[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7925-7934]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1401, RAIL AND PUBLIC 
                  TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ACT OF 2007

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 270 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 270

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1401) to improve the security of railroads, 
     public transportation, and over-the-road buses in the United 
     States, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour and 20 
     minutes, with one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Homeland Security now printed 
     in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
     XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to 
     the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
     be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 
     At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment 
     the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
     with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 1401 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague and co-Chair of 
Florida's congressional delegation, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, or his 
designee, my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during 
consideration of this rule is for debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have up to 5 legislative days to revise and extend 
their remarks on House Resolution 270.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 270 provides 
for consideration of H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation 
Security Act of 2007 under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour 
20 minutes of general debate. One hour is to be equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Homeland Security and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill, except those arising under clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.
  The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Homeland Security shall be considered 
as an original bill for purposes of amendment and shall be considered 
as read.
  The rule waives all points of order against the bill.
  Importantly, the rule makes in order the eight amendments printed in 
the report accompanying this rule and waives all points of order 
against such amendments. The amendments may be offered only in the 
order printed in the report and by the Member designated in the report 
or his or her designee.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to commence debate 
on this very essential piece of legislation. Five years have passed 
since the terrorist attacks of September 11. While we in this body have 
done a great deal of talking about Homeland Security, our record on the 
issue suggests otherwise.
  Under Republican control, the majority maintained that mandating 
certain security enhancements was not necessary at the time. Democrats, 
on the contrary, believe that they are and will not allow this need to 
go unmet any longer.
  The fact that this bill was reported favorably out of the Homeland 
Security and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees with near 
unanimity and the cosponsorship of the ranking Republican member of the 
Homeland Security Committee suggests that our concerns are almost 
universal in this body.
  Moreover, this rule makes in order a total of eight amendments, half 
of which will be offered by the Members of the minority party. The rule 
and the process further prove that Democrats refuse to allow 
partisanship to supersede our responsibility to protect the American 
people.
  Congress's prior reluctance to mandate certain security enhancements 
out of fear that it might rock the administration's boat has left us 
woefully behind the curve when it comes to rail and mass transit 
security. That is why I am very pleased that the Rail and Public 
Transportation Security Act makes the necessary investment in these 
absolutely critical enhancements.
  The bill requires that the administration develop a security plan for 
all forms of covered transportation. The bill also creates a system and 
methods under which all agencies tasked with the responsibility of 
protecting our country can work together.
  We don't stop there. The bill requires the Department of Homeland 
Security to expand its coordination network through enhanced 
communication and cooperation at all levels of government.
  It requires DHS to develop security training programs for railroad 
and public transportation employees and extends whistleblower 
protections to all providers, public or private, who provide covered 
transportation services.
  Under this bill, the number of surface transportation security 
inspectors will increase by six times by the year 2010, and the bill 
mandates that the administration issue regulations requiring enhanced 
security measures for the shipment of security sensitive materials and 
requires that these shipments not go through highly populated areas.

                              {time}  1245

  Perhaps most importantly, this bill pays for these improvements and 
authorizes $7.3 billion in security enhancements to make America safer.
  Mr. Speaker, the Government Accountability Office has determined that 
the United States must provide much more leadership and guidance in 
constructing a rail and security transit plan. This bill answers that 
challenge and fills the void left by the administration's failure to 
secure all modes of transportation in this country.

[[Page 7926]]

