Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 66 (Wednesday, May 18, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 66 (Wednesday, May 18, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H3442-H3454]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1817, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 283 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 283

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1817) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2006 for the Department of Homeland Security, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are

[[Page H3443]]

waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Homeland Security. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu
of the amendments recommended by the Committees on Homeland
Security, Energy and Commerce, and the Judiciary now printed
in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule
the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A
of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to that
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee
on Rules. Each amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is a fair, structured rule that
provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Homeland Security.
It provides that in lieu of the amendments recommended by the
Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
and the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the
Committee on Rules report shall be considered as the original bill for
the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read.
It waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of
a substitute printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report and
makes in order only those amendments printed in part B of the Committee
on Rules report.

{time} 1030

These amendments may only be offered in the order printed in the
report and only by the Member designated in the report. They shall be
considered as read, debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and
shall not be subject to amendment or a demand for the division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
Finally, this rule waives all points of order against the amendments
printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report and provides for one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and its
underlying legislation, the first ever Homeland Security authorization
legislation. The rule before us today is a fair rule that will allow
for consideration of 25 amendments to the legislation, 13 of which are
sponsored by a Member of the minority party, 10 by Members of the
majority party, and two which enjoy bipartisan sponsorship.
This bill, brought to the floor today by the leadership of my friend,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), empowers the core mission of
the Department of Homeland Security, which is, first, to prevent
terrorist attacks within the United States; second, reducing America's
vulnerability to terrorism; and, third, responding to and recovering
from terrorist attacks if some tragedy does occur.
It accomplishes this necessary and singularly important goal by
ensuring that the Department has the resources and the authority it
needs to prevent and prepare for terrorist attack, and to respond to
and recover from an attack if one does occur.
Through the authorization of over $34 billion in homeland security
spending in 2006, this legislation will ensure that our Nation's
highest funding priorities are met. It also includes a number of other
legislative and oversight measures to strengthen and improve the safety
of Americans here at home, including:
Deploying counterterrorism technologies within 90 days so that
Federal, State, local, and private sector officials can prevent
domestic terror;
Funding 2,000 additional border patrol agents;
Assessing the effectiveness of operations at the Departments of
Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement
so that spending on these programs is efficient and effective;
Consolidating the current background check system, so that
individuals can be prescreened by checking their names and biometric
identifiers against terrorist watch lists and other criminal databases;
Adopting risk-based cargo screening, and expanding the number of
foreign ports where Customs and Border Patrol agents screen incoming
containers from 36 to approximately 50 ports;
Improving information analysis and infrastructure protection
recruiting;
Improving nuclear and biological intelligence;
Establishing a one-stop shop within the Department of Homeland
Security for reliable, comprehensive, and accessible open-source
intelligence information and analysis;
Providing better information to local leaders by requiring that any
threats be communicated in a manner that limits confusion and
operational conflicts;
Clarifying the color-based threat system so that specific information
is given directly to regions, States, localities, and private sector
industries;
Creating a National Terrorism Exercise program to coordinate and
establish minimum standards for all Federal, State, and local terrorism
drills; and
Providing for greater Federal, State, and local homeland operations
collaboration that needs to take place.
By providing leadership and guidance on these issues and many others,
Chairman Cox and his committee have provided this House with a product
that I believe is effective in providing for the security of our
homeland, which deserves the support of every single Member of this
body. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, famed writer and political commentator George Orwell
once wrote that ``people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only
because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.'' That
statement should have a special resonance for Americans in today's
world.
We are fighting a new kind of war every day here in America. Our
struggle against terror is one that requires us to focus our resources
inward like no time in our history, because today the battlefields are
the streets and sidewalks of this country and not some faraway land.
We have to ensure that our government is prepared to responsibly
address any threat that imperils the peace and prosperity of this
Nation. Only then will the American people truly sleep peaceably
through the night. That is why this Homeland Security authorization
bill is critically important, because it represents the blueprint of
our homeland defense and our collective peace of mind for many years to
come.
With such a weighty mandate, I would like to congratulate the
Committee on Homeland Security in putting together their first
committee authorization. But I would have wished

[[Page H3444]]

today for an open rule, and we are still faced with serious issues of
accountability and trust in the management of the Department of
Homeland Security. This is in no small part as a result of the Bush
administration's unwillingness to fill critical job vacancies at the
senior levels of the agency.
In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has had two Secretaries
and three Deputy Secretaries in 2 years. Today, 42 percent of the high-
level political positions inside the agency are vacant or staffed by
people who have already announced their departures. This lack of
stability at the Department has impacted the agency's ability to meet
its mandate effectively.
For example, in my district, the Peace Bridge, which connects Buffalo
to Canada, continues to face obstacles in moving to alleviate traffic
congestion. Last December, the United States and Canadian governments
agreed to move forward with a shared border management initiative which
would remedy the situation. But it has been stalled by endless
bureaucracy and lack of accountability at the Department of Homeland
Security.
But it is not just a lack of accountability that has plagued the
agency. Our country's epic struggle against terror is also a struggle
against fear. We recently discovered that the infamous homeland
security terror alerts, which were raised so often in the months
leading up to the Presidential election, and rarely since, if ever,
were repeatedly elevated over the objections of the Homeland Security
Secretary and his staff. The terror alerts were raised on what
Secretary Ridge himself called ``flimsy evidence'' by individuals in
the administration who were really aggressive about raising it, which
shows that they were used for political purposes.
I know I am not the only one who questions why in the 5\1/2\ months
since election day there has not been a single terror alert. Perhaps
Mr. Ridge's comments put the answer in the proper perspective. That
constitutes a violation of trust with the American people, and we
cannot afford that in this war on terror. We ought not to employ the
tactics of fear as a means of control in our pursuit to keep the
homeland secure. Such draconian measures are not in keeping with the
spirit of America.
It is beneath us as a Nation to have partisan politics injected into
our national security apparatus in an ugly and manipulative way. We
dare not trade in a currency of fear, but rather should strive to
liberate ourselves from fear through awareness of our world and an
honest understanding of the challenges which lay before us.
I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree on this
principle, and I am pleased that the committee has seen fit to include
more specific criteria for how the terror alert is and is not to be
utilized. Likewise, the appropriation bill passed yesterday by a nearly
unanimous vote also included measures that promise to provide a higher
degree of accountability at the agency, accountability that I am sure
we all agree is sorely needed.
Despite the serious problems at DHS, which still must be addressed,
there is much in this authorization bill that I believe every Member of
Congress will support. As a representative from a border State, I am
pleased to see that the legislation authorizes $1.9 billion, enough
money to hire 2,000 additional border agents this year, agents sorely
needed. This funding would mark a welcome change in the
administration's approach to handling border security issues away from
an economically disastrous agenda of imposing passport requirements on
our citizens who want to cross our northern border and towards a more
sensible policy of effective border enforcement, one which maximizes
security resources and safeguards the freedoms and options our citizens
and our trading partners deserve.
But that would require that the majority had the will to actually
spend the border security dollars and not just authorize them. It is,
after all, easy to talk tough about securing borders, but we need
action. We need a true commitment from this Congress to put more agents
in the field. We seem to have an ongoing problem here with leadership
when it comes to this issue where reality does not measure up to
rhetoric. It is my hope that this time will be different.
The House leadership's decision to include in this rule two
amendments of mine suggests there may be room for common ground on the
critical border issue after all. Clearly, the most effective tool we
have to protect our borders is knowledge. Those of us who represent
border economies understand how important the unencumbered flow of
commerce across the northern border is to continued economic growth and
to prosperity. The NEXUS program, we hope, will reduce the long waits
at the border and allow an unprecedented level of security. It will be
smart management, and I look forward to the upcoming debate on the
amendment.
But there are many others, I know, we would all like to debate here
on the floor today; but of 89, only 25 were ruled in order, which is
less than 30 percent. And as I have said previously, I do wish this had
been an open rule because we need to spend the extra time and we need
to allow our colleagues to consider more ideas on how to improve the
homeland security. Is that not what democracy is about, debate and
deliberation? Our framers thought so, and I think so, and I think most
of my colleagues and most Americans think so.
One amendment we will not consider today, which I regret, would have
established a much-needed railroad security plan for America, which we
do not have. And, incredibly, an amendment which would have required
all cargo transported on commercial and passenger airplanes be
inspected for explosives was not allowed. How could we not allow a
debate on a critical homeland security issue such as this?
My colleagues, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) and the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), offered an amendment which
would have upgraded security requirements associated with transporting
extremely hazardous materials. But, inexplicably, it too was blocked
from consideration.
But just as we cannot afford to live in fear in this age of
terrorism, we also cannot fear engaging in genuine debate in
consideration of those matters which may be controversial for some, but
which are clearly important for the safety of all Americans. The free
flow of debate and democracy are a hallmark of our American values,
which this House was designed to embody. They are the core values which
separate us from those who seek to destroy us and our way of life. And
here in the cradle of democracy, we diminish those most American of
values at our own peril.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to say that it makes me so proud to hear the gentlewoman from New York
talk with glowing admiration not only about how important this Homeland
Security bill is but about the hard work that went into it and how it
became a part of a better product.
Yesterday, the Committee on Rules had an opportunity, virtually all
day, to hear testimony from Members across the aisle talk about ideas
and thoughts and suggestions that they had that would make this a
better bill. The chairman, the gentleman from California, not only
listened to them but he worked with the chairman of the Committee on
Homeland Security, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), on
perfecting this bill by adding in amendments.
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, there are a large number of
amendments that were added to this, perfecting the bill, perfecting the
process, but more importantly giving an opportunity for Members of this
body to make sure, from their own perspective, that Homeland Security
became more effective by providing the information that was needed to
address their local communities.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time,
and I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying
legislation.
We are about to embark on a very new experience for us. We all know
that September 11 of 2001 changed our lives forever. We obviously have
had to focus for the first time on our homeland security. We know that
shortly

