[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H7907-H7916]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 5441, 
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007; PROVIDING FOR 
 CONSIDERATION OF S. 3930, MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006; PROVIDING 
FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4772, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IMPLEMENTATION 
                              ACT OF 2006

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1054 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1054

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 5441) making appropriations for the Department of 
     Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2007, and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.
       Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the bill (S. 3930) to authorize trial by 
     military commission for violations of the law of war, and for 
     other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
     hour of debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Armed Services and 20 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to commit.
       Sec. 3. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the bill (H.R. 4772) to simplify and expedite 
     access to the Federal courts for injured parties whose rights 
     and privileges under the United States Constitution have been 
     deprived by final actions of Federal agencies or other 
     government officials or entities acting under color of State 
     law, and for other purposes. The amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now 
     printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, 
     as amended, shall be considered as read. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary; and (2) 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), 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 will provide for consideration 
of three measures of vital importance to our Nation: The conference 
report for Fiscal Year 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, the 
Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006 and the Military 
Commissions Act of 2006. This rule will enable the House to consider 
these bills and complete this important work on behalf of the American 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation. These three bills address some of our Nation's 
most pressing priorities. First, the Homeland Security Appropriations 
Conference Report funds our most important Federal programs aimed at 
securing the Nation against terrorist attacks. It provides $34.8 
billion for the operations and activities of the Department of Homeland 
Security in fiscal year 2007, an increase of $2.3 billion over fiscal 
year 2006 and $2.7 billion above the President's request.
  The conference agreement aggressively addresses our most critical 
homeland security needs, including border and immigration security; 
nuclear detection; port, cargo and container security; transportation 
security; natural disaster preparedness and response; and support to 
State and local first responders.
  This legislation secures our homeland first and foremost by 
protecting our borders and revitalizing immigration enforcement, 
because border security is homeland security. It provides over $21 
billion for border protection, immigration enforcement and related 
activities. It includes an increase of $2.1 billion over funding in 
2006. This includes $5.2 billion for the Secure Border Initiative and 
additional funding to support technology, personnel and infrastructure 
to prevent terrorists and other criminals from exploiting our borders 
and immigration system.
  Among other security-enhancing measures, this funding includes $2.77 
billion for Border Patrol, adding 1,500 new Border Patrol agents, for a 
total of 14,800. It includes $1.2 billion for border fencing, vehicle 
barriers, technology and infrastructure; $4.2 billion for immigration 
and customs enforcement; $1.38 billion for Immigration and Custody 
Enforcement custody operations, adding 6,700 detention beds, for a 
total of 27,500; and $28.2 million to assist State and local efforts to 
enforce immigration laws.
  This conference report also recognizes the need to enhance port, 
container and cargo security by providing the funds necessary to secure 
our ports and inbound cargo in order to prevent terrorists and 
criminals from exploiting the international commerce system.
  It supports our first responders by paying attention to the needs of 
high-threat areas, firefighters and emergency management. It supports 
ongoing efforts to enhance the current inventory of our Nation's 
critical infrastructures, develop secure communication systems with 
Federal, State and local entities, and it continues to work with the 
private sector to implement protective measures around the Nation's 
infrastructure.
  This agreement continues ongoing efforts to enhance security for all 
modes of transportation, including ports, rails and aviation with a 
focus on developing and installing next-generation technology to 
inspect cargo, baggage and passengers. And it supports traditional 
missions, such as drug interdiction, law enforcement, maritime safety 
and Presidential protection.

[[Page H7908]]

  Finally, this conference report provides for the necessary and 
appropriate oversight of the Department of Homeland Security. It fences 
off $1.6 billion from being spent until DHS meets certain planning and 
management requirements. Under these requirements, DHS must develop a 
comprehensive strategy and plan for port, cargo, container security, 
and for the Secure Border Initiative. Department of Homeland Security 
must also provide expenditure plans for the border security system, 
U.S.-VISIT, Federal Protective Service, business transformation for 
CIS, explosive detection systems in airports, Customs information 
technology systems, and overall better financial data throughout the 
department, and in particular, science and technology.
  Finally, the agreement directs the preparedness Directorate and FEMA 
to improve its capacities in communications, training and other 
capacity assessments, including management logistics, emergency 
housing, debris removal and victim registration.
  Second, this rule provides for consideration of the Military 
Commissions Act of 2006 as modified by the other body. The House 
version of this legislation passed the House on Wednesday by a vote of 
253-168 and was sent to the other body. Today's legislation again 
provides congressional authorization for military commissions to try 
alien unlawful enemy combatants for war crimes committed before, on or 
after 
9/11/2001. It amends the War Crimes Act to criminalize grave breaches 
of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, while fully satisfying 
U.S. treaty obligations. It also authorizes the establishment of 
military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants, which is 
the legal term used to define international terrorists and those who 
aid and support them, for war crimes. While this new chapter is based 
upon the Code of Military Justice, it also creates an entirely new 
structure for these trials.
  These commissions will only be used to try alien terrorists for war 
crimes. Any U.S. citizen will be tried within the Federal United States 
judiciary. These alien terrorists acquitted of a war crime will still 
be detained as enemy combatants according to the principle in 
international law that there exists an undisputable right to keep the 
enemy from returning to the battlefield. Thus, an acquittal at a war 
crime trial will not result in terrorists being released. This 
legislation also provides for an independent certified military judge 
to preside over all proceedings.
  This agreement creates the process necessary to prosecute terrorists 
effectively and fairly, while also protecting American troops and 
intelligence agents fighting the global war on terror.
  I would like to thank Chairman Duncan Hunter and Chairman 
Sensenbrenner for all of their hard work in reaching an agreement with 
the other body that keeps Americans safe while observing the rule of 
law.
  Third, this rule provides for the consideration of legislation to 
give private property owners the ability to litigate cases in Federal 
court when local and State regulations deprive owners the use of their 
own land.
  Although this legislation already passed the House this week with the 
support of the majority of its Members, it did not achieve the support 
of the super majority needed to pass under the suspension of the rules.
  So, today, the House will once again have the opportunity to support 
this commonsense bill to ensure that property owners have the same 
access to Federal courts as other plaintiffs claiming a violation of 
their constitutional rights.
  It removes the judicial detour of forcing claimants raising solely 
Federal claims to first pursue their litigation in State court on the 
very same case and dramatically reduces the amount of time that 
property owners must spend in negotiation and litigation before takings 
claims that can be heard on their merits.
  I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for all of his 
hard work in constructing and perfecting this legislation, and I look 
forward to supporting his efforts on the floor later this afternoon.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this work product that the majority has 
brought to the floor today. I encourage all of my colleagues to support 
this rule and the underlying legislation that will keep Americans 
safer, uphold the rule of law and protect the private property rights 
of citizens. I encourage each of my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this rule and the three underlying bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, these are not the circumstances under which we should be 
considering this legislation. The bills before us deal with nothing 
less than the security of our homeland and the fundamental nature of 
our Nation. Our citizens deserve better than to have their elected 
representatives rush to pass all of these bills in one day, bills that 
say a great deal about who we are as a society and where we are headed 
as a country.
  The Homeland Security Appropriations Conference Report and the 
Military Commissions Act before us are manifestations of how this 
country has chosen to respond to the challenges that confront us, 
challenges to our safety and our peace of mind.