  It, just like the rule, is worthy of the support of this body. I urge 
my colleagues to support both.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for 
the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  At about 9 a.m. on July 5, 2005, three bombs went off within 50 
seconds of each other in the London underground. Less than an hour 
later there was another explosion in one of London's double-decker 
buses. The bombings killed over 50 people and injured approximately 
700.
  On March 11, 2004, the Spanish people also faced an attack on their 
rail system. Like the attacks in London, in that attack the terrorists 
exploded multiple bombs on four trains packed with early morning 
commuters. The attacks killed almost 200 and left at least 1,800 
injured in Madrid.
  Mr. Speaker, those attacks were a warning to us on this side of the 
Atlantic that just as terrorists can take advantage of our airlines to 
carry out cowardly acts, they can do the same with our public service 
transportation systems. With this in mind, the House of Representatives 
last year passed comprehensive rail and mass transit security 
legislation. The legislation was included in H.R. 5814, the Department 
of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. 
Unfortunately, the session of Congress ended before that important 
legislation could be enacted into law.
  Public transit moves more people on a given day than any other mode 
of transportation worldwide. Transit sustains the economic vitality of 
any community. In heavily populated areas like Miami-Dade County, one 
of the counties that I am honored to represent, many people depend on 
public transit for cost efficiency and convenience. The provision of 
safe transit requires a significant investment in technology to protect 
infrastructure, equipment, workers and, of course, the passenger. H.R. 
1401 makes it possible for Congress to invest in public transportation 
security.
  And in my district, Miami-Dade Transit is also responsible for the 
evacuation of the general public, including disabled persons, in 
moments of crisis. This bill provides critical funding for evacuation 
improvements. Miami-Dade County would be eligible for funds, regardless 
of whether the evacuation is due to terrorism or natural disasters.
  Although Miami-Dade Transit has a fleet of over 360 paratransit 
vehicles and over 1,000 buses and approximately 45 miles of rail, they 
do not have mobile communication service equipment. This means that all 
modes do not have a way to communicate with each other during an 
evacuation procedure. This bill takes into account those needs and 
provides for security improvements to stations' surveillance equipment, 
public awareness campaigns, and GPS systems.
  I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this bill includes risk-
based grants. In their final report to Congress, the 9/11 Commission 
criticized the existing process for allocation of Federal homeland 
security assistance grants, recommending that the distribution not, I 
quote, ``remain a program for general revenue sharing.'' Given the 
limited resources of Federal aid, distributing grants based on risk is 
really the only appropriate way to apportion grants. In order to ensure 
that our taxpayer funds are spent as efficiently and effectively as 
possible, we need to focus our resources at those sectors under the 
greatest threat.
  When I was a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, I 
worked hard to ensure that Homeland Security grant funds are 
distributed through risk-based assessments. I commend the Homeland 
Security Committee for following through on the recommendation of the 
9/11 Commission and including risk as the primary motive for 
distribution of grants in this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met to report out a rule 
for this legislation. The rule that we are now debating closes out 
several important and germane amendments. Two amendments by my friend, 
Mr. Mica, the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, were excluded by the majority on the Rules Committee, 
even though they were germane and, obviously, from a key committee with 
jurisdiction. Another of my Florida colleagues, Representative Ginny 
Brown-Waite, offered an amendment last night that would have 
strengthened protections for all sensitive security information related 
to rail and mass transit plans and procedures. That amendment also was 
blocked by the majority on the Rules Committee. I think it was 
unnecessary and unfortunate for the majority in the Committee on Rules 
to continue to close the legislative process in the 110th Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, one thing, an additional point I would like to make, I 
would like to point out to my colleagues that the majority is now 
including in this section 2 language which allows the Speaker to 
postpone consideration of the bill at any time in every rule. It is 
including that language now in every rule.
  It is interesting, since this is a structured rule, which means that 
the bill will be considered in the Committee of the Whole. This is very 
precedent-setting because in previous Congresses this language has 
never been included on structured rules. It is typically only included 
on a closed rule or a modified closed rule where the bill is being 
considered in the House and not in the Committee of the Whole. And in 
previous Congresses it was only included when debate was scheduled to 
last more than the traditional 1 hour in the House. So I find this 
strange, because when the House is in the Committee of the Whole, it 
can simply rise and postpone consideration. I find it curious as to why 
the new majority is extending this authority now to all rules, even 
when it doesn't seem necessary. Could it be that the majority is 
intending to quash the minority's lone procedural guarantee, the motion 
to recommit? I am afraid that that may be exactly what it amounts to, 
Mr. Speaker, because there is no other procedural excuse for this 
language being included in a structured rule. It is not necessary for 
the Speaker to have this authority unless they want to postpone 
consideration just prior to the vote on the motion to recommit. This is 
just another example, Mr. Speaker, of the seemingly small, yet 
significant, precedents that the new Democratic majority is setting, 
creating new ways to silence the voice of the minority.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. And I 
would say to my friend from Florida that, in his concerns about the 
motion to recommit and the time to see it, I am sure my friend is 
mindful that when a motion to recommit comes to the House floor that it 
comes without the Members of the House having had an opportunity to 
know the substance of the motion to recommit.
  I might add, that period of time, particularly in the last 2 months, 
we have seen that when the minority has presented the motion to 
recommit, that what winds up happening is even Members of the minority 
don't know what is in the motion to recommit. Therefore, it seems more 
than reasonable that a sufficient amount of time be given for that 
purpose. And I also think in the interest of fairness that we have been 
considerably fair in accepting more motions to recommit than have our 
friends in the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, yielding myself such 
time as I may consume before yielding to my good friend from New York, 
it is important to note when, again, seemingly small but significant 
precedents are changed. This is a precedent change. We have not seen it 
for many, many years. With regard to the motions to recommit, what we 
have seen in this Congress is that they often have been passing. But 
that is more precisely because the membership, when finding out the 
merits of the motions to recommit on a bipartisan basis have been 
supporting them.

[[Page 7927]]

  But, no, it is of concern, and it is important to note that if there 
is a step being taken, as it seems that it is being taken, to limit 
that very important, often sole procedural remedy available to the 
minority which is the motion to recommit, that it is very disturbing.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished 
friend from New York (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for 
yielding. And I stand here today, first, to commend the chairman of the 
full committee, Mr. Thompson, for the bipartisanship he has shown, the 
level of cooperation he has demonstrated in bringing this bill through 
the committee process and to the House floor today. This was work that 
was begun in the last Congress, and now it has been brought to its 
fruition, and I commend the gentleman for that.
  As Mr. Diaz-Balart indicated, there were serious rail attacks in 
Britain in 2005, in Spain in 2004 and, of course, in India. And there 
is no doubt that terrorists certainly would be considering to use rail 
and transit as a base for future attacks here in this country. So this 
legislation is needed. It is constructive and on balance, it is very 
positive. For instance, it authorized the use of VIPER teams. It does 
base funding on threat and risk. And it addresses very, very key areas 
of vulnerability.
  Having said that, I wish the same spirit of bipartisanship that had 
prevailed at the committee level had prevailed in the Rules Committee, 
because there are a number of amendments which were not ruled in order. 
In fact, there was no amendment ruled in order which was offered by a 
member of the Homeland Security Committee, specifically, an amendment 
by Mr. Daniel E. Lungren, which would have, I believe, addressed 
deficiencies in the whistleblower language which would have protected 
classified national security information.
  The amendment by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite, who will be speaking on it 
herself in a few moments, would have certainly prevented the disclosure 
of sensitive security information on Freedom of Information requests, 
and two amendments by Mr. Dent as far as screening travelers entering 
the U.S. and interdicting terrorists at the border. All four of these 
amendments would have been very constructive. I supported them 
strongly. At the very least, they deserved a full debate here on the 
House floor today. So for that reason I will oppose the rule.
  Having said that, I do support the underlying legislation, and I do 
commend Chairman Thompson for his efforts and certainly subcommittee 
ranking member and former chairman, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren, for the 
efforts that he put into this in the previous Congress.
  This is legislation whose time has come. Unfortunately, it was not 
allowed the opportunity to even be better than it is.
  So having said, while I support the underlying legislation, I must 
reluctantly oppose the rule today.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, my good 
friend from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from the Rules 
Committee for yielding time on this very, very important issue.
  Today is a great day, and I rise in support of the rule and the 
underlying resolution in this matter to improve our security on our 
rail and busway systems throughout this country.

