[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 27, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H3089-H3098]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1401, RAIL AND PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ACT OF 2007
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 270 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 270
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. 1401) to improve the security of railroads,
public transportation, and over-the-road buses in the United
States, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour and 20
minutes, with one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on
Homeland Security and 20 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. 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
recommended by the Committee on Homeland Security now printed
in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule
XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to
the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall
be in order except those printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 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 except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
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 committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 1401
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague and co-Chair of
Florida's congressional delegation, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, or his
designee, my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during
consideration of this rule is for debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have up to 5 legislative days to revise and extend
their remarks on House Resolution 270.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 270 provides
for consideration of H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation
Security Act of 2007 under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour
20 minutes of general debate. One hour is to be equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Homeland Security and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill, except those arising under clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.
The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Homeland Security shall be considered
as an original bill for purposes of amendment and shall be considered
as read.
The rule waives all points of order against the bill.
Importantly, the rule makes in order the eight amendments printed in
the report accompanying this rule and waives all points of order
against such amendments. The amendments may be offered only in the
order printed in the report and by the Member designated in the report
or his or her designee.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to commence debate
on this very essential piece of legislation. Five years have passed
since the terrorist attacks of September 11. While we in this body have
done a great deal of talking about Homeland Security, our record on the
issue suggests otherwise.
Under Republican control, the majority maintained that mandating
certain security enhancements was not necessary at the time. Democrats,
on the contrary, believe that they are and will not allow this need to
go unmet any longer.
The fact that this bill was reported favorably out of the Homeland
Security and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees with near
unanimity and the cosponsorship of the ranking Republican member of the
Homeland Security Committee suggests that our concerns are almost
universal in this body.
Moreover, this rule makes in order a total of eight amendments, half
of which will be offered by the Members of the minority party. The rule
and the process further prove that Democrats refuse to allow
partisanship to supersede our responsibility to protect the American
people.
Congress's prior reluctance to mandate certain security enhancements
out of fear that it might rock the administration's boat has left us
woefully behind the curve when it comes to rail and mass transit
security. That is why I am very pleased that the Rail and Public
Transportation Security Act makes the necessary investment in these
absolutely critical enhancements.
The bill requires that the administration develop a security plan for
all forms of covered transportation. The bill also creates a system and
methods under which all agencies tasked with the responsibility of
protecting our country can work together.
We don't stop there. The bill requires the Department of Homeland
Security to expand its coordination network through enhanced
communication and cooperation at all levels of government.
It requires DHS to develop security training programs for railroad
and public transportation employees and extends whistleblower
protections to all providers, public or private, who provide covered
transportation services.
Under this bill, the number of surface transportation security
inspectors will increase by six times by the year 2010, and the bill
mandates that the administration issue regulations requiring enhanced
security measures for the shipment of security sensitive materials and
requires that these shipments not go through highly populated areas.
{time} 1245
Perhaps most importantly, this bill pays for these improvements and
authorizes $7.3 billion in security enhancements to make America safer.
Mr. Speaker, the Government Accountability Office has determined that
the United States must provide much more leadership and guidance in
constructing a rail and security transit plan. This bill answers that
challenge and fills the void left by the administration's failure to
secure all modes of transportation in this country.
It, just like the rule, is worthy of the support of this body. I urge
my colleagues to support both.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to
[[Page H3090]]
thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for
the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
At about 9 a.m. on July 5, 2005, three bombs went off within 50
seconds of each other in the London underground. Less than an hour
later there was another explosion in one of London's double-decker
buses. The bombings killed over 50 people and injured approximately
700.
On March 11, 2004, the Spanish people also faced an attack on their
rail system. Like the attacks in London, in that attack the terrorists
exploded multiple bombs on four trains packed with early morning
commuters. The attacks killed almost 200 and left at least 1,800
injured in Madrid.
Mr. Speaker, those attacks were a warning to us on this side of the
Atlantic that just as terrorists can take advantage of our airlines to
carry out cowardly acts, they can do the same with our public service
transportation systems. With this in mind, the House of Representatives
last year passed comprehensive rail and mass transit security
legislation. The legislation was included in H.R. 5814, the Department
of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.
Unfortunately, the session of Congress ended before that important
legislation could be enacted into law.
Public transit moves more people on a given day than any other mode
of transportation worldwide. Transit sustains the economic vitality of
any community. In heavily populated areas like Miami-Dade County, one
of the counties that I am honored to represent, many people depend on
public transit for cost efficiency and convenience. The provision of
safe transit requires a significant investment in technology to protect
infrastructure, equipment, workers and, of course, the passenger. H.R.
1401 makes it possible for Congress to invest in public transportation
security.
And in my district, Miami-Dade Transit is also responsible for the
evacuation of the general public, including disabled persons, in
moments of crisis. This bill provides critical funding for evacuation
improvements. Miami-Dade County would be eligible for funds, regardless
of whether the evacuation is due to terrorism or natural disasters.
Although Miami-Dade Transit has a fleet of over 360 paratransit
vehicles and over 1,000 buses and approximately 45 miles of rail, they
do not have mobile communication service equipment. This means that all
modes do not have a way to communicate with each other during an
evacuation procedure. This bill takes into account those needs and
provides for security improvements to stations' surveillance equipment,
public awareness campaigns, and GPS systems.
