Free Speech Protection Act of 2008

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Conyers for pushing this legislation and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) for sponsoring this legislation. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there is a legal presumption in most countries, even Third World countries, that if you accuse somebody of something, you have to prove it, whether civil or criminal. The burden of proof is on the accuser. But that is not so in all countries when it comes to libel and slander.

Take Great Britain, for example. It goes back to when the King ruled the day. If you criticized the King, even if you were right, off with your head. One of the reasons that we formed our own country was the idea of freedom of speech and freedom of press and that is why we put those two fundamental principles first in our Constitution. I have a pocket Constitution that most Members of Congress carry with them, and the first amendment protects the right of a free press and freedom of speech.

What has occurred, though, throughout the courts in Great Britain in a libel case, in other words somebody writes something about somebody else, if the person that is the subject matter doesn't like it, they file a lawsuit in Great Britain, and the burden is on the person who wrote the document to prove it is true. The burden is not on the accuser like it would be in the United States. That applies not only in libel cases but slander cases. And it has taken place especially in books about Islamic terrorism throughout the world.

Writers critical of Islamic terrorists are being sued by wealthy sheiks and Saudi billionaires, specifically Khalid bin Manfouz, who was accused in ``Alms for Jihad'' of financing Islamic terrorists through Muslim charities. What he did, he got mad about the Cambridge University Press, and he threatened to sue Cambridge University Press. What happened in England, which I hope never happens with our press, they got so nervous about it that they started taking all of the books off the shelves, and they started destroying the books. In fact, they sent word throughout the world, if you have this book, ``Alms For Jihad,'' destroy the book. Kind of like the burning of books during World War II under the Nazis. So the Cambridge University Press gave in because the libel laws are different than they are in the United States.

It has also occurred here in the United States with a similar book called, ``Funding Evil,'' written by Rachel Ehrenfeld. What she did was write a book in the United States, published in the United States. But some books, 23, worked their way to England. Here we go again. This author was sued in the courts of England and had the burden of proof to prove that her statements were true. Well, she filed suit against the people who sued her, once again bin Manfouz, and that lawsuit is now pending in our courts.

So our courts are hearing this matter and it is all about the freedom of speech and the freedom of press.

That is a human right. That is a universal right in this world, whether the courts in Great Britain recognize it or not. And it is important that people be free to write the truth and not suffer the consequences from it and certainly not have to prove what they say is true just because somebody objects.

This legislation is good to protect the publishers and writers in the United States that if they are sued in foreign courts, that those judgments will not be upheld unless that law, that judgment would be upheld in courts in the United States.

This is important legislation. I would like to put into the Record an article from the San Francisco Chronicle talking about this entire concept of libel tourism.

[From the San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 29, 2008]

Libel Tourism: Where Terrorism and Censorship Meet

(By Cinnamon Stillwell)

It has become popular for those with competing political

agendas to allege threats to free speech, whether real or

imagined. Yet, there is a very real threat to free speech

that has received little attention in the public sphere. It's

called libel tourism and it has become a major component in

the ideological arm of the war on terrorism.

At question is the publication of books and other writings

that seek to shed light on the financing of Islamic

terrorism. Increasingly, American authors who dare enter this

territory are finding themselves at risk of being sued for

libel in the much more plaintiff-friendly British court

system in what amounts to an attempt to censor their work on

an international level.

The latest case of libel tourism to rear its ugly head

involves the book ``Alms for Jihad,'', which was published by

Cambridge University Press in 2006. Co-written by former

State Department analyst and USAID relief coordinator for

Sudan J. Millard Burr and UC Santa Barbara professor emeritus

of history Robert O. Collins, ``Alms for Jihad'' delves into

the tangled web of international terrorist financing and,

chiefly, the misuse of Muslim charities for such purposes.

Among those the book fingers for involvement is Saudi

billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, the former chairman of Saudi

Arabia's largest bank, National Commercial Bank. Bin Mahfouz

has come under similar scrutiny on previous occasions,

including being named a defendant in a lawsuit filed by

family members of victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

He even has a section of his Web site devoted to trying to

refute such charges.

With this in mind, Cambridge University Press lawyers

looked over the manuscript for ``Alms for Jihad'' carefully

before giving it the go-ahead. According to Collins, the

passages involving bin Mahfouz are, in fact, quite

``trivial'' compared to the wealth of information contained

in the book on how such funds are used to finance conflicts

around the globe.

Yet, it is bin Mahfouz's inclusion in ``Alms for Jihad''

that has proven to be the most problematic, for he soon

threatened Cambridge University Press with a libel lawsuit.

