MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. NADLER
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. NADLER. Yes, I am in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Nadler moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4954 to the Committee on Homeland Security with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with the following amendments:
Page 51, strike line 16 and all that follows through line 25 on page 52.
Page 80, strike line 10 and all that follows through line 14.
Redesignate sections 202 through 206 of the bill as sections 203 through 207, respectively.
Page 81, after line 23, insert the following new section:
SEC. 202. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO ENTRY OF CONTAINERS INTO THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Requirements.--Section 70116 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Requirements Relating to Entry of Containers.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--A container may enter the United States, either directly or via a foreign port, only if--
``(A) the container is scanned with equipment that meets the standards established pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) and a copy of the scan is provided to the Secretary; and
``(B) the container is secured with a seal that meets the standards established pursuant to paragraph (2)(B), before the container is loaded on the vessel for shipment to the United States.
``(2) STANDARDS FOR SCANNING EQUIPMENT AND SEALS.--
``(A) SCANNING EQUIPMENT.--The Secretary shall establish standards for scanning equipment required to be used under paragraph (1)(A) to ensure that such equipment uses the best-available technology, including technology to scan a container for radiation and density and, if appropriate, for atomic elements.
``(B) SEALS.--The Secretary shall establish standards for seals required to be used under paragraph (1)(B) to ensure that such seals use the best-available technology, including technology to detect any breach into a container and identify the time of such breach.
``(C) REVIEW AND REVISION.--The Secretary shall--
``(i) review and, if necessary, revise the standards established pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and (B) not less than once every two years; and
``(ii) ensure that any such revised standards require the use of technology, as soon as such technology becomes available, to--
``(I) identify the place of a breach into a container;
``(II) notify the Secretary of such breach before the container enters the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States; and
``(III) track the time and location of the container during transit to the United States, including by truck, rail, or vessel.
``(D) DEFINITION.--In subparagraph (C), the term `Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States' has the meaning given the term `Exclusive Economic Zone' in section 2101(10a) of this title.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 70116(c) of title 46, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section, such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2012.
(c) Regulations; Application.--
(1) REGULATIONS.--
(A) INTERIM FINAL RULE.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue an interim final rule as a temporary regulation to implement section 70116(c) of title 46, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section, not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this section, without regard to the provisions of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code.
(B) FINAL RULE.--The Secretary shall issue a final rule as a permanent regulation to implement section 70116(c) of title 46, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section, not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this section, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code. The final rule issued pursuant to that rulemaking may supersede the interim final rule issued pursuant to subparagraph (A).
(2) PHASED-IN APPLICATION.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--The requirements of section 70116(c) of title 46, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section, apply with respect to any container entering the United States, either directly or via a foreign port, beginning on--
(i) the end of the 3-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, in the case of a container loaded on a vessel destined for the United States in a country in which more than 75,000 twenty-foot equivalent units of containers were loaded on vessels for shipping to the United States in 2005; and
(ii) the end of the 5-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, in the case of a container loaded on a vessel destined for the United States in any other country.
(B) EXTENSION.--The Secretary may extend by up to one year the period under clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A) for containers loaded in a port, if the Secretary--
(i) finds that the scanning equipment required under section 70116(c) of title 46, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section, is not available for purchase and installation in the port; and
(ii) at least 60 days prior to issuing such extension, transmits such finding to the appropriate congressional committees.
(d) International Cargo Security Standards.--The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is encouraged to promote and establish international standards for the security of containers moving through the international supply chain with foreign governments and international organizations, including the International Maritime Organization and the World Customs Organization.
(e) International Trade and Other Obligations.--In carrying out section 70116(c) of title 46, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary shall consult with appropriate Federal departments and agencies and private sector stakeholders to ensure that actions under such section do not violate international trade obligations or other international obligations of the United States.
Mr. NADLER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the RECORD.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
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. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from New York for his great leadership on this issue.
