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very tepid support of this bill. It is a very nice bill. It has some nice provisions. None of it matters very much if we do not at least electronically scan every container before it is put on a ship bound for the United States. All it would take is one atomic bomb, one radiological bomb, to make 9/11 look like a fire cracker, to kill hundreds of thousands of people, to cost hundreds of billions of dollars, to bring commerce to a total halt for weeks or months while every ship, every container is not scanned, but searched, inspected by hand before they are allowed to proceed into this country, because that is what will happen if there is, God forbid, a disaster in this country. We have no protection against that now. Even with this bill, we depend on risk-based analysis, on paper as Mr. Markey said, to defend us. What the motion to recommit does is to say that no container can be put on a ship bound for the United States until it is scanned for radiation and for density, until the result of that scan is transmitted electronically in real-time to American inspectors in the United States, and until a tamper-proof seal that will tell us whether that container has been tampered with after it is scanned is put on that container. We are told this is not feasible. Mr. King says the technology does not exist. But it is done in Hong Kong today. It is done in Hong Kong today. The two biggest terminals in Hong Kong have this. Of course, nobody bothers reading the scans because the Department of Homeland Security cannot be bothered. They are on a hard drive in Hong Kong. It is relatively cheap, $6.50 per container, 10 seconds per container, no delay. But the DHS has no urgency. Mr. Gingrey, a Republican of Georgia at the Rules Committee, said that he had a company in his district that makes those tamper-proof seals that can talk to the global positioning satellite; but he cannot get DHS to talk to them, they are not interested. The motion to recommit we are told is irresponsible and partisan. It is, in fact, word for word identical as the amendment that was agreed to by the chairman of the Transportation Committee and adopted unanimously by a bipartisan vote in the Transportation Committee. But suddenly when it comes to the floor, it is a partisan amendment. The Republicans on the Transportation Committee understood the necessity for protecting our homeland. The Republicans on the Homeland Security Committee apparently do not, nor does the Republican leadership, because they will not agree to this obvious thing to do that everyone, bipartisan, on the Transportation Committee agreed to do. Mr. Chairman, the main risk comes from the so-called low-risk containers, not the high-risk containers. Wal-Mart ships a shipment of sneakers from a factory in Indonesia. And on the truck on the way to the port, the truck driver goes to lunch. And while he is at lunch, someone takes out a package of sneakers and puts in an atomic bomb. The bill of lading is fine. It is a reliable company. It is low-risk, and there is an atomic bomb on that container, and no one sees it because that container is not scanned. Maybe it is scanned under this bill in Boston or in Los Angeles. It is too late to look at it in Los Angeles if there is an atomic bomb on board. Mr. Chairman, this motion to recommit, which I hope Members will vote for on the merits, not vote party line against it because it is a procedural motion or some such nonsense, makes this a worthy bill, and makes this a bill that will really protect Americans. Without the motion to recommit, despite what Mr. King says, this bill does a number of things that are nice, but does nothing really to protect the United States.

Mr. NADLER. Yes, I am in its current form.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this rule does not make in order an amendment that was defeated 18-16 on a practically party-line vote and is the key difference, and it is why this rule ought to be defeated. The gentleman from New York says a risk-based strategy. Why should we risk the lives of millions of people by assuming that we know which container will contain the atomic bomb or the radiological bomb? We don't know that. We can't know that. The only safety we can have is to inspect 100 percent of the containers, not in New York but in Hong Kong, before they are put on a ship bound for the United States. That is the essence of the amendment, the Nadler-Markey amendment that the Republicans won't accept and won't permit us to debate on the floor. They say the technology doesn't exist. The technology most certainly exists. It is done in Hong Kong today. Mr. Gingrey spoke about a company in his district that wants to sell the tamper-proof seals that will tell us if the container, once scanned, is tampered with. But the Department of Homeland Security is not interested. This bill contains a study, an amendment by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite that the Department of Homeland Security should study whether it is feasible to have 100 percent scanning. We passed that amendment on this floor 2 years ago. It was the Nadler amendment. It is in the law. It said they should report back in 90 days, 90 days from 2 years ago. They haven't bothered reporting back, because they are not interested in this. This is another waste of time. The fact is, a risk-based strategy, they will simply put the atomic bomb or the radiological bomb in a low-risk container from Wal-Mart. The greatest risk we face is that a good company will have a container with sneakers in Indonesia on the way to the port, and the driver will stop for lunch, and while he is stopping for lunch, some terrorist will take out the sneakers and put in a bomb and the bill of lading will be fine. The people who say we can't do this are the same people who told us 2 years ago we couldn't get a bill of lading for every container 24 hours in advance, and they told us we couldn't get every person searched before he got on an airplane. If we really want to make this country safer, we must debate on this floor this amendment, the Nadler-Markey amendment, to say, before any container gets put on a ship bound for the United States, it must be scanned electronically to see what is in it; it should be sealed with a tamper-proof seal that will tell us if it has been tampered with; and the results of the scan should be transmitted electronically to people in the United States who will look at that seal. It is being done now in Hong Kong, except that because no one in the Department of Homeland Security is interested, the results of those scans are on tapes that are stored there because no one in this country has time to read those tapes. For shame.