[[Page H3445]]

after September 11 the President of the United States stepped up to the
plate and put into place this now Cabinet-level Department of Homeland
Security, but it obviously took a period of time for us as an
institution to put together the structure that would allow for adequate
oversight.
At the beginning of this Congress, we established a new permanent
standing Committee on Homeland Security, and we selected my
extraordinarily able colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cox), to serve as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security
dealing with jurisdictions that fell within a wide range of other
committees.

{time} 1045

We had our committee chairmen and ranking members agree to come
together on establishing this new Committee on Homeland Security.
Obviously the jurisdiction is very far-reaching. It is jurisdiction
which focuses on a lot of new things for us. The fact that when we
refer to men and women in uniform on the front line, they are no longer
just the men and women in our Armed Forces, they are now men and women
who wear the uniforms of firefighters and law enforcement officers. We
now have, because of the threat, a greater focus on border security. We
have focused on ensuring that people who pose a terrorist threat to us
are not able to get documents that have been easily fabricated in the
past.
Frankly, I will say that we are continuing to work on that, and I
urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring H.R. 98, which will help us
produce a counterfeit-proof Social Security card so we can diminish the
flow of illegal immigration with the magnet of jobs that draws people
across our southern border and instead allow our Border Patrol, which
is increased in this authorizing legislation, to focus their attention
on criminals and those who pose a terrorist threat to the United States
of America.
Now what is it that we have done with this rule and the legislation?
With the rule, I am very proud of having had, as the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sessions) so ably said a fair rule, and I am proud of the
work he has done. He was a member of the Select Committee on Homeland
Security. He was unable to serve on the committee in this Congress
because of the exclusivity of the Committee on Rules, but as the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) pointed out, he is serving as the
Committee on Rules liaison focusing on these very important new
homeland security issues.
One of the things that we can do, as we increase the Border Patrol,
if we can pass H.R. 98, which will decrease by 98 percent the flow of
illegal immigrants across our southern border, is letting the Border
Patrol put their time and energy into trying to diminish the flow of
criminals and those who pose a terrorist threat to us. I urge my
colleagues to support that effort.
But I would note that the rule which has been put together allows for
the consideration of 25 different amendments. We will be having a full
5 hours of debate on this issue, and I am pleased we made in order a
Democratic substitute which is 221 pages long, a full substitute which
frankly includes many of the amendments that have been proposed by both
Republicans and Democrats. A number of those are included in the
substitute.
I am also very proud of the fact that we were with the daughter, son-
in-law and grandson of our distinguished ranking minority member, the
gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), and we were able
to make in order two amendments which the gentlewoman has proposed to
the committee.
I will say that of those 25 amendments, 13 of them have been offered
by Democrats, made in order, 10 by Republicans, and two are bipartisan
amendments with Democrats and Republicans coming together to deal with
this issue.
So I will say, I believe we are moving into an extremely important
area. We are going to address a wide range of concerns. Yes, there are
other concerns that we hope can be addressed. But the mere passage of
this legislation, the mere passage of this legislation and moving it to
the President's desk will, I believe, help us address a lot of the
concerns that some whose amendments were not made in order have been
trying to address. I appreciate my colleagues' support in this effort.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership in the Committee
on Rules have done it again. Once again, they have bent over backwards
for big business while putting the safety of the American public at
risk.
Last night, on a party-line vote, the Republicans in the Committee on
Rules refused to allow the House to consider two important amendments
which would have improved safety on airplanes and would have notified
the flying public about the safety of the airplanes they fly on.
Currently, cargo that is transported on commercial airplanes is not
inspected. Even though our passenger luggage is inspected by TSA, the
cargo that is transported on those same planes is not inspected. The
TSA has not implemented regulations as the law requires them to do to
inspect the cargo on these planes, and now the Republican leadership
has taken direct action to prevent these inspections.
Yesterday, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) asked that
the Committee on Rules make in order an amendment that would have
required all cargo to be screened within 3 years. We all go through
these metal detectors. We all have to take off our shoes and empty out
our pockets. We do that because we want to be safe. Certainly we should
screen all cargo.
Additionally, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) offered an
amendment that would require TSA to notify passengers flying on a plane
carrying uninspected cargo, the rationale being if we are not going to
inspect the cargo the flying public should at least have the right to
know that they are flying on a plane with uninspected cargo.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is too much to ask for, but the
Republican leadership in the Committee on Rules decided not to make
these amendments in order. They decided not to allow a debate. They
decided not to allow a vote. I asked the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules why these amendments were not made in order, and all
he could say is they decided not to. That is not an answer.
These amendments would make our skies safer. They are no-brainers,
and yet the Republicans refuse to even allow us to debate and vote on
these amendments. Instead of taking action to protect the American
public, the Committee on Rules decided to protect the interest of the
airlines and the cargo shippers.
Mr. Speaker, legislation on homeland security should result in a
safer public. Unfortunately, the leadership is going in exactly the
wrong direction when they denied these two amendments from being made
in order.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder), chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice,
Drug Policy and Human Resources.
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California
(Chairman Dreier), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), and the
leadership for bringing forth what I believe is a fair rule. One way we
are going to tell it is a fair rule is because people who do not like
certain amendments being made in order from certain committees will
object. This has been a very difficult process, and as the Committee on
Rules along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman
of our Permanent Select Committee on Homeland Security on which I also
serve, this has been an incredibly difficult process from the time this
committee has been organized.
The American people want to see action on homeland security. They do
not want to hear about Congress' jurisdictional fights, how we believe
we have this in this committee and this in this committee, and
therefore we are immobilized in Congress. Yet at the same time there
are practical reasons, and let me illustrate a few of my own concerns
and how I approach this amendment process.
Mr. Speaker, I had four amendments. Two were made in order, and
arguably the two most important were not. I

