Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1401) to improve the security of railroads, public transportation, and over-the-road buses in the United States, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the distinguished chairman of the committee and thank the ranking member and the members of the committee who worked so diligently. Let me specifically thank the members of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Critical Infrastructure. Each and every one of them worked tirelessly to contribute to this bill, along with members of the full committee.

This has been a very tough mountain to climb. We waited for 4 years to travel through a number of legislative initiatives, and finally we reached a point where we are able to bring to the floor the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007.

Let me thank the chairperson, Mr. Thompson, for his vigorous leadership and his concern, so much so that he organized and made sure that the full Homeland Security Committee was organized to have a subcommittee that would focus on transit systems which would include over-the-road buses, trucking and a number of other important transit systems or transportation systems that heretofore had not been covered.

Let me also thank him for the inclusion of the aspect of critical infrastructure because, interestingly enough, when you look at transportation systems, critical infrastructure plays into the holistic approach to security. So this bill I think has a holistic approach to ensuring that we have security, and it has as a backdrop the tragedies of Madrid and the tragedies, of course, of London.

So what we do is, how do we fix the problems. I think we have a hands-on approach, but a balanced approach, between the Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security. We increase the number of inspectors to 600. We require a national rail and public transportation security plan. For the first time in the history of this Nation, we will clarify the roles and responsibilities of Federal, State and local agencies, so that if you have a local transit agency, they will have the opportunity to develop a transit security system. I would encourage my colleagues as this bill makes its way that we focus on local jurisdictions having security plans.

It will strengthen intelligence sharing. One of the Achilles heels of 9/11 was that we did not share intelligence. We will do that as relates to transportation systems.

Then we will lay out plans for public outreach and public education initiatives. It will include strategies and time lines for research and develop. We have expanded, of course, this whole idea of security to diverse groups that have not heretofore had the opportunity, minority institutions, minority contractors and women-owned businesses that can become engaged.

And, yes, our committee had a hearing on the tension, but also the separation, between the hiring of individuals and the requirements of railroad companies versus the requirements of the Department of Homeland Security, so we wouldn't use security as a reason for terminating individuals.

This bill has a positive end to it. We will bring rail security to America, Mr.

Chairman. I am proud to have been the subcommittee Chair on this and proud of this committee. I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.

As the Chairwoman for the Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection, we have held numerous vital hearings on the topic of transportation security. These hearings were attended by the Subcommittee's Ranking Member, Mr. Lungren from California, and other Committee Members from both parties.

Over the past couple of months, the Committee on Homeland Security has heard testimony on the important issue of rail, mass transit, and over-the-road bus security. After hearing the experts' testimony, I, like many Americans, am appalled by the failure to provide ongoing and continuous oversight in transportation security--specifically, in the areas of rail and mass transit.

Throughout the world, mass transit systems have long been targets of terrorist attacks. Algerian extremists set off bombs on the subways of Paris in 1995 and 1996; the Irish Republican Army waged a long-running terrorist campaign against the London Underground; Palestinian terrorists have carried out suicide bombings on Israel's buses; Chechnyan terrorists killed 40 people by bombing the Moscow subway in 2004; and, in the first terrorist use of a chemical weapon, a Japanese cult--Aum Shinrykyo--released sarin gas on a Tokyo subway in 1995.

Recent events make it clear that the threat continues. On the morning of March 11th, 2004, ten explosions occurred at the height of the Madrid rush hour aboard four commuter trains. On July 7, 2005, during the morning peak travel hours, three separate explosions ripped through the London Underground and a fourth explosion occurred on a double- decker bus. These four explosions, the result of coordinated suicide- bombings by British-born Islamic extremists, claimed the lives of 56 people and seriously injured hundreds more. Two weeks later, on July 21, 2005, another group of terrorists unsuccessfully attempted to attack London's mass transit system again. On July 11th, 2006 a series of seven bomb blasts against the Suburban Railway in Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay), capital city of the Indian state of Maharashtra and India's financial capital resulted in 207 lost lives and over 700 injured.

The recent attacks serve as a harsh reminder of mass transit and rail security vulnerabilities. Both mass transit and rail systems are public and used by millions of people daily. Because of their size, openness, and highly networked character, there are no obvious checkpoints, like those at airports, to inspect passengers and parcels. Passengers are strangers, promising attackers anonymity and easy escape.

