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

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler:

 Page 42, line 24, through page 43, line 5, strike ``: Provided,'' and all that follows though ``Radiation Portal Monitors.''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

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. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I, too, am a great proponent of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office and believe we need to get the best radiation detection systems to our borders as quickly as possible.

That said, I still believe money should be spent wisely. GAO points out that there is no evidence the Advanced Spectroscopic Portal Monitors are any better than the RPMs going into place today, but they cost four times as much. If the less expensive RPMs work just as well, let us buy them. However, I understand DNDO is completing a cost-benefit analysis that will tell us if the investment in the more expensive ASP systems is wise. If they are a wise investment, this provision will harm no one. If they are a poor investment, it will slow down the crystal production program, and it should. Just because we like a program does not mean that we should not provide sound oversight or to waste taxpayers' dollars.

I urge Members to reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 1 minute remaining.

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.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be postponed.