[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 26908-26917]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2868, CHEMICAL FACILITY ANTI-
                         TERRORISM ACT OF 2009

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 885 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 885

       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. 2868) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 to extend, modify, and recodify the authority of the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security to enhance security and 
     protect against acts of terrorism against chemical 
     facilities, 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 90 minutes equally 
     divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security, the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce, and the chair 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. In lieu of the amendments in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committees on 
     Homeland Security and Energy and Commerce 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 except 
     those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding 
     clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to that amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. 
     Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question. 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. 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.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Homeland Security or his designee. The Chair may not 
     entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of November 7, 2009, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The 
     Speaker or her designee shall consult with the Minority 
     Leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for 
     consideration pursuant to this section.

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the 
rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 885.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 885 provides for consideration of H.R. 2868, the 
Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, under a structured rule. 
The rule provides 90 minutes of general debate equally divided between 
the Committees on Homeland Security, Energy and Commerce, and 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. It further 
provides that in lieu of the amendments in the nature

[[Page 26909]]

of a substitute recommended by the Committees on Homeland Security and 
Energy and Commerce, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the Rules Committee report shall be considered as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment.
  The rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute except those arising under clause 10 of rule 
XXI.
  The rule makes in order 10 amendments listed in the Rules Committee 
report, each debatable for 10 minutes. All points of order against the 
amendments printed in part B of the report are waived except for 
clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. It further provides one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
  Finally, the rule allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend 
the rules through the legislative day of November 7, 2009. The Speaker 
or her designee shall consult with the minority leader or his designee 
on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, now I will proceed to the underlying legislation.
  I wish to thank Chairman Bennie Thompson, Chairman Henry Waxman, 
Chairman Jim Oberstar, and other members of the House Energy and 
Commerce Committee who contributed to this legislation meaningfully and 
to the resulting amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  H.R. 2868 amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to extend, modify, 
and recodify the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
enhance security and protect against acts of terrorism against chemical 
facilities and for other purposes.
  This bill helps ensure that the chemical manufacturing and storage 
industry, which generates $550 billion in revenue each year, is safe 
and secure and less susceptible to a terrorist-inspired attack. 
Importantly, it offers additional protections for the people and 
families who live near these facilities.
  The concentration of lethal chemicals near large population centers 
makes these facilities attractive terrorist targets. The bill protects 
workers and neighbors of chemical facilities by asking the highest risk 
facilities to switch to safer chemicals and processes when it is 
economically feasible.
  By establishing a single agency responsible for security at drinking 
water and wastewater facilities, the bill promotes consistent 
implementation of security across the industry. This legislation also 
helps to ensure added security for this industry. This legislation has 
been endorsed by the National Association of Clean Water Agencies and 
by the American Public Works Association.
  Also, it is critical to ensure that Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 
Standards--CFATS is the acronym--is a floor and not a ceiling for 
safety measures, allowing States and localities to implement more 
stringent chemical security standards for chemical facilities, 
community water systems, port facilities, and wastewater treatment 
facilities. The bill promotes innovation and best practices to ensure 
that our citizens are protected and secure.
  Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that my friends across the aisle may 
argue that the implementation of inherently safer technology, IST, 
standards will hurt small businesses and will cause job loss. However, 
IST is already recognized as a ``best practice,'' and is widely 
accepted within the chemical sector. Only facilities that are judged 
most at-risk may be required to implement IST due to the danger posed 
by the release of large quantities of toxic substances at the facility.
  Before IST is even implemented, it would have to be shown in writing 
that incorporating IST would significantly reduce the risk of death, 
injury or serious adverse effects to human health and that 
implementation is, number one, technically feasible; number two, cost-
effective; and, number three, that it lowers the risk at that facility 
while also not shifting it to other facilities or elsewhere in the 
supply chain.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss to not again thank Chairman Bennie 
Thompson for his support of an amendment that I will offer later to the 
underlying legislation.
  My amendment strengthens the newly created Office of Chemical and 
Facility Security by designating a specific point of contact for 
interagency coordination with the EPA.
  My amendment also requires the Secretary to proactively inform State 
emergency response commissions and local emergency planning committees 
about activities related to the implementation of the act so that they 
may update their emergency planning and training procedures.
  I look forward to offering this amendment to the underlying 
legislation so that we can ensure that this legislation informs and 
better interfaces with activities currently underway based on the 
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), for the time.
  In 2006, Mr. Speaker, as part of the Homeland Security Appropriations 
Act of 2007, Congress gave the Department of Homeland Security the 
authority to promulgate risk-based security performance standards for 
chemical facilities that use or store chemicals.
  I am glad that Mr. Lungren of California is here, because he was 
intimately involved with the legislation that ultimately became law.
  The DHS subsequently issued the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 
Standards (CFATS), requiring chemical facilities to report the types 
and amounts of chemicals housed on sites. The legislative authority for 
CFATS was scheduled to sunset this year in October. The underlying 
bill, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, makes permanent 
the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security to regulate 
security at chemical plants.
  I believe it's important to address the sunsetting of the existing 
CFATS program at the Department of Homeland Security. However, I have 
concerns that this bill fails to enhance our security and, at a time 
when we are facing 10 percent unemployment, perhaps even higher 
unemployment in the future, that it could endanger economic recovery.
  Of particular concern is the IST, the inherently safer technology, 
provisions included in this legislation. IST allows the Federal 
Government to mandate the use of certain chemicals and technologies 
regardless of the efficiency and effectiveness of the IST. This was all 
the more worrisome when a witness from the Department of Homeland 
Security testified that the Department employs no specialists with IST 
expertise and that there is no future funding planned.
  Now, I first learned how IST may hurt job creation and how, in fact, 
it may increase unemployment from a small business in my district, 
Allied Universal Corporation, that operates a chemical manufacturing 
facility.
  I was informed that the IST is an attempt by the Federal Government 
to impose a one-size-fits-all approach to a complicated and disparate 
sector of our economy. It will cost Allied alone, this corporation that 
employs people in my community, hundreds of thousands of dollars in 
consulting fees and in staff time alone.
  It is not a good use of resources. It has no tangible benefit as 
manufacturing struggles to survive in this economy. Furthermore, the 
underlying bill reduces existing protections on information regarding 
chemical facilities, and it reduces the penalties for the disclosure of 
security information.
  These regulations that we are talking about today were thoughtfully 
included following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The 
primary responsibility, Mr. Speaker, of our government is to protect 
the citizenry. By making chemical facilities less secure, we endanger 
the security of our neighborhoods and of our communities. By