And attacks on mass transit--the circulatory systems of urban areas-- can cause widespread fear, severely disrupt economic activity, kill or injure large numbers of people, and alter our way of life. An attack on our freight rail, either the material being transported (such as hazardous materials, or vital commodities), or merely the system itself, could severely impact our national economy.

As a result, both mass transit and rail systems are attractive targets. Since September 11, 2001, according to the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, mass transit systems have been the target of more than 145 terrorist attacks.

Due to their existence in high-population, high-risk urban areas, mass transit systems are also inevitably affected by any terrorist attack that may occur within that jurisdiction--regardless of whether the transit system was the target of the attack. For example, during September 11, 2001, two of New York City's busiest transit stations were lost and considerable damage occurred to the tunnel structures, endangering hundreds of lives underground. Great care was required to evacuate passengers, locate and rescue trapped transit cars, and communicate instructions. The damage in New York City was so great that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Congress appropriated $1.8 billion to rebuild the subway infrastructure that was damaged in the attacks. I am hopeful that through this legislation we can prevent such attacks rather than face the tragic consequences of 9/11 again.

I refuse to sit idly by and allow another 9/11 or Madrid, London, or Mumbai bombing to disrupt our Nation and its critical infrastructure--it is with that conviction that I seek to address these issues. The recent world events should serve as a wake-up call that we must do more to secure our transportation systems and we must act quickly and responsibly.I firmly believe that the legislation before us today will take an important step in securing our transportation systems.

Pursuant to the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 (ATSA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is responsible for the security of all modes of transportation including rail and mass transit. TSA, however, has focused the majority of its resources and assets on aviation security in the past five years.

Congress, recognizing TSA's lack of progress in developing a security strategy for all modes of transportation, mandated the development of a National Strategy for Transportation Security in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (``9/11 Act''). This strategy, although due April 1, 2005, was not finalized by TSA until September 2005. Moreover, the document provided by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not meet the requirements set out by Congress, especially with regards to rail and mass transit security. Furthermore, subsequent congressionally mandated updates were also not met by TSA, resulting in the 9/11 Discourse Project giving the TSA a C- for its efforts.

TSA's failure to assume a leadership position on surface transportation security is plainly evident. It is time that we take action and leadership to help protect the more than 11.3 million passengers in 35 metropolitan areas and 22 states who use commuter, heavy, or light rail each weekday. There must be substantial penalties for those who do not follow the security plans, vulnerability assessments, and regulations set out in this legislation.

This bill provides the framework by which to create an ongoing and constant oversight process for our overlooked modes of transportation. Working with other federal government agencies, the Department of Homeland Security will monitor and assess the progress made by transportation providers and their workforces in implementing the security training mandated for transportation workers in this bill. I am also pleased that I was able to ensure in this bill that DHS would leverage its work in regards to security training with the safety training which has already been developed in universities and institutions of higher learning.

These institutions with existing transportation programs will also have an opportunity to participate in the National Transportation Center of Excellence Consortium. These programs have spent numerous years developing solutions for transportation vulnerabilities and this knowledge should be employed. I am especially pleased that minority serving institutions will play an active role in contributing to improving our transportation security.

Furthermore, neighborhood and local participation through programs such as Citizen Corps exercises is also critically important in facilitating security exercises. The millions of men and women who live next to railroad tracks and subway stations will be directly impacted if there is an attack, and they should be active and knowledgeable participants in preparing for such a tragic incident.

Furthermore, I am pleased that I was able to work with Chairman Thompson and Chairman Oberstar on the issue of rail security grants for security improvements to new start rail projects and systems. New start rail projects throughout the country will be more secure because we were able to incorporate language ensuring that rail security grants are used for security plans for new start rail projects which have not become operational yet.

Mr. Chairman, I also worked to ensure that this bill will authorize some much needed human resources to the Transportation Security Administration in the form of 600 additional rail security officers and inspectors. TSA will need additional manpower to meet the mandates set out in this legislation, such as approving of security plans and implementing training programs for covered transportation workers. The 100 additional officers I was able to secure will ensure that TSA is equipped to live up to its new mission.

This bill also authorizes more than $5.1 billion for the next four years, for rail, mass transit, and bus security. The funds called for in this bill should be based on risk and the priorities established by DHS. With this bill--for the first time--we will have comprehensive vulnerability assessments and security plans for rail, mass transit and buses.