                              {time}  1300

  When I was running for this office, this was a very, very important 
and significant issue to many people who I represent throughout 
Northeast Ohio. We have many passengers and others who utilize these 
services who, unfortunately, despite evidence of vulnerability and 
potential attack, have been exposed to the ongoing danger of our 
failure to secure these systems. I also am proud to see that in this 
bill we have protections for whistleblowers that will improve the 
likelihood of secure and safe transit systems within our country.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is 
my pleasure and privilege to yield 4 minutes to my distinguished friend 
and colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, early in this session the majority promised to 
implement all the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Yesterday, the Rules 
Committee, which is controlled by the majority, had the opportunity to 
deliver on that promise by making two of my amendments to this 
legislation in order. It failed to do so, and the security of our rail 
and bus passengers and, in fact, our border security in general will be 
all the worse as a result.
  The 9/11 Commission advised the President to direct the Department of 
Homeland Security to ``design a comprehensive screening system'' that 
would target ``particular, identifiable suspects or indicators of 
risk'' and give border officials ``the resources to establish that 
people are who they say they are, intercept identifiable suspects, and 
disrupt terrorist operations.'' They concluded that targeting travel is 
at least as powerful a weapon against terrorists as targeting their 
money. That is the 9/11 Commission report, recommendation 14, page 385. 
And it recommended that a terrorist travel intelligence collection and 
analysis program, which had ``produced disproportionately useful 
results,'' should be expanded.
  The first of these amendments involved the Advance Passenger 
Information System, or APIS as we commonly refer to it. Today, under 
this program, air and sea carriers collect passenger and crew 
biographical data and transmit this data to Customs and Border 
Protection while the vessel or aircraft is en route to the United 
States. This is an important tool in CBP's efforts to identify suspect 
or high-risk passengers before, that is before, they enter the country.
  As terrorists are just as capable of taking a Greyhound bus across 
border as they are landing at LAX, I thought that my amendment, which 
would have required bus and train companies transporting passengers 
into this country to provide the same advanced information to CBP as do 
the airlines, made sense. Unfortunately, the majority members in the 
Rules Committee did not agree.
  My second amendment would have authorized the deployment of the 
Automated Targeting System For Passengers, or ATS-P as we refer to it. 
ATS-P is an intranet-based enforcement and decision support tool that 
is the cornerstone of all of CBP's targeting efforts at the border.
  ATS-P coordinates passenger information and forms an intelligence 
assessment of a traveler. ATS-P then makes a simple ``yes'' or ``no'' 
determination on whether that international traveler should be flagged 
for additional screening. Once this information is received by CBP 
officials, these officials retain the discretion to act, or not to act, 
on that information. In short, ATS-P is nothing more than a tool that 
can help CBP determine who might be a person worthy of a follow-up 
interview.
  Again, since we are already using this technology to screen 
international incoming flights, why not apply it to border crossings of 
trains and buses, other forms of transportation through which 
terrorists might try to enter the country? Why not? That was the gist 
of my amendment. Once more, however, the majority on the Rules 
Committee shot us down.
  Together, APIS and the ATS-P make up the building blocks of exactly 
the kind of border security program recommended by the 9/11 Commission, 
and yet this rule prohibits our consideration of these two programs as 
part of our mass transit and rail security structure. The majority can 
talk the talk when it comes to adopting the 9/11 Commission 
recommendations, but by failing to implement these two amendments, it 
has shown that it cannot walk the walk.
  Accordingly, while I know that this legislation, H.R. 1401, will do 
many good things, and I do support the underlying bill, I ask that you 
vote against this rule because it fails to address the homeland 
security concerns detailed in my amendments.

[[Page 7928]]


  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes 
to our distinguished colleague from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 1401, 
the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007.
  This rule is overly restrictive because it prohibits several good 
amendments like my colleague just enumerated as well as an amendment 
that I had tried to get in the bill. I think it is shocking because 
members are the most knowledgeable about this bill, having worked on it 
for weeks now, our members of the committee.
  One of the amendments that the rule excludes was the rule that 
basically said if we have an assessment out there of perhaps a lack of 
security or an area that we need additional resources in, this 
information is going to become public. Think about what the terrorists 
would do. The amendment would have filled this security gap by 
exempting all sensitive information from Freedom of Information Act 
requests. It directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue 
regulations that would prohibit unauthorized disclosure of sensitive 
information such as security plans, vulnerability assessments, and 
risk-based criteria.
  Mr. Speaker, the International Association of Fire Chiefs recently 
wrote a letter supporting my amendment, and I will include that letter 
in the Record.

                                         International Association


                                               of Fire Chiefs,

                                      Fairfax, VA, March 12, 2007.
     Hon. Ginny Brown-Waite,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Brown-Waite: On behalf of the nearly 
     13,000 chief fire and emergency officers of the International 
     Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), I would like to voice our 
     support for your amendment to the ``Rail and Public 
     Transportation Security Act of 2007'' that would protect 
     sensitive information about our nation's rail and public 
     transportation sector.
       We share your concerns about protecting sensitive 
     information from accidental public disclosure. Both the 
     vulnerability plans and the security assessments described in 
     this legislation contain sensitive information, such as 
     threats to our nation's transportation system, security 
     weaknesses, and redundant and back-up systems. It is 
     important that this information be shared with the 
     appropriate fire and emergency services, and law enforcement 
     organizations to ensure that they are prepared for the 
     accidental or deliberate release of hazardous materials. 
     However, this information should not be made public, because 
     of the serious problems that could occur if information about 
     weaknesses in the security of our nation's transportation 
     system fell into the wrong hands.
       Thank you again for offering this amendment. If you have 
     any questions about the IAPC's role in the safe 
     transportation of hazardous materials, please feel free to 
     call Ken LaSala, the Director of Government Relations.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James B. Harmes,
                                                        President.