[[Page 26910]]

easing penalties for unlawfully disclosing sensitive information, we 
increase our vulnerability. To make matters worse, the majority 
includes these provisions in a bill that is supposed to help prevent 
attacks.
  As I said before, I am glad Mr. Lungren is here. He can explain the 
process by which the current regulations came into being, the amount of 
discussion, negotiation, and consensus that led to those regulations 
coming into effect, and really how unfortunate now this attempt at an 
imposition of further or different regulations is.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. Speaker, later this week the Congress is expected to consider 
health care bills. I would like to take this moment to compare today's 
rule on the chemical facility bill with the rule expected on the health 
care bills.
  Today's rule allows 10 amendments, five from the majority and five 
from the minority, on a bill that costs approximately $900 million. 
Although the rule is not open, it's important to admit that the rule 
allows some debate on the underlying issues. The rule expected later 
this week on the health care legislation will probably include an 
amendment written by the Speaker. Perhaps that's the only amendment 
that will be allowed. We'll see. And that bill spends about $1.3 
trillion, I believe.
  It seems that the more money Congress spends, the more likely we seem 
to have a closed debate process. And that, I believe, is contrary to 
the way the majority promised to run this House.
  On the opening day of the 110th Congress, the distinguished 
chairwoman of the Rules Committee came to the floor and said that the 
new majority would ``begin to return this Chamber to its rightful place 
as the home of democracy and deliberation in our great Nation.'' That 
pledge was echoed in a document written by the distinguished Speaker 
called a New Direction for America, where she stated, and, by the way, 
the statement is still on her Web site: ``Bills should generally come 
to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair 
debate.''
  After contrasting today's rule with the expected health care rule in 
a few days, today's rule might look fair, but really it's not. It 
blocks amendments from both sides of the aisle from receiving a full 
and fair debate on the House floor that was, as I pointed out, promised 
by the Speaker.
  During the hearing in the Rules Committee, the ranking member, Mr. 
Dreier, made a motion to allow an open rule on this legislation that's 
being brought to the floor; in other words, a rule that would allow all 
Members the ability to offer any amendment for a vote by the full 
House. If the Rules Committee had approved the motion, it would have 
been their first open rule this Congress. Unfortunately, the motion was 
voted down by a majority on the Rules Committee. The majority used to 
criticize us when we were in the majority for not allowing more open 
rules. They have offered none.
  This rule that is bringing the underlying legislation to the floor 
today also gives the majority the authority to allow consideration of 
bills under suspension of the rules until Saturday. Suspension bills, 
as you know, Mr. Speaker, are usually noncontroversial bills, but the 
suspension authority has in the past been used to pass bills with 
obviously minimal debate and sometimes as a way to block the minority 
from offering amendments or a motion to recommit.
  Now, in the past, a senior member of the majority on the Rules 
Committee referred to that process as ``outside the normal parameters 
of the way the House should conduct its business. It effectively 
curtails our responsibilities and rights as serious legislators.''
  It's interesting how it's wrong when they're in the minority, but 
once they're in the majority, it's right.

                                 Allied Universal Corporation,

                                      Miami, FL, October 23, 2009.
     Re H.R. 2868.

