[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10136-10149]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

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

                              H. Res. 283

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1817) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2006 for the Department of Homeland Security, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Homeland Security. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on 
     Homeland Security, Energy and Commerce, and the Judiciary now 
     printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment 
     to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules. Each amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject

[[Page 10137]]

     to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
     division of the question in the House or in the Committee of 
     the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

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

                              {time}  1030

  These amendments may only be offered in the order printed in the 
report and only by the Member designated in the report. They shall be 
considered as read, debatable for the time specified in the report 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
shall not be subject to amendment or a demand for the division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
  Finally, this rule waives all points of order against the amendments 
printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report and provides for one 
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and its 
underlying legislation, the first ever Homeland Security authorization 
legislation. The rule before us today is a fair rule that will allow 
for consideration of 25 amendments to the legislation, 13 of which are 
sponsored by a Member of the minority party, 10 by Members of the 
majority party, and two which enjoy bipartisan sponsorship.
  This bill, brought to the floor today by the leadership of my friend, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), empowers the core mission of 
the Department of Homeland Security, which is, first, to prevent 
terrorist attacks within the United States; second, reducing America's 
vulnerability to terrorism; and, third, responding to and recovering 
from terrorist attacks if some tragedy does occur.
  It accomplishes this necessary and singularly important goal by 
ensuring that the Department has the resources and the authority it 
needs to prevent and prepare for terrorist attack, and to respond to 
and recover from an attack if one does occur.
  Through the authorization of over $34 billion in homeland security 
spending in 2006, this legislation will ensure that our Nation's 
highest funding priorities are met. It also includes a number of other 
legislative and oversight measures to strengthen and improve the safety 
of Americans here at home, including:
  Deploying counterterrorism technologies within 90 days so that 
Federal, State, local, and private sector officials can prevent 
domestic terror;
  Funding 2,000 additional border patrol agents;
  Assessing the effectiveness of operations at the Departments of 
Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
so that spending on these programs is efficient and effective;
  Consolidating the current background check system, so that 
individuals can be prescreened by checking their names and biometric 
identifiers against terrorist watch lists and other criminal databases;
  Adopting risk-based cargo screening, and expanding the number of 
foreign ports where Customs and Border Patrol agents screen incoming 
containers from 36 to approximately 50 ports;
  Improving information analysis and infrastructure protection 
recruiting;
  Improving nuclear and biological intelligence;
  Establishing a one-stop shop within the Department of Homeland 
Security for reliable, comprehensive, and accessible open-source 
intelligence information and analysis;
  Providing better information to local leaders by requiring that any 
threats be communicated in a manner that limits confusion and 
operational conflicts;
  Clarifying the color-based threat system so that specific information 
is given directly to regions, States, localities, and private sector 
industries;
  Creating a National Terrorism Exercise program to coordinate and 
establish minimum standards for all Federal, State, and local terrorism 
drills; and
  Providing for greater Federal, State, and local homeland operations 
collaboration that needs to take place.
  By providing leadership and guidance on these issues and many others, 
Chairman Cox and his committee have provided this House with a product 
that I believe is effective in providing for the security of our 
homeland, which deserves the support of every single Member of this 
body. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, famed writer and political commentator George Orwell 
once wrote that ``people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only 
because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.'' That 
statement should have a special resonance for Americans in today's 
world.
  We are fighting a new kind of war every day here in America. Our 
struggle against terror is one that requires us to focus our resources 
inward like no time in our history, because today the battlefields are 
the streets and sidewalks of this country and not some faraway land.
  We have to ensure that our government is prepared to responsibly 
address any threat that imperils the peace and prosperity of this 
Nation. Only then will the American people truly sleep peaceably 
through the night. That is why this Homeland Security authorization 
bill is critically important, because it represents the blueprint of 
our homeland defense and our collective peace of mind for many years to 
come.
  With such a weighty mandate, I would like to congratulate the 
Committee on Homeland Security in putting together their first 
committee authorization. But I would have wished today for an open 
rule, and we are still faced with serious issues of accountability and 
trust in the management of the Department of Homeland Security. This is 
in no small part as a result of the Bush administration's unwillingness 
to fill critical job vacancies at the senior levels of the agency.
  In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has had two Secretaries 
and three Deputy Secretaries in 2 years. Today, 42 percent of the high-
level political positions inside the agency are vacant or staffed by 
people who have already announced their departures. This lack of 
stability at the Department has impacted the agency's ability to meet 
its mandate effectively.

[[Page 10138]]

