Jerry Nadler: “this rule does not make in order an amendment that was defeated 18-16 on a practically party-line vote and is the key…”

“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.…”