     Hon. Lincoln Diaz-Balart,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Diaz-Balart: My company is a small 
     business as defined by the U.S. Small Business 
     Administration. It operates a chemical manufacturing and 
     distribution facility in your district (8350 NW 93 Street, 
     Miami, FL). employing individuals and providing materials to 
     a number of industries critical to our nation's and state's 
     economy and public health. I am writing to express my 
     opposition to H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 
     Act, which will be scheduled for a House floor vote within 
     days. This legislation will make significant changes to the 
     Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), which 
     took effect just two and a half years ago.
       Security is a major priority for Allied Universal Corp. We 
     are members of the Chlorine Institute and National 
     Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD). which requires 
     our participation in the Responsible Distribution Process, an 
     environmental, health. safety. and security management 
     program. My company has spent substantial resources on 
     security upgrades in recent years. and will continue to do so 
     going forward under the current CFATS regulations. I do not 
     embellish when I state that a significant amount of our 
     company's capital budget and personnel time has been spent on 
     security improvement projects. and will continue to be spent 
     as Allied works to address the Department of Homeland 
     Security's identified security risks for our facility.
       I am concerned that H.R. 2868 is too prescriptive and 
     includes requirements that are not appropriate for all 
     facilities. Security is very important, but a command and 
     control type regulation would not benefit the nation let 
     alone the thousands of businesses that must comply with the 
     regulation. For example, the requirement to conduct an 
     assessment of inherently safer technologies (1ST). or Methods 
     to Reduce the Consequences of a Terrorist Attack, could 
     easily cost my company hundreds of thousands of dollars in 
     consulting fees and staff time. This is not a good use of 
     resources for a chemical manufacturing and distribution 
     facility like mine, which stocks products based on our 
     customers' needs and operates on extremely tight margins. I 
     am also concerned about other mandates in the bill and the 
     fact that state and local measures are not preempted, which 
     is critical for a national security program. No federal 
     preemption would cause much confusion, not to mention 
     additional staff time and resources that could otherwise be 
     allocated to other pressing needs (i.e. one state may have 
     stricter regulations, causing my company to allocate more 
     resources to the facility in that state rather than say a 
     facility in a state with less restrictions. but more 
     significant security concerns or risks such as a high 
     population area).
       Therefore, I urge you to oppose H.R 2868 unless the 
     following changes are made:
       (1) All 1ST assessment and implementation mandates must be 
     removed.
       (2) Specific requirements regarding drills, employee and 
     union involvement in SVA and SSP development, and other areas 
     must be removed. A Risk Based Performance Standards approach 
     should be continued as in the current CFATS regulations.
       (3) The federal standards must preempt state and local 
     requirements.
       Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to 
     contact me if you have questions or would like more details 
     on how H.R. 2868 would impact my company.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Robert Namoff,
                                            Chairman of the Board.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the 
distinguished Chair, I would like to remind my good friend on the other 
side of the aisle that what we're debating here is the rule for H.R. 
2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009. This bill is 
about renewing the Homeland Security Department's authority to 
implement, enforce, and improve the chemical facility anti-terrorism 
standards and to require that the EPA establish parallel security 
programs for drinking water and wastewater facilities. It's important 
that we pass this legislation.
  I find it striking that my friend and colleague would reference the 
fact that a distinguished legislator, a friend of mine, who was 
doubtless here when this legislation originated, and I'm sure has 
insight as to its origination--but as I have lived here in this 
institution for nearly 20 years, I've found an evolutionary process to 
just about all legislation. And there was a major intervention between 
the implementation of this legislation initially and today, and that 
intervention was 9/11. And the things that have flowed from it allowed 
that we have more than 6,000 facilities in this country that are 
vulnerable and we have an absolute responsibility to deal with them. We 
also have an absolute responsibility to pass health care.

[[Page 26911]]

  With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I appreciate the gentleman's providing 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 2868. I 
want to first express my gratitude to Chairwoman Slaughter and the 
Rules Committee for this rule that allows five Democratic and five 
Republican amendments.
  In the wake of the September 11 attacks, security experts immediately 