Before the suit could commence, Cambridge University Press

capitulated and announced in July that not only was it taking

the unprecedented step of pulping all unsold copies of ``Alms

for Jihad,'' but it was asking libraries all over the world

to remove the book from their shelves. Cambridge University

Press issued a formal apology to bin Mahfouz and posted a

public apology at its Web site. It also agreed to pay his

legal costs and unspecified damages, which, according to bin

Mahfouz, are to be donated to UNICEF.

Authors Burr and Collins, however, did not take part in the

apology, nor were they a party to the settlement, and they

continue to stand by their scholarship. As Collins put it,

``I'm not going to recant on something just from the threat

of a billionaire Saudi sheik . . . I think I'm a damn good

historian.'' The authors were aware that Cambridge University

Press's decision was based not so much on a lack of

confidence in the book as on a fear of incurring costly legal

expenses and getting involved in a lengthy trial. The British

court system is known as a welcoming environment for ``libel

tourists'' such as bin Mahfouz. The Weekly Standard

elaborates: ``Bin Mahfouz has a habit of using the English

tort regime to squelch any unwanted discussion of his record.

In America, the burden of proof in a libel suit lies with the

plaintiff. In Britain, it lies with the defendant, which can

make it terribly difficult and expensive to ward off a

defamation charge, even if the balance of evidence supports

the defendant.''

Bin Mahfouz has indeed availed himself of the British court

system on many occasions, having either sued or threatened

suit against Americans and others at least 36 times since

2002, according to Rachel Ehrenfeld, author and director of

the American Center for Democracy.

Ehrenfeld should know, as her own book, ``Funding Evil: How

Terrorism is Financed--And How to Stop It,'' was also

targeted by bin Mahfouz through the British court system. Bin

Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld for libel in 2004, soon after her

book's publication in the United States, even though only 23

copies ever made it to the United Kingdom.

Ehrenfeld would not, as she put it in the New York Post,

``acknowledge a British court's jurisdiction over a book

published here'' and a trial was never held, but the court

ruled in favor of bin Mahfouz by default. It also awarded bin

Mahfouz $225,913 in damages and ordered Ehrenfeld to

apologize publicly and to destroy all unsold copies of the

book.

Instead, Ehrenfeld chose to fight back. No doubt aware of

the larger implications at work, she took her case to the

United States and, giving bin Mahfouz a taste of his own

medicine, sued him in a New York federal court on the basis

that ``his English default judgment is unenforceable in the

United States and repugnant to the First Amendment.''

Civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate has described her

case as ``one of the most important First Amendment cases in

the past 25 years'' and sure enough, in June of this year,

the Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that it deserved a

hearing. The court will begin hearing arguments this fall in

what could turn out to be a pivotal case involving the clash

between First Amendment rights and foreign libel rulings.

Ehrenfeld may indeed have a strong case. She maintains that

bin Mahfouz has a long history of involvement in terrorist

financing. The bulk of it, she wrote in 2005, revolves around

the now-defunct Muwafaq (Blessed Relief) Foundation, which

was founded by bin Mahfouz and ``identified by the U.S.

Treasury Department as providing logistical and financial

support to al Qaeda, HAMAS, and the Abu Sayyaf

organizations.'' Ehrenfeld recapped her concerns more

recently: ``The data in both Alms for Jihad and Funding

Evil is all well-documented by the media and the U.S.

Congress, courts, Treasury Department and other official

statements. Further corroboration comes from French

intelligence officials at the General Directorate of

External Security (DGSE), as reported in the French daily,

Le Monde. For example, the DGSE reported that, in 1998, it

knew bin Mahfouz to be an architect of the banking scheme

built to benefit Osama bin Laden, and that both U.S. and

British intelligence services knew it, too.''

For this reason, and also to create a precedent, Ehrenfeld

has been the only defendant so far not to settle with bin

Mahfouz. And she refuses to ``acknowledge the British Court

and its ruling'' to this day.

Ehrenfeld's success thus far countering bin Mahfouz mirrors

other indications that libel tourism may be backfiring. The

largely Internet-based furor over the attempt to squelch

``Alms for Jihad'' and what is widely seen as Cambridge

University Press' cave-in has caused the book's price to

skyrocket. A copy of the book sold on eBay this month for

$538. As noted at the blog Hot Air, ``By suing publisher

Cambridge University Press into submission, Khalid bin

Mahfouz has turned an obscure scholarly book on the financial

workings of terrorism into a prized, rare book.''