                              {time}  0930

  Will we respond with flawed acts that undermine our economic vitality 
and sacrifice the very liberties we are theoretically fighting to 
protect? Or will we be measured in our response and do what is 
necessary to preserve our liberty from both threats abroad and the 
consequences of fear and mistrust here at home?
  Mr. Speaker, this homeland security legislation means a great deal to 
my constituents in western New York and to the tens of millions of 
Americans who live in northern border communities throughout our 
country.
  Our relationship with Canada is truly a unique one. Ours is the 
longest unguarded border in the world, a demonstration of the spirit of 
trust and openness shared by our two great nations. That spirit has 
produced and sustained a thriving cross-border tourism industry and 
hundreds of billions of dollars in trade between our two countries 
every year.
  Border economies on both sides of the divide depend on that trade and 
tourism. So it would be shortsighted and self-destructive to permit a 
flawed border security plan to cut off such a lifeline. Unfortunately, 
the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, put forth with so much 
fanfare by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of 
State, threatens to do just that. In the name of heightened security, 
this plan, if implemented in its current form, will mean that millions 
of tourists from both countries will stay home and businesses will stop 
shipping their goods across the border. In its current form, this plan 
is a disaster waiting to happen. And considering that Canada is our 
largest trading partner, we have no choice but to fix it before it is 
too late. And what we need first is an extension of the WHTI 
implementation deadline, which I am relieved to see is still in this 
bill. Backing up the implementation until June or at least January of 
2009 will give us the time we need to fix this program where it is 
broken.
  My colleague and good friend from New York Representative McHugh and 
I have fashioned a bipartisan, commonsense bill that will correct the 
most egregious failings of WHTI and make it work for our constituents 
instead of against them. The Protecting American Commerce and Travel 
Act, or PACT Act, has gained the support of a wide range of 
Representatives in this body. It will ensure border security while at 
the same time keeping it open to travel and trade. I urge all of my 
colleagues to consider and pass the PACT Act in the months ahead. We 
don't have to choose between economic security and physical security. 
We can and we must have both.
  Mr. Speaker, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative was a flawed 
reaction to a perceived threat and today threatens the liberty and 
prosperity of our country more than those it supposedly protects us 
from.
  In the same way, the Military Commissions Act before us represents a 
shocking assault on the fundamental

[[Page H7909]]

freedoms and liberties that we have been told we are fighting to 
defend. This bill will dramatically increase the President's right to 
detain men and women the world over and to hold them indefinitely 
without charge. What is more, it will serve as a backdoor legalization 
of all but the most brutal of interrogation methods, taking our Nation 
down a path that we have chastised so many other countries for 
following.
  Yesterday in the Senate, my friend and New York delegation colleague, 
Senator Hillary Clinton, told a story about our country's first great 
military leader, a man who went on to become our first great political 
leader.
  On Christmas Day in 1776, in the midst of the Revolutionary War, 
General George Washington launched a daring raid that culminated in the 
capture of numerous Hessian soldiers. They were foreign mercenaries 
known for their brutality and who were fighting for the British. 
Despite what they had done to American soldiers, he ordered his men to 
treat them humanely. He said, ``Let them have not reason to complain of 
our copying the brutal example of the British Army.''
  George Washington, the man who so influenced our national 
consciousness, who was so deeply responsible for who we are as a 
people, wanted the world to know that the new American Army did not 
abuse its prisoners of war. He also wanted to do whatever he could to 
win the hearts and minds of the Hessians. If even one came to see the 
virtue of America and lay down his arms, that would be a victory in the 
fight for our Nation's freedom and independence.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we have heard some of the best arguments against 
this bill from General Washington's successors: the men and women who 
have held top positions of responsibility in our Armed Forces. They 
have told us over and over again that if we ignore our country's 
longstanding commitment to the rules of war and international treaties 
like the Geneva Conventions, we will be putting our own soldiers and 
our own Nation at risk. Opening the door to detainee abuse and 
indefinite detention will make our soldiers more likely to be tortured 
and dehumanized so that they fall into enemy hands, and that means our 
own country will be less safe.
  A world based on the rule of law is more safe, not less safe, than a 
world based on power alone. To argue that those who oppose this 
detainee bill want to let terrorists roam free is both wrong and 
illogical. Suspected terrorists who have evidence against them will be 
convicted by courts of law. They will stay behind bars. At the same 
time, a steadfast commitment to due process will both defend our most 
cherished freedoms and free the innocent from unwarranted punishment. 
Doing so will protect our liberty and deprive our enemies of one of the 
main tools that they are using to recruit their new followers.
  We will show the world that the United States practices what it 
preaches about freedom and democracy and human dignity. We will bring 
others over to our side and make them less likely to take up arms 
against us.
  There is a reason why Colin Powell recently warned us that the world 
is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight on terrorism. He 
said it because it is true and because such a reality is a truly 
dangerous one. What is more, humane interrogation methods will prevent 
us from chasing after ghosts, from following the fleeting leads of 
false confessions born not from knowledge but from desperation.