identified the threat of an attack on a chemical facility as one of the 
greatest security vulnerabilities facing the Nation. In 2006, Congress 
gave the Department of Homeland Security authority to regulate security 
within the chemical sector. DHS established the Chemical Facility Anti-
Terrorism Standards program in 2007, and since that time, DHS has, by 
all accounts, worked in a collaborative manner with industry to 
implement this risk-based, performance-based program.
  Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 2868 to not only reauthorize 
this important program, which will sunset in October 2010, but to also 
improve it in a few key areas. At the start of this Congress, Chairman 
Waxman and I reached an agreement on issues that have dogged this 
effort. In Chairman Waxman I found a partner who was equally committed 
to making progress on this important homeland security issue. Starting 
last fall we began bipartisan discussions in earnest and engaged a wide 
array of stakeholders including DHS, EPA, chemical sector 
representatives, water groups, environmental groups, and labor groups. 
What emerged was the package you see before you today.
  Title I is a reauthorization of the DHS program. Titles II and III 
provide new regulatory authority to the EPA to regulate drinking water 
and wastewater utilities respectively. This package eliminates the 
exemptions for the water sector that both the Bush and Obama 
administrations identified as security gaps and makes a number of 
improvements to the DHS program.
  The underlying legislation, which I introduced in June, built upon 
two hearings and two markups that were held in the last Congress. H.R. 
2868 was marked up by the Homeland Security Committee over the course 
of 3 days in late June. The Committee on Energy and Commerce held a 
legislative hearing on H.R. 2868 and drinking water security 
legislation this October. Both bills were marked up in subcommittee and 
full committee in October, also.
  Whether it was the staff negotiations or during markups, numerous 
Republican requests and concerns were included in the final product.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman an additional 2 
minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Thank you very much.
  The detailed collaborative approach used to create the underlying 
legislation is a process for which we should all be proud.
  As a Congressperson who represents one of the more agricultural 
districts, I also said that this bill does not harm agricultural 
interests. I have never voted against an agricultural interest. And I 
look forward to working with that interest on any concerns they might 
have.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the rule for H.R. 2868, and I look forward to 
today's debate and passage of this important legislation that will help 
to make America more secure.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as Dr. King said in 
my favorite of his speeches, longevity has its place. And in Congress 
we have some Members who have been here for many years. I would like to 
yield to one such distinguished Member who was here for many years, 
then left us but then returned, which is even more unusual. But he has 
the historical knowledge with regard to this legislation, which, by the 
way, was in this decade that he worked on and that led to the 
regulations that the majority seeks to amend drastically, change 
drastically today.
  I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished friend from California, Mr. 
Daniel E. Lungren.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman very much. 
I must add, though, I was a very, very young man when I first came 
here. I appreciate that.
  First of all, I rise in opposition to this rule. I will talk about 
the underlying bill and the rule as it applies there, but we should 
also recognize this rule goes beyond the underlying bill and 
establishes what has been affectionately referred to as martial law, 
which means that the majority, basically without notice, can bring up 
at any time through Saturday, November 7, under suspension of the rules 
any measure. Any measure. There's no limit on what measure it might be. 
And for Members who may have forgotten what that means, a suspension of 
the rule means we suspend all rules and can consider virtually anything 
we want here, and a bill can be brought up from a committee and the 
entire text of the bill as passed out of the committee can be removed 
and we can have a different bill here on the floor. So Members should 
be aware that we are with this rule passing martial law, giving the 
majority the ability to bring up anything.
  Frankly, that language that has never been seen by any committee can 
be entered into a bill with just the name and it could be presented on 
this floor. So Members should be aware that this rule goes beyond the 
underlying bill.
  With respect to the underlying bill, why would I have concerns about 
this bill when I serve, with true joy, on this committee and serve with 
the chairman of the full committee who presents this bill before us? It 
is because we've been working on this area of concern for the last 5 
years and we did come up with legislation that was incorporated into 
the appropriations bill dealing with homeland security back in 2006, 
and that language is the language which has been brought forward in the 
regulations and under which the Department of Homeland Security has 
operated over these last number of years. And it is the reason why this 
administration has asked for a simple 1-year extension, not the changes 
that we have in this bill. Why is that of concern?