  For example, in my district, the Peace Bridge, which connects Buffalo 
to Canada, continues to face obstacles in moving to alleviate traffic 
congestion. Last December, the United States and Canadian governments 
agreed to move forward with a shared border management initiative which 
would remedy the situation. But it has been stalled by endless 
bureaucracy and lack of accountability at the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  But it is not just a lack of accountability that has plagued the 
agency. Our country's epic struggle against terror is also a struggle 
against fear. We recently discovered that the infamous homeland 
security terror alerts, which were raised so often in the months 
leading up to the Presidential election, and rarely since, if ever, 
were repeatedly elevated over the objections of the Homeland Security 
Secretary and his staff. The terror alerts were raised on what 
Secretary Ridge himself called ``flimsy evidence'' by individuals in 
the administration who were really aggressive about raising it, which 
shows that they were used for political purposes.
  I know I am not the only one who questions why in the 5\1/2\ months 
since election day there has not been a single terror alert. Perhaps 
Mr. Ridge's comments put the answer in the proper perspective. That 
constitutes a violation of trust with the American people, and we 
cannot afford that in this war on terror. We ought not to employ the 
tactics of fear as a means of control in our pursuit to keep the 
homeland secure. Such draconian measures are not in keeping with the 
spirit of America.
  It is beneath us as a Nation to have partisan politics injected into 
our national security apparatus in an ugly and manipulative way. We 
dare not trade in a currency of fear, but rather should strive to 
liberate ourselves from fear through awareness of our world and an 
honest understanding of the challenges which lay before us.
  I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree on this 
principle, and I am pleased that the committee has seen fit to include 
more specific criteria for how the terror alert is and is not to be 
utilized. Likewise, the appropriation bill passed yesterday by a nearly 
unanimous vote also included measures that promise to provide a higher 
degree of accountability at the agency, accountability that I am sure 
we all agree is sorely needed.
  Despite the serious problems at DHS, which still must be addressed, 
there is much in this authorization bill that I believe every Member of 
Congress will support. As a representative from a border State, I am 
pleased to see that the legislation authorizes $1.9 billion, enough 
money to hire 2,000 additional border agents this year, agents sorely 
needed. This funding would mark a welcome change in the 
administration's approach to handling border security issues away from 
an economically disastrous agenda of imposing passport requirements on 
our citizens who want to cross our northern border and towards a more 
sensible policy of effective border enforcement, one which maximizes 
security resources and safeguards the freedoms and options our citizens 
and our trading partners deserve.
  But that would require that the majority had the will to actually 
spend the border security dollars and not just authorize them. It is, 
after all, easy to talk tough about securing borders, but we need 
action. We need a true commitment from this Congress to put more agents 
in the field. We seem to have an ongoing problem here with leadership 
when it comes to this issue where reality does not measure up to 
rhetoric. It is my hope that this time will be different.
  The House leadership's decision to include in this rule two 
amendments of mine suggests there may be room for common ground on the 
critical border issue after all. Clearly, the most effective tool we 
have to protect our borders is knowledge. Those of us who represent 
border economies understand how important the unencumbered flow of 
commerce across the northern border is to continued economic growth and 
to prosperity. The NEXUS program, we hope, will reduce the long waits 
at the border and allow an unprecedented level of security. It will be 
smart management, and I look forward to the upcoming debate on the 
amendment.
  But there are many others, I know, we would all like to debate here 
on the floor today; but of 89, only 25 were ruled in order, which is 
less than 30 percent. And as I have said previously, I do wish this had 
been an open rule because we need to spend the extra time and we need 
to allow our colleagues to consider more ideas on how to improve the 
homeland security. Is that not what democracy is about, debate and 
deliberation? Our framers thought so, and I think so, and I think most 
of my colleagues and most Americans think so.
  One amendment we will not consider today, which I regret, would have 
established a much-needed railroad security plan for America, which we 
do not have. And, incredibly, an amendment which would have required 
all cargo transported on commercial and passenger airplanes be 
inspected for explosives was not allowed. How could we not allow a 
debate on a critical homeland security issue such as this?
  My colleagues, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), offered an amendment which 
would have upgraded security requirements associated with transporting 
extremely hazardous materials. But, inexplicably, it too was blocked 
from consideration.
  But just as we cannot afford to live in fear in this age of 
terrorism, we also cannot fear engaging in genuine debate in 
consideration of those matters which may be controversial for some, but 
which are clearly important for the safety of all Americans. The free 
flow of debate and democracy are a hallmark of our American values, 
which this House was designed to embody. They are the core values which 
separate us from those who seek to destroy us and our way of life. And 
here in the cradle of democracy, we diminish those most American of 
values at our own peril.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say that it makes me so proud to hear the gentlewoman from New York 
talk with glowing admiration not only about how important this Homeland 
Security bill is but about the hard work that went into it and how it 
became a part of a better product.
  Yesterday, the Committee on Rules had an opportunity, virtually all 
day, to hear testimony from Members across the aisle talk about ideas 
and thoughts and suggestions that they had that would make this a 
better bill. The chairman, the gentleman from California, not only 
listened to them but he worked with the chairman of the Committee on 
Homeland Security, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), on 
perfecting this bill by adding in amendments.
  As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, there are a large number of 
amendments that were added to this, perfecting the bill, perfecting the 
process, but more importantly giving an opportunity for Members of this 
body to make sure, from their own perspective, that Homeland Security 
became more effective by providing the information that was needed to 
address their local communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, 
and I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  We are about to embark on a very new experience for us. We all know 
that September 11 of 2001 changed our lives forever. We obviously have 
had to focus for the first time on our homeland security. We know that 
shortly after September 11 the President of the United States stepped 
up to the plate and put into place this now Cabinet-level Department of 
Homeland Security, but it obviously took a period of time for us as an 
institution to put together the structure that would allow for adequate 
oversight.
  At the beginning of this Congress, we established a new permanent 
standing

[[Page 10139]]

Committee on Homeland Security, and we selected my extraordinarily able 
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), to serve as 
chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security dealing with 
jurisdictions that fell within a wide range of other committees.

                              {time}  1045

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

[[Page 10140]]

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

                              {time}  1100

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

[[Page 10141]]