  General Washington saw the value of a world based on law and 
principle over 200 years ago, and he saw it at a time when his 
fledgling Nation was truly in a fight for its very survival. And for us 
to pass a bill today that abandons some of the most fundamental 
principles of the civilization that we have sworn to defend would be an 
insult to all those who came before us, to all those who fought and 
struggled so that we could live free.
  Mr. Speaker, it is such a respect for law and eternal principles that 
this administration and far too many in this Republican leadership 
lack. The proof lies in a provision of this bill which has received so 
little notice it is shameful but that is profoundly revealing about its 
true nature.
  Ten years ago Congress passed a law called the War Crimes Act. Under 
that bill violating the Geneva Conventions is a crime in the United 
States. The administration argued that the Convention does not apply to 
enemy combatants, a term of its own invention. But the Supreme Court 
disagreed. In other words, the administration officials who have spent 
the last 5 years creating and directing our torture policy, as well as 
the government employees who have carried it out, could be liable for 
criminal prosecution for violating the War Crimes Act.
  And so they have decided in this bill to go back in time to 1997 and 
to rewrite the War Crimes Act to make their actions legal. And that is 
exactly what this bill does. To call this strategy cynical and self-
serving, Mr. Speaker, is an understatement. When President Bush signs 
this bill, he will be signing away any responsibility for the 
potentially criminal policies that he and those in his administration 
have enacted during the past 5 years. When he signs this bill, he will 
be signing a pardon for himself and for all other architects of these 
disastrous, self-defeating, and immoral policies.
  But we have a choice here today. We can take a principled stand on 
behalf of the principles that make us great. We can choose to reject a 
future in which America can no longer honestly claim that it respects 
human rights, a future in which our own shortsighted, selfish, and 
immoral retreat into fear and suspicion has left us less safe and more 
isolated than ever before. We can choose to embrace our true nature 
and, in so doing, take a great step toward the creation of a world led 
by law and free from fear.
  It is our choice, Mr. Speaker. And I implore all of my friends in 
this body, please, let us today make the right one.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, during the last few years, Members of 
Congress have spoken very plainly and openly to this administration 
about our thoughts and ideas and hopes and dreams, about how we can 
better protect not only this country and our borders but the rule of 
law, and this administration has been very open to hearing from Members 
of Congress about these thoughts and concerns.
  Our next speaker is a gentleman who has engaged the administration, 
has talked about how important border initiatives are, to make sure 
that not only are we secure on our border but to make sure that we deal 
effectively and carefully with people who have come to this country, to 
make sure that they are safe, to make sure that they are not harmed in 
that process. If they have broken the law, they will take the full 
measure of law as it is given, but that we do so in a compassionate 
way.
  Our next speaker is the chairman of the Rules Committee, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and I yield to him such time as 
he may consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his very kind words, 
but we do want to adjourn by this evening; so I appreciate the fact 
that he kept it relatively brief. And I want to thank him for his 
typical superb management of this very important rule and to say that I 
am very pleased that we have been able to work in a bipartisan way.
  At least two of the three provisions in this rule deal with the 
single most important issue that we face: the security of the American 
people. Our Homeland Security appropriations bill and I believe this 
tribunal bill, which will be made in order under this rule, is critical 
to the security of the United States of America, and that is our top 
priority.
  I guess I should begin, since he is looking so relaxed there, by 
saying time and time again in the Rules Committee, my colleague Ms. 
Slaughter and others said that it was Martin Sabo's last appearance 
before the Rules Committee. Well, I had every confidence, when people 
joked about the prospect of bringing a conference agreement back on the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill, that it would happen. And many 
people rolled their eyes. But thanks to the leadership of Martin Sabo 
and Harold Rogers and, of course, David Obey and Jerry Lewis, we have 
been able to come together with a very important

[[Page H7910]]

Homeland Security appropriations conference report.
  So I would like to join in extending great appreciation to Martin 
Sabo for his stellar service to this body over the years and for his 
commitment to dealing with transportation issues and now homeland 
security and to say that we will miss him greatly.
  This measure, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to consider, the 
appropriations bill itself, is absolutely essential if we are going to 
focus on the security of our borders and deal with it in a responsible 
way. And I am happy that Ms. Slaughter was able to work on her 
compromise. Again, it is a bipartisan compromise, as she just said in 
her statement, that we have been able to deal with.
  And similarly, I am proud of another item that is included in this 
bill that is once again a bipartisan measure, and that is legislation 
that was introduced in the Senate by my California colleague, Dianne 
Feinstein, and I was privileged to introduce it here in the House. We 
had an actual unanimous recorded vote on this measure, and it was to 
recognize that we have a problem at our border; that being since 
September 11, 2001, the discovery of 38 tunnels, one of which came from 
Canada into the United States, 37 from Mexico into the United States. 
And what we discovered is that there is actually no criminal penalty 
for people who are tunneling or the utilization of property here in the 
United States for tunnels to come up. And what has happened? Through 
those tunnels we have seen tremendous problems with both human and 
narcotrafficking.
  So in this measure that we pass, we will be actually implementing 
criminalization of that kind of action, once again demonstrating our 
commitment to securing our Nation's border.
  Similarly, we obviously are very concerned about the fact that in 
heavy urban areas and in five particular areas, we have seen just 
across the border, above ground, large problems of human and 
narcotrafficking, and for those areas we are going to see the 
construction of border fences.
  I do not like the idea of fences. I really do not like the idea of 
fences at all. But our empirical evidence, Mr. Speaker, has shown that 
for the 14 miles along the border between Tijuana, Mexico, and San 
Diego, California, we have seen a great improvement in the standard of 
living and quality of life because of this border fence which has been 
established.