                              {time}  1100

  Why is it that organizations that have worked carefully with the 
Department of Homeland Security to come up with a regime that is 
workable so that we can protect against potential terrorist attacks in 
the area of chemicals, why would these organizations now have some 
question?
  Why would, for instance, as recently as several days ago, the 
American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Petroleum Institute, the 
American Trucking Association, the Fertilizer Institute, the National 
Association of Chemical Distributors, the National Association of 
Manufacturers, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, and 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce all oppose this bill?
  It is primarily because while the administration, both the prior 
administration and the current administration, have worked well with 
all of these industries to come up with a regime that is workable, that 
does protect us, that does make a distinction between the larger 
companies and the smallest companies, that has engaged them in such a 
way that they have put forward new practices and capital investment, 
that all of that could be thrown out of the window now as we adopt new 
regulations under a new regulatory scheme.
  What is the major concern they have? It has to do with something 
called inherently safer technology. It sounds great. Who could be 
against it? The problem is this legislation misunderstands what that 
is. We've been working on this for the last half decade.
  In 2006, I remember Scott Berger, director of the Center for Chemical 
Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemicals, testified before 
us on this. His organization is the organization which has produced the 
accepted reference book on the issue of inherently

[[Page 26912]]

safer processes. That is what we are talking about here. Here is what 
he said:
  Inherently safer design is a concept related to the design and 
operation of chemical plants, and the philosophy is generally 
applicable to any technology. But he goes on to say that this is an 
evolving concept, and the specific tools and techniques for application 
are in the early stages of development and such methods do not now 
exist.
  What basically we got out of his testimony and the testimony of every 
witness that appeared before us, both brought by the Democratic Party 
and Republican Party----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman an 
additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Is that this is a process, not a 
product; yet we are now giving blanket authority for the Secretary to 
impose inherently safer technologies as if it were a product.
  Now, this is going to impact companies disproportionately which are 
small. Mr. Speaker, 59 percent of the companies that will be impacted 
by this law employ 50 workers or less. In my home State of California, 
it's 62 percent. So at a time when we are having difficulty maintaining 
and producing jobs, when everybody comes to the floor and says, We want 
to protect small business, we want to help small business, small 
businesses are going to be hurt disproportionately by this legislation. 
This legislation is at least premature.
  The administration has said, Just give us a simple reauthorization 
for a year of what you're already doing. We did that in the 
appropriations bill, but somehow, because we seem to have more time on 
our hands, we have to bring bills to the floor as we wait for the 
health care reform, the mother of all bills, to come to this floor. 
That's why we're here dealing with this, despite the fact the 
administration doesn't support it, the industry doesn't support it, 
small business doesn't support it, and even those who came up with the 
idea of inherently safer technologies have told us in testimony, You 
folks don't understand; you're misapplying it if you are going to put 
it in the bill as it is in this bill.
  It sounds great. Everybody is for inherently safer technologies, but 
it's the substance of what it is that we ought to be concerned about, 
and we ought not put another job-killer bill on this floor just a day 
or 2 days before we're going to hear the latest unemployment 
statistics.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, inherently safer technologies, 
known as methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack, 
includes techniques such as eliminating or reducing the amount of toxic 
chemicals stored on-site or using safer processes that facilitate as a 
best practice often integrated into the operations.
  My good friend from California doth protest too much about us 
legislating on something that is particularly critical that we have 
this IST technology, and his argument, as I heard a portion of it, is 
we are doing this for the reason that we are waiting for health care 
and we don't have anything else to do. Well, that's just not true. 
We've been a pretty busy Congress from the inception of this Congress. 
If there was no health care provision, we would have matters that we 
would have to undertake, including this particularly critical matter.
  Only a small subset of the people that he is talking about, covered 
chemical facilities, are placed in the top two riskiest tiers by the 
Department of Homeland Security because of the consequences in the 
event of a chemical release, and it could be required to implement IST. 
Between 100 and 200 chemical facilities nationwide currently fall into 
that category, according to DHS.
  I am continually surprised at my colleagues' arguments. A while back, 
we were describing them as the party of ``no,'' and I think that that 
had currency and still does after you look at their health care 
provision, which insures nobody. But the thing that really I find 
interesting about this is that they really are the party of ``status 
quo.'' And if you look at this legislation that Congressman Thompson, 
Congressman Oberstar, and Congressman Waxman have fashioned, had 
hearings that were in the public, everybody had an opportunity to make 
their presentation, including what you just heard from our colleague, 
someone that had a different view as occurs in just about every 
hearing--the minority has an opportunity most times to bring witnesses 
and the majority brings witnesses, and generally, they don't agree. But 
that doesn't mean in this body that we don't have an exacting 
responsibility to go forward with legislation demonstrably to improve 
the American public's safety. That is what we are here about at this 
time.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to 
yield 5 minutes to my friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, you are going to hear a lot of talk here today 
about chemical plant security, but let's be very clear. All of us, I 
think, in this Chamber understand the need for greater chemical plant 
security. As Mr. Lungren so eloquently stated, we have regulations in 
place, the so-called CFATS regulations, that are being implemented, and 
we should give them time to be implemented. I will get into that in 
more specificity in a few moments. But I do rise to oppose the rule 
here today.
  Mr. Austria of Ohio offered an amendment that was rejected by the 
Rules Committee that would have exempted small businesses from the 
inherently safer technologies provisions contained in the legislation 
that we are discussing today. I would like to get into that IST in just 
a moment.
  Again, we all support the need for greater chemical plant security. 
We should also note, too, that by adding drinking water and wastewater 
facilities, we will double the number of facilities that will need to 
be reviewed under the existing regulatory scheme. Actually, 4,000 of 
the 6,000 security vulnerability assessments have not yet been reviewed 
by the Department of Homeland Security, currently. Adding IST will 
complicate this thing to a much greater extent.
  People who know a great deal about IST--``inherently safer 
technologies'' is the term--have opposed mandating it into this law. 
Congress is acting as chief engineer. We ought not to be doing that. 
But this legislation is not simply about chemical facilities. It is 
about facilities with chemicals. And what kind of facilities have 
chemicals? Well, what about hospitals, colleges, and universities? We 
have 3,630 facilities that employ 50 or fewer people who are going to 
be impacted by this. The point being is hospitals and colleges and 
universities are going to be subject to these inherently safer 
technology provisions contained in the legislation.
  Now, specifically with respect to IST, Mr. Lungren just referred to 
the gentleman Scott Berger who came before our committee previously and 
vehemently argued against mandating inherently safer technologies in 
this legislation. But I do want to focus my comments on section 2111 of 
the chemical security title, addressing the concept of IST that was 
shoehorned into this security-focused bill.
  There are similar provisions in the drinking water and wastewater 
titles, but this bill attempts to define IST, which is a catchy phrase. 
But I want to say that the concept of IST is not a new one. It's been 
around for decades as part of the environmental movement. As the 
Committee on Homeland Security prepared to tackle this bill back in 
June, I met with a number of scientists and subject matter experts. 
They consider it a conceptual framework, as Mr. Lungren said, that 
involves four basic elements: first, minimizing the use of hazardous 
substance; two, replacing a substance with a less hazardous one; three, 
using a less hazardous process; and four, simplifying the design of a 
process.
  This is not a technology. It is a concept. It is a framework. It's an 
engineering process that may or may not lead to a technology. The 
engineers are very concerned about us mandating

[[Page 26913]]