I find it completely appalling that this Administration seems to be unwilling to act on rail and mass transit security until we are faced with another disaster. I shudder to think that if the Washington, DC or New York subway systems were attacked, and mass casualties resulted, that we would be thinking that more could have been done to prevent such a tragedy. We will be desperately trying to figure out how to prepare for a disaster that has already happened and holding hearing after hearing to find out where we dropped the ball. The time to prepare is now, and I am committed to securing our nation's rail and mass transit system expeditiously. We have been blessed thus far that our rail and public transportation systems have not been attacked. We should make our best efforts to ensure that we do not overlook this blessing.

From the terrorist attacks that have occurred around the world, we know that terrorists will

target our rail and public transportation systems. Despite this admonition, the agency created and funded by Congress to address the issue of transportation security has consistently dropped the ball when it comes to rail and public transportation. We cannot let the lessons of Madrid, London, and Mumbai go unheeded. For the sake of the millions of Americans who use our rail and mass transit systems every day to go to work, school, and visit friends and family, we have to take charge on this security risk.

What we are witnessing with the Transportation Security Administration is a lack of complete accountability. The Transportation Security Administration is not being held fully accountable for protecting our transportation systems and this must change. I acknowledge and appreciate the time that TSA Administrator Kip Hawley has taken to participate in this important hearing. However, we cannot tolerate the TSA's past inaction on this issue to continue for a moment longer.

While it is understandable that we would put focus on the safety of air travel, given the events of 9/11, what cannot be justified is the completely lopsided attention by the Department to aviation security at the expense of rail and mass transit security. I am pleased that this Congress and Chairman Thompson have decided to do what this Administration has thus far proved unwilling to do. That is, to provide a comprehensive framework to secure this nation's rail and public transportation systems.

We owe it to the public to safeguard the modes of transportation that allow them to carry on with their lives and drive this economy. Millions of men and women ride our nation's rail and public transportation systems every day; we owe it to them to ensure that they can do so safely and securely. I hope that through today's hearing and our continued efforts on the issue of rail and mass transit security, we can resolve the asymmetric way in which we treat aviation versus rail security and resolve the substantial threat posed by inadequate security on our rail and mass transit system.

I want to thank my colleagues for all of their hard work and dedication to these important issues, but I also want to emphasize that our job is not complete until we pass this bill and send it to the President. I eagerly look forward to the expeditious enactment of this critical legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to indicate that the committee majority supports Mr. Arcuri's very thoughtful method to protect those individuals along those very difficult byways dealing with these particular power lines.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

First of all, the gentleman knows that we look forward in our committee to work on this issue dealing with trucks. I would say that the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee's amendment does not push it off to trucks. It only wants to reduce chemicals.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition. I am not opposed, but I would claim the time.

I thank the distinguished gentleman.

I believe this is a thoughtful amendment. The committee believes this adds to the legislation on the floor. We should look into security practices used by other countries that have experience with attacks on rail and mass transit systems.

This timeframe, the month of March, sadly commemorates the tragedy in Madrid. Certainly we are well aware of the London train bombings. Their insight, their recovery, their instructions would be very important. This study should include an evaluation of practices such as covert testing, security measures built into infrastructure and random searches of passengers and baggage.

When GAO testified before our committee, we learned that, while we share many rail security practices with other countries such as customer awareness, canine teams, limited passenger and baggage screening and technology upgrades, there were many practices that we haven't fully vetted. It makes sense to learn what we can from our neighbors who have already done a lot of work in this area.

I know that this is a tough challenge. This bill, I believe, answers a lot of the concerns about the massiveness of rail travel and passenger travel and all that goes into securing that particular travel.

Looking at what our neighbors are doing and what other countries are doing, Mr. Castle, I think it provides us an added road map for a complicated process which really impacts certain areas of our country more so than others. The Northeast corridor, of course, deserves our fullest measure of support when it comes to passenger travel for the numbers of systems that are here.

I ask my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I simply ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful contribution to this bill.

I support Mr. Castle's amendment.

We should look into security practices used by other countries that have experience with terrorist attacks on rail and mass transits systems.

This study should include an evaluation of practices such as covert testing, security measures built into infrastructure, and random searches of passengers and baggage.

When GAO testified before our committee, we learned that while we share many rail security practices with other countries, such as customer awareness, canine teams, limited passenger and baggage screening, and technology upgrades, there were many practices that we haven't fully vetted.

It makes sense to learn what we can from our neighbors who have already done a lot of work in this area.