  I would also like to quote two sentences from the letter by those who 
would be the first responders, the Association of Fire Chiefs, and the 
fire chiefs in your local district: ``It is important that this 
information be shared with appropriate fire and emergency services and 
law enforcement organizations to ensure that they are prepared for the 
accidental or deliberate release of hazardous materials. However, this 
information should not be made public because of the serious problems 
that could occur if information about weaknesses in the security of our 
Nation's transportation system fell into the wrong hands.''
  Mr. Speaker, they said it far better than I could, and they would 
clearly be the first responders. By excluding these important 
amendments, we are shortchanging the people of America with a bill that 
is filled with loopholes.
  I ask Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question and on the rule 
so we can go back and make some of these very appropriate amendments in 
order.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to my good friend from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the Chair of 
the Homeland Security Committee.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
rule for H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 
2007. I am also grateful to the Rules Committee and my colleague from 
Florida for offering this rule.
  The bill passed out of the Committee on Homeland Security was a 
comprehensive bill. I know a number of my colleagues offered 
amendments, and I appreciate their interest.
  I am also pleased the rule makes in order the manager's amendment I 
will be offering. This amendment was the result of extensive 
negotiations with my colleagues on the Oversight and Government Reform 
as well as Transportation Committees. Chairman Waxman assisted in 
perfecting the whistleblower protections in the bill. Chairman Oberstar 
worked with me on clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the 
Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security in this bill.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I feel this is a good rule. It provides for 
sufficient debate on this important legislation. It also rules in order 
several amendments that deserve discussion and consideration by the 
House.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my privilege 
to yield 4 minutes to a distinguished new Member who is already making 
an impact in this House with his forceful leadership and his knowledge 
and wisdom, Mr. Bilirakis.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule 
but in support of H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation 
Security Act, which will improve the security of our Nation's rail, 
subway, and bus systems.
  I am very disappointed that this rule does not allow any Republicans 
on the Homeland Security Committee to offer amendments, of which there 
were several. Two of my committee colleagues, Congressman Daniel E. 
Lungren and Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite, have critically important 
amendments that would significantly improve this bill.
  However, I am pleased to support this bill, which my Homeland 
Security Committee approved unanimously. I support this bill because it 
will provide much-needed protections and security improvements for the 
millions of Americans that travel on our Nation's buses, our subway 
system, and our train system.
  The Rail and Public Transportation Security Act will require Federal 
officials and transportation providers to assess our vulnerability to 
terrorist attacks against these public transportation systems and 
determine ways to improve their security.
  I am especially pleased that the bill we are considering today 
includes two proposals that I made during committee consideration of 
this measure that I believe will strengthen our security against 
terrorist attacks on rail and mass transportation systems.
  First, the committee adopted an amendment I offered that requires DHS 
to conduct physical testing of railcars to determine the most likely 
successful means of attack against them. This is important because no 
real-world vulnerability testing has been done on the safety of tank 
cars carrying dangerous toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials. My 
amendment remedies that by requiring such tests so that we can properly 
assess their current vulnerabilities and protect them to the most 
practical extent possible.
  My proposal also requires real-world plume modeling analysis for such 
attacks to help fill the current gaps in our understanding of these 
vulnerabilities so that we can better protect our constituents and 
first responders from attacks on tank cars carrying dangerous materials 
and mitigate their consequences.
  Second, this bill incorporates the text of an amendment that I filed 
during the committee's consideration of H.R. 1401 that requires the 
security coordinator positions required under section 103 of the bill 
to be filled by U.S. citizens, a requirement which I think makes sense 
for several reasons. U.S. citizenship is required for individuals 
seeking security clearances for access

[[Page 7929]]

to classified information and materials. I very strongly believe that 
individuals who will be responsible for coordinating and implementing 
security plans for our Nation's rail and public transportation systems 
should be able to access, when appropriate, information to help them do 
their jobs as effectively as possible.
  I think it just makes sense to put American citizens in charge of the 
security for our country. As we saw during the Dubai Ports debacle, 
many of our constituents demanded that Americans be in charge of 
America's security, a position with which I hope we can all agree.
  I want to thank full committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, Ranking 
Member Peter King, Transportation Security and Infrastructure 
Protection Subcommittee Chairwoman Sheila Jackson-Lee, and subcommittee 
Ranking Member Dan Lungren for their hard work and open-mindedness in 
crafting this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, we have rightly focused much of our time, attention, and 
resources on securing our Nation's aviation system in the years since 
9/11. I believe it is time that we focus on securing our country's 
public transportation systems, which so many of our constituents use 
each day.