this, and here we are, Congress, filled with a lot of lawyers. I'm not 
a lawyer, but a lot of lawyers are telling them how to build a chemical 
plant. I represent a district where I have about 4,000 people who make 
a living building chemical plants, not just in this country but all 
over the world. They understand this. I'll give you an example.
  They built hydrogen plants down by refineries on the gulf coast 
because you need the hydrogen to help purify or clean the air as it 
relates to sulfur emissions. It's a requirement. So you build a 
hydrogen plant down by the refinery. Substituting hydrogen for 
something else won't work. These plants were placed where they were for 
a specific reason, and the chemicals they are producing there are being 
produced for a specific reason. Let not Congress act like chief 
engineer for the government. We are about to ask the Department of 
Homeland Security to institute a means by which to police our chemical 
facilities on their implementation of a conceptual framework. Think 
about the implication of this for a second.
  DHS will be required, under threat of lawsuit by any person, any 
person that the citizen suit provisions, to fine companies $25,000 a 
day for noncompliance with a bureaucrat's idea of whether a particular 
facility has sufficiently implemented a concept. Think about that. 
During the committee's only hearing on this legislation in June, I 
inquired with Deputy Under Secretary Reitinger about how many IST 
specialists they currently have at the department. His answer was, ``I 
think the answer is none.'' Similarly, when I asked Secretary 
Napolitano about the number of IST experts currently employed at the 
Department during our budget hearing earlier this year, she, too, 
indicated zero.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I recognize the gentleman for an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. DENT. I would also be remiss if I didn't mention the response of 
Sue Armstrong, director of the office responsible for implementing 
these requirements, when questioned on this topic. When I asked exactly 
what IST was, she demurred, stating, ``There is enough debate in 
industry and academia that I can't take a position on that very 
topic.'' Yet this bill not only asks her to do so but requires her, 
under threat of lawsuit, and saddles hundreds of facilities with the 
costs of the decision.
  So, in closing, I just wanted to make this point once and for all 
that, you know, with unemployment rates approaching 10 percent, this 
legislation will imperil many jobs of people who make things, who make 
chemicals. I think perhaps the intent of some people proposing this 
legislation is simply that they would rather not have these chemicals 
be made in this country, that they be made elsewhere. This legislation 
will have the effect of making it more difficult to produce chemicals 
that we need in this country. They will be produced elsewhere.
  I urge the rejection of this rule. We all support greater chemical 
plant security, but this is not the way to do it, and this will 
certainly cost jobs throughout America at this time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished 
chairman of this committee to correct a few of the inaccuracies that my 
distinguished colleague, Mr. Dent, offered. One that I heard, the 
Department of Homeland Security has a responsibility of regulating the 
matter under our consideration and not the Environmental Protection 
Agency.
  I yield to Mr. Thompson such time as he may consume.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Thank you very much. I appreciate the 
gentleman yielding the time.
  Mr. Dent, as you know, is a member of the committee. I thank the 
Rules Committee for being so generous in allowing Mr. Dent to have two 
of the amendments that we'll consider later in the debate.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the administration 
supports this bill. It is absolutely clear that they do. The other 
issue is the reference to jobs. Well, we've been doing security at 
chemical plants since 2007. There is no data that says that that 
security risk has created a loss in jobs.

                              {time}  1115

  All we are doing is codifying what the Department is already doing. 
To say that it's anti-jobs is just totally inaccurate.
  The other issue is, my colleague, Mr. Dent, as you know, this is our 
second time having this bill brought before us. Mr. Dent supported the 
bill the first time. Now he is against it. I guess you could say he was 
for it before he was against it. But, clearly, what I am supporting is 
the fact that the Department looked at several thousand facilities.
  Mr. DENT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I just wanted to point out that the legislation we are considering 
today is very different from the legislation that the committee 
considered a couple years ago. There are civil lawsuit provisions, 
civil suit provisions in here that are very, very different in this 
legislation than the bill we considered a couple of years ago.
  The IST provisions have not been changed, but there are other 
differences in the legislation as well. This is not comparing apples to 
apples. These are very different bills, and there are a lot of reasons 
to oppose this bill. I just wanted to correct the record about my 
position on this bill and the previous bill.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Since the gentleman raised the question, 
the civil lawsuit provision has changed in this bill. I would suggest, 
Mr. Dent, if you look at it, a plant cannot get sued under this 
particular legislation. A citizen can't bring lawsuit against a plant. 
We did change it. We heard you. So we have changed it. That's why I 
think between the rule and the ultimate vote, if you read the bill, we 
have made the changes.
  In addition to that, let me say that hospitals, all those other 
entities, Mr. Speaker, they have been considered in the DHS review. DHS 
has determined that there are only 6,000 facilities that require this 
kind of scrutiny. So it might be hospitals, it might be anything, but 
they are already doing it. This is nothing new. It's not adding any, 
and it's not taking any jobs from small business.
  Let me say this bill also requires that DHS assess potential impacts 
on small business. It's not taking jobs. They have to first decide if 
it's harmful. If it is, then we put in this program monies to help 
small business improve their security. It's not an undue requirement 
for them. I want to make very clear; this bill does not hurt small 
business. It provides monies to support any vulnerability that DHS 
might find at a small business. It does not require them to fund that 
improvement on its own.
  It's an effort to get risk tied to threat and vulnerability. That's 
how we do it. The first piece of legislation we carried in the 110th 
was a bill addressing risk. But that risk has to be decided based on 
certain metrics. Those metrics are threats and vulnerabilities.
  Regardless of what you might hear, this bill does not do away with 
jobs. It is small business friendly. Because if there is a 
vulnerability, a vulnerability is a risk, Mr. Speaker, that the 
Department determines. Nobody would want to work in an environment 
where a security risk was identified and not corrected. That's why we 
have the Department. That's why the Department, through the help of 
Congress, passed this bill in 2006. We are just doing in the CFATS 
requirement what's already established.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
my friend from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. First of all to my friend, the chairman, when you start 
involving medical hospitals, you could change medical protocols and 
that segues into health care debate and other issues.