I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this bill includes risk-
based grants. In their final report to Congress, the 9/11 Commission
criticized the existing process for allocation of Federal homeland
security assistance grants, recommending that the distribution not, I
quote, ``remain a program for general revenue sharing.'' Given the
limited resources of Federal aid, distributing grants based on risk is
really the only appropriate way to apportion grants. In order to ensure
that our taxpayer funds are spent as efficiently and effectively as
possible, we need to focus our resources at those sectors under the
greatest threat.
When I was a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I
worked hard to ensure that Homeland Security grant funds are
distributed through risk-based assessments. I commend the Homeland
Security Committee for following through on the recommendation of the
9/11 Commission and including risk as the primary motive for
distribution of grants in this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met to report out a rule
for this legislation. The rule that we are now debating closes out
several important and germane amendments. Two amendments by my friend,
Mr. Mica, the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, were excluded by the majority on the Rules Committee,
even though they were germane and, obviously, from a key committee with
jurisdiction. Another of my Florida colleagues, Representative Ginny
Brown-Waite, offered an amendment last night that would have
strengthened protections for all sensitive security information related
to rail and mass transit plans and procedures. That amendment also was
blocked by the majority on the Rules Committee. I think it was
unnecessary and unfortunate for the majority in the Committee on Rules
to continue to close the legislative process in the 110th Congress.
Mr. Speaker, one thing, an additional point I would like to make, I
would like to point out to my colleagues that the majority is now
including in this section 2 language which allows the Speaker to
postpone consideration of the bill at any time in every rule. It is
including that language now in every rule.
It is interesting, since this is a structured rule, which means that
the bill will be considered in the Committee of the Whole. This is very
precedent-setting because in previous Congresses this language has
never been included on structured rules. It is typically only included
on a closed rule or a modified closed rule where the bill is being
considered in the House and not in the Committee of the Whole. And in
previous Congresses it was only included when debate was scheduled to
last more than the traditional 1 hour in the House. So I find this
strange, because when the House is in the Committee of the Whole, it
can simply rise and postpone consideration. I find it curious as to why
the new majority is extending this authority now to all rules, even
when it doesn't seem necessary. Could it be that the majority is
intending to quash the minority's lone procedural guarantee, the motion
to recommit? I am afraid that that may be exactly what it amounts to,
Mr. Speaker, because there is no other procedural excuse for this
language being included in a structured rule. It is not necessary for
the Speaker to have this authority unless they want to postpone
consideration just prior to the vote on the motion to recommit. This is
just another example, Mr. Speaker, of the seemingly small, yet
significant, precedents that the new Democratic majority is setting,
creating new ways to silence the voice of the minority.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. And I
would say to my friend from Florida that, in his concerns about the
motion to recommit and the time to see it, I am sure my friend is
mindful that when a motion to recommit comes to the House floor that it
comes without the Members of the House having had an opportunity to
know the substance of the motion to recommit.
I might add, that period of time, particularly in the last 2 months,
we have seen that when the minority has presented the motion to
recommit, that what winds up happening is even Members of the minority
don't know what is in the motion to recommit. Therefore, it seems more
than reasonable that a sufficient amount of time be given for that
purpose. And I also think in the interest of fairness that we have been
considerably fair in accepting more motions to recommit than have our
friends in the minority.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, yielding myself such
time as I may consume before yielding to my good friend from New York,
it is important to note when, again, seemingly small but significant
precedents are changed. This is a precedent change. We have not seen it
for many, many years. With regard to the motions to recommit, what we
have seen in this Congress is that they often have been passing. But
that is more precisely because the membership, when finding out the
merits of the motions to recommit on a bipartisan basis have been
supporting them.
But, no, it is of concern, and it is important to note that if there
is a step being taken, as it seems that it is being taken, to limit
that very important, often sole procedural remedy available to the
minority which is the motion to recommit, that it is very disturbing.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished
friend from New York (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for
yielding. And I stand here today, first, to commend the chairman of the
full committee, Mr. Thompson, for the bipartisanship he has shown, the
level of
[[Page H3091]]
cooperation he has demonstrated in bringing this bill through the
committee process and to the House floor today. This was work that was
begun in the last Congress, and now it has been brought to its
fruition, and I commend the gentleman for that.
As Mr. Diaz-Balart indicated, there were serious rail attacks in
Britain in 2005, in Spain in 2004 and, of course, in India. And there
is no doubt that terrorists certainly would be considering to use rail
and transit as a base for future attacks here in this country. So this
legislation is needed. It is constructive and on balance, it is very
positive. For instance, it authorized the use of VIPER teams. It does
base funding on threat and risk. And it addresses very, very key areas
of vulnerability.
Having said that, I wish the same spirit of bipartisanship that had
prevailed at the committee level had prevailed in the Rules Committee,
because there are a number of amendments which were not ruled in order.
In fact, there was no amendment ruled in order which was offered by a
member of the Homeland Security Committee, specifically, an amendment
by Mr. Daniel E. Lungren, which would have, I believe, addressed
deficiencies in the whistleblower language which would have protected
classified national security information.
The amendment by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite, who will be speaking on it
herself in a few moments, would have certainly prevented the disclosure
of sensitive security information on Freedom of Information requests,
and two amendments by Mr. Dent as far as screening travelers entering
the U.S. and interdicting terrorists at the border. All four of these
amendments would have been very constructive. I supported them
strongly. At the very least, they deserved a full debate here on the
House floor today. So for that reason I will oppose the rule.
Having said that, I do support the underlying legislation, and I do
commend Chairman Thompson for his efforts and certainly subcommittee
ranking member and former chairman, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren, for the
efforts that he put into this in the previous Congress.
This is legislation whose time has come. Unfortunately, it was not
allowed the opportunity to even be better than it is.