                              {time}  1315

  This bill is a significant step in that direction. I urge our 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 
minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee), the chairwoman of the Transportation Security and 
Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee of the Homeland Security 
Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address 
you this afternoon. I thank my good friend Mr. Hastings from Florida, 
and let me thank the Rules Committee for the thoughtful and 
constructive rule that has been put forward and acknowledge my 
colleague on the subcommittee, Mr. Bilirakis, for his comments about 
the underlying bill.
  Just to inform my colleagues, this is a bill long overdue, and 
procedurally I believe that we moved this bill in regular order. We 
held two hearings. First of all, a hearing that allowed us to hear from 
the vastness of government agencies, who, I guess out of their 
testimony, one could argue that they made a very clear case that we 
needed a regulatory framework within which to secure the Nation's 
railroads and transit systems.
  Obviously, through the tragedies of London and Madrid, we knew that 
the clock was ticking; and this committee, under the chairmanship of 
Chairman Thompson, knows that we must advance the ball, building on the 
work that this committee has done as a bipartisan committee over the 
years with a number of chairpersons, that we must move the ball forward 
to ensure the security of the Nation's homeland.
  That means this particular subcommittee will address questions 
dealing with not only the questions of rail, but of aviation, of bus, 
of trucking, and as well critical infrastructure that heretofore may 
not have been assessed as closely as we should have.
  So we held one hearing. At a second hearing we were able to hear from 
a number of industry persons to tell us, again, of some of the 
mountains that they had to climb in order to ensure security of the 
homeland.
  That being so, this is a comprehensive bill. I am delighted it 
includes language regarding research and training, whistleblower 
language that comports with the Waxman legislation, so we are 
consistent in the legislative structure. I support, as well, the 
manager's amendment by Mr. Thompson, which focuses on some aspects that 
I think help the bill.
  There will be some issues that I hope that we can move further along, 
and that is a relationship of consultation between the Homeland 
Security Department and the Department of Transportation.
  As relates to security, I think it is key that the Department of 
Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Committee lead in 
consultation with a number of our jurisdictional allies.
  I want to thank the chairman of the transportation committee and the 
chairperson of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Congresswoman Corrine 
Brown. We worked very collegially together, and I think this is a 
strong product.
  Might I also just indicate that I hope my colleagues will pay close 
attention to language that would eliminate Amtrak from security grants. 
One of the largest modes of passenger transportation, which has had its 
ups and downs, sometimes the passenger rate is up, sometimes it is 
down, but it does not mean that it is not a vulnerable target.
  It is interesting that if you run your transit system 24 hours a day, 
for example, there has to be a period where there is low passenger 
census. Does that mean that it is any less a target to threats than it 
would be during peak times? So I hope my colleagues will consider the 
vulnerability that the Sessions amendment gives to this whole bill and 
the idea of securing extensively the rail system.
  Might I suggest that amendments that would undermine the 
Transportation Security Administration breeding program increase also 
pose concern, because, as we know, we have not yet had a system in rail 
travel that addresses the question of security of baggage. So this 
breeding program, dealing with domestic animals, is an important aspect 
of dealing with the question of security.
  I would also suggest that you don't want to leave out the provision 
that we have in the over-the-road bus program, and that should not be 
eliminated.
  This is a good rule. I ask my colleagues to support it, and I hope 
they will support the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the history of this bill. This 
bill was badly needed because, as you know, the issue of transportation 
security has been over looked. This bill authorizes more than 5 billion 
dollars over the next four years for rail, public transportation, and 
over-the-road bus security. Having seen the horrific events in Madrid 
and London, something must be done to improve transportation security. 
We know that this bill moves in that direction because we've had a long 
and distinguished legislative record resulting in this bipartisan bill.
  As the Chairwoman for the Homeland Security's Subcommittee on 
Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection we have held two 
hearings on the topic of transportation security. On February 6, the 
Subcommittee received testimony from the government on transportation 
security. On February 13, the Subcommittee heard testimony from 
industry and labor about the issue as well. Both of these hearings were 
attended by the Subcommittee's Ranking Member, Mr. Lungren from 
California, and other Committee Members from both parties.
  In these hearings, the Subcommittee heard from over nine different 
witnesses. The witnesses included, Assistant Secretary Hawley, with the 
Transportation Security Administration, two witnesses from the 
Department of Transportation, one from the Federal Railroad 
Administration, and the other from the Federal Transit Administration, 
and the Government Accountability Office's rail security expert. We 
also heard from the Amtrak's Inspector General, the Association of 
American Railroads, and the New York Metropolitan Transportation 
Authority. Finally, we also heard from the Transport Workers Union and 
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. As such, I think we have 
heard from all the stakeholders impacted by this bill.
  Besides hearings, the Subcommittee held a mark-up on March 1, 2007, 
in which there were ten amendments offered and discussed. These 
amendments dealt with issues, including whistleblower rights, reducing 
protections for protecting sensitive information, and others. I believe 
the mark-up yielded a strong bill, which was made even stronger by the 
Full Committee's mark-up and its consideration of more than twenty 
amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, because the Homeland Security bill was passed 
unanimously out of Committee and it represents a compromise between the 
Transportation & Infrastructure and Oversight and Government Reform 
Committees, and is a great step forward to protecting our 
transportation systems, I urge my colleagues to support the Rule.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege 
to yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague from California, Mr. 
Lungren.

[[Page 7930]]