[[Page H3446]]

withdrew them in front of the Committee on Rules after talking with the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the other relevant committees.
It shows the dilemma we face. One of them is to merge the Border
Protection Agency and ICE inside Homeland Security. It is a system that
is not working. This is not a commentary on the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner), who is doing the best he can with an organizational
nightmare as we blend these things together.
But in fact, the challenge here of inland immigration is somewhat a
different problem, as is deportation, from the border question as it
relates to homeland security. So obviously the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) has deep concerns, and we have to figure out what
is going to be under the Committee on Homeland Security and what is
under the Committee on the Judiciary.
Similarly, a second amendment I had on intelligence that is trying to
coordinate this proliferation of intelligence agencies, and we seem to
create a new one every 6 months, both in Congress and in the
administration, one or the other of us, and we are getting all this
stovepiping and no coordination which is exactly opposite of what the
9/11 Commission proposed.
I had an amendment to propose consolidating inside Homeland Security.
But guess what, the funding for that comes from several different
committees. We could have probably worked this out. I want to continue
to work on this. It has passed the House, but the question is what
falls under the Committee on Homeland Security and what falls under
defense and intelligence committees. These things are not easy to work
out.
I believe this rule, by allowing 25 amendments, is clearly
identifying the direction of the House. This is the primary Committee
on Homeland Security. Where it clearly falls under Homeland Security,
these amendments need to be in order and this committee needs the
authority to address it.
I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the leadership
for letting this expand. Today is a skinny bill. There are other things
we could have done, but it is important to set the precedent. Every
year we are going to have an authorization bill on Homeland Security,
like the other committees, and I am sure that will be spoken to
multiple times today. This rule illustrates the difficulty.
Many Members are very frustrated that they did not get their
amendments in order. I am frustrated that I did not get two of mine in
order, but this is a complicated process. Today is the first step and
the Committee on Rules has made an important first step in allowing 25
amendments, many over the objections of people who are objecting to
jurisdiction, and keeping enough out that we can keep a coalition
together to show the American people we want to move homeland security
bills and this House will not be held up by jurisdictional fights over
homeland security. Our goal is to protect the American people and not
fight over our committee jurisdictions.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member on the Committee on
Homeland Security.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
this rule. As a ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I
strongly believe this base bill is deficient in a number of significant
areas.
This 79-page bill fails to address a number of critical aspects of
homeland security and does not deliver on the homeland security
commitments made in the 9/11 Act. That is why I, like many of my
colleagues in the House, felt compelled to submit amendments to the
Committee on Rules for this bill. All told, there were 85 amendments
offered, many of them from my colleagues on the Committee on Homeland
Security.
The rule before us today will allow 24 amendments to be considered by
the full House. That is simply wrong. The rule blocks a meaningful
debate on important amendments like the one the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Lowey) offered to close a major aviation security gap. It
would have required airport workers to be physically screened before
accessing planes in restricted areas of airports. The rule also denies
consideration of an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California, (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Economic Security and Infrastructure Protection. It
would have closed a major port security gap by requiring validation
inspectors for shippers.
This rule also prevents the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton) from presenting her amendment to close gaps in the public
transit and rail system. It also denies the House the opportunity to
consider amendments offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) to improve chemical plant security, develop policies for
rerouting hazardous material, and grant DHS whistleblower protections.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on listing good amendments that were
done so wrong by this rule. But instead, I will close by urging a no
vote on this rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mica), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I am pleased to speak before the House and also for the record on
the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to support the rule, but I think it is very
important that at this juncture in proceeding with this important
Homeland Security authorization that some things are said and also some
items for the record are noted.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), who I have had the pleasure
to work with from the other side of the aisle, crafted legislation
which was incorporated into the intelligence reform bills. One of the
titles of that bill that the President signed, dealing with the threat
and the direction of Congress towards trying to deal with the problem
of MANPADS, and that is shoulder-launch missiles, and the threat that
they posed.
One of the things that we did was to try to move that project
forward. Sometimes in homeland security we spend a lot of money and we
do not get a great deal of results. I view, as chairman of the House
Subcommittee on Aviation, one of the greatest threats that we face
other than a suicide bomber or several of them getting on planes, which
they can easily do in our flawed system today, I view the second
greatest threat as shoulder-launch missiles.

{time} 1100

With the conflict in the world, particularly in the Middle East,
thousands of these shoulder-launched missiles have gone on the market.
So we worked to, one, curtail the number of shoulder-launched missiles;
two, encourage international treaties, develop ground-based systems,
and this bill does something towards that.
We started a program several years ago when we saw this threat and we
tried to do our best to move forward development of a commercial
shoulder-launched missile. This bill unfortunately limits the amount of
money that can be spent on moving that program forward. The gentleman
from New York (Mr. Israel) had an amendment that was not included here
that would relieve that restriction. Yesterday we were wise in
appropriating what the administration requested for funding the
program, but this authorization is lacking. I would have preferred to
have his amendment in here.
My purpose for being here on May 18, 2005 is to remind us that they
missed in Kenya an Israeli plane in November 2002 with many passengers.
They missed in Iraq in 2003 a DHL plane that also could have been taken
down by shoulder-launched missiles.
Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we have been very fortunate so far
and we cannot be remiss in making available the best technology to
protect the traveling public. Not that we have to hang one of these on
every commercial aircraft, but we will be remiss if we do not carry
this program that has already started forward. If we miss a lick here,
it will be much to our regret. I regret that the gentleman from New
York's amendment was not included in this.
I will support this. I look forward to working with the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cox) and others as they take on the responsibility
of protecting not only the homeland but the flying public.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

[[Page H3447]]