In addition, the American Library Association is rising to

the occasion. Rather than going along with the Cambridge

University Press settlement stipulation that American

libraries remove ``Alms for Jihad'' from their shelves, the

American Library Association's Office for Intellectual

Freedom issued the following statement earlier this month:

``Unless there is an order from a U.S. court, the British

settlement is unenforceable in the United States, and

libraries are under no legal obligation to return or destroy

the book. Libraries are considered to hold title to the

individual copy or copies, and it is the library's property

to do with as it pleases. Given the intense interest in the

book, and the desire of readers to learn about the

controversy first hand, we recommend that U.S. libraries keep

the book available for their users.''

Reportedly, Collins and Burr got the publishing rights to

the book back from Cambridge University Press and, according

to the Library Journal, have had ``several offers from U.S.

publishers.'' It appears the ``Alms for Jihad'' saga is far

from over and free speech may yet win the day.

In another victory for free speech, as well as an

instructive example of what such libel suits look like when

attempted in the United States, a recent case involving Yale

University Press proves useful. It involved a book written by

Matthew Levitt, the director of the Stein Program on

Terrorism, Intelligence and Policy at the Washington

Institute for Near East Policy, titled ``Hamas: Politics,

Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad.''

In his book, Levitt disputes the notion, popular among

Hamas apologists, that the group's terrorist and social

service pursuits can be seen as separate. In the process, he

implicates the Dallas charity KinderUSA, which allegedly

raises funds for Palestinian children, in terrorist

financing. The group has personnel connections to the now-

closed Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which

has been under investigation by federal authorities for

funding Hamas. KinderUSA has also come under investigation

and as a result, in 2005 suspended operations temporarily.

All of this information is available to the public and the

book was thoroughly fact-checked prior to publication.

Levitt, who is a witness in the ongoing trial of the Holy

Land Foundation, explained further that he ``conducted three

years of careful research for Hamas, and the book was the

subject of academic peer review.''

But this didn't stop KinderUSA and the chair of its board,

Dr. Laila AI-Marayati, from filing a libel suit in California

in April against Levitt, Yale University Press, and the

Washington Institute for Near East Policy. They disputed a

particular passage from the book, as well as alleging that

Yale University Press did not subject it to fact-checking.

But, in filing the suit in California, they were faced with a

formidable challenge: the state's anti-SLAPP statute.

According to Inside Higher Education: ``KinderUSA asked the

court for an injunction on its request that distribution of

the book be halted, and also sought $500,000 in damages. But

in July, Yale raised the stakes by filing what is known as an

``anti-SLAPP suit'' motion, seeking to quash the libel suit

and to receive legal fees. SLAPP is an acronym for

``strategic lawsuit against public participation,'' a

category of lawsuit viewed as an attempt not to win in court,

but to harass a nonprofit group or publication that is

raising issues of public concern. The fear of those sued is

that groups with more money can tie them up in court in ways

that would discourage them from exercising their rights to

free speech. Anti-SLAPP statutes, such as the one in

California with which Yale responded, are tools created in

some states to counter such suits.''

Not only did Yale University Press stand by its author,

but, in the end, its aggressive response to KinderUSA paid

off. It was announced this month that the libel suit has been

dropped and no changes to the book or payments to the

plaintiffs will be forthcoming. KinderUSA claims that it

dropped the suit because of the costs involved, but it's more

likely it felt that it could not win. If the case had been

brought in the United Kingdom, the outcome could have been

far different.

This is why Americans must be vigilant about protecting

their free speech rights, even when the threats at hand do

not fit into the politically correct playbook. Certainly not

all Muslim charities and Saudi businessmen are involved in

financing terrorism, but the overwhelming amount of evidence

pointing to existing links deserves attention, as do the

fervent attempts by interested parties to silence those

trying to bring the truth to light. It is crucial that they

not succeed.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 6146, legislation that will prohibit the recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments based upon a publication that concerns a public figure or a matter of public concern. This bill, like legislation (Free Speech Protection Act) that I introduced earlier this year attempts to deal with the issue of ``libel tourism'' that threatens not only Americans' First Amendment freedom of speech but also their ability to inform the general public about existential threats; namely, who are the terrorists and who are their supporters. As the Ranking Member on the House Committee on Homeland Security I am regularly briefed on dangers to the homeland and know how grave these threats are. We cannot allow foreigners the opportunity to muzzle Americans for speaking the truth about these dangers!

Libel tourism is a recent phenomenon in which certain individuals are obstructing the free expression rights of Americans (and the vital interest of the American people) by seeking out foreign jurisdictions (``libel shopping'') that do not provide the full extent of free-speech protection that is enshrined in our First Amendment. Some of these actions are intended not only to suppress the free speech rights of journalists and others but also to intimidate publishers and other organizations from disseminating or supporting their work.

