Mr. McCaul of Texas- Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, on which I am proud to serve, for yielding.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, but I also rise to express my disappointment.

   Despite the importance of a bipartisan approach to homeland security and promises made to the contrary, the new majority has chosen to prevent even their own rank and file members from participating in the debate over this bill. This stands in stark contrast to how Republicans implemented 39 of the 41 9/11 Commission recommendations when we were in the majority.

   This bill raises several concerns. It proposes to require the Department of Homeland Security to screen 100 percent of maritime cargo containers bound for the United States. And while well intentioned, this is not possible with current technology. Under the SAFE Port Act passed in the last Congress, we started a pilot project to determine the feasibility of such a program. We should continue and await the results of this study.

   This new unfunded mandate would cost the government and the economy billions of dollars per year and bring commerce to a crashing halt. And even the Washington Post today called this a ``bad investment.'' H.R. 1 also gives foreign port terminal operators a role in the screening of cargo containers bound for U.S. seaports.

   Most disturbing of all, H.R. 1 proposes to hand over control of the Proliferation Security Initiative, a system which works to protect Americans against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to the United Nations. This is the same United Nations of which Syria and Iran are members. As a former counter terrorism official in the U.S. Department of Justice, I know first hand the threat of terrorism. It is very much alive and well. And while I am overall supportive of this bill and the 9/11 Commission recommendations, Congress can and should do better.