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, today President Bush is expected to announce his appointment of Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff to lead the administration's efforts to combat a potential avian flu epidemic. Didn't the President learn anything from Hurricane Katrina? Michael Chertoff is the same man responsible for the incompetent, inept and tragically unacceptable response to Hurricane Katrina. If Secretary Chertoff couldn't properly oversee the administration's response to a hurricane along the gulf coast that we knew about days in advance, how is he supposed to lead the response to a flu pandemic that could hit at any time? The Bush administration is already woefully unprepared to fight an avian flu pandemic. The President's own administration has warned that a worst-case scenario here in the U.S. would entail an 18-month-long crisis in which as many as 1.9 million Americans could be killed. An avian flu crisis needs a serious and competent administrator to oversee our response. The Bush administration is once again showing it will take a crony over a competent administrator every time. It is time for the administration to show that it actually can lead. It is time they turn away from the cronies and find someone competent for a change so the avian flu pandemic doesn't surprise us the way the expected Hurricane Katrina overwhelmed us.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 75th anniversary of the opening of the Empire State Building, one of New York City's most recognizable landmarks and an iconic fixture of the City's skyline. This landmark building, located in my district, stands as a testament to the indomitable spirit of New York and the capacity of mankind to achieve the extraordinary. The Empire State Building, designed by the architectural firm Shreve, Lamb and Harmon, officially opened on May 1, 1931. Construction required 60,000 tons of steel and more than seven million man-hours, providing thousands of jobs in the midst of the Great Depression. Renowned pictures of the workers dangling above the city remain among the most striking photos of the era. Upon its completion, the Empire State Building became the tallest building in the world, measuring a staggering 1,454 feet. Although taller buildings have since stripped it of its title, the 102-story structure continues to delight and amaze, and following the attacks of September 11, it is once again the tallest building in New York City. The Empire State Building has also become ingrained in the popular culture by its presence in such movies as King Kong, and An Affair to Remember. Last year, 3.7 million people flocked to the observation decks for their breathtaking views of New York. True to its gritty roots, the Empire State Building remains a working building: Every day, more than 20,000 people report to work there, passing through the Art Deco lobby that portrays the Empire State Building as the eighth wonder of the world and the center of the universe. At dusk, the world famous tower lights come on to commemorate national holidays and special events of importance to New Yorkers. The heart and soul of New York City is embodied in the Empire State Building. From those who fell in love there to those who have returned with their children and grandchildren, everyone recognizes the Empire State Building as an unparalleled emblem of the American spirit. I am proud to honor the Empire State Building on the occasion of its 75th anniversary.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Linda Rosenthal on the occasion of her election to the New York State Assembly. After a lifetime on the Upper West Side, more than 2 decades of community activism, and 13 years as my Manhattan District Director and Director of Special Projects, on February 28th, 2006, Linda was elected to represent the 67th Assembly District. Assemblywoman Rosenthal's dedication to her constituents continues the West Side's legacy of progressive politics and independent representation in Albany. Linda first got involved in politics after a dispute with her landlord more than 20 years ago. This experience led her to become a staunch advocate of tenants' rights. Throughout her career, Linda has worked with both individuals and with community groups to secure funding and legislation to help low- and middle-income residents. As Manhattan Director and Director of Special Projects for the 8th Congressional District, Linda was instrumental in enacting several initiatives to enhance the quality of life for the residents of my District. Linda has been a relentless advocate of such community improvement projects as the Hudson River Park, the 72nd Street subway renovation, various senior and community centers, local parks, playgrounds, and green spaces. Perhaps Linda's most significant contribution followed the notorious attacks on the World Trade Center in my district on September 11, 2001. Following the attacks, Linda passionately fought the Environmental Protection Agency to provide adequate clean-up efforts to improve the air quality for those who live and work in lower Manhattan. The fight is ongoing, but her dedication to the cause may well save countless lives. Linda also worked strenuously to compel the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to