This recommital motion deals with the fatal flaw in the Republican bill. They have refused to allow a vote on this House floor on this issue. This is now the time for the Members to go on record to get real about cargo security.
The threat is that, in the former Soviet Union, with all of the loose nuclear material, that al Qaeda purchases a nuclear device, brings it to a port in Asia, in Africa, in Europe, places it upon a ship. Using the screening which the Republican party supports, the screening would be a piece of paper. Oh, you look okay. You can bring it on to the ship. No inspection, no scanning. That is what their bill does.
The Democratic substitute says that no container can be placed on a ship coming to the United States which is not scanned for uranium, for nuclear materials, for a nuclear bomb, for weapons of mass destruction.
The screening must be done overseas, and we must seal those containers. We must scan and seal overseas so that we do not have to duck and cover here in the United States. That is the risk that al Qaeda has said they pose to us at the very top of their terrorist target list.
The Republicans are basically saying they are going to put a ``Beware of Dog'' sign out on the lawn but not purchase a dog, never do the screening, never do the inspection, use a paperwork inspection instead.
This bill has a loophole big enough to drive a cargo container filled with nuclear weapons material through it. This is an historic moment.
Here is the seal which the Republicans are still approving to be placed upon a cargo container. This can be cut by a child's scissors, ladies and gentlemen.
This is what should be placed upon each one of the containers after they have been scanned, after they have been sealed, to make sure that if it is tampered with an electronic signal goes to the Department of Homeland Security.
The Republican party says no. The Republican party says they will use paperwork instead of real, physical scanning of each and every cargo container, knowing that it could have a nuclear weapon, knowing that these nuclear materials have not been secured in the former Soviet Union.
Vote ``aye'' on the recommital motion and protect the security of our country from the single greatest threat that is posed to it. Vote ``aye'' on the recommital motion.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), the author of the legislation.
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. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset commend Ranking Member Thompson, Chairman LUNGREN, Ranking Member SANCHEZ, Ms. Harman for the truly bipartisan job they did in putting this together.
Let me also commend our staff, Mandy Bowers, Mark Klaassen, Mike Power, Joe Vealencis, Coley O'Brien, Dr. Diane Berry for working together in a solid way to get a real port security bill.
I am proud of how bipartisan this was, right up till a few moments ago. Just this afternoon we adopted nine Democratic amendments on this bill.
The reality is, though, this is an outstanding port security bill. I came from a district which lost more than 150 friends, neighbors and constituents on September 11. Unlike Mr. Markey, I don't need visual aids to remind me of what happened on September 11.
Mr. MARKEY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr KING of New York. No, I will not yield. I did not interrupt you.
Mr. MARKEY. Mohammed Atta started in Boston, my friend. There were Bostonians on that plane.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Mr. KING of New York. Amazing how the truth hurts.
I don't need visual aids to remind me what happened on September 11. I can go to my district office and see a woman working at the front desk who lost two cousins. I can talk to another member of my staff who lost a son, or another member who lost two brothers on that day. I can go to church on Sunday and see 10, 15 families who lost people.
This is an issue where every Member on both sides of the aisle is committed to doing the right thing. And it is wrong when people on the other side say the Republicans are not trying to stop another nuclear attack. Do they really believe that? Do they so demean the process of debate in this House that they are willing to do anything to get elected, do anything to make points on evening news, the sound bites, the cable TV?
The fact is this bill is a real bill. It does not send a false or misleading hope. It is not a cruel hoax. It does what is real. It does what can be done, and that is why I am so proud of this bill.
We adopted amendments by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite, by Mr. Shays. And, by the way, the language in our bill is far similar to the amendment adopted on a bipartisan basis sponsored by a member of the opposition party in the Senate yesterday than anything Mr. Markey or Mr. Nadler have introduced today.
So I say, do what is right. Stand for real port security, stand for a really strong America. Vote down the motion to recommit and vote for the underlying bill that will bring about real safe ports in this country and we can all be proud of it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.