So having said, while I support the underlying legislation, I must
reluctantly oppose the rule today.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3
minutes to a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, my good
friend from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from the Rules
Committee for yielding time on this very, very important issue.
Today is a great day, and I rise in support of the rule and the
underlying resolution in this matter to improve our security on our
rail and busway systems throughout this country.
{time} 1300
When I was running for this office, this was a very, very important
and significant issue to many people who I represent throughout
Northeast Ohio. We have many passengers and others who utilize these
services who, unfortunately, despite evidence of vulnerability and
potential attack, have been exposed to the ongoing danger of our
failure to secure these systems. I also am proud to see that in this
bill we have protections for whistleblowers that will improve the
likelihood of secure and safe transit systems within our country.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is
my pleasure and privilege to yield 4 minutes to my distinguished friend
and colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, early in this session the majority promised to
implement all the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Yesterday, the Rules
Committee, which is controlled by the majority, had the opportunity to
deliver on that promise by making two of my amendments to this
legislation in order. It failed to do so, and the security of our rail
and bus passengers and, in fact, our border security in general will be
all the worse as a result.
The 9/11 Commission advised the President to direct the Department of
Homeland Security to ``design a comprehensive screening system'' that
would target ``particular, identifiable suspects or indicators of
risk'' and give border officials ``the resources to establish that
people are who they say they are, intercept identifiable suspects, and
disrupt terrorist operations.'' They concluded that targeting travel is
at least as powerful a weapon against terrorists as targeting their
money. That is the 9/11 Commission report, recommendation 14, page 385.
And it recommended that a terrorist travel intelligence collection and
analysis program, which had ``produced disproportionately useful
results,'' should be expanded.
The first of these amendments involved the Advance Passenger
Information System, or APIS as we commonly refer to it. Today, under
this program, air and sea carriers collect passenger and crew
biographical data and transmit this data to Customs and Border
Protection while the vessel or aircraft is en route to the United
States. This is an important tool in CBP's efforts to identify suspect
or high-risk passengers before, that is before, they enter the country.
As terrorists are just as capable of taking a Greyhound bus across
border as they are landing at LAX, I thought that my amendment, which
would have required bus and train companies transporting passengers
into this country to provide the same advanced information to CBP as do
the airlines, made sense. Unfortunately, the majority members in the
Rules Committee did not agree.
My second amendment would have authorized the deployment of the
Automated Targeting System For Passengers, or ATS-P as we refer to it.
ATS-P is an intranet-based enforcement and decision support tool that
is the cornerstone of all of CBP's targeting efforts at the border.
ATS-P coordinates passenger information and forms an intelligence
assessment of a traveler. ATS-P then makes a simple ``yes'' or ``no''
determination on whether that international traveler should be flagged
for additional screening. Once this information is received by CBP
officials, these officials retain the discretion to act, or not to act,
on that information. In short, ATS-P is nothing more than a tool that
can help CBP determine who might be a person worthy of a follow-up
interview.
Again, since we are already using this technology to screen
international incoming flights, why not apply it to border crossings of
trains and buses, other forms of transportation through which
terrorists might try to enter the country? Why not? That was the gist
of my amendment. Once more, however, the majority on the Rules
Committee shot us down.
Together, APIS and the ATS-P make up the building blocks of exactly
the kind of border security program recommended by the 9/11 Commission,
and yet this rule prohibits our consideration of these two programs as
part of our mass transit and rail security structure. The majority can
talk the talk when it comes to adopting the 9/11 Commission
recommendations, but by failing to implement these two amendments, it
has shown that it cannot walk the walk.
Accordingly, while I know that this legislation, H.R. 1401, will do
many good things, and I do support the underlying bill, I ask that you
vote against this rule because it fails to address the homeland
security concerns detailed in my amendments.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes
to our distinguished colleague from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 1401,
the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007.
This rule is overly restrictive because it prohibits several good
amendments like my colleague just enumerated as well as an amendment
that I had tried to get in the bill. I think it is shocking because
members are the most knowledgeable about this bill, having worked on it
for weeks now, our members of the committee.
One of the amendments that the rule excludes was the rule that
basically said if we have an assessment out there
[[Page H3092]]
of perhaps a lack of security or an area that we need additional
resources in, this information is going to become public. Think about
what the terrorists would do. The amendment would have filled this
security gap by exempting all sensitive information from Freedom of
Information Act requests. It directed the Secretary of Homeland
Security to issue regulations that would prohibit unauthorized
disclosure of sensitive information such as security plans,
vulnerability assessments, and risk-based criteria.
Mr. Speaker, the International Association of Fire Chiefs recently
wrote a letter supporting my amendment, and I will include that letter
in the Record.
International Association
of Fire Chiefs,
Fairfax, VA, March 12, 2007.
Hon. Ginny Brown-Waite,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Brown-Waite: On behalf of the nearly
13,000 chief fire and emergency officers of the International
Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), I would like to voice our
support for your amendment to the ``Rail and Public
Transportation Security Act of 2007'' that would protect
sensitive information about our nation's rail and public
transportation sector.
We share your concerns about protecting sensitive
information from accidental public disclosure. Both the
vulnerability plans and the security assessments described in
this legislation contain sensitive information, such as
threats to our nation's transportation system, security
weaknesses, and redundant and back-up systems. It is
important that this information be shared with the
appropriate fire and emergency services, and law enforcement
organizations to ensure that they are prepared for the
accidental or deliberate release of hazardous materials.
However, this information should not be made public, because
of the serious problems that could occur if information about
weaknesses in the security of our nation's transportation
system fell into the wrong hands.