take on the responsibility of protecting not only the homeland but the 
flying public.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for 
yielding me the time. I also thank the Committee on Rules for making in 
order an amendment by myself and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) 
that will help perfect the Federal flight deck officer program. Many, 
many pilots are willing to volunteer to undergo rigorous training to 
certify themselves as Federal flight deck officers to become the last 
line of defense on our planes. There cannot be an air marshal on every 
plane. We still do not have secondary barriers in the planes. There are 
times when the flight deck door is open. There are ongoing threats. It 
is essential to improve that program and I am hopeful Members will look 
favorably upon that amendment later today.
  With that said, I wish that the rule was more inclusive. My 
colleague, the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Aviation, wanted 
to offer an amendment to mandate that the taxes we are collecting from 
the traveling public to pay for enhanced security at the airports; that 
is, to put in-line explosives detection systems at airports that do not 
have it across America to find explosives in checked bags, and possibly 
that same equipment could be used for cargo on those planes, was not 
allowed. It is unfortunate.
  Most Americans are under the impression that all of their baggage is 
being screened. It is not being effectively screened. Some of it is 
being hand searched. Some of it is being trace searched. Some of it is 
being looked at. Some of it is being loaded on the plane. And some of 
it is going through very sophisticated in-line explosives detection 
systems, and we have the numbers. Where those systems exist, we can 
find threat objects, explosives a very, very high percentage of the 
time. Where those systems do not exist, there is a very disturbing lack 
of detection of test objects, threat objects, explosives.
  We also have a huge and gaping hole at the passenger checkpoint. The 
last wakeup call we are probably ever going to get before the day when 
planes start falling out of the sky was in Russia where two terrorists, 
women, boarded planes with explosives, we do not know exactly whether 
they were in their carry-on bags or whether they were wearing suicide 
belts, but here in the United States of America we are doing nothing to 
find suicide belts or explosives in bags. We are still using 1980s 
technology at the checkpoints, technology that was thrown out of the 
United States Capitol more than a decade ago as inadequate to the 
threat, thrown out of the White House and other places. Yet aviation 
was attacked and aviation in Russia was attacked by what I think, as 
does the chairman of the committee, is the most likely future threat, 
which is explosives. We need to move ahead with more robust acquisition 
of that equipment in the near future and this bill does not mandate 
that.
  I would congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for the 
first ever authorization. It is a good first start. Remember, the 
Homeland Security Department started out of chaos. The President 
refused to create a homeland security Cabinet-level position or 
department until one day when an FBI agent was spilling her guts here 
in Washington, D.C., to a committee and Karl Rove wrote out the plan on 
the back of a napkin. Congress is just starting to make sense of what 
the Department of Homeland Security will be in the future.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have had a number of our colleagues make observations, just as the 
gentleman from Oregon did, about the importance of not only the debate 
that takes place here in the House but also about our desire to make 
homeland security even better, more robust, more dynamic, aiming at the 
threat. We heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) talk very 
eloquently about the need for border control, for us to make sure that 
those people who might be terrorists or may be criminals entering this 
country.
  I am sure we will hear a debate about cargo, cargo ships, thousands 
of containers that come to this country every day, the commerce of this 
country that is affected. We know that we talked yesterday in the 
Committee on Rules about the Canadian border and how the Canadian 
border needs the attention that they not only deserve but also with the 
flow of goods and services with the economies that are affected and 
products and services that are denied when the backlogs occur. Each of 
these has been a part of the arguments, the debates, the discussions 
that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has taken into account, 
has made sure that he has taken them to the Homeland Security 
Department, has spoken with the administration.
  It just makes me very proud today to see our Members who are able to 
cogently come up with not only good answers and better decision-making 
processes but an abiding faith in what we are doing here today. I am 
proud that this debate, some 5 hours of debate that will take place 
today about this very important subject where Members of Congress are 
able to come down and really identify their specific suggestions that 
they have. I think this process works. I think the Committee on Rules 
was wise in what it did. I think the gentleman from California knew 
when he put together this rule with our leadership what it would look 
like. It is working today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I have every intention of supporting today's 
homeland security authorization bill, but I think this bill could be 
dramatically improved, especially regarding the rail safety standards 
that apply to the shipment of extremely hazardous materials in local 
communities all across our Nation.
  Three days after I took office this year, an early morning train 
carrying three rail cars filled with chlorine gas slammed into a parked 
rail car in the town of Graniteville, South Carolina. This produced a 
toxic cloud of chlorine and sodium hydroxide that forced 5,400 local 
residents to flee for their lives. In all, over 240 people were 
sickened by the gas and 10 people died because of the accident. The 
long-term effects of the leak are still unknown and the cleanup process 
continues to this day.
  Mr. Speaker, what happened in Graniteville was not an isolated 
incident. Train accidents occur frequently in the United States. Rail 
cars carrying hazardous, flammable or explosive materials not only pose 
a major health risk to the communities they travel through, they are 
vulnerable security threats to our Nation's homeland security efforts. 
These are would-be terrorist targets begging for attention.
  Since the Graniteville incident, I have met with a number of safety 
experts, and I guarantee that if any Members of this Congress were to 
sit down with these representatives they would be shocked to learn how 
many commonsense safeguards are out there that have not been 
implemented to address rail safety in this country. It is time to do 
more to improve rail security measures.
  The current safeguards for the transportation of hazardous materials 
are nowhere near what they need to be. That is not just a health 
concern for our local communities, it is a security concern for our 
entire Nation.
  The amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and 
I offered yesterday helps close this gap in rail security measures. It 
provides hazardous material training for local first responders. It 
implements coordination and communication plans in the event of an 
accident or an attack, it develops new technology to make rail cars 
more resistant to punctures and, most importantly, it requires 
prenotification for local law enforcement whenever hazardous materials 
are being shipped through their communities.

[[Page 10142]]

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

                              {time}  1115

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

[[Page 10143]]