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for
yielding me the time. I also thank the Committee on Rules for making in
order an amendment by myself and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica)
that will help perfect the Federal flight deck officer program. Many,
many pilots are willing to volunteer to undergo rigorous training to
certify themselves as Federal flight deck officers to become the last
line of defense on our planes. There cannot be an air marshal on every
plane. We still do not have secondary barriers in the planes. There are
times when the flight deck door is open. There are ongoing threats. It
is essential to improve that program and I am hopeful Members will look
favorably upon that amendment later today.
With that said, I wish that the rule was more inclusive. My
colleague, the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Aviation, wanted
to offer an amendment to mandate that the taxes we are collecting from
the traveling public to pay for enhanced security at the airports; that
is, to put in-line explosives detection systems at airports that do not
have it across America to find explosives in checked bags, and possibly
that same equipment could be used for cargo on those planes, was not
allowed. It is unfortunate.
Most Americans are under the impression that all of their baggage is
being screened. It is not being effectively screened. Some of it is
being hand searched. Some of it is being trace searched. Some of it is
being looked at. Some of it is being loaded on the plane. And some of
it is going through very sophisticated in-line explosives detection
systems, and we have the numbers. Where those systems exist, we can
find threat objects, explosives a very, very high percentage of the
time. Where those systems do not exist, there is a very disturbing lack
of detection of test objects, threat objects, explosives.
We also have a huge and gaping hole at the passenger checkpoint. The
last wakeup call we are probably ever going to get before the day when
planes start falling out of the sky was in Russia where two terrorists,
women, boarded planes with explosives, we do not know exactly whether
they were in their carry-on bags or whether they were wearing suicide
belts, but here in the United States of America we are doing nothing to
find suicide belts or explosives in bags. We are still using 1980s
technology at the checkpoints, technology that was thrown out of the
United States Capitol more than a decade ago as inadequate to the
threat, thrown out of the White House and other places. Yet aviation
was attacked and aviation in Russia was attacked by what I think, as
does the chairman of the committee, is the most likely future threat,
which is explosives. We need to move ahead with more robust acquisition
of that equipment in the near future and this bill does not mandate
that.
I would congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for the
first ever authorization. It is a good first start. Remember, the
Homeland Security Department started out of chaos. The President
refused to create a homeland security Cabinet-level position or
department until one day when an FBI agent was spilling her guts here
in Washington, D.C., to a committee and Karl Rove wrote out the plan on
the back of a napkin. Congress is just starting to make sense of what
the Department of Homeland Security will be in the future.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We have had a number of our colleagues make observations, just as the
gentleman from Oregon did, about the importance of not only the debate
that takes place here in the House but also about our desire to make
homeland security even better, more robust, more dynamic, aiming at the
threat. We heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) talk very
eloquently about the need for border control, for us to make sure that
those people who might be terrorists or may be criminals entering this
country.
I am sure we will hear a debate about cargo, cargo ships, thousands
of containers that come to this country every day, the commerce of this
country that is affected. We know that we talked yesterday in the
Committee on Rules about the Canadian border and how the Canadian
border needs the attention that they not only deserve but also with the
flow of goods and services with the economies that are affected and
products and services that are denied when the backlogs occur. Each of
these has been a part of the arguments, the debates, the discussions
that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has taken into account,
has made sure that he has taken them to the Homeland Security
Department, has spoken with the administration.
It just makes me very proud today to see our Members who are able to
cogently come up with not only good answers and better decision-making
processes but an abiding faith in what we are doing here today. I am
proud that this debate, some 5 hours of debate that will take place
today about this very important subject where Members of Congress are
able to come down and really identify their specific suggestions that
they have. I think this process works. I think the Committee on Rules
was wise in what it did. I think the gentleman from California knew
when he put together this rule with our leadership what it would look
like. It is working today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).
Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I have every intention of supporting today's
homeland security authorization bill, but I think this bill could be
dramatically improved, especially regarding the rail safety standards
that apply to the shipment of extremely hazardous materials in local
communities all across our Nation.
Three days after I took office this year, an early morning train
carrying three rail cars filled with chlorine gas slammed into a parked
rail car in the town of Graniteville, South Carolina. This produced a
toxic cloud of chlorine and sodium hydroxide that forced 5,400 local
residents to flee for their lives. In all, over 240 people were
sickened by the gas and 10 people died because of the accident. The
long-term effects of the leak are still unknown and the cleanup process
continues to this day.
Mr. Speaker, what happened in Graniteville was not an isolated
incident. Train accidents occur frequently in the United States. Rail
cars carrying hazardous, flammable or explosive materials not only pose
a major health risk to the communities they travel through, they are
vulnerable security threats to our Nation's homeland security efforts.
These are would-be terrorist targets begging for attention.
Since the Graniteville incident, I have met with a number of safety
experts, and I guarantee that if any Members of this Congress were to
sit down with these representatives they would be shocked to learn how
many commonsense safeguards are out there that have not been
implemented to address rail safety in this country. It is time to do
more to improve rail security measures.
The current safeguards for the transportation of hazardous materials
are nowhere near what they need to be. That is not just a health
concern for our local communities, it is a security concern for our
entire Nation.
The amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and
I offered yesterday helps close this gap in rail security measures. It
provides hazardous material training for local first responders. It
implements coordination and communication plans in the event of an
accident or an attack, it develops new technology to make rail cars
more resistant to punctures and, most importantly, it requires
prenotification for local law enforcement whenever hazardous materials
are being shipped through their communities.
These safety standards are long overdue and they deserve a vote on
the House floor. Local leaders and the American people should not have
to beg for sound safety measures and they should not have to wait for a
debate on the issue.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we spoke earlier about how Members
provided information back and forth not only to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox) and the Homeland Security Department but also
about how we were able to have a Committee on Rules meeting yesterday
with thoughtful ideas that were presented yesterday. Our next speaker
was a part of

[[Page H3448]]

those thoughtful ideas. He not only sat through hours of testimony,
quizzing Members about their questions and comments, things that would
make things better, but also a few ideas himself.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, one of the most important responsibilities of this
Congress is to defend and protect our Nation from external and internal
terrorist threats. Some of the vital features of H.R. 1817, the
Homeland Security Authorization Act, include funding to train and
prepare first responders, improvements in cyber security, improvements
in container security and enhanced border security. The Homeland
Security Authorization Act will authorize funding for 2,000 new Border
Patrol agents and it requires the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security to develop a plan to coordinate and address
duplication problems between the Customs and Border Protection agency
and the Immigration Customs Enforcement agency.
Most importantly, I am pleased the rule we passed last night allows
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) to have his amendment made in
order. The Norwood amendment, among other provisions, clarifies that
State and local law enforcement agencies have the right and the
authority to enforce our immigration laws. Illegal immigration has
become a threat to the security of many of our communities, even those
not along our borders. The problem of illegal immigration has grown in
part because local and State authorities have been uncertain of the
jurisdiction regarding the apprehension, detention and deportation of
illegal aliens. Sheriffs departments throughout my congressional
district have been burdened with unnecessary expenses in detaining and
housing illegal alien criminals prior to ICE involvement. The gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has introduced his amendment to clarify the
boundaries of jurisdiction regarding the enforcement of Federal
immigration laws and provides for a training manual to aid in this
effort. I believe that when an officer or deputy swears an oath to
enforce the law, they should enforce all the laws, both State and
Federal.
Mr. Speaker, immigration enforcement is critical for securing our
Nation from terrorists. A porous border that allows terrorists and the
enemies of this Nation to pass through undetected is unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage passage of this rule, passage of the Norwood
amendment, and passage of the underlying bill to strengthen our borders
and protect our homeland from another attack.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, under cover of darkness and hidden from
public view, the Republican-controlled Committee on Rules cooked up an
unwise, unfair and ill-considered rule that shuts out dozens of
Democratic amendments designed to close dangerous homeland security
loopholes that put the American public at risk. For example, one of the
amendments would have been one made by the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Shays) and myself which would have ensured that all cargo which is
placed upon passenger planes in the United States was screened, so when
the people in this gallery and people around the country step on planes
they have to take off their shoes, their bags go through, they are
screened, their bags are put in the belly of the plane, they are
screened, but the cargo, the cargo, which is placed on the very same
plane, is not screened.
The people on the plane are accompanying their bags. The people who
are sending cargo are not on the plane. Al Qaeda is like water. It
looks for the least resistance. That on a plane is where the least
resistance is, in the cargo bay. We should not put Americans on planes
where the cargo has not been screened knowing that al Qaeda continues
to place civilian aircraft at the top of their terrorist target list.
It is wrong for the Republicans not to have a debate about this
incredible, glaring vulnerability in passenger aircraft as hundreds of
millions of Americans put their families on planes, especially as we
are nearing the fourth anniversary of 9/11.

{time} 1115

Another amendment, one dealing with the hundreds of thousands of
shipments of extremely hazardous materials which go through the cities
and towns of the United States every single year. This is a photograph
of one of those hazardous material shipments within a couple of blocks
of the Capitol. The Republicans would not put in order an amendment
that would ensure that a rule-making by the Federal Government would be
put in place in order to make sure that we would increase the security
for the shipment of these hazardous materials through the cities and
towns of the United States of America.
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) and I made a request to the
Committee on Rules, let us debate it out here on the House floor, let
us debate if we want to put any additional security protections on
something, which, for all intents and purposes, has no security around
it as it goes through the cities and towns of the United States. What a
target for al Qaeda this would be.
But the Republicans say no debate on that. No debate on putting cargo
into the bay of passenger planes that people fly every single day
across America after they have taken off their shoes.
Mr. Speaker, this is wrong. The Republican Party is putting a gag on
debate on the most important issues that face the security of America
and attacks by al Qaeda on our country. And this issue, especially the
issue of cargo on planes, is an absolute reprehensible neglect of the
responsibility that Congress has for the flying American public.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman has noted, there will be 5 hours of
debate today. There will be a Democrat substitute that will be
included, some 200-plus pages that will allow not only full debate
under these 5 hours but an opportunity for Members to come down, just
as the gentleman from Massachusetts has done, to provide each Member
with information about how important this bill is. And I am really
proud of the time that we have. The Committee on Rules did a great job.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I know we all have strong feelings about a lot of things, and
sometimes someone could say we may not be right but we are never in
doubt.
I want to say I am not in doubt on this issue, and I think I am
right. I think it is an outrage that we do not inspect the cargo that
is in the belly of a passenger aircraft. And I think it is an outrage,
frankly, that the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) amendment
was not made in order so we could at least debate this. If one
disagrees with the issue, that is one thing. But not to even allow for
a debate and have the American people begin to understand the evolution
that has taken place is unfortunate.
First, we started to inspect the carry-on luggage, and Americans
thought we must be checking baggage on the belly of an aircraft. I did,
until the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) came to me and said we
are not, do I want to sponsor an amendment. And we worked on an
amendment, and we put and got in the bill a few years ago that there
had to be deadlines for eventually inspecting all baggage that went in
the belly of an aircraft. We had a deadline and we finally did it. So
then I was thinking, well, we have done our job.
And the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) informs me, and I
did not know it, that 22 percent of what is in the belly of an aircraft
is cargo uninspected. Uninspected, and yet we are not willing to have a
debate about this.
I think it is amazing, and I think it is wrong; and I think if the
public knew it, they would be outraged. If the argument is that we do
not have the technology, which we do, or we do not have enough of the
technology, which is right, we allowed under the gentleman from
Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) amendment for a 3-year phase-in: 35 percent
the first year, 65 in the second,