Thank you again for offering this amendment. If you have
any questions about the IAPC's role in the safe
transportation of hazardous materials, please feel free to
call Ken LaSala, the Director of Government Relations.
Sincerely,
James B. Harmes,
President.
I would also like to quote two sentences from the letter by those who
would be the first responders, the Association of Fire Chiefs, and the
fire chiefs in your local district: ``It is important that this
information be shared with appropriate fire and emergency services and
law enforcement organizations to ensure that they are prepared for the
accidental or deliberate release of hazardous materials. However, this
information should not be made public because of the serious problems
that could occur if information about weaknesses in the security of our
Nation's transportation system fell into the wrong hands.''
Mr. Speaker, they said it far better than I could, and they would
clearly be the first responders. By excluding these important
amendments, we are shortchanging the people of America with a bill that
is filled with loopholes.
I ask Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question and on the rule
so we can go back and make some of these very appropriate amendments in
order.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3
minutes to my good friend from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the Chair of
the Homeland Security Committee.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
rule for H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of
2007. I am also grateful to the Rules Committee and my colleague from
Florida for offering this rule.
The bill passed out of the Committee on Homeland Security was a
comprehensive bill. I know a number of my colleagues offered
amendments, and I appreciate their interest.
I am also pleased the rule makes in order the manager's amendment I
will be offering. This amendment was the result of extensive
negotiations with my colleagues on the Oversight and Government Reform
as well as Transportation Committees. Chairman Waxman assisted in
perfecting the whistleblower protections in the bill. Chairman Oberstar
worked with me on clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the
Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security in this bill.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I feel this is a good rule. It provides for
sufficient debate on this important legislation. It also rules in order
several amendments that deserve discussion and consideration by the
House.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my privilege
to yield 4 minutes to a distinguished new Member who is already making
an impact in this House with his forceful leadership and his knowledge
and wisdom, Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule
but in support of H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation
Security Act, which will improve the security of our Nation's rail,
subway, and bus systems.
I am very disappointed that this rule does not allow any Republicans
on the Homeland Security Committee to offer amendments, of which there
were several. Two of my committee colleagues, Congressman Daniel E.
Lungren and Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite, have critically important
amendments that would significantly improve this bill.
However, I am pleased to support this bill, which my Homeland
Security Committee approved unanimously. I support this bill because it
will provide much-needed protections and security improvements for the
millions of Americans that travel on our Nation's buses, our subway
system, and our train system.
The Rail and Public Transportation Security Act will require Federal
officials and transportation providers to assess our vulnerability to
terrorist attacks against these public transportation systems and
determine ways to improve their security.
I am especially pleased that the bill we are considering today
includes two proposals that I made during committee consideration of
this measure that I believe will strengthen our security against
terrorist attacks on rail and mass transportation systems.
First, the committee adopted an amendment I offered that requires DHS
to conduct physical testing of railcars to determine the most likely
successful means of attack against them. This is important because no
real-world vulnerability testing has been done on the safety of tank
cars carrying dangerous toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials. My
amendment remedies that by requiring such tests so that we can properly
assess their current vulnerabilities and protect them to the most
practical extent possible.
My proposal also requires real-world plume modeling analysis for such
attacks to help fill the current gaps in our understanding of these
vulnerabilities so that we can better protect our constituents and
first responders from attacks on tank cars carrying dangerous materials
and mitigate their consequences.
Second, this bill incorporates the text of an amendment that I filed
during the committee's consideration of H.R. 1401 that requires the
security coordinator positions required under section 103 of the bill
to be filled by U.S. citizens, a requirement which I think makes sense
for several reasons. U.S. citizenship is required for individuals
seeking security clearances for access to classified information and
materials. I very strongly believe that individuals who will be
responsible for coordinating and implementing security plans for our
Nation's rail and public transportation systems should be able to
access, when appropriate, information to help them do their jobs as
effectively as possible.
I think it just makes sense to put American citizens in charge of the
security for our country. As we saw during the Dubai Ports debacle,
many of our constituents demanded that Americans be in charge of
America's security, a position with which I hope we can all agree.
I want to thank full committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, Ranking
Member Peter King, Transportation Security and Infrastructure
Protection Subcommittee Chairwoman Sheila Jackson-Lee, and subcommittee
Ranking Member Dan Lungren for their hard work and open-mindedness in
crafting this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we have rightly focused much of our time, attention, and
resources on securing our Nation's aviation system in the years since
9/11. I believe it is time that we focus on securing our country's
public transportation systems, which so many of our constituents use
each day.
[[Page H3093]]
{time} 1315
This bill is a significant step in that direction. I urge our
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4
minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson-Lee), the chairwoman of the Transportation Security and
Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee of the Homeland Security
Committee.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address
you this afternoon. I thank my good friend Mr. Hastings from Florida,
and let me thank the Rules Committee for the thoughtful and
constructive rule that has been put forward and acknowledge my
colleague on the subcommittee, Mr. Bilirakis, for his comments about
the underlying bill.
Just to inform my colleagues, this is a bill long overdue, and
procedurally I believe that we moved this bill in regular order. We
held two hearings. First of all, a hearing that allowed us to hear from
the vastness of government agencies, who, I guess out of their
testimony, one could argue that they made a very clear case that we
needed a regulatory framework within which to secure the Nation's
railroads and transit systems.
Obviously, through the tragedies of London and Madrid, we knew that
the clock was ticking; and this committee, under the chairmanship of
Chairman Thompson, knows that we must advance the ball, building on the
work that this committee has done as a bipartisan committee over the
years with a number of chairpersons, that we must move the ball forward
to ensure the security of the Nation's homeland.