the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) came to me and said we are 
not, do I want to sponsor an amendment. And we worked on an amendment, 
and we put and got in the bill a few years ago that there had to be 
deadlines for eventually inspecting all baggage that went in the belly 
of an aircraft. We had a deadline and we finally did it. So then I was 
thinking, well, we have done our job.
  And the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) informs me, and I 
did not know it, that 22 percent of what is in the belly of an aircraft 
is cargo uninspected. Uninspected, and yet we are not willing to have a 
debate about this.
  I think it is amazing, and I think it is wrong; and I think if the 
public knew it, they would be outraged. If the argument is that we do 
not have the technology, which we do, or we do not have enough of the 
technology, which is right, we allowed under the gentleman from 
Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) amendment for a 3-year phase-in: 35 percent 
the first year, 65 in the second, and then 100 percent in the third 
year. But if one still did not want to vote for that bill, we asked for 
another amendment to be made in order. The amendment was quite simple. 
It simply said to tell the passenger that the cargo on this plane has 
not been inspected. Even that amendment was not made in order.
  Vote against it if one does not like it. But to not even allow a 
debate on the floor of the House about this issue?
  I had a constituent who was on Pan Am 103. I got the call at 11 in 
the morning that said she thinks her daughter was on this aircraft but 
30 kids were not, 30 people were not; and she hoped and prayed her 
daughter was one who could not get on it. I was at her home that 
evening about 11:30 that night when she got the call that said her 
daughter was on that plane. Admittedly, that was baggage. But if we now 
inspect the carry-on baggage and we inspect the baggage that is given 
at the ticket counter, what are terrorists going to do? They are just 
going to link it up with cargo and blow up a plane, a passenger plane, 
because the cargo has not been inspected.
  I really believe we need this amendment. I salute both sides of the 
aisle for this bill. I salute the Committee on Rules for allowing for 
25 amendments. But this is an amendment that should have been allowed.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this restrictive 
rule which does not make in order several key amendments that could go 
a long way to enhancing our security efforts and addressing serious 
vulnerabilities. Case in point: the cargo security amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and just spoken of by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  That being said, today we will consider H.R. 1817, the first ever 
authorization measure for the Department of Homeland Security. I want 
to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), ranking member, for bringing 
this important bill on the floor. I am proud to serve with them on the 
Committee on Homeland Security.
  While it is not as far reaching as many of us had hoped, H.R. 1817 
takes several critical steps in improving our Nation's security and 
preparedness. It authorizes sufficient funding to hire an additional 
2,000 border patrol agents, which will help us meet the goal of 10,000 
new agents over 5 years set forth in last year's intelligence reform 
bill. The measure also streamlines the background check system for 
those working in sensitive positions, creates an Assistant Secretary 
for Cybersecurity, and requires reform of the homeland security alert 
system so that more specific and targeted information can be provided 
to those who need it.
  Finally, this bill will improve our intelligence and information 
capabilities by allowing new recruiting tools to attract the best-
qualified analysts and mandating increased coordination in the 
dissemination of threat information to State, local, and private sector 
officials.
  But this bill could have gone further. While I understand the 
jurisdictional constraints facing the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Cox), I firmly believe that a DHS authorization bill should 
include critical components like port security, nuclear and chemical 
facility security, bioterrorism preparedness, communications 
interoperability, and rail and transit security. That is why I will be 
supporting a substitute amendment offered later today by the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), ranking member. This comprehensive 
amendment takes the right approach to homeland security needs that 
still face our country.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me again thank the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Thompson), ranking member, for their hard work on this legislation. It 
is not a perfect bill, but it is indeed an important and significant 
first step.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I very much thank the gentlewoman from New 
York for yielding me this time.
  I must say I am grateful for small favors. This is, after all, the 
first authorization bill, almost 4 years after 9/11. But for that, the 
credit is due to the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), ranking member, for working 
collaboratively and, in doing so, establishing the jurisdiction of our 
committee and their jurisdiction over the Department. These are not 
small matters.
  I am grateful as well that an amendment of mine on rail safety is in 
the bill. It is so basic that it does tell us a lot about my 
disappointment that this bill simply does not address rail safety even 
though that is where the people are. I do have report language in the 
bill, and the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) worked hard to 
make sure that he got as much in the bill as he could. However, he was 
under powerful constraints. We were noticed that no amendment that, in 
fact, called for authorization of a single dollar extra would be 
allowed in the bill. We have just heard about the problem four blocks 
from the Capitol with hazardous substances going by and the 
embarrassment that I think the Congress should feel that there has been 
no administrative action to do anything about it, and so there was a 
lawsuit actually won at the first level because of the danger posed 
when Congress does not act and local jurisdictions stepped forward.
  We do have to get to work, and if Members do not believe me, remember 
last Wednesday in the rush from the Capitol. It was not a comedy of 
errors. Indeed, it was not very funny because these were not mistakes. 
What we had were huge questions opened up. Not everything was done that 
should have been done, but we do know what should have been done in the 
first place. Do we know why the plane came so close, why the President 
was not informed, why the District of Columbia was not informed even 
though there was a sergeant sitting right there in the Department of 
Homeland Security? Above all, why were we not in the basement of the 
Capitol rather than out on the streets when there was such a small 
plane involved and we were probably in greater danger on evacuation.
  Lots of work. Let us begin to do it today.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend from New 
York for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise against this rule. I am very disappointed that my 
bipartisan amendment to restore funding for shoulder-fired missile 
protections was not permitted by this rule. The President of the United 
States requested $110 million for shoulder-fired missile research and 
development. The bill that we are going to vote on later today reduces 
it to $10 million.

[[Page 10144]]

  Over the past several years, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), 
Republican chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, and I have been 
working on this issue. But it is not just the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Mica) and I. It is the State Department which released a report 
saying that shoulder-fired missiles are the leading cause of loss of 
life in commercial aviation around the world.
  They were used in December of 2003 against an Israeli jetliner in 
Kenya. They were used a year later against a DHL carrier. We now know 
that the Internet is teaching terrorists how to buy shoulder-fired 
missiles, set them up, and fire them. There are hundreds of thousands 
of these systems available around the world in the hands of 27 separate 
terrorist groups including al Qaeda. Everyone who has studied this 
issue, the President, the Department of Homeland Security, the State 
Department, the FBI, the CIA, the Aviation Subcommittee, the Committee 
on Appropriations, agrees that this threat needs to be addressed. And 
what does this bill do? Ignores the threat.
  If a single shoulder-fired missile is fired at an American aircraft, 
Mr. Speaker, we are not going to be worried about $115 million in this 
bill. We are going to be worried about the end of the aviation industry 
as we know it and devastating consequences to our economy and the 
American people will look at what we did on this floor today and ask 
why we turned our backs on the President's request, the State 
Department's urgency, the Committee on Appropriations, the Aviation 
Subcommittee, Republicans and Democrats, and, most importantly, the 
flying public.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. This was a commonsense bipartisan 
amendment. I will vote for the bill, but I am hopeful that we can work 
together on the basis of common sense and proceed to protect the 
American flying public.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time this morning.
  Mr. Speaker, each Member of this House knows that when we go on 
vacation, one of the first things that we want to do is get a map so 
that we know where we are going and know the stops we are going to make 
and have a general idea of what is facing us on this vacation.
  Mr. Speaker, several members of the Law Enforcement Caucus were 
discussing the issues of border security because we know we have been 
talking a lot about securing our borders.