I ask that my colleagues support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a baffling, puzzling amendment. I ask the question of my colleagues, what is one life worth? What is one life worth that travels along the Nation's transit corridors, the intense Northeast corridor that deals with Amtrak long distance routes, 2 million people?

The Sessions amendment would prohibit any grant funds appropriated pursuant to this Act to be used by Amtrak for making necessary safety or security improvements along 10 Amtrak routes, with the exceptions of some of those in some of the more intense areas of New York, Baltimore and Union Station. Many of these routes provide central transportation services to rural areas. Some of them enabled Amtrak to bring water and food to the people of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina and to hurricane victims.

The question is, what is one life worth that is using this system? What is our responsibility as Members of the United States Congress and the Homeland Security Committee?

I believe this is both a bad amendment but a puzzling amendment, and I would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment so that we can truly have a rail security bill that secures all of the transit system that needs that coverage.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Let me just simply say to the gentleman, so that I will clarify any suggestion of my confusion, we have 3.5 million passengers who are riding Amtrak. One of the routes the gentleman wants to eliminate is from Texas to California. I believe the gentleman is from Texas. The idea is, Mr. Chairman, to make sure we have a system that is integrated, safe; and there are security provisions to make the network safe, the network that travels to the east coast, the network that travels to California, the network that travels to the Northwest.

That is the idea of the rail bill, to ensure that we now have coverage and the opportunity for security where we previously did not, to avoid London and to avoid Madrid.

It is now my pleasure to be able to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar, for such time as he might consume.

I thank the distinguished chairman for his eloquent statement.

Let me yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Rails on the Transportation Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I will close by simply saying that we have asked the question and it has been answered: What is one life worth?

Amtrak is part of a system. You break the security of one part of the system, Mr. Chairman, you break the security of the entire system. This amendment is important for breaking that. It is not important for making this bill work.

I ask my colleagues to oppose the Sessions amendment so that the network of Amtrak will have a secure and safe system for those that travel on it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, again, let me simply say that we are speaking about an existing program. We know that throughout our security system the FBI, Customs and Border Protection, we use bomb- sniffing dogs. And this is a program that already exists. It strikes the increase in TSA's, Transportation Security Administration's, already-existing program, domestic canine breeding program that is called for in this bill.

Interestingly enough, this was added by Mr. Rogers, Mike Rogers of our committee, of Alabama. This was added in the markup because he is the ranking member on our Management and Personnel Subcommittee. He understands the need for these canines. It was accepted in a spirit of bipartisanship.

The TSA canine teams are a key part of the equation in keeping our traveling public secure, and we all support expanding this program.

I ask one person in here, when they see dogs coming to be part of the security team, how many people want to reject that canine team that is very effective in determining whether something heinous and horrific is going to act, even on this very campus in the United States Congress.

I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished subcommittee Chair on the Transportation Committee and a member of the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. DeFazio of Oregon.

Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to yield 30 seconds to the distinguished Chair of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Three years ago this month, 10 explosions shook Madrid's commuter rail systems, killing 191 people and leaving thousands wounded. As Americans, we mourned the loss felt by Spain. We wondered whether terrorists would try the same here at home. Then we waited.

The next year, suicide bombers attacked the Tube in London. Last year, it was Mumbai. Last month, it was New Delhi. Each time we watched and waited.

Mr. Chairman, the time for wondering and waiting has come and gone. Today, we act. The Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 makes clear that America simply will not wait for terrorists to attack our trains, buses and subways. We will act now to secure them.

A bipartisan bill, H.R. 1401, was passed unanimously out of the Committee on Homeland Security. This legislation goes a long way to protect our rail and mass transit systems so that we can move freely, yet securely, through our communities.

For example, it requires rail and public transportation systems to complete vulnerability assessments and security plans. It requires the Department of Homeland Security to finally develop a strategy for rail and transportation security. It strengthens intelligence and information-sharing efforts. It ensures that hardworking rail and public transportation employees are trained and on the lookout for security violations. It requires railroads to use the most secure routes to transport hazardous materials. It provides for much-needed R&D testing and technology in the rail and public transportation arena.

I am certain that bill is not without its naysayers. There are some that have and will continue to say that we can never secure these systems. I have heard many excuses from people in the past years. They say that the systems are too expensive, that the systems are too open, that we should only worry about aviation.

I say in response, if Congress does nothing and America is attacked, it will be our responsibility. We will deserve to be judged harshly for our inaction. Instead of waiting, let's do something right and protect the people we are here to serve.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I submit these two letters, correspondence between myself and Mr. Waxman, chairman of the Committee on Oversight

and Government Reform, regarding H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007.

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, March 26, 2007.

Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,

Chairman, House Committee on Homeland Security, Washington,

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the chairman of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee.

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a former member, stellar member, of the House Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Pascrell of New Jersey, who has moved on, but he still has an interest.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Clarke).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.

Mr. Chairman, let me, at the close, thank my ranking member of the committee.

Our committee, as you know, has a reputation of being one of the more bipartisan committees here on the Hill; and I look forward to continuing that. Mr. King has done a wonderful job.

Clearly, this legislation helps close the gap in terms of vulnerability. Those people who fly have been reasonably safe since 9/ 11. However, we clearly have vulnerabilities that we need to fix on the rail and public transit systems. So what this bill does is move us in that direction.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on H.R. 1401.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified with the text I have placed at the desk.

Actually, Mr. Chairman, it was a drafting error on the whistleblower proceedings. And if you would look at it, it clearly was Legislative Counsel's error, and we are really just trying to correct the language.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that Mr. Davis, as well as Mr. Waxman, are in agreement with the correction, because it is really the language from their whistleblower bill that we are trying to make sure that is consistent with what we have.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, as I noted earlier, H.R. 1401 is an important milestone in protecting our Nation's rail and public transportation systems.

Since its introduction, however, Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Waxman have worked with me to improve the bill and satisfy a number of concerns they had. I am proud that my colleagues and I were able to put aside jurisdictional squabbles that plagued our committees in the past two Congresses. By working together, we came up with compromise language that is good for the Nation and good for Congress.

I want to thank Chairman Waxman for the assistance he and his staff gave me on improving whistleblower protections for transportation workers. The manager's amendment strengthens the protections for Federal employees and contractors.

As revised, the protections more closely resemble those found in H.R. 985, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. Members may recall that H.R. 985 overwhelmingly passed the House 2 weeks ago.

I also have worked closely with Chairman Oberstar to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Departments of Homeland Security and Transportation under this bill. The two agencies will have the same responsibilities established in the various laws, executive orders, and MOUs already governing their relationship.

Additionally, in order to improve efficiency, we will create a new relationship between the Departments to manage the rail, public transportation, and bus security grants created by this bill. For all three grants, the Homeland Security Department will be responsible for determining the requirements for recipients of grants, including application requirements; determining who receives the grants; determining the uses for the grant funds; and establishing priorities for uses of funds.

Transportation will be responsible for distributing grant funds to those recipients as directed by Homeland Security. Both agencies will jointly monitor and audit the use of grant funds.

I believe that this cooperative relationship will create efficiencies. Allowing Transportation to be the ``Western Union'' for grants is consistent with the recommendation of the American Public Transportation Association.

I am proud to have worked side by side with Chairman Oberstar to ensure that our Nation's security needs are met in an efficient and effective manner.

Since its creation in the 108th Congress, the Committee on Homeland Security has had to compete with other committees just to get things done. Good bills were stalled or held up too long because of jurisdictional squabbles. Not this Congress. I thank Chairman Oberstar for his help. By working together, I think we can demonstrate that the 110th Congress is a do-something Congress, not a Congress of competing jurisdictions.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and make this a Congress that acts to better protect our rail and public transportation system.

Mr. Chairman, I enter the following for purposes of explaining my request for unanimous consent to correct a technical drafting error that resulted in the omission from the Manager's Amendment of two sections clearly referenced throughout the Manager's Amendment, specifically referred to below as sections 112A and 112B.

The two sections listed below are not essential to making this section of the underlying bill operative, but, while the bill and section are still operational, the bill would be further clarified if the following sections were included. I am disappointed that my unanimous consent request was objected to, apparently for mere partisan advantage. As such, at conference, I plan to work with Chairman Waxman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to offer this language as it represents a compromise between myself and Chairman Waxman. I worked with Chairman Waxman to make the provisions of H.R. 1401 similar to those in H.R. 985, which is the bipartisan whistleblower protection bill that overwhelmingly passed the House on March 14. Below is the technical amendment that should have been made today:

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

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Oberstar.