That means this particular subcommittee will address questions
dealing with not only the questions of rail, but of aviation, of bus,
of trucking, and as well critical infrastructure that heretofore may
not have been assessed as closely as we should have.
So we held one hearing. At a second hearing we were able to hear from
a number of industry persons to tell us, again, of some of the
mountains that they had to climb in order to ensure security of the
homeland.
That being so, this is a comprehensive bill. I am delighted it
includes language regarding research and training, whistleblower
language that comports with the Waxman legislation, so we are
consistent in the legislative structure. I support, as well, the
manager's amendment by Mr. Thompson, which focuses on some aspects that
I think help the bill.
There will be some issues that I hope that we can move further along,
and that is a relationship of consultation between the Homeland
Security Department and the Department of Transportation.
As relates to security, I think it is key that the Department of
Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Committee lead in
consultation with a number of our jurisdictional allies.
I want to thank the chairman of the transportation committee and the
chairperson of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Congresswoman Corrine
Brown. We worked very collegially together, and I think this is a
strong product.
Might I also just indicate that I hope my colleagues will pay close
attention to language that would eliminate Amtrak from security grants.
One of the largest modes of passenger transportation, which has had its
ups and downs, sometimes the passenger rate is up, sometimes it is
down, but it does not mean that it is not a vulnerable target.
It is interesting that if you run your transit system 24 hours a day,
for example, there has to be a period where there is low passenger
census. Does that mean that it is any less a target to threats than it
would be during peak times? So I hope my colleagues will consider the
vulnerability that the Sessions amendment gives to this whole bill and
the idea of securing extensively the rail system.
Might I suggest that amendments that would undermine the
Transportation Security Administration breeding program increase also
pose concern, because, as we know, we have not yet had a system in rail
travel that addresses the question of security of baggage. So this
breeding program, dealing with domestic animals, is an important aspect
of dealing with the question of security.
I would also suggest that you don't want to leave out the provision
that we have in the over-the-road bus program, and that should not be
eliminated.
This is a good rule. I ask my colleagues to support it, and I hope
they will support the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the history of this bill. This
bill was badly needed because, as you know, the issue of transportation
security has been over looked. This bill authorizes more than 5 billion
dollars over the next four years for rail, public transportation, and
over-the-road bus security. Having seen the horrific events in Madrid
and London, something must be done to improve transportation security.
We know that this bill moves in that direction because we've had a long
and distinguished legislative record resulting in this bipartisan bill.
As the Chairwoman for the Homeland Security's Subcommittee on
Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection we have held two
hearings on the topic of transportation security. On February 6, the
Subcommittee received testimony from the government on transportation
security. On February 13, the Subcommittee heard testimony from
industry and labor about the issue as well. Both of these hearings were
attended by the Subcommittee's Ranking Member, Mr. Lungren from
California, and other Committee Members from both parties.
In these hearings, the Subcommittee heard from over nine different
witnesses. The witnesses included, Assistant Secretary Hawley, with the
Transportation Security Administration, two witnesses from the
Department of Transportation, one from the Federal Railroad
Administration, and the other from the Federal Transit Administration,
and the Government Accountability Office's rail security expert. We
also heard from the Amtrak's Inspector General, the Association of
American Railroads, and the New York Metropolitan Transportation
Authority. Finally, we also heard from the Transport Workers Union and
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. As such, I think we have
heard from all the stakeholders impacted by this bill.
Besides hearings, the Subcommittee held a mark-up on March 1, 2007,
in which there were ten amendments offered and discussed. These
amendments dealt with issues, including whistleblower rights, reducing
protections for protecting sensitive information, and others. I believe
the mark-up yielded a strong bill, which was made even stronger by the
Full Committee's mark-up and its consideration of more than twenty
amendments.
Mr. Speaker, because the Homeland Security bill was passed
unanimously out of Committee and it represents a compromise between the
Transportation & Infrastructure and Oversight and Government Reform
Committees, and is a great step forward to protecting our
transportation systems, I urge my colleagues to support the Rule.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege
to yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague from California, Mr.
Lungren.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good day in some respects, and that is that we
have this bill on the floor, H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public
Transportation Security Act of 2007. It follows up on work that we
began in the last Congress on a bipartisan basis.
I would say the committee acted on a bipartisan basis all the way
through. It is a shame, however, that bipartisanship stops at the edge
of the Rules Committee. When we made an attempt to ask for reasonable
amendments in this regard from members of the committee of
jurisdiction, the Homeland Security Committee, we were rejected.
I might just talk about the one amendment that I had asked to be
considered dealing with whistleblower protection. The bill has in it
now a provision which is extraordinary in its breadth and which is
unique in its application of criminal law. People wonder why we would
be concerned about this when we all agree we ought to allow
whistleblowers, when acting properly, to expose wrongdoing.
The problem is we are in an area dealing with security, and this
would allow an employee to make an individualized determination,
without further review or even perhaps without all the relevant
information, to disclose classified information. We ought to be
concerned about that. My amendment would have dealt with that.
For some reason now in the manager's amendment we are going to exempt
these criminal penalties for many Federal employees, but we are going
to
[[Page H3094]]
impose them on State and local employees, criminal penalties and
punitive damage awards. So we are going to have a situation in terms of
sensitive information that might be revealed by an employee and
therefore action taken against that employee, and the government unable
to respond to that, because under this whistleblower protection law,
there will not be the ability for the government to talk about
protecting basically state secrets.