free up more Federal grant money to aid in the economic recovery of small businesses in the area. In Albany, Assemblywoman Rosenthal has hit the ground running. Since taking office, she has already introduced significant legislation, sponsored over 40 bills, testified before State agencies, and met with community leaders and constituents about the issues facing our neighborhood. She has also been named to the Committees on Housing; Corporations, Authorities and Commissions; Agriculture; Alcoholism and Drug Abuse; and Energy. Linda Rosenthal is the kind of public servant every Member of Congress wants to work with. Her selfless dedication to her job, her fierce protection of my office and my reputation, and her genuine interest in helping the greater good, are all a testament to her character. I am saddened to see her leave my office after 13 years, but I am also deeply proud of her. I can't think of anyone who deserves to hold public office more than Linda. For her commitment to her neighborhood, her city, her State, and her Nation, it is my privilege to congratulate Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal on her record of distinguished service, and on her recent election, and to join the rest of her constituents in high expectations of her future public service.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this important legislation, H.R. 3127, strengthening sanctions on individuals and governments seen as responsible for the atrocities in the Darfur region of Sudan, and authorizing additional funds for peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts in the region. After more than 3 years of conflict, between 300,000 and 400,000 innocent and impoverished civilians have died from government-sponsored violence, disease and starvation because of war, and more than 2 million people have fled their homes to internal camps and neighboring Chad. Despite international condemnation of the Sudanese government, genocide and ethnic cleansing continue unabated. What is keeping the United States and the international community from intervening meaningfully to stop this humanitarian crisis? What is keeping President Bush from acting with moral clarity and compassion? While this Congress continues to slowly legislate on the Darfur genocide, the threat of sanctions has done little to end the atrocities. This dire crisis requires a much more robust response. Our commitment to end the Darfur genocide must be judged by only one test: What are we doing that serves to end the killings and the suffering? The aim should be to end the genocide, disarm the Arab militias, guarantee humanitarian assistance, protect civilians, secure the refugee camps, and provide safety to families returning to their villages. Military experts have estimated that these tasks will require 40,000 to 50,000 well-trained and equipped troops. We also have new and innovative technologies that could protect civilians. If we are serious about dealing with this most pressing human rights catastrophe, then we must pressure the Bush Administration and the international community to do all that is needed to stop the genocide in Darfur. I call for less political maneuvering, and more real action. Over three years have passed. Out of an estimated pre-conflict population of 7 million in Darfur, somewhere between 300,000 and 400,000 innocent civilians have died. What are we waiting for? For the Sudanese government and the Arab militias to finish what they have started? I I support this bill, yet I urge my colleagues to support an international peacekeeping mission authorized to use force to protect civilians and disarm the Janjaweed--one with an adequate mandate, and well-trained and equipped soldiers.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the most respected private institutions of higher learning in my district, Pace University, as it celebrates a major milestone, the 100th anniversary of its founding in 1906. This great school has grown from humble beginnings as a School of Accountancy to become a vibrant and dynamic Liberal Arts University offering more than 100 majors. Over the last century, the school has lived up to its motto, Opportunitas, by offering its students the opportunity to discover and fulfill their potential, and affording its distinguished faculty and outstanding staff the opportunity to achieve excellence. As part of its 15-month centennial celebration, Pace University will be hosting lectures, symposia, service activities, and other special events that reflect on its long history of opportunity and innovation. With its six schools and colleges and two main campuses, Pace is consistently ranked among the top quarter of 4-year colleges and universities in the country. Pace's School of Law is nationally recognized for the excellence of its Environmental Law Program and its Lienhard School of Nursing has been an acknowledged leader in nursing education, research, and practice for more than 35 years. Ultimately, Pace University's greatest strength has been its people-- its faculty, staff, students, and alumni--and its most profound achievement can be seen in the countless lives that have been transformed by the Pace experience. I offer my sincere congratulations to all those that have helped the school prosper and grow over the past 100 years.