                              {time}  0945

  In fact, there has been a 50 percent reduction in the crime rate in 
San Diego, in large part attributed to the fact that we have this fence 
here.
  I look forward to the day when we will be able to take down all of 
these fences. But, frankly, as long as we have human trafficking and 
narcotrafficking the way it is today, I do not believe that we as a 
Nation have a choice. And so in those areas where we have heavy urban 
populations on both sides the border, I think it is essential that we 
do this.
  There are other areas where utilization of 21st century technology, 
using motion detectors, using unmanned aerial vehicles and other things 
will be very beneficial in our quest to ensure that we secure our 
Nation's borders.
  Now, as we look at our items in this bill, I believe that the funding 
that is provided is going to help us deal with the overall global war 
on terror. Again, if you think about the preamble of the U.S. 
Constitution, I always argue that, in that preamble, the five most 
important words of the preamble are: Provide for the common defense.
  And those five words, I believe, are addressed very successfully with 
this Homeland Security Appropriations Conference Report. So, Mr. 
Speaker, I am very proud of the work that has been done in a bipartisan 
way, Democrats and Republicans coming together, to do the right thing.
  I hope it can be used as a model for many of the things that we 
proceed with in the future.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. 
Thank you for your great service on Rules Committee.
  And to the chairman, I thank him for his kind remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of the base bill on homeland 
security funding. But there is one part of that bill which I think we 
could significantly improve. So I would ask Members today to vote 
against the previous question so that we can offer a separate 
concurrent resolution to the conference report which would delete from 
the bill four provisions as it relates to the regulation of chemical 
plants that, in my judgment, significantly weaken the legislation.
  As background, the whole question of setting security standards for 
chemical plants is an issue that has concerned me for a long time. We 
have had a void in the ability of the Secretary to act to adopt any 
regulation as it impacts most chemical plants in this country.
  This year, while we were considering the appropriations bill, we 
offered and adopted in committee an amendment that gave authority to 
the Secretary to adopt regulations relating to the security of chemical 
plants.
  We envisioned that as being a temporary solution, while the 
authorizers had time at some point to pass regular authorizing 
legislation. That was stricken by a point of view on the House floor. 
In the Senate, fortunately, in an amendment by Bob Byrd, adopted that 
same amendment. And that is what we had in conference.
  There then proceeded negotiations between the authorizers. And it 
ended up being a partisan negotiation between majority Members in the 
House and Senate which produced the recommended plan for the regulation 
of chemical plants, which the conference committee substituted for the 
Byrd amendment.
  That more detailed recommendation has not been subject to debate in 
either the House or the Senate or considered in that form by any of our 
committees. And it has four provisions which I think significantly 
weakens the authority of the Secretary to adopt regulations. I think we 
should strike them.
  The first one is a provision that states that: The Secretary may not 
disapprove a site security plan submitted under this section based on 
the presence or absence of a particular security measure.
  What that means, I frankly do not know. The reality is that any 
security measure is going to deal with a whole series of particular 
security measures. Some are going to be more important than the other. 
Why we limit the authority of the Secretary in this fashion is beyond 
me. I do not know what it means. There must be some relevance to it. 
But it clearly would seem to limit the ability of the Secretary to 
adopt a comprehensive security measure.
  Then we have another provision which is rather strange. And it says 
that if we proceed in court and any information is provided on plants 
to that court, then that unclassified information becomes classified 
when it reaches the courtroom. I know of no other instance in our 
government where unclassified information becomes classified because it 
goes to court.
  I have no idea what the precedent for any such action is. It is 
unique. It is new. And we should not have it in this bill. I do not 
know, as I read this bill, whether the States have the ability to adopt 
security standards which are stricter than the Federal law. Some read 
this language to say it prohibits the States from having stricter 
standards.
  I read it as being unclear, and where we turn that issue over is not 
to our judgment but to the courts. As I read the language, if a State 
adopts stricter standards and the Secretary approves them, I expect it 
will be challenged in court. If they adopt stricter standards and the 
Secretary rejects them, that will be challenged in court.
  In my judgment, the States should have that ability. But whether we 
think they should or should not have it, it is a decision we should 
make and not simply leave it to the vagaries of what a particular court 
might decide.
  Another provision in this bill simply says that it prohibits the 
public from filing any suit to enforce the provisions of this law. 
Again, that makes no sense to me and goes contrary to what we normally 
do in this country.
  I am glad we are finally moving forward with chemical plant security. 
However, the negotiations, not by the conferees on the appropriation 
bill but by the negotiators from the two authorizing committees, have 
produced a

