RAIL SECURITY
Several weeks ago, Congress considered the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007, a bill I have cosponsored.  My colleagues and I have worked on this bill for some time.  We started in the last Congress, holding hearings in an effort to obtain information from both the public and private sectors as to the need for additional rail security.  We have worked on other sectors of our economy with respect to security against terrorist threats.  We did very good work in the area of port security, culminating in the SAFE Port Act, a bill which I introduced with Representative Jane Harman (D-CA) and which was signed into law last year.  We also did good work in the area of chemical facility security and we will continue to do so in the transportation sector.

As we look at the rail and mass transit systems, we find it necessary to have input and cooperation at the federal, state, and local levels of government.  Furthermore, we must work with the private sector in dealing with potential dangers that threaten all of us.  At the same time, there are a couple of concerns relating to the bill.  To that end, I presented an amendment to the Rules Committee to improve this legislation with respect to whistleblowers.  We are dealing with complicated systems that require multiple entities, working with the Federal government, to determine and implement the most effective security measures.  As a result of this collaboration, there will be sensitive information made available to people working within these entities that we may not want shared in a public venue in the interest of national security.  We do not want to inadvertently give any opportunity to those who would wish to do us harm.

Moreover, there is also the concern that information that could potentially jeopardize our national security could be disseminated under the Freedom of Information Act.  Prior to 9/11, we had all sorts of information about nuclear power facilities readily available, such that someone could search the Internet and discover our vulnerabilities with relatively little effort.  We realized after 9/11 that in an attempt to get everything out to the public, we had probably damaged ourselves in terms of our vulnerability.

In order to prevent this type of exposure in the future, I supported an amendment to the Act that would exempt certain security-sensitive information from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.  We did this on a bipartisan basis a couple of Congresses ago in the Maritime Security Bill.  One of the things we learned following 9/11 is that we must consider the entirety of the threats out there, as well as the entirety of the universe of possible responses.  Unfortunately, this amendment was not adopted.  Nevertheless, it may be possible to take care of the problem on the Senate side or in a House and Senate conference.

As member of the House Committee on Homeland Security for the past three years, my colleagues and I have worked hard on a bipartisan basis to respond in an appropriate way to this universe of potential threats.

PORT SECURITY
I introduced the SAFE Port Act of 2006 with my colleague, Rep. Jane Harman, last May.  It received wide bipartisan and bicameral support and was signed into law on October 13, 2006.

The SAFE Port Act represents a much-needed part of our efforts to strengthen our national security.  The bill allows for more efficient inspections of ships and containers that pass through US ports, as well as at foreign ports when cargo is destined for the United States.  This multi-layered inspection regime is an important element in the structuring of homeland security protection against a terrorist assault being carried out as a consequence of the vulnerability of our ports.  As long as there are those who seek to kill us, we must remain vigilant in this effort to protect the American people.  Because of the sheer volume of cargo that arrives in our ports everyday, it is important that we take every appropriate measure to ensure that threats to American citizens are minimized.