What we are talking about here are areas of sensitive information.
This goes along with the gentlewoman from Florida's amendment to try
and protect sensitive information. Both of those amendments were
rejected.
I would hope that Members would vote down this rule so we might have
a chance to do our job and at the same time protect sensitive
information.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), one such distinguished Member
who had two germane amendments before the Rules Committee that were
shut out. He is the ranking member of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I do
rise in opposition to this rule.
I have been here for 15 years, and this is probably one of the most
egregious efforts to deny committees of jurisdiction input into this
very important legislation.
We just heard from Mr. Lungren, a very distinguished Member and
ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee. He stated again the
partisan nature of the Rules decision. The Chair on the Republican
side, the ranking member of that committee, Mr. King, indicated that
there were zero amendments. Unprecedented. On the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, there were zero amendments accepted.
So I must strongly encourage that we vote against this rule. Again,
in my experience, I have never heard of such an egregious abuse of
minority rights or participation in the process.
Most importantly, I think that one of the amendments that we offered
from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, while the
manager's amendment does have some improvements in taking these
important security grants from DHS, which has had difficulty in
managing all their responsibilities, and we have the money going
through DHS and the grants administered by the Department of
Transportation, which is an improvement, it has been my experience that
it is not how much money you spend, it is how you spend it. We had an
amendment that offered a vast improvement, which was to conduct a needs
and risk assessment on security risks relating to transit and rail,
which has never been conducted.
So we are going to take $6 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money and
put it through this system that I just described and not really address
that money to the real threats and risks that we face. I don't think
that is wise.
This weekend I spent some time in Pennsylvania. I went through a
couple of towns and I saw a lot of people. I saw some tough towns in
some of the rural areas traveling up there. But I saw a lot of people
going to work and working hard, sending their money to Washington. They
are counting on us to be good stewards of that money and to spend that
money.
Our number one responsibility is the safety and security of those
people, and here we are abandoning that responsibility. So they work
very hard out there to send that money here and now see it not properly
applied.
That is wrong, and I will oppose this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule, H. Res. 270, for the
consideration of H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security
Act of 2007.
I strongly support effective security measures for America's
railroads, transit systems, and intercity buses.
But the funding authorization levels in the bill that will be brought
up today are based on a phony estimate of the surface transportation
security needs.
The $6 billion authorized in H.R. 1401 is based on a 2003 member
survey conducted by the American Public Transportation Association.
There was no discipline to the APTA survey--anyone could ask for
anything they thought they might need at any time.
Yesterday, I offered two amendments to the Rules Committee, both of
which were rejected on a straight party-line vote.
The first amendment was simply a requirement that DHS and DOT
determine what the security needs of the Nation's transit systems and
railroads are before authorizing $6 billion in grants.
This amendment was supported by the Committee on Homeland Security
and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Yet the Rules
Committee refused to allow the amendment to be considered.
I also proposed an amendment to expand the current whistleblower
protection law for both the safety and security of railroad employees
under the Railway Labor Act.
This effective whistleblower protection law in title 49 of the U.S.
Code has been in place since 1970. This law covers the reporting of all
hazardous conditions, whether related to safety or security.
Under the Railway Labor Act whistleblower protection, railroad
employees are fully protected against termination, harassment or
discrimination.
There is absolutely no good reason to replace this functional and
effective law with new whistleblower protection requirements under the
Department of Labor. Don't fix it if it isn't broken.
But this amendment, despite support from both the Committee on
Homeland Security and the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, was also rejected by the Rules Committee on a party-
line vote.
I strongly oppose this Rule.
The bill development was not bipartisan, and it is obvious that the
development of the Rule was completely partisan.
The Democrat-led Congress's unwillingness to work with Republicans on
this bill flies in the face of Speaker Pelosi's commitment to work in
an open and bipartisan manner.
It's a shame that this Congress has put politics ahead of effective
security for the traveling public.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to oppose the previous question. If the
previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make in order
two amendments Mr. Dent of Pennsylvania offered last night at the Rules
Committee. Mr. Dent, a member of the Homeland Security Committee,
testified on behalf of his amendments, but the Democratic majority of
the Rules Committee all voted against making these important amendments
in order.
These amendments would establish a screening program for individuals
who are arriving at or departing from the U.S. through covered
transportation, namely, by passenger rail and bus. His amendments would
also require carriers who provide transportation to people entering the
U.S. to provide passenger information to Customs and Border Protection.
Mr. Dent's amendments would implement one of the key 9/11 Commission
recommendations, which stated: ``Information systems able to detect
potential terrorist indicators should be used at primary border
inspection lines, in immigration services offices, and in intelligence
and enforcement units.''
During the recent campaign, the Democrats pledged to enact all of the
9/11 Commission recommendations. By not allowing Mr. Dent's amendments,
they are ignoring a loophole for the terrorists to exploit and are
reneging on a promise they made to the American people to protect them.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record a copy
of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote
on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great intensity
to my friend from Florida regarding the resources that the American
public provides to the United States Government for its distribution.
He seems to decry the fact that this year we are going to spend $7
billion on rail security. My ultimate question would be, What did you
spend on rail security last year, the year before, the year before and
the year before that?
Somewhere along the line, I believe that the American people want us
to
[[Page H3095]]
make sure that our rail system and our bus system are as secure as we
can make them. This is a start in that direction.
I also heard my friend from Orlando say that the rule itself is the
most egregious that he has seen in 15 years. Well, I have been here
every one of those 15 years that he has been here, and if he wants to
see egregious, then travel with me back to the 4 years in the minority
that I was on the Rules Committee, and I will show you egregiousness.