[[Page H7911]]

version of chemical security regulation that in my judgment is much 
weaker than it need be, and we should clarify it and strike those 
provisions. Not add anything new, but simply make sure that the 
Secretary has greater authority and to make sure that States have the 
right to adopt stricter regulation if they so desire.
  So I urge the rejection of the previous question so that we can offer 
such an amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in the month of August, I had an opportunity with 
several other Members to go to Laredo, Texas, to visit our border to 
see the border operations and to see the things that were happening 
there. I had a chance to run across Texas Army National Guard personnel 
who were attempting to not only work but work successfully with Border 
Patrol and other Customs and Immigration enforcement personnel.
  I wanted to draw attention to how important our National Guard has 
been from each of our States in protecting our borders, working on 
border security and doing those things that are necessary. This came as 
a result of a plan that happened with input from Congress, that 
happened through the great work that was done not only with the 
President but also with local Governors and people who are interested 
in doing this.
  I had a chance to go with the Honorable Jo Bonner from Alabama down 
to Laredo. And both he and I together had a chance to see firsthand how 
the Army National Guard worked with Border Patrol. We went out that 
night to see firsthand their needs.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what is in this bill, the ability that we have 
to protect our border, to provide the necessary resources, to make sure 
that our men and women who are with official law enforcement and also 
those who are with the Guard are able to make sure that this country is 
protected.
  That is what is in this bill. I am proud of it. I am going to ask for 
everyone's vote for not only the rule but also the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule 
because the legislation would seriously undermine efforts to secure 
chemical facilities across the country. I want to join in the comments 
made by the ranking member, Mr. Sabo.
  Back in July, the Homeland Security Committee passed by voice vote a 
bill that would go a long way towards fixing the chemical security 
problem in the aftermath of 9/11. This is one of the most glaring 
problems in our post-9/11 security efforts that has been neglected here 
in Washington by the Congress and by the administration.
  Yet rather than moving forward with this bill out of the Homeland 
Security Committee, bringing to it the floor and having an open debate; 
Republicans have decided to craft an industry-friendly proposal behind 
closed doors and stick it in the Homeland Security Appropriations 
Conference Report.
  Now, this is no way to deal with such a serious security issue. EPA 
data indicates that there are more than 100 chemical plants across the 
country that could put over 1 million people at risk in the event of a 
serious accident or terrorist attack. More than 7,000 chemical plants 
could put 1,000 people or more at risk.
  Yet under the cover of a conference report, the Republican leadership 
has seriously undermined our efforts to secure these chemical 
facilities. The language here exempts thousands of chemical plants not 
deemed ``high risk'' by the Department of Homeland Security, along with 
3,000 drinking water and wastewater facilities that use large 
quantities of chlorine.
  It also prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from doing 
anything to move towards the use of inherently safer technologies or 
substances. And it fails to protect the rights of States like my own, 
New Jersey, to implement stronger security requirements at chemical 
plants.
  Mr. Speaker, the consequences of an incident at a chemical facility 
could be dire for residents of my State of New Jersey. We saw this last 
Tuesday when an accidental release of sulfur dioxide sent 59 people to 
the hospital. If that is what happens from one simple mistake, I 
shudder to think of the consequences of an attack by determined 
terrorists.
  We need to reject this rule. Strip this weak chemical security 
language from the conference report and move ahead with strong 
legislation like what the Homeland Security Committee already passed 
here in the House.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, here we are talking about the rule for 
Homeland Security, and yesterday, the Rules Committee had an 
opportunity to speak very plainly with the appropriators who were 
responsible for this Homeland Security appropriations bill. We spoke 
with them about several matters. One of them was about the air marine 
operation under the CBP, Customs and Border Protection.
  I would like for my colleagues to know, who have joined me and others 
in the effort to talk about the air interdiction program that we have 
about drugs that come into this country, that this bill provides $600 
million for their border and air space protection.
  Secondly, we had an opportunity to talk about the fugitive operation 
teams that nationwide are gathered together under Customs and Border 
Protection to make sure that the apprehension of those people who are 
illegal aliens that are in our country here who are fugitives and who 
are dangerous are picked up and dealt with by our judicial system in 
this country.
  Over and over and over, the things that we have talked about that 
were necessary and needed throughout the years are contained with 
funding in this bill. I am very happy to say that I am proud of what 
this administration has done by listening to us, and perhaps more 
importantly, our appropriators, like Hal Rogers who brought this bill, 
who listened and who have done something about it.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my Rules Committee colleague for 
yielding the time.
  I rise in support today for this rule and, of course, the underlying 
conference report, H.R. 5441, the Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007. I would like to commend 
Chairmen Lewis and Rogers and, of course, our dear friend Martin Sabo 
for their tireless effort in keeping our homeland safe.
  H.R. 5441 is one more piece of pro-security legislation advanced by 
this Congress, and its passage prior to our adjournment, Mr. Speaker, 
is critical to ensuring funding for homeland security programs that do 
keep our Nation safe.
  This is a comprehensive bill. It addresses several aspects of our 
porous border problem. It provides increased technologies for use in 
explosion detection. It beefs up maritime and chemical security and, 
most importantly, overhauls FEMA.
  As we know a big part of keeping our homeland safe is protecting 
these borders. The bill includes $1.8 billion in emergency funding for 
border and maritime security. It includes $1.2 billion for the 
construction of a border fence, and it provides for the hiring of an 
additional 1,500 border patrol agents and includes a commonsense 
provision brought forth by our chairman of the Rules Committee 
criminalizing the construction of border tunnels.
  However, Mr. Speaker, despite the great things in this legislation, I 
realize that it is not a perfect bill. One of the most notable problems 
is securing our ports of entry with better background check technology. 
As you remember, we passed language in the 9/11 bill and in the REAL ID 
Act last year to require biometric passports by a certain deadline, 
along with the proper equipment to read the high-tech identification. 
The deadline was extended 6 months, and with this appropriation bill, 
unfortunately, it is extended another 17 months because someone in the 
other Chamber from a northern border State put language in there to 
further delay this crucial, crucial program. We cannot afford to keep 
extending the deadline when our security is at stake.
  Mr. Speaker, shoe bomber Richard Reed, we all remember him, entered 
our country on an unsecured visa waiver. This visa waiver program 
allows 28 countries, their folks, to come into this