  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good day in some respects, and that is that we 
have this bill on the floor, H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public 
Transportation Security Act of 2007. It follows up on work that we 
began in the last Congress on a bipartisan basis.
  I would say the committee acted on a bipartisan basis all the way 
through. It is a shame, however, that bipartisanship stops at the edge 
of the Rules Committee. When we made an attempt to ask for reasonable 
amendments in this regard from members of the committee of 
jurisdiction, the Homeland Security Committee, we were rejected.
  I might just talk about the one amendment that I had asked to be 
considered dealing with whistleblower protection. The bill has in it 
now a provision which is extraordinary in its breadth and which is 
unique in its application of criminal law. People wonder why we would 
be concerned about this when we all agree we ought to allow 
whistleblowers, when acting properly, to expose wrongdoing.
  The problem is we are in an area dealing with security, and this 
would allow an employee to make an individualized determination, 
without further review or even perhaps without all the relevant 
information, to disclose classified information. We ought to be 
concerned about that. My amendment would have dealt with that.
  For some reason now in the manager's amendment we are going to exempt 
these criminal penalties for many Federal employees, but we are going 
to impose them on State and local employees, criminal penalties and 
punitive damage awards. So we are going to have a situation in terms of 
sensitive information that might be revealed by an employee and 
therefore action taken against that employee, and the government unable 
to respond to that, because under this whistleblower protection law, 
there will not be the ability for the government to talk about 
protecting basically state secrets.
  What we are talking about here are areas of sensitive information. 
This goes along with the gentlewoman from Florida's amendment to try 
and protect sensitive information. Both of those amendments were 
rejected.
  I would hope that Members would vote down this rule so we might have 
a chance to do our job and at the same time protect sensitive 
information.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), one such distinguished Member 
who had two germane amendments before the Rules Committee that were 
shut out. He is the ranking member of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I do 
rise in opposition to this rule.
  I have been here for 15 years, and this is probably one of the most 
egregious efforts to deny committees of jurisdiction input into this 
very important legislation.
  We just heard from Mr. Lungren, a very distinguished Member and 
ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee. He stated again the 
partisan nature of the Rules decision. The Chair on the Republican 
side, the ranking member of that committee, Mr. King, indicated that 
there were zero amendments. Unprecedented. On the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, there were zero amendments accepted.
  So I must strongly encourage that we vote against this rule. Again, 
in my experience, I have never heard of such an egregious abuse of 
minority rights or participation in the process.
  Most importantly, I think that one of the amendments that we offered 
from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, while the 
manager's amendment does have some improvements in taking these 
important security grants from DHS, which has had difficulty in 
managing all their responsibilities, and we have the money going 
through DHS and the grants administered by the Department of 
Transportation, which is an improvement, it has been my experience that 
it is not how much money you spend, it is how you spend it. We had an 
amendment that offered a vast improvement, which was to conduct a needs 
and risk assessment on security risks relating to transit and rail, 
which has never been conducted.
  So we are going to take $6 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money and 
put it through this system that I just described and not really address 
that money to the real threats and risks that we face. I don't think 
that is wise.
  This weekend I spent some time in Pennsylvania. I went through a 
couple of towns and I saw a lot of people. I saw some tough towns in 
some of the rural areas traveling up there. But I saw a lot of people 
going to work and working hard, sending their money to Washington. They 
are counting on us to be good stewards of that money and to spend that 
money.
  Our number one responsibility is the safety and security of those 
people, and here we are abandoning that responsibility. So they work 
very hard out there to send that money here and now see it not properly 
applied.
  That is wrong, and I will oppose this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule, H. Res. 270, for the 
consideration of H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security 
Act of 2007.
  I strongly support effective security measures for America's 
railroads, transit systems, and intercity buses.
  But the funding authorization levels in the bill that will be brought 
up today are based on a phony estimate of the surface transportation 
security needs.
  The $6 billion authorized in H.R. 1401 is based on a 2003 member 
survey conducted by the American Public Transportation Association.
  There was no discipline to the APTA survey--anyone could ask for 
anything they thought they might need at any time.
  Yesterday, I offered two amendments to the Rules Committee, both of 
which were rejected on a straight party-line vote.
  The first amendment was simply a requirement that DHS and DOT 
determine what the security needs of the Nation's transit systems and 
railroads are before authorizing $6 billion in grants.
  This amendment was supported by the Committee on Homeland Security 
and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Yet the Rules 
Committee refused to allow the amendment to be considered.
  I also proposed an amendment to expand the current whistleblower 
protection law for both the safety and security of railroad employees 
under the Railway Labor Act.
  This effective whistleblower protection law in title 49 of the U.S. 
Code has been in place since 1970. This law covers the reporting of all 
hazardous conditions, whether related to safety or security.
  Under the Railway Labor Act whistleblower protection, railroad 
employees are fully protected against termination, harassment or 
discrimination.
  There is absolutely no good reason to replace this functional and 
effective law with new whistleblower protection requirements under the 
Department of Labor. Don't fix it if it isn't broken.
  But this amendment, despite support from both the Committee on 
Homeland Security and the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, was also rejected by the Rules Committee on a party-
line vote.
  I strongly oppose this Rule.
  The bill development was not bipartisan, and it is obvious that the 
development of the Rule was completely partisan.
  The Democrat-led Congress's unwillingness to work with Republicans on 
this bill flies in the face of Speaker Pelosi's commitment to work in 
an open and bipartisan manner.
  It's a shame that this Congress has put politics ahead of effective 
security for the traveling public.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to oppose the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make in order 
two amendments Mr. Dent of Pennsylvania offered last night at the Rules 
Committee. Mr. Dent, a member of the Homeland Security Committee, 
testified on behalf of his amendments, but the Democratic majority of 
the Rules Committee all voted against making these important amendments 
in order.

[[Page 7931]]