                              {time}  1130

  Well, yesterday, my colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), and myself offered an 
amendment at the Committee on Rules that would have required the 
Department of Homeland Security to develop and begin to carry out a 
comprehensive, long-term border strategy to secure this Nation's 
borders. The amendment would have expanded what is already in place, 
called the ``American Shield Initiative,'' to ensure that every inch of 
the borders is monitored at all times, either through technology or 
resources. Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules voted against making 
this amendment in order on a straight party-line vote.
  So when we talk about common sense, I stand here this morning 
wondering what in the world are we thinking when we do not want to have 
an amendment like this that gives us a long-term strategy for knowing 
what this Congress needs to do to reinforce and secure this Nation's 
border.
  We all know that since 9/11, we have acknowledged that we need to 
increase the number of Border Patrol agents and immigration inspectors 
and, but Congress literally has been picking figures seemingly out of 
thin air as we go through wanting to secure the border. Instead, we 
should require a staffing assessment so we go through to determine what 
personnel resources we need to get the job done right. Our amendment 
would have required such an assessment for personnel, for technology, 
and for infrastructure needs.
  Balancing this Nation's border security has to go hand-in-hand with 
having a strategy. We do not have that kind of strategy. This amendment 
would have given us this strategy. Regrettably, it was not made in 
order.
  Mr. Speaker, I often wonder if common sense and Congress have 
anything in common.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question 
and, if it is defeated, I will amend the rules so that we can consider 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) rejected by the Committee 
on Rules last night.
  Mr. Speaker, the Barrow-Markey amendment would direct the Department 
of Homeland Security to promulgate regulations upgrading the security 
associated with transporting extremely hazardous materials such as 
chlorine, which is toxic by inhalation, and those materials that are 
flammable or explosive.
  Mr. Speaker, extremely hazardous materials are transported through 
virtually every community in the Nation. Several serious incidents have 
taken place that have clearly demonstrated the threat that exists 
whenever they are involved. I am disappointed that the Republican 
leadership failed to include this important amendment, an issue that 
needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. But, unfortunately, 
under the rule, unless we defeat the previous question, we will not be 
able to.
  As always, I want to emphasize that a no vote on the previous 
question will not prevent us from considering the Homeland Security 
bill, but will allow Members to vote on the Barrow-Markey amendment. 
However, a yes vote will prevent us from doing so.
  At this point, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the 
text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote, and request a no 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we have had a great debate. A few people showed up 
and expressed some concern about what they had, and I would like to 
address that so that the Members are aware. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) 
did come before the Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules did not 
put it in the bill, but it is not in the Democrat substitute either, so 
the Democrat leadership chose not to include that in their substitute.
  We also had some discussion about air cargo. For those Members who 
are interested, air cargo will be in the substitute; it will be in 
section 519. Republicans addressed the issue. We have doubled the 
number of air cargo inspectors that would be at the airports to make 
sure that we are looking at the cargo.
  Today has been a good debate, an opportunity for Members to come 
forth and speak about the important things about this bill. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has our admiration. He has done a 
great job. The Committee on Rules I believe did a fair job. I would 
also at this time like to thank the White House and the liaisons that 
the White House provided to us, Brian Conklin for his great leadership, 
Chris Frech for his hard work with us, and certainly their superstar at 
the White House, Elan Elinjg, who took time to make sure that Members 
were updated, not only about the position of the administration, but 
about how they could work closely with Members of Congress.
  So I think today has been another successful opportunity for us to 
begin the 5 hours of debate that will take place today where every 
Member will have an opportunity to come down and express themselves and 
where we will

[[Page 10145]]