{time} 1330
Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission gave the Transportation Security
Administration a C-minus for its efforts to develop a security strategy
for all modes of transportation. GAO, as I previously mentioned, has
said that the U.S. has failed to provide the appropriate leadership in
enhancing all forms of covered transportation.
Something needs to change. This bill provides the necessary
leadership and funding to move us forward.
For too long, Congress has neglected its responsibility to do
whatever is necessary to protect the well-being of the American people.
This is a fair rule. It gives four amendments to the minority and four
amendments to the majority; hardly as egregious as the many times no
amendments were granted to the minority when Democrats were in the
minority.
I urge my colleagues to support both the substantive legislation and
this rule.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Rail and Public
Transportation Security Act (H.R. 1401). Our country needs this bill.
Our communities need this bill.
This legislation is very timely for my district. On March 15th, a
train trestle burned down just outside central Sacramento. The fire
sent a dark plume of smoke into the sky.
The residents of our region received quite a scare. Children were
kept inside because authorities could not determine if the smoke from
the trestle fire was toxic.
Fortunately, no one was hurt. The incident is not being investigated
as a terrorist attack.
However, this fire showcased the impact that our rail vulnerabilities
can have on communities.
In Sacramento, our train tracks form a ring around our most populated
areas. If the trestle had caught fire just a few miles down the track,
houses would have burned. If the train had exploded, or if it had
leaked hazardous material, my constituents could have died.
I cannot let that happen. That is why this legislation is so
important. It makes critical advancements in rail security policy.
I am grateful that Representative Markey has addressed the transport
of hazardous materials through heavily populated areas.
As the situation in Sacramento demonstrated, we must begin to reroute
hazardous shipments to avoid populated areas.
When possible, we must integrate new technologies to secure these
shipments. I look forward to working with Mr. Markey to implement this
proposal.
It is also important to note that more people than ever are using
public transit. Over 10 billion trips were taken on public
transportation last year. There has been a 30 percent increase in
public transit use in the last decade.
This increased ridership is great news. However, it is important that
we invest in security funding to match growing demand. This legislation
will do just that.
Finally, I want to commend Chairman Bennie Thompson of the Homeland
Security Committee for his leadership on this issue.
As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I
have seen how smoothly Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Thompson have
collaborated.
They have done a great job dealing with the jurisdictional issues
raised by transit security.
Their work demonstrates the level of commitment that is needed to
secure our communities. Such collaboration is a refreshing change.
It should serve as an example for us all as we tackle other pressing
issues facing the 110th Congress.
I urge my colleagues to support the Rule, so that we can enact this
important legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 270
Offered by Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendments printed in sections 4 and 5 shall
be in order as though printed as the last two amendments in
the report of the Committee on Rules if offered by
Representative Dent of Pennsylvania or his designee. Such
amendments shall each be separately debatable for 30 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent.
Sec. 4. The first amendment referred to in section 3 is as
follows:
At the end of title I of the bill, add the following new
section (and conform the table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 1XX. PASSENGER AND CREW MANIFESTS FOR VEHICLES ARRIVING
IN OR DEPARTING FROM THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Statement of Policy.--Congress supports the following
recommendations from the Final Report of the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States:
(1) ``The small terrorist travel intelligence collection
and analysis program currently in place has produced
disproportionately useful results. It should be expanded.
Since officials at the borders encounter travelers and their
documents first and investigate travel facilitators, they
must work closely with intelligence officials.''.
(2) ``Information systems able to authenticate travel
documents and detect potential terrorist indicators should be
used at consulates, at primary border inspection lines, in
immigration services offices, and in intelligence and
enforcement units.''.
(3) ``We advocate a system for screening, not categorical
profiling. A screening system looks for particular,
identifiable suspects or indicators of risk. It does not
involve guesswork about who might be dangerous. It requires
frontline border officials who have the tools and resources
to establish that people are who they say they are, intercept
identifiable suspects, and disrupt terrorist operations.''.
(4) ``[T]he National Targeting Center, assisted by the new
Terrorist Screening Center, provides information support to
inspectors at ports of entry so that they can make more
informed decisions about potential terrorists and harmful
cargo attempting to enter the United States.''.
(b) Authority to Require Advanced Delivery of
Information.--Part II of title IV of the Tariff Act of 1930
(19 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) is amended by inserting after
section 434 the following new section:
``SEC. 435. PASSENGER AND CREW MANIFESTS FOR VEHICLES
ARRIVING IN OR DEPARTING FROM THE UNITED
STATES.
``(a) Passenger and Crew Manifests Required.--The
Commissioner of United States Customs and Border Protection
of the Department of Homeland Security may require each
vehicle (including a rail car or bus) of a provider of
covered transportation, as defined in the Rail and Public
Transportation Security Act of 2007 arriving in the United
States from, or departing the United States to, a foreign
port or place to transmit to United States Customs and Border
Protection a passenger manifest and crew manifest containing
the information set forth in subsection (c) for each such
arrival in or departure from the United States.
``(b) Transmission.--A passenger manifest and crew manifest
required pursuant to subsection (a) shall be transmitted to
United States Customs and Border Protection in advance of
arrival in or departure from the United States in such
manner, time, and form as the Commissioner of United States
Customs and Border Protection may prescribe by regulations.