[[Page 26914]]

  But I want to start by saying, you cannot tell me that this debate is 
about safety. You just cannot. Much of this bill is a means to an end 
to use Homeland Security regulations to force new processes and 
procedures, in refineries, chemical plants, or water facilities that 
are going to be more costly.
  Now why would we do that? In a time when we have job loss after job 
loss, why would we add more costs to this struggling economy? Because 
there's an agenda here, and the agenda is an environmental agenda 
that's been running this country since the Democrats took over.
  I want to point out the hypocrisy of this safety and security debate. 
I have been reading through the health care bill, and we got it Friday. 
I have family obligations and other things, so I am not through with it 
yet, but I almost am through.
  The last 300 pages deal with the Indian Health Service, which has 
never come through the committee process. Why has it not? Because it 
could not pass on its own.
  On page 1,785, I want to read something. So don't tell me safe 
drinking water is not a safety and security concern because in your 
health care bill, this is what you have in there:
  ``Certain capabilities are not a prerequisite. The financial and 
technical capability of an Indian Tribe, Tribal Organization, or Indian 
community to safely operate, manage, and maintain a sanitation facility 
shall not be a prerequisite to the provision or construction of 
sanitation facilities by the Secretary.''
  In other words, in our health care bill we're going to give money to 
build new water purification plants and they don't have to be trained. 
They don't have to meet any scientific categories.
  Here you are putting a burden on private water systems, on community 
water systems, municipal water plants, and you are going to exempt 
tribes from even knowing how to operate the water plant.
  This is your bill. Page 1,785. Read your bill. Unbelievable. I only 
read this last night; 1,990 pages. On page 1,785, ``The financial and 
technical capability of an Indian Tribe, Tribal Organization, or Indian 
community to safely operate''--shall not be a prerequisite; shall not.
  Although we are going to do some weird IST provisions, inherently 
safer technology, put a new burden on water technology systems, put new 
burdens on water community systems, put new burdens on rural systems, 
you're exempting tribes from even knowing how to operate the water 
plant.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend's 
passion. I don't know whether he has any Native American tribes in his 
constituency, but I do. I have Seminoles and Miccosukees in my 
constituency, and they are as proud of their ability to operate 
facilities and to do those things. As a matter of fact, quite frankly, 
both of those tribes are doing a whole whale of a lot better than a 
part of the systemic institutions that have existed in the non-Native 
American area.
  And I remind my friend that we are not here about the health care 
bill.
  I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman, who is the 
subcommittee Chair of the Homeland Security committee that has 
jurisdiction on this particular matter, Sheila Jackson-Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me explain to the 
colleagues that have gathered here in this august institution that this 
is the Homeland Security Committee, and, as the American people have 
asked us to do, we are doing our duty.
  I look forward to a vigorous debate on the health care bill, for the 
American people deserve that vigorous debate and transparency. But 
today the Homeland Security Committee is doing its job. The idea that 
we have lived in safety and security since 9/11 to a certain degree has 
been because of the diligent and vigilant work of the men and women of 
the Homeland Security Department; members, of course, of the United 
States military; and Congresspersons who have the absolute duty to 
address the question of security of this Nation.
  I would also remind my good friend that Indian tribes in sovereign 
areas have a sovereign legal distinction. We know that their structure 
is somewhat different than what we have.
  I rise to support this rule because it is a fair rule. It has allowed 
a number of amendments by our friends on the other side of the aisle, 
but this chemical security bill is not a bill that started last week. 
It started a number of years ago. It has had the jurisdictional 
oversight of several committees, including the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  As I have listened to a number of experts as the subcommittee Chair, 
we have held hearings, we have authored letters, we have requested 
briefings, and we have visited sites. I have visited a waste and water 
system site. I see the vulnerability. I see the utilization of 
chemicals that could be used or tampered with to contaminate the water 
of innocent people and innocent families and innocent children.
  At the end of each step of the way, in establishing the record for 
this legislation, we worked in a transparent and a bipartisan manner to 
ensure that the legislation was thoughtful and well balanced. We dealt 
with the farmers. Chairman Thompson worked with the farmers over a 
period of time.
  You have already heard that we have in this legislation crafted a 
response to our small businesses, the backbone of America. We have 
several Republican amendments that were adopted at markup, and I know 
that the minority staff was able to make important changes with our 
staff.
  Our door remained open. Regardless of the rhetoric that we hear 
today, this has been a process that is the obligation of Homeland 
Security to protect the American people. It is no doubt that terrorism 
has been franchised and there are numerous creative ways that 
terrorists will be looking to contaminate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady an additional minute.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished member of the 
Rules Committee and thank him for managing this bill.
  I am grateful to the Committee on Rules for specifically ruling 10 
amendments in order, five of which come from our friends on the other 
side. But this again, I want to emphasize, is a responsibility that is 
not a nonserious responsibility, because water and wastewater sites 
proliferate our Nation all over, in rural hamlets and urban centers, 
and it is necessary to look at that as a potential target of any 
terrorist, just as our rail system, just as our aviation system.
  What is our job than to provide the framework than to ensure that our 
water is secure. Working with the administration, this legislation 
gives regulatory authority over chemical facilities for DHS while 
giving EPA a lead role.
  I look forward to the passage of this legislation. Why? Because the 
American people send us here to do our job, and our job is to provide 
for the security of the American people. I am grateful that over a 
period of time we have protected small businesses, we are concerned 
about water and wastewater facilities, chemical facilities, and we will 
be securing this Nation by pairing this rule and this bill on chemical 
security.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the rule for H.R. 
2868 and the underlying bill.
  The underlying legislation reaffirms our solemn oath to keep the 
American people safe.
  The legislation improves and extends a critical DHS program.
  I have been a champion of previous iterations of this legislation and 
I am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 2868.
  By holding hearings in my Subcommittee on chemical security, 
authoring letters, and requesting briefings, I have been intimately 
involved in the implementation of this program and assessing its needs.
  At each step of the way in establishing the record for this 
legislation, we worked in a transparent, bipartisan manner to ensure 
that the legislation was thoughtful and well balanced.
  Several Republican amendments were adopted at mark-up and I know that 
Minority