Unlike in the United States where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that the publication was not only false but also malicious, in countries such as the United Kingdom it is the reverse: The defendant is required to appear in court and prove what he has written was 100 percent factual. And some of the ``tourists'' claims of jurisdiction are tenuous at best. In many cases, not only are none of the individuals (author, litigant, or publisher) associated with the case living in the venue of jurisdiction, but neither are the books

published there. These ``tourists'' stretch the law by claiming a handful of copies of the book were purchased over the internet in that country. The author must then hire an attorney, travel to the foreign country, and defend himself or likely face a default judgment against him. Consequences include (but are not limited to) fines, public apologies, pulping of books, and the removal of them from bookstores and libraries.

We cannot change nor would we want to change other countries' (libel) laws. We must respect their rule of law as they ought to respect ours. However, we cannot allow foreign citizens to exploit these courts to shield personal reputations when it directly contradicts Americans' First Amendment protected speech, especially when the subject matter is of such grave importance as terrorism and those who finance it. We rely on a variety of sources for intelligence and we cannot allow foreign litigants and foreign courts to tell us who can write and who can publish what. That is a dangerous path we do not want to follow.

Furthermore, the governments and courts of some foreign countries have failed to curtail this practice, permitting lawsuits filed by persons who are often not citizens of those countries, under circumstances where there is often little or no basis for jurisdiction over the Americans against whom such suits are brought.

Some of the plaintiffs bringing such suits are intentionally and strategically refraining from filing their suits in the United States, even though the speech at issue was published in the United States, to avoid the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence and frustrate the protections it affords Americans.

But this issue is also very troubling for the authors, journalists, and even publishers who attempt to write on these subjects. Already we have seen examples of authors having difficulty getting their articles or books published because of publishing houses' fear of being sued overseas. Some companies have even gone as far as to pay large settlements to avoid having to go to court. So not only are authors being injured for the works they have previously written but they and their publishers are being intimidated from writing future works on these important topics. The free expression and publication by journalists, academics, commentators, experts, and others of the information they uncover and develop through research and study is essential to the formation of sound public policy and thus to the security of Americans.

The Americans against whom such suits are brought must consequently endure the prohibitive expense, inconvenience, and anxiety attendant to being sued in foreign courts for conduct that is protected by the First Amendment, or decline to answer such suits and risk the entry of costly default judgments that may be executed in countries other than the United States where those individuals travel or own property.

In turn, the American people are suffering concrete and profound harm because they, their representatives, and other government policy-makers rely on the free expression of information, ideas and opinions developed by responsible journalists, academics, commentators, experts, and others for the formulation of sound public policy, including national security policy.

Having said that, the United States respects the sovereign right of other countries to enact their own laws regarding speech, and seeks only to protect the First Amendment rights of Americans in connection with speech that occurs, in whole or part, in the United States.

That is why earlier this year I introduced the Free Speech Protection Act, H.R. 5814, to defend U.S. persons who are sued for defamation in foreign courts. This legislation allows U.S. persons to bring a Federal cause of action against any person bringing a foreign libel suit if the writing does not constitute defamation under U.S. law. It would also bar enforcement of foreign libel judgments and provide other appropriate injunctive relief by U.S. courts if a cause of action is established. H.R. 5814 would award damages to the U.S. person who brought the action in the amount of the foreign judgment, the costs related to the foreign lawsuit, and the harm caused due to the decreased opportunities to publish, conduct research, or generate funding. Furthermore, it would award treble damages if the person bringing the foreign lawsuit intentionally engaged in a scheme to suppress First Amendment rights. It allows for the expedited discovery if the court determines that the speech at issue in the foreign defamation action is protected by the First Amendment. Finally, nothing in this legislation would limit the rights of foreign litigants who bring good faith defamation actions to prevail against journalists and others who have failed to adhere to standards of professionalism by publishing false information maliciously or recklessly. The Free Speech Protection Act does, however, attempt to discourage those foreign libel suits that aim to intimidate, threaten, and restrict the freedom of speech of Americans. I am proud to have worked closely with Senators. Arlen Specter and Joe Lieberman who have introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

I support the passage of H.R. 6146, a Federal version of New York State's ``Rachel's Law,'' which will provide protection to U.S. authors, journalists, and publishers against the domestic enforcement of defamation judgments from foreign countries with less free speech protections than the U.S. The protection of free speech enshrined in the First Amendment is one of America's most cherished rights, and it is unacceptable that First Amendment rights of Americans can be potentially undermined or restricted by foreign court judgments based on lower free speech standards.