[[Page H7912]]

country with nothing, really, to prove their identification. He came in 
with a visa waiver. We have to know who is coming into our country to 
prevent terrorists from having a free pass.
  Despite all the improvements made in this appropriations bill, they 
are meaningless without securing our ports of entry.
  Mr. Speaker, all week long we have witnessed this Congress passing 
legislation to fund critical Department of Defense programs, to try 
terrorist detainees in military courts and to listen in on the 
communications of terrorist operatives plotting our destruction. 
Heather Wilson from New Mexico explained that so well yesterday on this 
floor.
  It is unfortunate that throughout this week we have witnessed 
obstructionism on just about every front and some on the other side 
advocating for a cautious approach to fighting terrorism out of concern 
of treating the terrorists fairly. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this is 
the wrong approach, and we must remain aggressive in our efforts to 
keep America safe.
  I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to keep 
this in mind, to ensure we give our government the tools it needs to 
protect our homeland.
  I urge support of this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy 
and her leadership.
  This is sort of a bizarre rule that is limiting debate on three very 
critical areas, but I would like to just focus on one because under the 
guise of protecting property rights, H.R. 4772 is back before us, and 
it will undermine the quality of life for most Americans.
  I find no small amount of irony that our friends on the Republican 
side of the aisle who say that they support local control are now going 
to gut some of the most basic protections for neighborhoods, 
businesses, and the environment to make sure that they are decided at 
the State and local level. Remember, these are our same friends who 
have come to us with provisions to strip away from these same Federal 
courts being able to rule on the Pledge of Allegiance or on marriage. 
Those are too important to be given to the Federal courts, but you are 
going to take away opportunities for people to be able to deal with the 
most fundamental of issues in terms of neighborhood quality and throw 
that into the Federal courts without having an opportunity to work it 
through at the State and local level.
  The Supreme Court itself has recognized that State and local courts 
are the best way to deal with things that are inherently local in 
nature. I spent 10 years as a commissioner of public works in the city 
of Portland. I watched development proposal after development proposal 
come over the transom. If your rules were in place, it would not help 
the little developer because they would not have the firepower to be 
able to go through the Federal process, but it would have been an 
amazing club for big developers to have their way for proposals that 
were incomplete, inadequate, or not carefully thought through. In some 
cases, there were things that were making mistakes. In others, they 
were trying to do something that would have threatened adjacent 
businesses, adjacent homeowners. What we did was work with them, going 
through the process, and as a result, time after time, we had better 
results.
  This would undercut that effort. That is why 36 attorney generals, 
including Mr. Chabot's attorney general, says that this is an 
unnecessary Federal intrusion and it ought to be resisted.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Our previous speaker has just hit on probably one of the most 
important aspects of freedom in America, and that is the right of a 
person to be able to own property, the ability that we have to have our 
house to be our castle. Yet as we talk about the issue, I would like to 
add my dimension to it.
  The bottom line is that we are engaged in this on behalf of people 
who own property, people who own property who have grown weary of 
having local government take their property without due compensation 
for the benefit of local government, and we are going to protect the 
private property owner. We believe private property rights are very 
important, and that is why we are getting engaged, because we have seen 
local communities do for their own best interest those things that they 
wanted to do by taking private property from a person.
  We believe it is a simple part of what the Constitution is about. We 
believe that private property rights are important. I do understand the 
argument, and it is related to a person who cannot fight government 
even in their own local community when that is what government wants to 
do.
  We are going to give a level playing field to those individuals 
because we believe that the individualist who owns his own property 
should have equal rights also, not just to be taken advantage of by 
local communities.
  Mr. Speaker, that is also in this rule. We support the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much, and this 
rule is just another appalling case of Republican leadership siding 
with special interests over the security interests of our country.
  In July, the Homeland Security Committee reported a bipartisan 
chemical security bill. We know that al Qaeda wants to hit huge 
chemical facilities in our country that could cause between 10,000 and 
hundreds of thousands of injuries. That was a good bill. It was 
bipartisan.
  It required that there be mandatory enforceable security provisions 
that apply to all chemical facilities in America. It required the 
company shift to safer chemicals and methods to reduce the consequences 
of a terrorist attack. The bill ensured that the States could set 
higher security standards. The bill contained red teaming exercises to 
test whether or not security around these chemical facilities was, in 
fact, adequate. It contained worker training provisions to upgrade 
workers' ability to protect against an al Qaeda attack. It contained 
civil and criminal provisions, and it contained whistle-blower 
protections for chemical industry workers if any Paul Revere-like 
figure would rise up to warn that there was a danger at a chemical 
facility.
  Democrats and Republicans alike praised the committee's work, and 
Republicans promised to protect the language as it came out on to the 
House floor.
  But instead, the House Republican leaders refused to allow it to be 
considered for a vote on the House floor. Instead, the Republicans on 
the Homeland Security Committee and on the Energy and Commerce 
Committee acquiesced to the wishes of the chemical industry behind 
closed doors to negotiate the weak, inadequate language contained in 
the conference report.
  In public, the Republicans profess their support for strong chemical 
security legislation, but in private, they provided their chemical 
industry allies with an early Christmas present, the weak legislation 
the industry had been pursuing all along, and that is what we are now 
going to debate on this House floor; not the bipartisan secure chemical 
bill, but the chemical industry-written bill that the Republicans are 
now bringing out here in a closed rule that will not have any debate at 
all.
  And by the way, if back home you have a Governor, you have a mayor 
that is very concerned about the ability of their hometown or their 
State to put stronger security measures around a chemical facility, 
well, after today you can just tell your Governor, your mayor, it is up 
to the Department of Homeland Security. They are not going to be able 
to increase it back at home. This bill is going to make it possible for 
the chemical industry to keep the local governments and the State 
governments wrapped up in red tape forever as those local communities, 
those local heroes, and by the way, if there is an al Qaeda attack, 
people are not going to call the Department of Homeland Security. They 
are going to call the local police, the local fire, the local emergency 
medical personnel. They are going to be the ones that have to respond, 
and when this bill is passed their hands are going to be tied behind

