Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 -- (House of Representatives - May 18, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I want to thank the distinguished ranking member for offering this, since I was at an event with our colleagues in the Senate and with the Democratic Caucus, so I appreciate him offering this on my behalf. It is my intention, based on a conversation with the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox), and I believe the ranking member as well, to withdraw the amendment, with an understanding, and I will get to that in a moment.
My effort here is to basically take, not that I have said this, but that the FBI and law enforcement and a congressional study has said that the most dangerous two miles in America when it comes to terrorism, according to the FBI and others, which is that area between Port Elizabeth, the megaport of the East Coast, and Newark International Airport, and since we have a critical challenge with this dangerous two miles that I think would replicate many other areas of the country that have chemical facilities next to transportation infrastructure, next to airports, next to seaports, and a whole host of other critical infrastructure, that what can the Department of Homeland Security do to look at this most dangerous two miles and tell us what has been done, what needs to be done, what should be done so that we can achieve the success that we want in protecting not just a part of my congressional district or of the people of New Jersey, but as the New York Times recently wrote, the Nation's most enticing environment for terrorists, providing a convenient way to cripple the economy by disrupting major portions of the country's rail lines, oil storage and refineries, pipelines, air traffic, communicate networks, and highway systems.
Now, if you are one of the 12 million people who live in this 14-mile radius with more than 100 potential terrorist targets, you would understandably be concerned. But as the New York Times mentioned, this is more about more than the safety and security of my constituents; it is an attack of this area to cripple our Nation's economy.
Very simply, an attack within these two miles would be an attack felt around the world, since the largest seaport on the East Coast, one of the busiest airports in the country, Interstate 95, the main corridor along the Eastern Seaboard, are all located within this area.
For example, just by one example, in 2002, 15 percent of Nebraska's container exports were shipped through this port, and, like that, it is so true for so many points of the country. If you are wearing it, driving it, or eating it, it likely came through the megaport of the East Coast.
So while my amendment does not authorize any new funding or any additional resources, it does look in the context of limited environment, of limited resources, but unlimited risks. How do we become careful stewards not only of the taxpayers' money, but also of the security of our people?
Now, my understanding is that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) will be willing, by me withdrawing this amendment and by working with the ranking member, to secure that the Department of Homeland Security would provide such a report, and I would like to yield to him to see if my understanding is correct.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's understanding is correct. If the gentleman is willing to withdraw his amendment, the Committee on Homeland Security, through its chairman and ranking member, would formally request this information from the Department of Homeland Security.
As the gentleman knows, the Department of Homeland Security and its Infrastructure Protection Directorate is currently focusing heavily on this part of the country and, as a result, the identification of critical assets, high-risk facilities, the implementation of security measures, and the recommendation of additional mitigation strategies for this region is something that the committee should hear on and, as a result, I would propose, with the ranking member, that we seek the information in this way.
My only concern with the amendment as drafted is that it would set the precedent of establishing a national legislation requirement for IP mandates for specific regions within the States, rather than a national infrastructure strategy.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the chairman's offer, and I would hope, however, seeing that many reports that have been requested by the committee have not come forward, that in fact we would be vigorous in making sure that the report would actually be issued.
Mr. COX. The gentleman has my commitment on that subject.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov