Supporting the goals and ideals of Professional Social Work Month and World Social Work Day.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 266. This resolution would recognize the important work of our Nation's social workers and support the goals and ideals of Professional Social Worker Month and World Social Worker Day.

Social work is a profession for those with a strong desire to help improve people's lives and play a valuable role in the Nation's health care system. Social workers help people function the best way they can in their environment, deal with their relationships, and solve personal and family problems.

Social workers often see clients who face life-threatening disease or social problems such as inadequate housing, unemployment, a serious illness, a disability, or substance abuse. Social workers also assist families that have serious domestic conflicts, sometimes involving a child or spousal abuse.

For example, child, family and school social workers provide social services and assistance to improve the social and psychological functioning of children and their families and to maximize the family well-being and academic functioning of children. They assist single parents, arrange adoption, or help find foster homes for neglected, abandoned or abused children.

In schools, they address problems such as teenage misbehavior and truancy and advise teachers on how they can cope with problem students. Social workers also specialize in services for senior citizens, running support groups for family caregivers or for the adult children of aging parents, advising elderly people or family members about choices in areas such as housing, transportation, and long-term care and coordination and monitoring of these services.

Through employee assistance programs, they may help workers cope with job-related pressures or with personal problems that affect the quality of their work.

Medical and public health social workers provide persons, families, and vulnerable populations with psychosocial support needed to cope with chronic, acute and terminal illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease and cancer. They also assess and treat individuals with mental illness or substance abuse, including abuse of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. They also may help plan for supportive services to ease patients' return into the community.

In my State of Tennessee, we have a long tradition of recognizing the vital role of social workers. In 2005, the Tennessee legislature, of which I was honored to serve as a member for many years, passed important legislation which required social workers to have received a B.S. or master's degree in social work from an accredited school, received a doctorate or Ph.D. in social work, or have a specialized certificate or license from the State.

As a society, we have come to trust that the people using a certain title have completed specific training to prepare them for their work in assisting the public. Thanks to this legislation, Tennessee now ensures that positions requiring the skills and training of professional social workers are filled with fully qualified professionals.

In addition, the East Tennessee State University Department of Social Work has a long and proud history of preparing the majority of social workers in the region that I represent. In addition to providing high- quality education to future social workers, the Department hosts a Social Work Career Day where students, community agencies and practitioners come together and share educational experience and information on a career in social work. Students and faculty are also involved in a number of community based interdisciplinary learning and service activities.

According to the United States Department of Labor, the need for additional social workers is expected to increase faster than the average of all other occupations through the year 2014 due to the rapidly growing elderly population which is expected to create greater demand for health and social careers. The growth in social work is expected to occur most rapidly in home health care services, assisted living and senior living communities and the school setting. In addition, there is expected to be a significant need for those social workers specializing in substance abuse.

Nearly 50 percent of the United States population, age 15 to 54, report having at least one psychiatric disorder. Both severe and persistent mental disorders, including addictions, have profound consequences for individuals, their families and society, affecting their ability to learn, to grow into healthy adults and to nurture children, to work and secure housing and to engage in other routines of living. Recognizing the prevalence of mental disorders and the cost they exact on our society, social workers provide more than 40 percent of all mental health services available to Americans, making them an integral part of our Nation's health care delivery system.

So we stand here to recognize the importance of our Nation's social workers and support the Professional Social Work Month and World Social Work Day. We also stand to encourage more young adults to seek out educational and professional opportunities as social workers where they can play a positive impact on changing people's lives.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in highlighting the contributions of social workers and to support House Resolution 266.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I do rise in opposition to this rule.

I have been here for 15 years, and this is probably one of the most egregious efforts to deny committees of jurisdiction input into this very important legislation.

We just heard from Mr. Lungren, a very distinguished Member and ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee. He stated again the partisan nature of the Rules decision. The Chair on the Republican side, the ranking member of that committee, Mr. King, indicated that there were zero amendments. Unprecedented. On the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, there were zero amendments accepted.

So I must strongly encourage that we vote against this rule. Again, in my experience, I have never heard of such an egregious abuse of minority rights or participation in the process.

Most importantly, I think that one of the amendments that we offered from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, while the manager's amendment does have some improvements in taking these important security grants from DHS, which has had difficulty in managing all their responsibilities, and we have the money going through DHS and the grants administered by the Department of Transportation, which is an improvement, it has been my experience that it is not how much money you spend, it is how you spend it. We had an amendment that offered a vast improvement, which was to conduct a needs and risk assessment on security risks relating to transit and rail, which has never been conducted.

So we are going to take $6 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money and put it through this system that I just described and not really address that money to the real threats and risks that we face. I don't think that is wise.

This weekend I spent some time in Pennsylvania. I went through a couple of towns and I saw a lot of people. I saw some tough towns in some of the rural areas traveling up there. But I saw a lot of people going to work and working hard, sending their money to Washington. They are counting on us to be good stewards of that money and to spend that money.

Our number one responsibility is the safety and security of those people, and here we are abandoning that responsibility. So they work very hard out there to send that money here and now see it not properly applied.

That is wrong, and I will oppose this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule, H. Res. 270, for the consideration of H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007.

I strongly support effective security measures for America's railroads, transit systems, and intercity buses.

But the funding authorization levels in the bill that will be brought up today are based on a phony estimate of the surface transportation security needs.

The $6 billion authorized in H.R. 1401 is based on a 2003 member survey conducted by the American Public Transportation Association.

There was no discipline to the APTA survey--anyone could ask for anything they thought they might need at any time.

Yesterday, I offered two amendments to the Rules Committee, both of which were rejected on a straight party-line vote.

The first amendment was simply a requirement that DHS and DOT determine what the security needs of the Nation's transit systems and railroads are before authorizing $6 billion in grants.

This amendment was supported by the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Yet the Rules Committee refused to allow the amendment to be considered.

I also proposed an amendment to expand the current whistleblower protection law for both the safety and security of railroad employees under the Railway Labor Act.

This effective whistleblower protection law in title 49 of the U.S. Code has been in place since 1970. This law covers the reporting of all hazardous conditions, whether related to safety or security.

Under the Railway Labor Act whistleblower protection, railroad employees are fully protected against termination, harassment or discrimination.

There is absolutely no good reason to replace this functional and effective law with new whistleblower protection requirements under the Department of Labor. Don't fix it if it isn't broken.

But this amendment, despite support from both the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, was also rejected by the Rules Committee on a party- line vote.

I strongly oppose this Rule.

The bill development was not bipartisan, and it is obvious that the development of the Rule was completely partisan.

The Democrat-led Congress's unwillingness to work with Republicans on this bill flies in the face of Speaker Pelosi's commitment to work in an open and bipartisan manner.

It's a shame that this Congress has put politics ahead of effective security for the traveling public.