``(c) Information.--The information to be provided with
respect to each person listed on a passenger manifest or crew
manifest required pursuant to subsection (a) may include--
``(1) the person's complete name, date of birth,
citizenship, gender, passport number and country of issuance,
and alien registration number, if applicable; and
``(2) such other information as the Commissioner of United
States Customs and Border Protection determines is necessary
to enforce the customs, immigration, and other related laws
of the United States, to ensure the transportation security
of the United States, and to protect the national security of
the United States.
``(d) Civil Penalty.--Any person who fails to provide
accurate and full information in a passenger manifest or crew
manifest required pursuant to subsections (a) and (c) or
regulations issued thereunder, or fails to provide the
manifest in the manner prescribed pursuant to subsection (b)
or regulations issued thereunder, shall be liable for a civil
penalty in the amount of $5,000 with respect to each person
listed on the manifest for whom such accurate or full
information is not provided in accordance with such
requirements.
``(e) Passenger Name Record Information.--
``(1) Requirement.--The Commissioner of United States
Customs and Border Protection may require each commercial
carrier arriving in the United States from, or departing the
United States to, a foreign port or place to make available
to United States Customs and Border Protection, upon the
agency's request, passenger name record information for each
such arrival in or departure from the United States in such
manner, time, and form as the Commissioner may prescribe by
regulations.
``(2) Civil penalty.--Any person who fails to provide
passenger name record information required pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall be liable for a civil penalty in the
amount of $5,000 with respect to each person for whom such
information is not provided in accordance with such
requirements.
[[Page H3096]]
``(f) Sharing of Manifest and Passenger Name Record
Information With Other Government Agencies.--The Commissioner
of United States Customs and Border Protection may provide
information contained in passenger and crew manifests and
passenger name record information received pursuant to this
section to other government authorities in order to protect
the national security of the United States or as otherwise
authorized by law.
``(g) Consideration of Economic Impact.--Prior to issuing
any interim or final regulation under this section, the
Commissioner of United States Customs and Border Protection
shall consult with stakeholders from the transportation
industry and assess the economic impact that the regulation
would have on private industry.
``(h) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section abrogates,
diminishes, or weakens the provisions of any Federal or State
law that prevents or protects against the unauthorized
collection or release of personal records.''.
Sec. 5. The second amendment referred to in section 3 is as
follows:
At the end of the title I, insert the following new section
(and conform the table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 132. AUTOMATED TARGETING SYSTEM FOR PERSONS ENTERING OR
DEPARTING THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Findings of the 9/11 Commission.--Congress finds that
the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United
States (commonly referred to as the 9/11 Commission)
concluded that--
(1) ``The small terrorist travel intelligence collection
and analysis program currently in place has produced
disproportionately useful results. It should be expanded.
Since officials at the border encounter travelers and their
documents first and investigate travel facilitators, they
must work closely with intelligence officials.'';
(2) ``Information systems able to authenticate travel
documents and detect potential terrorist indicators should be
used at consulates, at primary border inspection lines, in
immigration service offices, and intelligence and enforcement
units.'';
(3) ``The President should direct the Department of
Homeland Security to lead the effort to design a
comprehensive screening system, addressing common problems
and setting common standards with systemwide goals in
mind.'';
(4) ``A screening system looks for particular, identifiable
suspects or indicators of risk. It does not involve guesswork
about who might be dangerous. It requires frontline border
officials who have the tools and resources to establish that
people are who they say they are, intercept identifiable
suspects, and disrupt terrorist operations.''; and
(5) ``Inspectors adjudicating entries of the 9/11 hijackers
lacked adequate information and knowledge of the rules. A
modern border and immigration system should combine a
biometric entry-exit system with accessible files on visitors
and immigrants, along with intelligence on indicators of
terrorist travel.''.
(b) Automated Targeting System for Persons Entering or
Departing the United States.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security, acting through the Commissioner of Customs and
Border Protection, may establish an automated system for the
purpose of the enforcement of United States law, including
laws relating to anti-terrorism and border security, to
assist in the screening of persons seeking to enter or depart
the United States (in this section referred to as the
``system'') through the use of covered transportation.
(c) No Private Right of Action.--The Secretary, acting
through the Commissioner, shall ensure than an administrative
process is established, or application of an existing
administrative process is extended, pursuant to which any
individual may apply to correct any information retained by
the system established under subsection (b). Nothing in this
section shall be construed as creating a private right of
action and no court shall have jurisdiction based on any of
the provisions of this section to hear any case or claim
arising from the application of the system or the corrective
administrative process established or applied under this
section.
(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as abrogating, diminishing, or weakening the
provisions of any Federal or State law that prevents or
protects against the unauthorized collection or release of
personal records.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
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 Democratic 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 Democratic
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 definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
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 Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote
on the ground that a quorum is not present and make a point of order 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 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
ordering the previous question on H. Res. 270 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 270, if ordered; adoption of H.
Res. 269, if ordered; and the motion to suspend the rules on H. Res.
266.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 199, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 190]
YEAS--222
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
[[Page H3097]]
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--199
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Andrews
Barton (TX)
Carson
Davis, Jo Ann
Ehlers
Kanjorski
Kingston
Lampson
Meehan
Millender-McDonald
Spratt
Udall (NM)
{time} 1359
Messrs. YOUNG of Alaska, RYAN of Wisconsin, PETERSON of Pennsylvania,
and SULLIVAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 199, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 191]
YEAS--223
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--199
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
[[Page H3098]]
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Andrews
Carson
Davis, Jo Ann
Garrett (NJ)
Kanjorski
Kingston
Lampson
Meehan
Millender-McDonald
Spratt
Udall (NM)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1408
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.
____________________