have a Democrat substitute that will be over 200 pages where they are 
able to express the things which they believe are best. Members of 
Congress will be able to vote and a decision can be made today. Mr. 
Speaker, I am proud of this process.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
structured rule only insofar as it restricts both the number of 
amendments made in order and the time allowed for debate of such a 
grave piece of legislation. The restrictive nature of H. Res. 283 will 
deprive the American people of debate over the aspects of the proposed 
legislation that affects them the most.
  H.R. 1817 is the first authorization measure since the passage of the 
Homeland Security Act of 2003. Ruling only a quarter of the 80 
amendments offered at the Committee on Rules meeting does not measure 
well with the action that the appropriators have taken to hold the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) accountable for its unfulfilled 
reporting requirements. The appropriators withheld over $700 million 
from DHS due to these requirements; therefore, our passage of the most 
comprehensive and representative measure possible would equate to 
having conducted ``due diligence'' on our part.
  Just yesterday, we in the House passed the Appropriations Act for FY 
2006, H.R. 2360, by a margin of 424-1. An open rule for debate on the 
authorization measure would have continued the spirit of true bi-
partisanship. I joined my committee colleagues in considering this bill 
from its incipiency as it passed in both the Committees on Homeland 
Security on April 28, 2005 and Judiciary on May 12, 2005 unanimously by 
voice vote. Today, the Committee of the Whole will make history by 
passing its first Homeland Security Authorization measure, and I 
support an expedient but prudent completion of this endeavor.
  During the 13-hour Homeland Security Committee markup session that 
ended at 11:15 p.m., I was able to secure sincere commitments from the 
Majority Leadership to work with me for inclusion of some of my major 
initiatives: funding and more clearly defining the Citizen Corps and 
the Citizen Corps Councils--which will include consideration of a 
stand-alone bill that I will introduce shortly; and increasing capacity 
for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving 
Institutions, and Tribal Institutions in Homeland Security procurement 
and in employment with the Department of Homeland Security. In 
addition, I was fortunate to have had my amendment, co-sponsored by the 
Gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren, that seeks to authorize the 
funding of programs for the education of minorities in the areas of 
cyberscience, research, and development to close the gap in achievement 
in those areas and to make America better equipped to fight terrorism 
overall. Furthermore, I achieved an agreement from the Majority 
Committee Leadership to collaborate on addressing the issue of border 
violence, an initiative that the distinguished Chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security showed his commitment 
to addressing, as evidenced by his support for an amendment that I 
offered yesterday during the House's consideration of the 
appropriations measure, H.R. 2360. Not only do I hope to see this 
language survive the deliberations of the Conferees, but I hope to see 
follow-through by the Homeland Security Committee with the bi-partisan 
letter and with consideration of the amendment that I plan to offer 
during our consideration of H.R. 1817.
  Mr. Speaker, what the House has done this week and will do today will 
establish the breadth and efficacy of the entire Department of Homeland 
Security. I hope that my colleagues will keep that in mind as we work 
to debate the amendments that have been made in order.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my colleagues to defeat the 
previous question so we can change this restrictive rule.
  Yesterday I appeared before the Rules Committee to offer three 
amendments. All were blocked by the Rules Committee from even the 
opportunity to be debated on the floor. The Rules Committee also 
blocked an amendment by Congressmen Markey and Shays that would have 
required 100 percent check of cargo on commercial airlines. This 
restrictive rule also blocked 60 other amendments, forty-seven of which 
were Democratic amendments.
  It is amazing to me that the majority would deny us even the 
opportunity to debate what we feel is important to the American people. 
What the rules committee did last night was deny us the opportunity to 
address the health needs of the heroes of 9/11.
  One of my amendments was modeled after the Remember 9/11 Health Act. 
This is a bill that would provide medical monitoring and treatment for 
individuals who are sick or injured as a direct result of the attacks 
of 9/11.
  Right now we have a 6,000-person waiting list just to be a part of 
this medical screening. For the 12,000 who have been screened, about 50 
percent of them are still sick as a direct result of 9/11. Despite 
clear evidence that we have thousands sick, we have yet to provide a 
single dollar for treatment. This is unethical.
  These are men and women who were there for us on 9/11 and now we have 
turned a cold shoulder to them in their time of need. We have precedent 
for caring for volunteers who get sick. When a volunteer firefighter 
becomes sick or injured while fighting a forest fire, he or she 
immediately receives all the Federal health monitoring and treatment he 
or she needs. If we can do it for volunteers for one disaster, we need 
to do it for volunteers from 9/11.
  Unfortunately the Rules Committee did not see it this way, because 
they would not even give us the opportunity to debate this on the floor 
today.
  The next amendment I wanted to offer was written by a Republican, 
Senator Voinovich of Ohio, and passed the Senate by unanimous consent. 
It is modeled after the Disaster Area Health and Environmental 
Monitoring Act, H.R. 5329 in the 108th Congress.
  The amendment realizes that there are times when the health of first 
responders is at risk, such as during the response to 9/11, and with a 
Presidential declaration, would establish environmental and health 
monitoring. This amendment would send a message to future responders 
that if you risk your life in responding to a disaster, we will be 
there for you if you get sick. This amendment would not have cost us 
anything. It would just be good planning.
  The final amendment I wanted to offer would give teeth to the Civil 
Liberty Board established by the Intelligence Reform Act. This 
amendment is modeled after H.R. 1310, the Protection of Civil Liberties 
Act. This Amendment would create the board as an independent entity and 
provide it with subpoena power, among other things.
  The only way we will have a robust protection of our civil liberties 
is to have a robust civil liberties board. All we have right now is a 
weak board that does not even have a single member appointed.
  By not allowing these and many other amendments, we are restricting 
the ability of this House to do the business of the American people. We 
have thousands who are sick from 9/11 who need our help, but this Rule 
will not let their needs be heard.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Chairman of 
the Homeland Security Committee for his success last week on 
legislation to improve the first responder grant program and again 
today for bringing bipartisan consensus legislation to the House floor.
  He has crafted a good bill that deserves our support. As good as the 
bill is, however, I must rise in opposition to the rule. I am troubled 
that my colleagues Mr. Barrow and Mr. Markey and Mr. Oberstar were 
blocked from offering their amendments concerning rail safety to this 
important legislation.
  If there is one lesson we should learn from the events of 9/11, it is 
that our enemies are fighting an unconventional war against us.
  With a few zealots and even fewer resources, terrorists can 
manipulate our own resources and use them against us. On 9/11 aviation 
fuel and four commercial aircraft were turned into missiles carrying 
incendiary explosives.
  Hardening the cockpit door, establishing new protocols to screen 
passengers, and a number of other measures are a prudent response to 
deny terrorists the use of commercial aircraft as a weapon.
  I am afraid, however, that we are not being as proactive as we could 
or should be at preventing other commercial resources from being used 
as weapons that could be turned against us.
  Representatives Barrow, Markey, and Oberstar have crafted thoughtful 
responses to a threat that has not been fully addressed: Rail security 
and the transportation of hazardous cargo on our rail system. It would 
be a national tragedy if we had to wait until another attack similar to 
Madrid to occur in the United States in order to commit the resources 
necessary to properly secure our rail and transit systems.
  The measures needed to address transit security differ from aviation, 
but this should not be used as a justification for not providing an 
infusion of additional funds to address already identified high 
priority needs. The focus with aviation is strictly on deterrence: 
stopping an event from happening.
  For transit and rail, deterrence is only one part of the strategy, 
additional resources are also needed to mitigate the impact of a 
potential terrorist attack and hasten the recovery

[[Page 10146]]