[[Page H7913]]

their back in terms of their ability to put stronger, tougher 
protections around these chemical facilities, especially in urban 
areas.
  It also reduces the number of facilities that have to be covered. 
Instead of all of the facilities that could cause upwards of 10,000 
fatalities or injuries, they eliminate 90 percent of the facilities 
from having to be covered by the provisions of the legislation that we 
are talking about here today. And by the way, the Department of 
Homeland Security is prohibited from disapproving of a facility's 
security plan because of the absence of any specific security measure.
  So the Department of Homeland Security looks at a chemical facility, 
sees that there is a problem, they still cannot disapprove that plan. 
How in the world can the Department of Homeland Security be effective 
if their hands are tied behind their back? This is an area that we know 
is at the top of the al Qaeda terrorist target list, chemical 
facilities; and on the last day, professing to care about homeland 
security, and by the way, if al Qaeda is going to attack today, all the 
wiretapping, everything else that you want to do, if there is a secret 
group already in America poised to hit a chemical facility, then you 
better have the protection that is built around it.
  What you are doing today in this bill is you are making it infinitely 
more likely that al Qaeda can make a successful attack against a 
chemical facility. You are gagging the Democrats. You are handing it 
over to the chemical industry for them to decide on their bottom line 
cost-basis analysis of the type of security they want to put in place.
  Right now, it is harder to get into some nightclubs in New York City 
than it is for al Qaeda to get into a chemical facility in the United 
States of America. That is the bottom line on the bill the Republicans 
are bringing out here today.
  Vote ``no'' on this Republican rule.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing 
this up as an issue, because I think, once again, it shows clearly the 
differences between our parties and the way we think about this.
  It is true that the Republican Party would be accused of having a 
balanced approach not only to making sure that these chemical companies 
have taken care of their responsibility for security but making sure 
also that we protect the jobs that come with those and the security of 
the towns in which they are located in.
  We heard the gentleman use words like stronger, tougher, harder and 
making it more difficult. Everything he talked about was to simply make 
it harder for these companies to operate in America. Tougher sanctions, 
more rules, more regulations and being tough on the chemical companies. 
Yes, we get it, run them out of town. Run them out of the country. Take 
the jobs and leave.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not going to do that in this bill. We are going 
to bring a balance, a balance that says that these chemical companies 
are a natural asset to the United States of America. As a part of our 
ability not only to make sure that we can receive the things that we 
need, technology and these things which chemical companies provide, 
that make our lives better every day, we are not going to run them out 
of town and we are not going to run them out of the country.
  They have a responsibility to make sure that their internal elements 
are safe and the controls they put in place are doing the right thing. 
They want to take care of their responsibilities, and we are going to 
make sure that that is balanced. So we are not going to allow the 
tougher sanctions, the tougher things that our friends on the other 
side of the aisle want to do. We are going to strike a balance, a 
balance for safety, a balance for comprehension that what we want is to 
make sure that they are good corporate citizens and that they look 
closely at where their own frailties exist.
  That is why this bill is going to pass today, because we are not 
going to run them out of town. We are not going to speak from a 
position of weakness; we are going to speak from a position of 
strength. That is another one of the differences between the Republican 
Party. We are going to balance it out and do the right thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I will use my remaining time to close, 
but, first, I wish to insert for the Record an editorial from this 
morning's New York Times called, ``More Comfort for the Comfortable.'' 
That is the way they describe the Private Property Rights 
Implementation Act. They say it is a deeply misguided giveaway for big 
real estate developers.

               [From the New York Times, Sept. 29, 2006.]

                    More Comfort for the Comfortable

       Congress, which has done so little this session to address 
     the nation's real problems, is expected to vote today on a 
     deeply misguided giveaway for big real estate developers. The 
     bill would create new property rights that could in many 
     cases make it difficult, if not impossible, for local 
     governments to stop property owners from using their land in 
     socially destructive ways. It should be defeated.
       The Private Property Implementation Act would make it 
     easier for developers challenging zoning decisions to bypass 
     state courts and go to federal court, even if there was not a 
     legitimate federal constitutional question. Zoning 
     regulations are quintessentially local decisions. This bill 
     would cast this tradition aside, and involve the federal 
     government in issues like building density and lot sizes.
       The bill would also make it easier for developers to sue 
     when zoning decisions diminished the value of their property. 
     Most zoning does that. Developers would make more money if 
     they could cram more houses on small lots, build skyscrapers 
     200 stories tall, or develop on endangered wetlands. The bill 
     would help developers claim monetary compensation for run-of-
     the-mill zoning decisions on matters like these. It would 
     also make it easier for them to intimidate local zoning 
     authorities by threatening to run to federal court.
       Zoning is not an attack on property rights. It is an 
     important government function, and most Americans appreciate 
     that it helps keep their own neighborhoods from becoming more 
     crowded, polluted and dangerous. If more people knew the 
     details of this bill, there would be wide opposition. As it 
     is, attorneys general from more than 30 states, of both 
     parties, have joined the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the 
     National Conference of State Legislatures and leading 
     environmental groups in opposing it.
       The bill does a lot of things its supporters claim to 
     abhor. House Republicans were elected on a commitment to 
     states' rights and local autonomy, and opposition to 
     excessive litigation and meddling federal judges. It is 
     remarkable how quickly they have pushed these principles 
     aside to come to the aid of big developers.