[[Page H3449]]

and then 100 percent in the third year. But if one still did not want
to vote for that bill, we asked for another amendment to be made in
order. The amendment was quite simple. It simply said to tell the
passenger that the cargo on this plane has not been inspected. Even
that amendment was not made in order.
Vote against it if one does not like it. But to not even allow a
debate on the floor of the House about this issue?
I had a constituent who was on Pan Am 103. I got the call at 11 in
the morning that said she thinks her daughter was on this aircraft but
30 kids were not, 30 people were not; and she hoped and prayed her
daughter was one who could not get on it. I was at her home that
evening about 11:30 that night when she got the call that said her
daughter was on that plane. Admittedly, that was baggage. But if we now
inspect the carry-on baggage and we inspect the baggage that is given
at the ticket counter, what are terrorists going to do? They are just
going to link it up with cargo and blow up a plane, a passenger plane,
because the cargo has not been inspected.
I really believe we need this amendment. I salute both sides of the
aisle for this bill. I salute the Committee on Rules for allowing for
25 amendments. But this is an amendment that should have been allowed.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this restrictive
rule which does not make in order several key amendments that could go
a long way to enhancing our security efforts and addressing serious
vulnerabilities. Case in point: the cargo security amendment offered by
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and just spoken of by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
That being said, today we will consider H.R. 1817, the first ever
authorization measure for the Department of Homeland Security. I want
to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), ranking member, for bringing
this important bill on the floor. I am proud to serve with them on the
Committee on Homeland Security.
While it is not as far reaching as many of us had hoped, H.R. 1817
takes several critical steps in improving our Nation's security and
preparedness. It authorizes sufficient funding to hire an additional
2,000 border patrol agents, which will help us meet the goal of 10,000
new agents over 5 years set forth in last year's intelligence reform
bill. The measure also streamlines the background check system for
those working in sensitive positions, creates an Assistant Secretary
for Cybersecurity, and requires reform of the homeland security alert
system so that more specific and targeted information can be provided
to those who need it.
Finally, this bill will improve our intelligence and information
capabilities by allowing new recruiting tools to attract the best-
qualified analysts and mandating increased coordination in the
dissemination of threat information to State, local, and private sector
officials.
But this bill could have gone further. While I understand the
jurisdictional constraints facing the gentleman from California
(Chairman Cox), I firmly believe that a DHS authorization bill should
include critical components like port security, nuclear and chemical
facility security, bioterrorism preparedness, communications
interoperability, and rail and transit security. That is why I will be
supporting a substitute amendment offered later today by the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), ranking member. This comprehensive
amendment takes the right approach to homeland security needs that
still face our country.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me again thank the gentleman from
California (Chairman Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Thompson), ranking member, for their hard work on this legislation. It
is not a perfect bill, but it is indeed an important and significant
first step.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I very much thank the gentlewoman from New
York for yielding me this time.
I must say I am grateful for small favors. This is, after all, the
first authorization bill, almost 4 years after 9/11. But for that, the
credit is due to the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), ranking member, for working
collaboratively and, in doing so, establishing the jurisdiction of our
committee and their jurisdiction over the Department. These are not
small matters.
I am grateful as well that an amendment of mine on rail safety is in
the bill. It is so basic that it does tell us a lot about my
disappointment that this bill simply does not address rail safety even
though that is where the people are. I do have report language in the
bill, and the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) worked hard to
make sure that he got as much in the bill as he could. However, he was
under powerful constraints. We were noticed that no amendment that, in
fact, called for authorization of a single dollar extra would be
allowed in the bill. We have just heard about the problem four blocks
from the Capitol with hazardous substances going by and the
embarrassment that I think the Congress should feel that there has been
no administrative action to do anything about it, and so there was a
lawsuit actually won at the first level because of the danger posed
when Congress does not act and local jurisdictions stepped forward.
We do have to get to work, and if Members do not believe me, remember
last Wednesday in the rush from the Capitol. It was not a comedy of
errors. Indeed, it was not very funny because these were not mistakes.
What we had were huge questions opened up. Not everything was done that
should have been done, but we do know what should have been done in the
first place. Do we know why the plane came so close, why the President
was not informed, why the District of Columbia was not informed even
though there was a sergeant sitting right there in the Department of
Homeland Security? Above all, why were we not in the basement of the
Capitol rather than out on the streets when there was such a small
plane involved and we were probably in greater danger on evacuation.
Lots of work. Let us begin to do it today.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend from New
York for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise against this rule. I am very disappointed that my
bipartisan amendment to restore funding for shoulder-fired missile
protections was not permitted by this rule. The President of the United
States requested $110 million for shoulder-fired missile research and
development. The bill that we are going to vote on later today reduces
it to $10 million.
Over the past several years, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica),
Republican chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, and I have been
working on this issue. But it is not just the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Mica) and I. It is the State Department which released a report
saying that shoulder-fired missiles are the leading cause of loss of
life in commercial aviation around the world.
They were used in December of 2003 against an Israeli jetliner in
Kenya. They were used a year later against a DHL carrier. We now know
that the Internet is teaching terrorists how to buy shoulder-fired
missiles, set them up, and fire them. There are hundreds of thousands
of these systems available around the world in the hands of 27 separate
terrorist groups including al Qaeda. Everyone who has studied this
issue, the President, the Department of Homeland Security, the State
Department, the FBI, the CIA, the Aviation Subcommittee, the Committee
on Appropriations, agrees that this threat needs to be addressed. And
what does this bill do? Ignores the threat.
If a single shoulder-fired missile is fired at an American aircraft,
Mr. Speaker, we are not going to be worried about $115 million in this
bill. We

[[Page H3450]]

are going to be worried about the end of the aviation industry as we
know it and devastating consequences to our economy and the American
people will look at what we did on this floor today and ask why we
turned our backs on the President's request, the State Department's
urgency, the Committee on Appropriations, the Aviation Subcommittee,
Republicans and Democrats, and, most importantly, the flying public.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. This was a commonsense bipartisan
amendment. I will vote for the bill, but I am hopeful that we can work
together on the basis of common sense and proceed to protect the
American flying public.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time this morning.
Mr. Speaker, each Member of this House knows that when we go on
vacation, one of the first things that we want to do is get a map so
that we know where we are going and know the stops we are going to make
and have a general idea of what is facing us on this vacation.
Mr. Speaker, several members of the Law Enforcement Caucus were
discussing the issues of border security because we know we have been
talking a lot about securing our borders.