after an attack. Allocating additional resources towards improving 
response and recovery times can save lives and lessen the economic 
consequences of an attack.
  With the Madrid bombing, the bombs went off on multiple trains over a 
10-15 minute period. Enhanced detection capabilities, communications 
equipment and redundancy in critical operating control functions could 
allow for a quicker shutdown and evacuation of a passenger rail transit 
system exposed to multiple attacks thereby significantly reducing the 
causality rate.
  Transit and rail systems cannot afford to be shut down for months or 
even weeks following a biological attack. The economic consequences to 
a major metropolitan region would be devastating, not to mention the 
impact on the Federal Government if an attack occurred in Washington, 
DC. Yet, no funds have been allocated to perform a comprehensive 
decontamination demonstration project in a transit or rail environment.
  Mr. Chairman, a 30-ton chlorine tank rail car, if ruptured, could 
kill thousands of people unfortunate enough to be within a few miles 
downwind of the attack. The railroad industry has a good safety record, 
but that ignores the fact that those safeguards do not assume someone 
is purposely trying to rupture these rail cars.
  Local emergency responders in urban areas with potential targets of 
key infrastructure and national icons understand this threat, but are 
limited on what they can do to prevent an attack. Should they patrol 
hundreds of miles of track and rail yards or take some measures under 
some circumstances to reroute hazardous traffic around what we know are 
high probability targets?
  Today, there still is no clear understanding of what hazardous 
material security plans have been developed. If they exist, they are 
not being shared or discussed with the very people, local officials and 
emergency response planners, who have the best information on the local 
geography, vulnerabilities and potential set of targets. Today, local 
officials are being told by the railroads and the Department of 
Homeland Security to ``trust us.'' I get nervous when someone I don't 
know tells me to ``trust'' them.
  The laws on the books today did not envision hazardous cargo as a 
weapon of mass destruction, and under current law interstate commerce 
trumps local ordinances to suspend or redirect hazardous cargo.
  This presumption is now being tested in the courts. Congress should 
not defer to the courts on this important and weighty issue. I think we 
can craft a responsible resolution, but denying an important floor 
debate on this issue is wrong.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the rule on 
H.R. 1817, the Homeland Security Authorization Act for FY2006. 
Republicans on the Rules Committee blocked the consideration of several 
amendments offered by me and my colleagues to this bill. This body 
should have the right to discuss and to consider each amendment.
  One of the amendments blocked was the amendment I offered which would 
put passenger security fees into two funds that will guarantee that TSA 
will spend the authorized amounts of $650 million a year and $250 
million for the installation of inline baggage screening systems and 
passenger checkpoint explosive detection, respectively.
  We are currently collecting over $1.5 billion a year from the 
passenger security fee for aviation security services. Given that these 
security investments are financed by the existing passenger security 
fee, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that the increased 
investment does not increase the size of the deficit.
  In April, the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General 
(DHSIG) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) both released 
reports that indicate that our airport screening system still needs 
improvement. While the traveling public is more secure today than 
before September 11th, 2001, airport screeners are not detecting 
prohibited items at the level we need. Without a significant investment 
and commitment by Congress and this Administration to upgrade our 
technology, our screening system will continue to fail. We must and can 
do better.
  Last year, the 9/11 Commission specifically recommended that the TSA 
and the Congress improve the ability of screenings checkpoints to 
detect explosives on passengers. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458) authorized $250 million for the research 
and deployment of advanced passenger screening technologies, such as 
trace portals and backscatter x-ray systems.
  To date, only about $30 million has been appropriated specifically 
for the passenger screener technologies. The recent DHS IG report 
clearly stated that the ``lack of improvements since our last audit 
indicates that significant improvement in performance may not be 
possible without greater use of technology.'' Further, the TSA 
concurred with the 9/11 Commission recommendation that we must 
``expedite the installation of advanced (in-line) baggage screening 
equipment.''
  In addition, in-line baggage screening systems have a much higher 
throughput than stand-alone systems. If we install in-line systems, 
more bags will be screened by explosive detection systems instead of 
less reliable, alternative methods.
  The TSA and airport operators rely on commitments in letters of 
intent (LOIs) as their principal method for funding the modification of 
airport facilities to incorporate in-line baggage screening systems. 
The TSA has issued eight LOIs to cover the costs of installing systems 
at 9 airports for a total cost to the Federal Government of $957.1 
million over 4 years. The GAO reports that TSA has estimated that in-
line baggage screening systems at the 9 airports that received LOI 
funding could save the Federal Government $1.3 billion over 7 years.
  TSA further estimated that it could recover its initial investment in 
the in-line systems at these airports in a little over one year. In 
total, the GAO reports that 86 of 130 airports surveyed are planning or 
are considering installing in-line baggage screening systems throughout 
or at a portion of their airports.
  Yet, the TSA has stated that it currently does not have sufficient 
resources in its budget to fund any additional LOIs. While $650 million 
is authorized for the installation of in-line baggage screening 
systems, annual appropriations have not allowed for any new LOIs to be 
signed.
  We know what needs to be done to improve screener performance, and we 
must take action now. We must demonstrate leadership and deploy 
technologies that will keep the American public secure. Mr. Chairman, I 
ask my colleagues to vote no on the rule so we can work to deploy 
technologies that will help our screeners do their jobs and keep the 
American traveling public safe.
  The amendment previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 509. EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION 
                   SECURITY.

       (a) Rulemaking.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     consultation with the heads of other appropriate Federal, 
     State, and local government entities, security experts, 
     representatives of the hazardous materials shipping industry 
     and labor unions representing persons who work in the 
     hazardous materials shipping industry, and other interested 
     persons, shall issue, after notice and opportunity for public 
     comment, regulations concerning the shipping of extremely 
     hazardous materials.
       (2) Purposes of regulations.--The regulations shall be 
     consistent, to the extent the Secretary determines 
     appropriate, with and not duplicative of other Federal 
     regulations and international agreements relating to the 
     shipping of extremely hazardous materials and shall require--
       (A) physical security measures for such shipments, such as 
     the use of passive secondary containment of tanker valves and 
     other technologies to ensure the physical integrity of 
     pressurized tank cars used to transport extremely hazardous 
     materials, additional security force personnel, and 
     surveillance technologies and barriers;
       (B) concerned Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
     authorities (including, if applicable, transit, railroad, or 
     port authority police agencies) to be informed before an 
     extremely hazardous material is transported within, through, 
     or near an area of concern;
       (C) the creation of terrorism response plans for shipments 
     of extremely hazardous materials;
       (D) the use of currently available technologies and systems 
     to ensure effective and