  These amendments would establish a screening program for individuals 
who are arriving at or departing from the U.S. through covered 
transportation, namely, by passenger rail and bus. His amendments would 
also require carriers who provide transportation to people entering the 
U.S. to provide passenger information to Customs and Border Protection.
  Mr. Dent's amendments would implement one of the key 9/11 Commission 
recommendations, which stated: ``Information systems able to detect 
potential terrorist indicators should be used at primary border 
inspection lines, in immigration services offices, and in intelligence 
and enforcement units.''
  During the recent campaign, the Democrats pledged to enact all of the
9/11 Commission recommendations. By not allowing Mr. Dent's amendments, 
they are ignoring a loophole for the terrorists to exploit and are 
reneging on a promise they made to the American people to protect them.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record a copy 
of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote 
on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I listened with great intensity 
to my friend from Florida regarding the resources that the American 
public provides to the United States Government for its distribution. 
He seems to decry the fact that this year we are going to spend $7 
billion on rail security. My ultimate question would be, What did you 
spend on rail security last year, the year before, the year before and 
the year before that?
  Somewhere along the line, I believe that the American people want us 
to make sure that our rail system and our bus system are as secure as 
we can make them. This is a start in that direction.
  I also heard my friend from Orlando say that the rule itself is the 
most egregious that he has seen in 15 years. Well, I have been here 
every one of those 15 years that he has been here, and if he wants to 
see egregious, then travel with me back to the 4 years in the minority 
that I was on the Rules Committee, and I will show you egregiousness.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission gave the Transportation Security 
Administration a C-minus for its efforts to develop a security strategy 
for all modes of transportation. GAO, as I previously mentioned, has 
said that the U.S. has failed to provide the appropriate leadership in 
enhancing all forms of covered transportation.
  Something needs to change. This bill provides the necessary 
leadership and funding to move us forward.
  For too long, Congress has neglected its responsibility to do 
whatever is necessary to protect the well-being of the American people. 
This is a fair rule. It gives four amendments to the minority and four 
amendments to the majority; hardly as egregious as the many times no 
amendments were granted to the minority when Democrats were in the 
minority.
  I urge my colleagues to support both the substantive legislation and 
this rule.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Rail and Public 
Transportation Security Act (H.R. 1401). Our country needs this bill. 
Our communities need this bill.
  This legislation is very timely for my district. On March 15th, a 
train trestle burned down just outside central Sacramento. The fire 
sent a dark plume of smoke into the sky.
  The residents of our region received quite a scare. Children were 
kept inside because authorities could not determine if the smoke from 
the trestle fire was toxic.
  Fortunately, no one was hurt. The incident is not being investigated 
as a terrorist attack.
  However, this fire showcased the impact that our rail vulnerabilities 
can have on communities.
  In Sacramento, our train tracks form a ring around our most populated 
areas. If the trestle had caught fire just a few miles down the track, 
houses would have burned. If the train had exploded, or if it had 
leaked hazardous material, my constituents could have died.
  I cannot let that happen. That is why this legislation is so 
important. It makes critical advancements in rail security policy.
  I am grateful that Representative Markey has addressed the transport 
of hazardous materials through heavily populated areas.
  As the situation in Sacramento demonstrated, we must begin to reroute 
hazardous shipments to avoid populated areas.
  When possible, we must integrate new technologies to secure these 
shipments. I look forward to working with Mr. Markey to implement this 
proposal.
  It is also important to note that more people than ever are using 
public transit. Over 10 billion trips were taken on public 
transportation last year. There has been a 30 percent increase in 
public transit use in the last decade.
  This increased ridership is great news. However, it is important that 
we invest in security funding to match growing demand. This legislation 
will do just that.
  Finally, I want to commend Chairman Bennie Thompson of the Homeland 
Security Committee for his leadership on this issue.
  As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I 
have seen how smoothly Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Thompson have 
collaborated.
  They have done a great job dealing with the jurisdictional issues 
raised by transit security.
  Their work demonstrates the level of commitment that is needed to 
secure our communities. Such collaboration is a refreshing change.
  It should serve as an example for us all as we tackle other pressing 
issues facing the 110th Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Rule, so that we can enact this 
important legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

                        Amendment to H. Res. 270

             Offered by Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendments printed in sections 4 and 5 shall 
     be in order as though printed as the last two amendments in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules if offered by 
     Representative Dent of Pennsylvania or his designee. Such 
     amendments shall each be separately debatable for 30 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent.
       Sec. 4. The first amendment referred to in section 3 is as 
     follows:
       At the end of title I of the bill, add the following new 
     section (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 1XX. PASSENGER AND CREW MANIFESTS FOR VEHICLES ARRIVING 
                   IN OR DEPARTING FROM THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Statement of Policy.--Congress supports the following 
     recommendations from the Final Report of the National 
     Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States:
       (1) ``The small terrorist travel intelligence collection 
     and analysis program currently in place has produced 
     disproportionately useful results. It should be expanded. 
     Since officials at the borders encounter travelers and their 
     documents first and investigate travel facilitators, they 
     must work closely with intelligence officials.''.
       (2) ``Information systems able to authenticate travel 
     documents and detect potential terrorist indicators should be 
     used at consulates, at primary border inspection lines, in 
     immigration services offices, and in intelligence and 
     enforcement units.''.
       (3) ``We advocate a system for screening, not categorical 
     profiling. A screening system looks for particular, 
     identifiable suspects or indicators of risk. It does not 
     involve guesswork about who might be dangerous. It requires 
     frontline border officials who have the tools and resources 
     to establish that people are who they say they are, intercept 
     identifiable suspects, and disrupt terrorist operations.''.
       (4) ``[T]he National Targeting Center, assisted by the new 
     Terrorist Screening Center, provides information support to 
     inspectors at ports of entry so that they can make more 
     informed decisions about potential terrorists and harmful 
     cargo attempting to enter the United States.''.
       (b) Authority to Require Advanced Delivery of 
     Information.--Part II of title IV of the Tariff Act of 1930 
     (19 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) is amended by inserting after 
     section 434 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 435. PASSENGER AND CREW MANIFESTS FOR VEHICLES 
                   ARRIVING IN OR DEPARTING FROM THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       ``(a) Passenger and Crew Manifests Required.--The 
     Commissioner of United States Customs and Border Protection 
     of the Department of Homeland Security may require

[[Page 7932]]