{time} 1130

Well, yesterday, my colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Stupak), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), and myself offered an
amendment at the Committee on Rules that would have required the
Department of Homeland Security to develop and begin to carry out a
comprehensive, long-term border strategy to secure this Nation's
borders. The amendment would have expanded what is already in place,
called the ``American Shield Initiative,'' to ensure that every inch of
the borders is monitored at all times, either through technology or
resources. Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules voted against making
this amendment in order on a straight party-line vote.
So when we talk about common sense, I stand here this morning
wondering what in the world are we thinking when we do not want to have
an amendment like this that gives us a long-term strategy for knowing
what this Congress needs to do to reinforce and secure this Nation's
border.
We all know that since 9/11, we have acknowledged that we need to
increase the number of Border Patrol agents and immigration inspectors
and, but Congress literally has been picking figures seemingly out of
thin air as we go through wanting to secure the border. Instead, we
should require a staffing assessment so we go through to determine what
personnel resources we need to get the job done right. Our amendment
would have required such an assessment for personnel, for technology,
and for infrastructure needs.
Balancing this Nation's border security has to go hand-in-hand with
having a strategy. We do not have that kind of strategy. This amendment
would have given us this strategy. Regrettably, it was not made in
order.
Mr. Speaker, I often wonder if common sense and Congress have
anything in common.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question
and, if it is defeated, I will amend the rules so that we can consider
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) and
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) rejected by the Committee
on Rules last night.
Mr. Speaker, the Barrow-Markey amendment would direct the Department
of Homeland Security to promulgate regulations upgrading the security
associated with transporting extremely hazardous materials such as
chlorine, which is toxic by inhalation, and those materials that are
flammable or explosive.
Mr. Speaker, extremely hazardous materials are transported through
virtually every community in the Nation. Several serious incidents have
taken place that have clearly demonstrated the threat that exists
whenever they are involved. I am disappointed that the Republican
leadership failed to include this important amendment, an issue that
needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. But, unfortunately,
under the rule, unless we defeat the previous question, we will not be
able to.
As always, I want to emphasize that a no vote on the previous
question will not prevent us from considering the Homeland Security
bill, but will allow Members to vote on the Barrow-Markey amendment.
However, a yes vote will prevent us from doing so.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the
text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote, and request a no
vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we have had a great debate. A few people showed up
and expressed some concern about what they had, and I would like to
address that so that the Members are aware. The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow)
did come before the Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules did not
put it in the bill, but it is not in the Democrat substitute either, so
the Democrat leadership chose not to include that in their substitute.
We also had some discussion about air cargo. For those Members who
are interested, air cargo will be in the substitute; it will be in
section 519. Republicans addressed the issue. We have doubled the
number of air cargo inspectors that would be at the airports to make
sure that we are looking at the cargo.
Today has been a good debate, an opportunity for Members to come
forth and speak about the important things about this bill. The
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has our admiration. He has done a
great job. The Committee on Rules I believe did a fair job. I would
also at this time like to thank the White House and the liaisons that
the White House provided to us, Brian Conklin for his great leadership,
Chris Frech for his hard work with us, and certainly their superstar at
the White House, Elan Elinjg, who took time to make sure that Members
were updated, not only about the position of the administration, but
about how they could work closely with Members of Congress.
So I think today has been another successful opportunity for us to
begin the 5 hours of debate that will take place today where every
Member will have an opportunity to come down and express themselves and
where we will have a Democrat substitute that will be over 200 pages
where they are able to express the things which they believe are best.
Members of Congress will be able to vote and a decision can be made
today. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this process.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
structured rule only insofar as it restricts both the number of
amendments made in order and the time allowed for debate of such a
grave piece of legislation. The restrictive nature of H. Res. 283 will
deprive the American people of debate over the aspects of the proposed
legislation that affects them the most.
H.R. 1817 is the first authorization measure since the passage of the
Homeland Security Act of 2003. Ruling only a quarter of the 80
amendments offered at the Committee on Rules meeting does not measure
well with the action that the appropriators have taken to hold the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) accountable for its unfulfilled
reporting requirements. The appropriators withheld over $700 million
from DHS due to these requirements; therefore, our passage of the most
comprehensive and representative measure possible would equate to
having conducted ``due diligence'' on our part.
Just yesterday, we in the House passed the Appropriations Act for FY
2006, H.R. 2360, by a margin of 424-1. An open rule for debate on the
authorization measure would have continued the spirit of true bi-
partisanship. I joined my committee colleagues in considering this bill
from its incipiency as it passed in both the Committees on Homeland
Security on April 28, 2005 and Judiciary on May 12, 2005 unanimously by
voice vote. Today, the Committee of the Whole will make history by
passing its first Homeland Security Authorization

[[Page H3451]]