  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to instruct the enrolling clerk to strike from 
the conference report several last-minute provisions that may 
compromise chemical plant security.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, these provisions were not in either the 
House or Senate-passed versions of the Homeland Security bill. They 
were drafted in secret and slipped into the conference report without 
the input of any Democrats in the conference. Even worse, these 
provisions may make chemical facilities more vulnerable to security 
problems and not less.
  When we talk about balance, I think Homeland Security was supposed to 
be about rules and regulations. The new language weakens the Homeland 
Security Secretary's ability to enforce chemical facility site security 
plans. It takes the authority away. It allows the Secretary to preempt 
tougher State laws to ensure chemical facility security, and it 
severely restricts the rights of citizens to take any legal action to 
enforce chemical facility security requirements. Securing our chemical 
plants is far too important to be compromised by a secretive and 
inadequate security plan.
  I want to stress that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not 
stop consideration of the conference report, but a ``no'' vote will 
allow the House to remove these inadequate and dangerous provisions. 
Again, please vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in thanking 
the

[[Page H7914]]

Honorable Martin Sabo for his service to this House and for his 
additions of the things he has brought forth in this legislation, not 
only working in a bipartisan basis but also his leadership on behalf of 
making sure that the next generation understands things like port 
security and other things which the gentleman has specialized in.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank our Speaker, Dennis Hastert, 
and majority leader, John Boehner, for their vision and hard work to 
bring this bill forward today. They worked very closely with Chairman 
Hal Rogers and Chairman Jerry Lewis of the Appropriations Committee, 
Duncan Hunter of the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Jim 
Sensenbrenner of the Judiciary Committee, and certainly Steve Chabot of 
the Judiciary Committee.
  This bill we bring forward today is a negotiated product, one where 
we have worked hard with not only members of the administration, but we 
have taken, as Members of Congress, trips to see our borders wherever 
they might be, the northern border or the southern border. We have our 
appropriators, who have taken time to understand the intricate details 
and the needs of this great Nation. We have engaged with the Department 
of Defense to talk about those things that will be necessary to protect 
our men and women on the battlefield. We have taken time to make sure 
that we have talked to our CIA, Central Intelligence Agency, about the 
way that they need to do business and those attributes about who they 
engage across the world and how we can treat fairly, yes, but treat 
properly those who would engage in killing Americans and bringing down 
reigning terror in our cities.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this underlying legislation is very 
important to America's learning lessons from the prior years and 
bringing those lessons to bear to protect this great Nation. We will 
speak from a position of strength, not fear. We will not worry about 
the things that we cannot get done but the things that we can get done. 
We will learn from our mistakes, and we will learn that, as terrorism 
in the 21st century evolves, we will, too. That is what these bills are 
all about.
  I am proud of our country, and I say God bless America. Mr. Speaker, 
I ask for all the Members to support this bill.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 1054--Rule on Conference Report for H.R. 
        5441 Department of Homeland Security FY07 Appropriations

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       ``That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill 
     (H.R. 5441) making appropriations for the Department of 
     Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2007, and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.
       Sec. 2. (a) A concurrent resolution specified in subsection 
     (b) is hereby adopted.
       (b) The concurrent resolution referred to in subsection (a) 
     is a concurrent resolution
       (1) which has no preamble;
       (2) the title of which is as follows: ``Providing for 
     Corrections to the Enrollment of the Conference Report on the 
     bill H.R. 5441''; and
       (3) the text of which is as follows:
       (1) In subsection (a), strike: ``Provided further, That the 
     Secretary may not disapprove a site security plan submitted 
     under this section based on the presence or absence of a 
     particular security measure, but the Secretary may disapprove 
     a site security plan if the plan fails to satisfy the risk-
     based performance standards established by this section: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary may approve alternative 
     security programs established by private section entities, 
     Federal, State, or local authorities, or other applicable 
     laws if the Secretary determines that the requirements of 
     such programs meet the requirements of this section and the 
     interim regulations:''
       (2) In subsection (c), strike: ``: Provided further, That 
     in any proceeding to enforce this section, vulnerability 
     assessments, site security plans, and other information 
     submitted to or obtained by the Secretary under this section, 
     and related vulnerability or security information, shall be 
     treated as if the information were classified material''
       (3) In subsection (d), strike: ``: Provided, That nothing 
     in this section confers upon any person except the Secretary 
     a right of action against an owner or operator of a chemical 
     facility to enforce any provision of this section''
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule * * * When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  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 grounds 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 221, 
nays 186, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 504]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson

[[Page H7915]]


     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     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
     Hyde
     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
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     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
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--186

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chandler
     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
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     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
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Brown (OH)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Cubin
     Evans
     Fattah
     Hoyer
     Lewis (GA)
     Maloney
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Ney
     Paul
     Strickland
     Thompson (MS)
     Udall (CO)
     Wamp
     Waters
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1050

  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania and Mr. RANGEL 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. Terry). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  September 29, 2006--On Page H7915 the following appeared: 
  1050 So the previous question was ordered. The result of the 
vote was announced as above recorded. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 
Terry). The question is on the resolution. The question was taken; 
and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to 
have it. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Insert 
  1050 Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania and Mr. RANGEL 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. Terry). The question is on the 
resolution. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore 
announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. 
Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays 
were ordered.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 188, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 505]

                               YEAS--218

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     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
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     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)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--188

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chandler
     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
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     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
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky

[[Page H7916]]


     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Brown (OH)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Cubin
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Evans
     Fattah
     Hoyer
     Lewis (GA)
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Ney
     Paul
     Strickland
     Thompson (MS)
     Udall (CO)
     Wamp
     Waters
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 
there are 2 minutes remaining in the vote.

                              {time}  1100

  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 for:


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  September 29, 2006--On Page H7916 the following appeared: The 
SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 
there are 2 minutes remaining in the vote. 
1100 Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania and Mr. RANGEL changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' 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.
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Delete above 
Text The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are 
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in the vote. 
1100 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 505 I could not vote because 
the First Lady, Mrs. Laura Bush, and I were dedicating the new National 
Garden at the Botanic Gardens, and I was not able to return to the 
House Chamber in time to register my vote. Had I been present, I would 
voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________