[[Page 26915]]

staff was able to make important changes at the staff level.
  Regardless of the rhetoric we hear today, this legislation will be 
considered following a process of which we can all be proud.
  I am grateful to the Committee on Rules for ruling 10 amendments in 
order, 5 of which come from our friends on the other side of the aisle.
  Today's discussion will further demonstrate this process' commitment 
to fairness and transparency.
  Working with the support of the Administration, this legislation 
gives regulatory authority over chemical facilities to DHS while giving 
EPA a lead role, in consultation with DHS, over water and wastewater 
facilities.
  I look forward to the passage of H.R. 2868, which will represent the 
culmination of comprehensive and collaborative efforts to protect the 
American people while doing so in a manner that understands the sector 
being regulated.
  I support the rule for H.R. 2868 and I look forward to passage of the 
critical chemical security legislation in the underlying bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before closing, I 
will yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, just very briefly, I want to thank the 
chairlady of the subcommittee for commenting on the amendments that 
were adopted in the Homeland Security Committee on a bipartisan basis. 
Those amendments were stripped out of the bill that we are considering 
today. They are not in. So even though we had amendments in the bill 
that came out of the Homeland Security Committee, they are not here in 
this bill today.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my good friend from Rhode Island, a member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, Mr. Langevin.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule 
for H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act, and in strong 
support of the underlying bill. I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time and for all those who had a hand in bringing this legislation to 
the floor.
  This bill will help secure our chemical infrastructure from attack or 
sabotage, and I want to particularly thank Chairman Thompson for 
focusing particular attention on cyber threats to this sector.
  Securing our critical infrastructure from cyber attack cannot be an 
afterthought. The vulnerabilities to control systems and network 
infrastructure are numerous and, if ignored, could have serious 
consequences just as severe as a physical attack. This bill will 
require increased cybersecurity training, improved reporting of cyber 
attacks and a chemical facility security director who is knowledgeable 
on cyber issues, greatly increasing the opportunity to address and 
prevent cyber attacks before any damage occurs.
  Cybersecurity and cyber vulnerabilities are one of those areas that 
are not fully addressed across government to this point. We can see 
that from numerous cyber penetrations and exfiltration of data that 
clearly more needs to be done in this area. The most critical area, 
though, and the area of greatest vulnerability is critical 
infrastructure. This act today takes a major step forward in addressing 
an area that could cause widespread damage or potentially loss of life.
  This is an important piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to 
support it.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the American people 
are demanding that we have at least 72 hours on any legislation and 
every piece of legislation, to read it and study it before it is 
brought to the floor; 182 Members have signed a discharge petition to 
consider a bill that would require that.
  That is why today I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question, so we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider 
that legislation, H. Res. 554, offered by Representatives Baird and 
Culberson, requiring 72 hours on every piece of legislation before it 
is taken to a vote.
  If anyone is concerned, Mr. Speaker, that that would jeopardize the 
chemical security bill, be not concerned, because the motion I am 
making provides for separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill 
within 3 days so we can vote on the chemical security bill and then, 
once we are done, consider H. Res. 554. The American people are 
demanding that on every piece of legislation there should be 72 hours 
to study it and read it thoroughly before it is voted on.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials 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. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to 
remind my colleagues of the urgency of this legislation. This bill 
takes important steps to protect our Nation's wastewater 
infrastructure. Publicly owned treatment facilities serve more than 200 
million Americans and consist of 16,000 treatment plants, 100,000 major 
pumping stations, and 600,000 miles of sanitary sewers. Damage to these 
facilities and collection systems could result in loss of life, 
contamination of drinking water facilities, catastrophic damage to 
lakes and rivers, and long-term public health impacts.
  Also, by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to establish 
risk-based performance standards for community water systems serving 
more than 3,300 people and other exceptional water systems posing 
significant risk, the bill safeguards our Nation's drinking water 
supply and restores confidence at a time of upheaval and uncertainty.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

 Amendment to H. Res. 885 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 4. On the third legislative day after the adoption of 
     this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention 
     of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the 
     consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to require that 
     legislation and conference reports be available on the 
     Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and 
     for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the 
     Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative 
     day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order or demand for 
     division of the question, shall be considered as read and 
     shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain 
     instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of House Resolution 554.
                                  ____

       (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''

[[Page 26916]]

     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 from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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 on the resolution.
  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, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 885, if 
ordered, and motion to suspend the rules on H. Res. 868.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 180, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 856]

                               YEAS--241

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--180

     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Aderholt
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Capuano
     Gohmert
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nunes
     Rogers (MI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Speier
     Stupak

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. LoBIONDO changed his 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. The question is on the resolution.
  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, 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 233, 
nays 182, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 857]

                               YEAS--233

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bright

[[Page 26917]]


     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--182

     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Capuano
     Delahunt
     Ellsworth
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gohmert
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nunes
     Poe (TX)
     Rogers (MI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Stupak
     Towns
     Wexler


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining on the vote.

                              {time}  1208

  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.

                          ____________________