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Democrats in the House, the Senate and our Governors unveiled the Democratic plan for real security. This plan reveals the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans and the Bush administration in protecting our country. Among the differences, the greatest danger we face is that al Qaeda gets nuclear weapons. The problem with getting nuclear weapons is how to find fissionable material. There is enough fissionable material lying around not properly guarded in the former Soviet Union for thousands of bombs. The Bush administration wants to get it out of there--in 30 years. Democrats say, Get it now, all of it, by 2010 before it is smuggled to al Qaeda to make nuclear weapons to use against American citizens. We are rightly concerned about the Dubai Ports deal, who controls our ports, but more important is what comes into our ports. Eleven million shipping containers a year, 40-foot boxes, come into American ports. The Republicans, the Bush administration, inspects 5 percent of them. Democrats say, no shipping container, not one, should be put on a ship bound to an American port till it is electronically scanned and inspected by the United States in the foreign port so that no atomic bomb gets put in there and we know about it before it gets on the ship, not after. If we want to make our country safe, we better elect some Democrats.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations raises a point of order that this legislates on an appropriations bill. And it might. But I would challenge the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the Republican majority, if you are going to insist on a technical interpretation of the rule on this amendment, I would challenge the Republicans to allow this bill to the floor for a vote or allow this bill as an amendment on some other bill. Because to fail to do that, to insist on a technical reading of this rule, and not allow this or something like it on the floor, is to jeopardize the lives of every single American for a trivial cost. And I urge that the Republicans allow, we have been trying some version of this for 3 years now. We have never been able to get a vote. But the safety of the American people is at risk if we allow 11 million shipping containers, 40-foot boxes into the ports of our country without scanning them, and knowing only what someone says is in them, not what is really in them.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to attach to this bill, the Sail Only If Scanned Act, the SOS Act. This act was developed by me and Mr. Oberstar, with the support of Minority Leader Pelosi, to address the issue of shipping container security. This amendment would require that every shipping container be scanned with the most modern technology and sealed with a tamper-proof seal before it is placed on a ship bound for the United States so that we can have absolute assurances that no nuclear weapons or radiological bombs are being brought into our ports. Only 1 percent of the more than 11 million shipping containers destined for the United States are scanned before they are loaded on a ship overseas. This is unacceptable. The United States cannot own or control the entire global trade network, but we can and should ensure the security of every single container destined for this country. The controversy over the proposed Dubai Ports World deal has woken up the American people and made them think about how critical our ports are for national security. But who owns the ports and who operates the ports, while important, is far less important than what comes into the ports. Ninety-five percent of all of the 11 million, 40-foot boxes that come into our ports are uninspected, not scanned. Not scanned by x-rays, not examined for radioactivity before they get here. Any one of them could have an atomic bomb or radiological bomb. That is unacceptable. If there is a bomb inside a container, it is too late to discover that in Newark or Miami or Los Angeles. Reading the manifest is not enough. Having shipments only from low-risk shippers is not enough, because any one container could have a catastrophic bomb inside it. My amendment is quite simple. It would require that all containers must be scanned using the best available technology, including scanning for radiation and density before they are loaded on a ship bound for the United States. The scans must be submitted to U.S. Government officials for review before the container is loaded, and the containers must be sealed with a device that indicates if the container is tampered with in transit, and automatically notifies U.S. officials of any breach before the containers come within a few hundred miles of the United States. Steve Flynn of the Council of Foreign Relations and a port security expert wrote in the New York Times a few days ago: ``This is not a pie- in-the-sky idea. Since January 2005, every single container entering the truck gates of two of the world's busiest container terminals in Hong Kong has passed through scanning and radiation detection devices. Images of the containers' contents are then stored on computers so they can be scrutinized by American or other customs authorities almost in real-time. Customs inspectors can then issue orders not to load a container that worries them. The Department of Homeland Security has greeted this private sector initiative with only tepid interest.'' Mr. Chairman, we cannot simply stand by while the Bush administration twiddles its thumbs and fails to secure the movement of containers before they reach the United States. The terminal operations in Hong Kong prove we can scan 100 percent of the containers without disrupting the economy or the flow of goods. The cost to scan a container is $6.50. The entire cost to amortize all of the equipment is $20 a container. Given that it costs $4,000 to ship a container across the Pacific if there is between 50 and $500,000 worth of merchandise in each container, a $20 cost is trivial. Congress needs to make 100 percent scanning the policy of the United States. This amendment would do that. I realize, Mr. Chairman, this amendment may not be allowed under the rules of the House. I fully expect the Republicans to raise a point of order against it. I would note, however, that the underlying bill includes a provision blocking the proposed takeover of U.S. terminals by Dubai Ports World. I support that provision. But if we can include language on the Dubai deal in this bill, then certainly the Republican majority should allow us to include language that secures shipping containers and prevents atomic bombs from going off in port cities. At the very least, they could easily waive the rule and allow a vote on this amendment. If they care more about these rules that they waive every day than they do about protecting the American public from nuclear bombs and shipping containers, I truly fear for our safety. Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment to attach the Sail Only if Scanned Act, the SOS Act, to this bill. The only way we will adequately protect our citizens is if the Republicans in Congress join with us to force the Bush administration to take seriously the issue of container security and make sure that every single container is scanned and sealed with a tamper-proof seal before being placed on a ship bound for the United States. Point of Order