[[Page 10147]]

     immediate communication between transporters of extremely 
     hazardous materials and all entities charged with responding 
     to acts of terrorism involving shipments of extremely 
     hazardous materials;
       (E) comprehensive and appropriate training in the area of 
     extremely hazardous materials transportation security for all 
     individuals who transport, load, unload, or are otherwise 
     involved in the shipping of extremely hazardous materials or 
     who would respond to an accident or incident involving a 
     shipment of extremely hazardous material or would have to 
     repair transportation equipment and facilities in the event 
     of such an accident or incident; and
       (F) for the transportation of extremely hazardous materials 
     through or near an area of concern, the Secretary to 
     determine whether or not the transportation could be made by 
     one or more alternate routes at lower security risk and, if 
     the Secretary determines the transportation could be made by 
     an alternate route, the use of such alternate route, except 
     when the origination or destination of the shipment is 
     located within the area of concern.
       (3) Judicial relief.--A person (other than an individual) 
     who transports, loads, unloads, or is otherwise involved in 
     the shipping of hazardous materials and violates or fails to 
     comply with a regulation issued by the Secretary under this 
     subsection may be subject, in a civil action brought in 
     United States district court, for each shipment with respect 
     to which the violation occurs--
       (A) to an order for injunctive relief; or
       (B) to a civil penalty of not more than $100,000.
       (4) Administrative penalties.--
       (A) Penalty orders.--The Secretary may issue an order 
     imposing an administrative penalty of not more than 
     $1,000,000 for failure by a person (other than an individual) 
     who transports, loads, unloads, or is otherwise involved in 
     the shipping of hazardous materials to comply with a 
     regulation issued by the Secretary under this subsection.
       (B) Notice and hearing.--Before issuing an order described 
     in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall provide to the 
     person against whom the penalty is to be assessed--
       (i) written notice of the proposed order; and
       (ii) the opportunity to request, not later than 30 days 
     after the date on which the person receives the notice, a 
     hearing on the proposed order.
       (C) Procedures.--The Secretary may issue regulations 
     establishing procedures for administrative hearings and 
     appropriate review of penalties issued under this paragraph, 
     including necessary deadlines.
       (b) Whistleblower Protection.--
       (1) In general.--No person involved in the shipping of 
     extremely hazardous materials may be discharged, demoted, 
     suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner 
     discriminated against because of any lawful act done by the 
     person--
       (A) to provide information, cause information to be 
     provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding 
     any conduct which the person reasonably believes constitutes 
     a violation of any law, rule or regulation related to the 
     security of shipments of extremely hazardous materials, or 
     any other threat to the security of shipments of extremely 
     hazardous materials, when the information or assistance is 
     provided to or the investigation is conducted by--
       (i) a Federal regulatory or law enforcement agency;
       (ii) any Member of Congress or any committee of Congress; 
     or
       (iii) a person with supervisory authority over the person 
     (or such other person who has the authority to investigate, 
     discover, or terminate misconduct);
       (B) to file, cause to be filed, testify, participate in, or 
     otherwise assist in a proceeding or action filed or about to 
     be filed relating to a violation of any law, rule or 
     regulation related to the security of shipments of extremely 
     hazardous materials or any other threat to the security of 
     shipments of extremely hazardous materials; or
       (C) to refuse to violate or assist in the violation of any 
     law, rule, or regulation related to the security of shipments 
     of extremely hazardous materials.
       (2) Enforcement action.--
       (A) In general.--A person who alleges discharge or other 
     discrimination by any person in violation of paragraph (1) 
     may seek relief under paragraph (3) by--
       (i) filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor; or
       (ii) if the Secretary of Labor has not issued a final 
     decision within 180 days of the filing of the complaint and 
     there is no showing that such delay is due to the bad faith 
     of the claimant, bringing an action at law or equity for de 
     novo review in the appropriate district court of the United 
     States, which shall have jurisdiction over such an action 
     without regard to the amount in controversy.
       (B) Procedure.--
       (i) In general.--An action under subparagraph (A)(i) shall 
     be governed under the rules and procedures set forth in 
     section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
       (ii) Exception.--Notification made under section 
     42121(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, shall be made to 
     the person named in the complaint and to the person's 
     employer.
       (iii) Burdens of proof.--An action brought under 
     subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be governed by the legal burdens 
     of proof set forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United 
     States Code.
       (iv) Statute of limitations.--An action under subparagraph 
     (A) shall be commenced not later than 90 days after the date 
     on which the violation occurs.
       (3) Remedies.--
       (A) In general.--A person prevailing in any action under 
     paragraph (2)(A) shall be entitled to all relief necessary to 
     make the person whole.
       (B) Compensatory damages.--Relief for any action under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include--
       (i) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the 
     person would have had, but for the discrimination;
       (ii) the amount of any back pay, with interest; and
       (iii) compensation for any special damages sustained as a 
     result of the discrimination, including litigation costs, 
     expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees.
       (4) Rights retained by person.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges, or 
     remedies of any person under any Federal or State law, or 
     under any collective bargaining agreement.
       (c) Report on Extremely Hazardous Materials Transportation 
     Security.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
     consultation with the heads of other appropriate Federal 
     agencies, shall transmit to Congress a report on the security 
     of, and risk of a terrorist attack on, shipments of extremely 
     hazardous materials.
       (2) Content.--The report under paragraph (1) shall 
     include--
       (A) information specifying--
       (i) the Federal and State agencies that are responsible for 
     the regulation of the transportation of extremely hazardous 
     materials; and
       (ii) the particular authorities and responsibilities of the 
     heads of each such agency; and
       (B) an assessment of the vulnerability of the 
     infrastructure associated with the transportation of 
     extremely hazardous materials.
       (3) Form.--The report under paragraph (1) shall be in 
     unclassified form but may contain a classified annex.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Extremely hazardous material.--The term ``extremely 
     hazardous material'' means--
       (A) a material that is toxic by inhalation;
       (B) a material that is extremely flammable;
       (C) a material that is highly explosive; and
       (D) any other material designated by the Secretary to be 
     extremely hazardous.
       (2) Area of concern.--The term ``area of concern'' means an 
     area that the Secretary determines could pose a particular 
     interest to terrorists.

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

                             [Roll No. 181]

                               YEAS--226

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen

[[Page 10148]]


     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

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

                              {time}  1156

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 182]

                               AYES--284

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

                               NOES--124

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Berkley
     Bishop (GA)
     Boswell
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Carson
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Lee
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)

[[Page 10149]]


     Menendez
     Miller (NC)
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--25

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

                              {time}  1228

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

                          ____________________