measure, and I support an expedient but prudent completion of this
endeavor.
During the 13-hour Homeland Security Committee markup session that
ended at 11:15 p.m., I was able to secure sincere commitments from the
Majority Leadership to work with me for inclusion of some of my major
initiatives: funding and more clearly defining the Citizen Corps and
the Citizen Corps Councils--which will include consideration of a
stand-alone bill that I will introduce shortly; and increasing capacity
for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving
Institutions, and Tribal Institutions in Homeland Security procurement
and in employment with the Department of Homeland Security. In
addition, I was fortunate to have had my amendment, co-sponsored by the
Gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren, that seeks to authorize the
funding of programs for the education of minorities in the areas of
cyberscience, research, and development to close the gap in achievement
in those areas and to make America better equipped to fight terrorism
overall. Furthermore, I achieved an agreement from the Majority
Committee Leadership to collaborate on addressing the issue of border
violence, an initiative that the distinguished Chairman of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security showed his commitment
to addressing, as evidenced by his support for an amendment that I
offered yesterday during the House's consideration of the
appropriations measure, H.R. 2360. Not only do I hope to see this
language survive the deliberations of the Conferees, but I hope to see
follow-through by the Homeland Security Committee with the bi-partisan
letter and with consideration of the amendment that I plan to offer
during our consideration of H.R. 1817.
Mr. Speaker, what the House has done this week and will do today will
establish the breadth and efficacy of the entire Department of Homeland
Security. I hope that my colleagues will keep that in mind as we work
to debate the amendments that have been made in order.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my colleagues to defeat the
previous question so we can change this restrictive rule.
Yesterday I appeared before the Rules Committee to offer three
amendments. All were blocked by the Rules Committee from even the
opportunity to be debated on the floor. The Rules Committee also
blocked an amendment by Congressmen Markey and Shays that would have
required 100 percent check of cargo on commercial airlines. This
restrictive rule also blocked 60 other amendments, forty-seven of which
were Democratic amendments.
It is amazing to me that the majority would deny us even the
opportunity to debate what we feel is important to the American people.
What the rules committee did last night was deny us the opportunity to
address the health needs of the heroes of 9/11.
One of my amendments was modeled after the Remember 9/11 Health Act.
This is a bill that would provide medical monitoring and treatment for
individuals who are sick or injured as a direct result of the attacks
of 9/11.
Right now we have a 6,000-person waiting list just to be a part of
this medical screening. For the 12,000 who have been screened, about 50
percent of them are still sick as a direct result of 9/11. Despite
clear evidence that we have thousands sick, we have yet to provide a
single dollar for treatment. This is unethical.
These are men and women who were there for us on 9/11 and now we have
turned a cold shoulder to them in their time of need. We have precedent
for caring for volunteers who get sick. When a volunteer firefighter
becomes sick or injured while fighting a forest fire, he or she
immediately receives all the Federal health monitoring and treatment he
or she needs. If we can do it for volunteers for one disaster, we need
to do it for volunteers from 9/11.
Unfortunately the Rules Committee did not see it this way, because
they would not even give us the opportunity to debate this on the floor
today.
The next amendment I wanted to offer was written by a Republican,
Senator Voinovich of Ohio, and passed the Senate by unanimous consent.
It is modeled after the Disaster Area Health and Environmental
Monitoring Act, H.R. 5329 in the 108th Congress.
The amendment realizes that there are times when the health of first
responders is at risk, such as during the response to 9/11, and with a
Presidential declaration, would establish environmental and health
monitoring. This amendment would send a message to future responders
that if you risk your life in responding to a disaster, we will be
there for you if you get sick. This amendment would not have cost us
anything. It would just be good planning.
The final amendment I wanted to offer would give teeth to the Civil
Liberty Board established by the Intelligence Reform Act. This
amendment is modeled after H.R. 1310, the Protection of Civil Liberties
Act. This Amendment would create the board as an independent entity and
provide it with subpoena power, among other things.
The only way we will have a robust protection of our civil liberties
is to have a robust civil liberties board. All we have right now is a
weak board that does not even have a single member appointed.
By not allowing these and many other amendments, we are restricting
the ability of this House to do the business of the American people. We
have thousands who are sick from 9/11 who need our help, but this Rule
will not let their needs be heard.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Chairman of
the Homeland Security Committee for his success last week on
legislation to improve the first responder grant program and again
today for bringing bipartisan consensus legislation to the House floor.
He has crafted a good bill that deserves our support. As good as the
bill is, however, I must rise in opposition to the rule. I am troubled
that my colleagues Mr. Barrow and Mr. Markey and Mr. Oberstar were
blocked from offering their amendments concerning rail safety to this
important legislation.
If there is one lesson we should learn from the events of 9/11, it is
that our enemies are fighting an unconventional war against us.
With a few zealots and even fewer resources, terrorists can
manipulate our own resources and use them against us. On 9/11 aviation
fuel and four commercial aircraft were turned into missiles carrying
incendiary explosives.
Hardening the cockpit door, establishing new protocols to screen
passengers, and a number of other measures are a prudent response to
deny terrorists the use of commercial aircraft as a weapon.
I am afraid, however, that we are not being as proactive as we could
or should be at preventing other commercial resources from being used
as weapons that could be turned against us.
Representatives Barrow, Markey, and Oberstar have crafted thoughtful
responses to a threat that has not been fully addressed: Rail security
and the transportation of hazardous cargo on our rail system. It would
be a national tragedy if we had to wait until another attack similar to
Madrid to occur in the United States in order to commit the resources
necessary to properly secure our rail and transit systems.
The measures needed to address transit security differ from aviation,
but this should not be used as a justification for not providing an
infusion of additional funds to address already identified high
priority needs. The focus with aviation is strictly on deterrence:
stopping an event from happening.
For transit and rail, deterrence is only one part of the strategy,
additional resources are also needed to mitigate the impact of a
potential terrorist attack and hasten the recovery after an attack.
Allocating additional resources towards improving response and recovery
times can save lives and lessen the economic consequences of an attack.
With the Madrid bombing, the bombs went off on multiple trains over a
10-15 minute period. Enhanced detection capabilities, communications
equipment and redundancy in critical operating control functions could
allow for a quicker shutdown and evacuation of a passenger rail transit
system exposed to multiple attacks thereby significantly reducing the
causality rate.
Transit and rail systems cannot afford to be shut down for months or
even weeks following a biological attack. The economic consequences to
a major metropolitan region would be devastating, not to mention the
impact on the Federal Government if an attack occurred in Washington,
DC. Yet, no funds have been allocated to perform a comprehensive
decontamination demonstration project in a transit or rail environment.
Mr. Chairman, a 30-ton chlorine tank rail car, if ruptured, could
kill thousands of people unfortunate enough to be within a few miles
downwind of the attack. The railroad industry has a good safety record,
but that ignores the fact that those safeguards do not assume someone
is purposely trying to rupture these rail cars.
Local emergency responders in urban areas with potential targets of
key infrastructure and national icons understand this threat, but are
limited on what they can do to prevent an attack. Should they patrol
hundreds of miles of track and rail yards or take some measures under
some circumstances to reroute hazardous traffic around what we know are
high probability targets?
Today, there still is no clear understanding of what hazardous
material security plans have been developed. If they exist, they are
not being shared or discussed with the very people, local officials and
emergency response planners, who have the best information on the local
geography, vulnerabilities and potential set of targets. Today, local
officials are being told by the railroads and the Department of
Homeland Security to ``trust us.'' I get

[[Page H3452]]

nervous when someone I don't know tells me to ``trust'' them.
The laws on the books today did not envision hazardous cargo as a
weapon of mass destruction, and under current law interstate commerce
trumps local ordinances to suspend or redirect hazardous cargo.
This presumption is now being tested in the courts. Congress should
not defer to the courts on this important and weighty issue. I think we
can craft a responsible resolution, but denying an important floor
debate on this issue is wrong.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the rule on
H.R. 1817, the Homeland Security Authorization Act for FY2006.
Republicans on the Rules Committee blocked the consideration of several
amendments offered by me and my colleagues to this bill. This body
should have the right to discuss and to consider each amendment.
One of the amendments blocked was the amendment I offered which would
put passenger security fees into two funds that will guarantee that TSA
will spend the authorized amounts of $650 million a year and $250
million for the installation of inline baggage screening systems and
passenger checkpoint explosive detection, respectively.
We are currently collecting over $1.5 billion a year from the
passenger security fee for aviation security services. Given that these
security investments are financed by the existing passenger security
fee, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that the increased
investment does not increase the size of the deficit.
In April, the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General
(DHSIG) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) both released
reports that indicate that our airport screening system still needs
improvement. While the traveling public is more secure today than
before September 11th, 2001, airport screeners are not detecting
prohibited items at the level we need. Without a significant investment
and commitment by Congress and this Administration to upgrade our
technology, our screening system will continue to fail. We must and can
do better.
Last year, the 9/11 Commission specifically recommended that the TSA
and the Congress improve the ability of screenings checkpoints to
detect explosives on passengers. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458) authorized $250 million for the research
and deployment of advanced passenger screening technologies, such as
trace portals and backscatter x-ray systems.
To date, only about $30 million has been appropriated specifically
for the passenger screener technologies. The recent DHS IG report
clearly stated that the ``lack of improvements since our last audit
indicates that significant improvement in performance may not be
possible without greater use of technology.'' Further, the TSA
concurred with the 9/11 Commission recommendation that we must
``expedite the installation of advanced (in-line) baggage screening
equipment.''
In addition, in-line baggage screening systems have a much higher
throughput than stand-alone systems. If we install in-line systems,
more bags will be screened by explosive detection systems instead of
less reliable, alternative methods.
The TSA and airport operators rely on commitments in letters of
intent (LOIs) as their principal method for funding the modification of
airport facilities to incorporate in-line baggage screening systems.
The TSA has issued eight LOIs to cover the costs of installing systems
at 9 airports for a total cost to the Federal Government of $957.1
million over 4 years. The GAO reports that TSA has estimated that in-
line baggage screening systems at the 9 airports that received LOI
funding could save the Federal Government $1.3 billion over 7 years.
TSA further estimated that it could recover its initial investment in
the in-line systems at these airports in a little over one year. In
total, the GAO reports that 86 of 130 airports surveyed are planning or
are considering installing in-line baggage screening systems throughout
or at a portion of their airports.
Yet, the TSA has stated that it currently does not have sufficient
resources in its budget to fund any additional LOIs. While $650 million
is authorized for the installation of in-line baggage screening
systems, annual appropriations have not allowed for any new LOIs to be
signed.
We know what needs to be done to improve screener performance, and we
must take action now. We must demonstrate leadership and deploy
technologies that will keep the American public secure. Mr. Chairman, I
ask my colleagues to vote no on the rule so we can work to deploy
technologies that will help our screeners do their jobs and keep the
American traveling public safe.
The amendment previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

Previous Question Statement on H. Res. 283--Rule for H.R. 1817,
Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2006

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution the amendment specified in section 3 shall be in
order as though printed after the amendment numbered 1 in the
report of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative
Barrow of Georgia or Representative Markey of Massachusetts
or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable for 30
minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent.
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:

Amendment to H.R. 1817 Offered by Mr. Barrow of Georgia and Mr. Markey
of Massachusetts

At the end of title V of the bill, insert the following
(and conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly):

SEC. 509. EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION
SECURITY.