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill manipulates the legislative process by repackaging legislation that for the most part has already passed the House, and by taking out of that legislation two amendments that were passed on the floor of the House and giving us no opportunity, giving the House majority no opportunity to correct this. The bill includes three previous bills. On one of them I offered an amendment to prohibit gun possession by convicted misdemeanor sex offenders against minors. The amendment was agreed to unanimously and incorporated in the underlying bill. This is one of the poison pills. One of the poison pills, in other words, is that apparently the sponsors of this bill think it is essential to allow people convicted of misdemeanor sex offenses against minors to possess firearms, so they can use firearms against minors the next time. The other amendment, the ranking member offered an amendment to combat crimes based on race, religion, national origin, disability, gender and sexual orientation by allowing the Federal Government to provide resources to local law enforcement to act as a Federal backup if local authorities do not prosecute these crimes. The amendment passed 223-199. Now we are faced with this legislation on a suspension calendar. We are told that it is on a suspension calendar and it is unamendable because we have already debated. Yes, but we passed it in different forms, and they are just taking out the two poison pills. Who has the right to decide that what the majority of the House voted is a poison pill and not give this House the right to vote on whether it agrees with them or not? If the gentleman brought forth this bill under the regular calendar and said should we remove these two provisions because we cannot pass them in the Senate, let the House debate that. Maybe we would decide it is more important to let the Senate pass this bill and permit misdemeanor sexual offenders to have firearms than not to pass the bill. Maybe we would decide that, but that should be decided in a debate, not because someone behind the scenes decides that the will of the House can be overturned. I urge Members to oppose this bill because it does not include these two provisions, to ban gun possession by those convicted of misdemeanor sex offenders against minors. We should not go on record today, as a vote for this legislation would be in favor of gun possession by people convicted of misdemeanor sex offenses. And it also does not include the hate crimes amendment that was sponsored by Mr. Conyers and included by the House by majority vote. It is wrong to prostitute the procedures of this House to undo the majority votes on the floor by behind-the-scenes manipulation and then say this is democratic procedure.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, we are engaged in a serious war with terrorism. But we are going after the wrong targets. We are not protecting ourselves, but we are attacking our liberties. We are not doing anything adequate to secure the loose nuclear materials all over the former Soviet Union before they are smuggled to al Qaeda to make atomic bombs. We search only 5 percent of the 9 million shipping containers that come into our country every year, any one of which could contain a weapon of mass destruction. But what are we doing? Well, the President has orchestrated a secret conspiracy to violate the criminal law by ordering clearly illegal domestic surveillance. And now we renew the PATRIOT Act with some of the worst provisions only cosmetically changed and continuing to threaten civil liberties. Section 215 allows the government to obtain business reports about people, including library, medical and various other types of business records, as long as they are ``sought for a terrorism investigation.'' The government simply has to come up with a statement of facts showing there are reasonable grounds to believe that tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation. Relevant? Almost anything can be relevant. To make matters worse, the recipients of a section 215 order are subject to an almost unreviewable automatic gag order. Now we are told, under this bill, that judicial review can take place after a year. At best. A year? And in order to prevail in challenging a gag order, a certification by the government that disclosure would harm national security or impair diplomatic relations would be conclusive, unless shown it would be in bad faith. Conclusive? No evidentiary showing, no evidentiary test. That is absurd. That means there is no test at all. Section 505 authorizes FBI field office directors to collect in secret almost limitless sensitive personal information from entities simply by issuing national security letters. The FBI can simply say they want your private and sensitive information and they can get it. This is very much like the writ of assistance the British used to grant in 1761 that helped start the American Revolution. Under the conference report, recipients would theoretically have the ability to challenge these gag orders, but again that will be virtually impossible. As with section 215, the government's assertion that the gag order is necessary to protect the national security would be a conclusive presumption that the government is telling the truth that the gag