The impetus for a Federal ``Rachel's Law'' is the case of Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, a U.S. citizen and Director of the American Center for Democracy. Dr. Ehrenfeld's 2003 book, ``Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It,'' which was published solely in the United States by a U.S. publisher, alleged that a Saudi Arabian subject and his family financially supported al Qaeda in the years preceding the attacks of September 11. He sued Dr. Ehrenfeld for libel in England though because under English law, it is not necessary for a libel plaintiff to prove falsity or actual malice as is required in the U.S. After the English court entered a judgment against Dr. Ehrenfeld, she sought to shield herself with a declaration from both Federal and State courts that her book did not create liability under American law, but jurisdictional barriers prevented both the Federal and New York State courts from acting. Reacting to this problem, the Governor of New York, on May 1, 2008, signed into law the ``Libel Terrorism Protection Act'', commonly known as ``Rachel's Law.''

I support H.R. 6146 because it prohibits U.S. (domestic) courts from enforcing these outrageous defamation suits. We must stand up to the terrorists and their financers, supporters, and sympathizers. However, this bill does not go far enough nor does it resolve the problem of ``libel tourism.'' Foreign litigants will still be allowed to file these libel suits overseas without the worry of being countersued here in the U.S. If this bill passes, they will never see a dime of those hefty judgments they were awarded, but that's not what they are after in the first place. They want the default judgment. They want the publicity. They want the apology. And they want these books to disappear. But most of all they want to intimidate. They want to make sure people are afraid of writing anything about them. And it's working. Journalists are even afraid of writing about this legislation! That's their goal here. Not to collect the money. Many of them are already wealthy, and if they really cared about collecting a monetary judgment they would file these suits in the U.S. in the first place. They choose not to, however, because they know they would never win in a U.S. court.

Finally, I support H.R. 6146 because it is a first step in the right direction. I am a cosponsor of this bill and thank Representatives Steve Cohen and Darrell Issa for introducing it. H.R. 6146 is an important and necessary part of any ``libel tourism'' bill. Unfortunately, it doesn't put an end to the problem and doesn't provide any deterrence from these suits being filed in the first place. But it is my hope that during the 111th Congress we can have hearings on this important issue and that Representatives Cohen and Issa, along with Senators Specter and Lieberman and I, can sit down together and craft a bill that we can all agree on and that will solve this problem once and for all.

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. Speaker, yielding myself such time as I may consume before yielding to my good friend from New York, it is important to note when, again, seemingly small but significant precedents are changed. This is a precedent change. We have not seen it for many, many years. With regard to the motions to recommit, what we have seen in this Congress is that they often have been passing. But that is more precisely because the membership, when finding out the merits of the motions to recommit on a bipartisan basis have been supporting them.

But, no, it is of concern, and it is important to note that if there is a step being taken, as it seems that it is being taken, to limit that very important, often sole procedural remedy available to the minority which is the motion to recommit, that it is very disturbing.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished friend from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. 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. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

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. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague from California, Mr. Lungren.

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make in order two amendments Mr. Dent of Pennsylvania offered last night at the Rules Committee. Mr. Dent, a member of the Homeland Security Committee, testified on behalf of his amendments, but the Democratic majority of the Rules Committee all voted against making these important amendments in order.

These amendments would establish a screening program for individuals who are arriving at or departing from the U.S. through covered transportation, namely, by passenger rail and bus. His amendments would also require carriers who provide transportation to people entering the U.S. to provide passenger information to Customs and Border Protection.

Mr. Dent's amendments would implement one of the key 9/11 Commission recommendations, which stated: ``Information systems able to detect potential terrorist indicators should be used at primary border inspection lines, in immigration services offices, and in intelligence and enforcement units.''

During the recent campaign, the Democrats pledged to enact all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. By not allowing Mr. Dent's amendments, they are ignoring a loophole for the terrorists to exploit and are reneging on a promise they made to the American people to protect them.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record a copy of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 270 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. 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.

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.

Perhaps most importantly, this bill pays for these improvements and authorizes $7.3 billion in security enhancements to make America safer.

Mr. Speaker, the Government Accountability Office has determined that the United States must provide much more leadership and guidance in constructing a rail and security transit plan. This bill answers that challenge and fills the void left by the administration's failure to secure all modes of transportation in this country.

It, just like the rule, is worthy of the support of this body. I urge my colleagues to support both.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. 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. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, my good friend from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. 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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.