(a) Rulemaking.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the heads of other appropriate Federal,
State, and local government entities, security experts,
representatives of the hazardous materials shipping industry
and labor unions representing persons who work in the
hazardous materials shipping industry, and other interested
persons, shall issue, after notice and opportunity for public
comment, regulations concerning the shipping of extremely
hazardous materials.
(2) Purposes of regulations.--The regulations shall be
consistent, to the extent the Secretary determines
appropriate, with and not duplicative of other Federal
regulations and international agreements relating to the
shipping of extremely hazardous materials and shall require--
(A) physical security measures for such shipments, such as
the use of passive secondary containment of tanker valves and
other technologies to ensure the physical integrity of
pressurized tank cars used to transport extremely hazardous
materials, additional security force personnel, and
surveillance technologies and barriers;
(B) concerned Federal, State, and local law enforcement
authorities (including, if applicable, transit, railroad, or
port authority police agencies) to be informed before an
extremely hazardous material is transported within, through,
or near an area of concern;
(C) the creation of terrorism response plans for shipments
of extremely hazardous materials;
(D) the use of currently available technologies and systems
to ensure effective and immediate communication between
transporters of extremely hazardous materials and all
entities charged with responding to acts of terrorism
involving shipments of extremely hazardous materials;
(E) comprehensive and appropriate training in the area of
extremely hazardous materials transportation security for all
individuals who transport, load, unload, or are otherwise
involved in the shipping of extremely hazardous materials or
who would respond to an accident or incident involving a
shipment of extremely hazardous material or would have to
repair transportation equipment and facilities in the event
of such an accident or incident; and
(F) for the transportation of extremely hazardous materials
through or near an area of concern, the Secretary to
determine whether or not the transportation could be made by
one or more alternate routes at lower security risk and, if
the Secretary determines the transportation could be made by
an alternate route, the use of such alternate route, except
when the origination or destination of the shipment is
located within the area of concern.
(3) Judicial relief.--A person (other than an individual)
who transports, loads, unloads, or is otherwise involved in
the shipping of hazardous materials and violates or fails to
comply with a regulation issued by the Secretary under this
subsection may be subject, in a civil action brought in
United States district court, for each shipment with respect
to which the violation occurs--
(A) to an order for injunctive relief; or
(B) to a civil penalty of not more than $100,000.
(4) Administrative penalties.--
(A) Penalty orders.--The Secretary may issue an order
imposing an administrative penalty of not more than
$1,000,000 for failure by a person (other than an individual)
who transports, loads, unloads, or is otherwise involved in
the shipping of hazardous materials to comply with a
regulation issued by the Secretary under this subsection.
(B) Notice and hearing.--Before issuing an order described
in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall provide to the
person against whom the penalty is to be assessed--
(i) written notice of the proposed order; and
(ii) the opportunity to request, not later than 30 days
after the date on which the person receives the notice, a
hearing on the proposed order.
(C) Procedures.--The Secretary may issue regulations
establishing procedures for administrative hearings and
appropriate review of penalties issued under this paragraph,
including necessary deadlines.
(b) Whistleblower Protection.--
(1) In general.--No person involved in the shipping of
extremely hazardous materials may be discharged, demoted,
suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner

[[Page H3453]]

discriminated against because of any lawful act done by the
person--
(A) to provide information, cause information to be
provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding
any conduct which the person reasonably believes constitutes
a violation of any law, rule or regulation related to the
security of shipments of extremely hazardous materials, or
any other threat to the security of shipments of extremely
hazardous materials, when the information or assistance is
provided to or the investigation is conducted by--
(i) a Federal regulatory or law enforcement agency;
(ii) any Member of Congress or any committee of Congress;
or
(iii) a person with supervisory authority over the person
(or such other person who has the authority to investigate,
discover, or terminate misconduct);
(B) to file, cause to be filed, testify, participate in, or
otherwise assist in a proceeding or action filed or about to
be filed relating to a violation of any law, rule or
regulation related to the security of shipments of extremely
hazardous materials or any other threat to the security of
shipments of extremely hazardous materials; or
(C) to refuse to violate or assist in the violation of any
law, rule, or regulation related to the security of shipments
of extremely hazardous materials.
(2) Enforcement action.--
(A) In general.--A person who alleges discharge or other
discrimination by any person in violation of paragraph (1)
may seek relief under paragraph (3) by--
(i) filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor; or
(ii) if the Secretary of Labor has not issued a final
decision within 180 days of the filing of the complaint and
there is no showing that such delay is due to the bad faith
of the claimant, bringing an action at law or equity for de
novo review in the appropriate district court of the United
States, which shall have jurisdiction over such an action
without regard to the amount in controversy.
(B) Procedure.--
(i) In general.--An action under subparagraph (A)(i) shall
be governed under the rules and procedures set forth in
section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
(ii) Exception.--Notification made under section
42121(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, shall be made to
the person named in the complaint and to the person's
employer.
(iii) Burdens of proof.--An action brought under
subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be governed by the legal burdens
of proof set forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United
States Code.
(iv) Statute of limitations.--An action under subparagraph
(A) shall be commenced not later than 90 days after the date
on which the violation occurs.
(3) Remedies.--
(A) In general.--A person prevailing in any action under
paragraph (2)(A) shall be entitled to all relief necessary to
make the person whole.
(B) Compensatory damages.--Relief for any action under
subparagraph (A) shall include--
(i) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the
person would have had, but for the discrimination;
(ii) the amount of any back pay, with interest; and
(iii) compensation for any special damages sustained as a
result of the discrimination, including litigation costs,
expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees.
(4) Rights retained by person.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges, or
remedies of any person under any Federal or State law, or
under any collective bargaining agreement.
(c) Report on Extremely Hazardous Materials Transportation
Security.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
consultation with the heads of other appropriate Federal
agencies, shall transmit to Congress a report on the security
of, and risk of a terrorist attack on, shipments of extremely
hazardous materials.
(2) Content.--The report under paragraph (1) shall
include--
(A) information specifying--
(i) the Federal and State agencies that are responsible for
the regulation of the transportation of extremely hazardous
materials; and
(ii) the particular authorities and responsibilities of the
heads of each such agency; and
(B) an assessment of the vulnerability of the
infrastructure associated with the transportation of
extremely hazardous materials.
(3) Form.--The report under paragraph (1) shall be in
unclassified form but may contain a classified annex.
(d) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Extremely hazardous material.--The term ``extremely
hazardous material'' means--
(A) a material that is toxic by inhalation;
(B) a material that is extremely flammable;
(C) a material that is highly explosive; and
(D) any other material designated by the Secretary to be
extremely hazardous.
(2) Area of concern.--The term ``area of concern'' means an
area that the Secretary determines could pose a particular
interest to terrorists.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 199, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 181]

YEAS--226

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--199

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich

[[Page H3454]]

Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--8

Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Hyde
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Markey
Millender-McDonald
Tancredo

{time} 1156

Messrs. McNULTY, BOUCHER, CHANDLER, FATTAH, and Ms. DeGETTE changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 284,
noes 124, not voting 25, as follows:

[Roll No. 182]

AYES--284

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Saxton
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--124

Ackerman
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Berkley
Bishop (GA)
Boswell
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Carson
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth
Higgins
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Lee
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller (NC)
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schiff
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wynn

NOT VOTING--25

Becerra
Berman
Boucher
Buyer
Cardoza
Case
Eshoo
Foley
Hyde
Jefferson
Knollenberg
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Marchant
McCollum (MN)
McKeon
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Myrick
Napolitano
Pascrell
Sanders
Stark
Tancredo
Turner

{time} 1228

Mrs. MALONEY and Mr. CUMMINGS changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 182, had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''

____________________