order could stand. You can only challenge the government's bad faith. This automatic permanent gag rule very likely violates the first amendment, as two courts have already found. We ought to have real protections. We ought to have some procedural safeguards in the PATRIOT Act such as our entire American tradition demands. The conference report does not replace the section 215 showing of relevance standard with the three-part test that was the basis of the Senate compromise which provided some meaningful due process protections. It should. The conference report does not restore the section 505 previous standard of specific and articulable facts connecting the records sought to a suspected terrorist. It should. The conference report does not allow recipients of section 215 orders and national security letters a meaningful court challenge to the gag order. It should. And, finally, the conference report does not sunset section 505, national security letters, in 4 years. It should. I very much urge defeat of this PATRIOT Act reauthorization so that we can mend the bill so it doesn't destroy our constitutional liberties. Mend it, not end it. But this doesn't help.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, due to other business, I missed three votes on February 28, 2006. I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 14, commemorating the lifetime innovations of Thomas Edison; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 15, celebrating the 40th anniversary of Texas Western's 1966 NCAA basketball championship; and ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 16, to authorize the President to award a gold medal, on behalf of Congress, collectively, to the Tuskegee Airmen.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, in the President's budget he asks for a few hundred million dollars over the next few years for the cost of privatizing Social Security. When he was here at the State of the Union address, he commented that Congress rejected his proposals to privatize Social Security. All the Democrats to his surprise got up and cheered, because we think it is a terrible idea to privatize Social Security To do to Social Security what they are doing to the pension system, eliminating private pensions and making people depend only on 401(k)s, we think is a terrible idea. What the President telegraphed, by putting in his budget the money to pay for the cost of privatizing Social Security, is that if the Republicans retain control of Congress in this election, they are going to try it again. They will privatize Social Security if the Republicans control Congress again next year. If anybody thinks that privatizing Social Security is a bad idea, that we should not destroy Social Security, you better vote Democratic this year.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support S. Con. Res. 79, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that no United States assistance should be provided directly to the Palestinian Authority so long as the Hamas-led government maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel. In fact, I will go further and say that the United States should freeze all aid to the Palestinian Government until Hamas denounces violence, renounces terrorism, and recognizes the State of Israel's right to exist within secure borders. Hamas's mission is the destruction of the State of Israel, and its methods include wholesale violence against civilians. To fund that regime is to legitimize terrorism against innocent people. Hamas has been responsible for more than 425 terrorist attacks since the start of the second Intifada in the fall of 2000. These attacks have resulted in the deaths of 377 people, including approximately 27 Americans since 1993. With Hamas in the majority--an organization designated as a terrorist group by the United States and the European Union--the Palestinian Authority is now led by a regime whose actions and covenant directly reject a diplomatic and peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hamas must publicly acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a free, Jewish state, denounce terrorism and dismantle its terrorist infrastructure, halt anti-Israel incitement, and commit itself to the peace process. The logical consequence of Hamas's failure to follow these civilized principles must be a freeze on foreign aid from the international community. Today, the Palestinian Authority receives approximately $1.1 billion a year in foreign aid. According to a report prepared by the Congressional Research Service, the Palestinian Authority receives about $320 million a year in direct foreign aid, and about double that amount in indirect aid. I am concerned that the international community may not be united in its opposition to Hamas. There is already disagreement within the Quartet, with President Putin declaring that Russia will not stop foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority. I have already written President Putin to urge him not to fund Hamas, and I hope he will reconsider his decision. But the problem goes beyond Russia. Arab nations, many of them purported friends of the United States, have openly declared that they will step in and fund the Hamas-led government. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have already pledged $33 million. Several countries in Latin America, including Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, and Bolivia, have invited Hamas officials to visit with their governments. The international community must neither fund, nor legitimize Hamas. Therefore, I am circulating a letter to President Bush urging him to build an international consensus to withhold foreign aid as a way to isolate the Hamas-led government until Hamas denounces violence, renounces terrorism, and recognizes the State of Israel's right to exist within secure borders. Many Members of Congress have joined me in this effort, and I hope with this action by Congress today, more Members will join our efforts.