     each vehicle (including a rail car or bus) of a provider of 
     covered transportation, as defined in the Rail and Public 
     Transportation Security Act of 2007 arriving in the United 
     States from, or departing the United States to, a foreign 
     port or place to transmit to United States Customs and Border 
     Protection a passenger manifest and crew manifest containing 
     the information set forth in subsection (c) for each such 
     arrival in or departure from the United States.
       ``(b) Transmission.--A passenger manifest and crew manifest 
     required pursuant to subsection (a) shall be transmitted to 
     United States Customs and Border Protection in advance of 
     arrival in or departure from the United States in such 
     manner, time, and form as the Commissioner of United States 
     Customs and Border Protection may prescribe by regulations.
       ``(c) Information.--The information to be provided with 
     respect to each person listed on a passenger manifest or crew 
     manifest required pursuant to subsection (a) may include--
       ``(1) the person's complete name, date of birth, 
     citizenship, gender, passport number and country of issuance, 
     and alien registration number, if applicable; and
       ``(2) such other information as the Commissioner of United 
     States Customs and Border Protection determines is necessary 
     to enforce the customs, immigration, and other related laws 
     of the United States, to ensure the transportation security 
     of the United States, and to protect the national security of 
     the United States.
       ``(d) Civil Penalty.--Any person who fails to provide 
     accurate and full information in a passenger manifest or crew 
     manifest required pursuant to subsections (a) and (c) or 
     regulations issued thereunder, or fails to provide the 
     manifest in the manner prescribed pursuant to subsection (b) 
     or regulations issued thereunder, shall be liable for a civil 
     penalty in the amount of $5,000 with respect to each person 
     listed on the manifest for whom such accurate or full 
     information is not provided in accordance with such 
     requirements.
       ``(e) Passenger Name Record Information.--
       ``(1) Requirement.--The Commissioner of United States 
     Customs and Border Protection may require each commercial 
     carrier arriving in the United States from, or departing the 
     United States to, a foreign port or place to make available 
     to United States Customs and Border Protection, upon the 
     agency's request, passenger name record information for each 
     such arrival in or departure from the United States in such 
     manner, time, and form as the Commissioner may prescribe by 
     regulations.
       ``(2) Civil penalty.--Any person who fails to provide 
     passenger name record information required pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) shall be liable for a civil penalty in the 
     amount of $5,000 with respect to each person for whom such 
     information is not provided in accordance with such 
     requirements.
       ``(f) Sharing of Manifest and Passenger Name Record 
     Information With Other Government Agencies.--The Commissioner 
     of United States Customs and Border Protection may provide 
     information contained in passenger and crew manifests and 
     passenger name record information received pursuant to this 
     section to other government authorities in order to protect 
     the national security of the United States or as otherwise 
     authorized by law.
       ``(g) Consideration of Economic Impact.--Prior to issuing 
     any interim or final regulation under this section, the 
     Commissioner of United States Customs and Border Protection 
     shall consult with stakeholders from the transportation 
     industry and assess the economic impact that the regulation 
     would have on private industry.
       ``(h) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section abrogates, 
     diminishes, or weakens the provisions of any Federal or State 
     law that prevents or protects against the unauthorized 
     collection or release of personal records.''.
       Sec. 5. The second amendment referred to in section 3 is as 
     follows:
       At the end of the title I, insert the following new section 
     (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 132. AUTOMATED TARGETING SYSTEM FOR PERSONS ENTERING OR 
                   DEPARTING THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Findings of the 9/11 Commission.--Congress finds that 
     the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United 
     States (commonly referred to as the 9/11 Commission) 
     concluded that--
       (1) ``The small terrorist travel intelligence collection 
     and analysis program currently in place has produced 
     disproportionately useful results. It should be expanded. 
     Since officials at the border encounter travelers and their 
     documents first and investigate travel facilitators, they 
     must work closely with intelligence officials.'';
       (2) ``Information systems able to authenticate travel 
     documents and detect potential terrorist indicators should be 
     used at consulates, at primary border inspection lines, in 
     immigration service offices, and intelligence and enforcement 
     units.'';
       (3) ``The President should direct the Department of 
     Homeland Security to lead the effort to design a 
     comprehensive screening system, addressing common problems 
     and setting common standards with systemwide goals in 
     mind.'';
       (4) ``A screening system looks for particular, identifiable 
     suspects or indicators of risk. It does not involve guesswork 
     about who might be dangerous. It requires frontline border 
     officials who have the tools and resources to establish that 
     people are who they say they are, intercept identifiable 
     suspects, and disrupt terrorist operations.''; and
       (5) ``Inspectors adjudicating entries of the 9/11 hijackers 
     lacked adequate information and knowledge of the rules. A 
     modern border and immigration system should combine a 
     biometric entry-exit system with accessible files on visitors 
     and immigrants, along with intelligence on indicators of 
     terrorist travel.''.
       (b) Automated Targeting System for Persons Entering or 
     Departing the United States.--The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, acting through the Commissioner of Customs and 
     Border Protection, may establish an automated system for the 
     purpose of the enforcement of United States law, including 
     laws relating to anti-terrorism and border security, to 
     assist in the screening of persons seeking to enter or depart 
     the United States (in this section referred to as the 
     ``system'') through the use of covered transportation.
       (c) No Private Right of Action.--The Secretary, acting 
     through the Commissioner, shall ensure than an administrative 
     process is established, or application of an existing 
     administrative process is extended, pursuant to which any 
     individual may apply to correct any information retained by 
     the system established under subsection (b). Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed as creating a private right of 
     action and no court shall have jurisdiction based on any of 
     the provisions of this section to hear any case or claim 
     arising from the application of the system or the corrective 
     administrative process established or applied under this 
     section.
       (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as abrogating, diminishing, or weakening the 
     provisions of any Federal or State law that prevents or 
     protects against the unauthorized collection or release of 
     personal records.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question

[[Page 7933]]

     on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote 
on the ground that a quorum is not present and make a point of order a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
ordering the previous question on H. Res. 270 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 270, if ordered; adoption of H. 
Res. 269, if ordered; and the motion to suspend the rules on H. Res. 
266.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 199, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 190]

                               YEAS--222

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--199

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Andrews
     Barton (TX)
     Carson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Ehlers
     Kanjorski
     Kingston
     Lampson
     Meehan
     Millender-McDonald
     Spratt
     Udall (NM)

                              {time}  1359

  Messrs. YOUNG of Alaska, RYAN of Wisconsin, PETERSON of Pennsylvania, 
and SULLIVAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 199, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 191]

                               YEAS--223

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)

[[Page 7934]]


     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--199

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Andrews
     Carson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Garrett (NJ)
     Kanjorski
     Kingston
     Lampson
     Meehan
     Millender-McDonald
     Spratt
     Udall (NM)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1408

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________