Mr. Chairman, I want to call to your attention a problem which has been slowly developing based on recent court cases, and why it is necessary for Congress to rectify the situation. Courts are ignoring congressional intent and leaving Americans injured by the negligence of the railroads without any remedies.

The Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA) was enacted in 1970 to create a system of minimum safety standards to improve railroad safety and reduce accidents. Congress intended for these federal standards to be a floor, and expressly granted states the authority to pass stronger safety laws.

Now some courts are ignoring congressional intent and denying Americans grievously injured in railroad accidents their rights under state law, even when it is undisputed that the cause of the accident was the railroad's wrongdoing. By preempting state law, these courts are leaving injured Americans with no remedy at all--since FRSA itself does not provide a remedy or cause of action for victims.

The residents of Minot, North Dakota and others similarly injured should have their day in court. One only needs to look at the tragedy in Minot, North Dakota to see the impact of these court decisions on real people. On January 31, 2002, 31 railroad cars derailed near the city of Minot, North Dakota, releasing over 200,000 gallons of the deadly gas, anhydrous ammonia. The dense cloud of toxic fumes engulfed the town of Minot causing one death and injuring hundreds of people. If this tragedy had happened in a big city or even in the middle of the day (instead of 2:00 a.m.) countless more people would be killed or injured.

Among the various causes of the derailment was the failure of a so- called temporary joint bar that had been left in this substandard track for over 20 months. In addition, the track itself was old, worn out and poorly maintained--not even meeting the minimum standards under FRSA. The Canadian Pacific Railroad admitted that it was responsible for the derailment, but argued that it could not be held accountable because FRSA preempted state law claims.

The federal court dismissed the claims brought under state law on the basis of federal preemption, admitting that ``such a result is unduly harsh and leaves the Plaintiffs no remedy for this tragic accident.'' Mehl v. Canadian Pacific Railway, 417 F. Supp. 2d 1104, 1120 (D.N.D. 2006).

Unfortunately, this isn't a problem limited to one court. Court decisions in Minnesota and Massachusetts have left victims of negligence with no recourse for their injuries. See, e.g., Kalan Enterprises, LLC v BNSF Railway Co., 415 F. Supp. 2d 977 (D. Minn. 2006); Ouellette v. Union Tank Car Co., 902 F. Supp. 5 (D. Mass 1995).

Congress mut act now before more Americans lose their right to a remedy, and that is why we have chosen to add technical language to the Rail Security bill to alleviate this problem on a timely basis. Over 200 claims pending in Minnesota state court have been removed to federal court by Canadian Pacific. The railroad is arguing that all claims against it should be dismissed based on preemption under the FRSA. Oral argument on the railroad's motion to dismiss has been scheduled for May 15th so it's imperative to clarify that the FRSA does not preempt state remedies in order to prevent an additional travesty of justice.

The language would clarify that the purpose of the FRSA was and is to set uniform minimum safety standards, and that an expansive application of preemption to deprive accident victims' access to state remedies is a misapplication of the law.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

At the outset, let me thank Chairman Thompson not only for his work on this bill in particular but for the spirit of cooperation that prevailed throughout this entire period leading up to today.

I also want to commend Mr. Lungren, who was chairman of the subcommittee in the previous Congress which did much of the groundwork for this legislation and for the dedication that he has shown and continued in his efforts as subcommittee ranking member.

Mr. Thompson had pledged, upon becoming chairman of the full committee, that will be a main priority for him, and he has delivered. There are certain parts of the bill that I would have problems with. But having said that, I certainly commend him for the effort he has put into this and, again, for level of cooperation not only between him and me but between other members of the committee, between majority staff and the minority staff.

Mr. Chairman, September 11 changed all our worlds, and we have attempted in various ways to meet the threat that is presented to us by international Islamic terrorism. Much work has been done at the airports. Last year, we adopted very extensive and expansive port security legislation, chemical plant security legislation.

Some strides have been made towards rail and transit security. But today's bill, today's legislation is very much needed to take a more significant step down that road.

We saw from the attacks on March 11, 2004, in Madrid; the attacks of July 7 in London in 2005; and the attacks in India on commuter lines, that terrorists certainly are targeting our rail and transit for terrorist attack, one of the reasons being that it is so much more difficult to secure transit than it is airports.

Certainly, looking at it very parochially, from my own perspective in New York, the New York City subway system, it has more than 400 subway stations. It has over 1,500 exits and entrances to those stations. In addition to that, we have many, many tens of thousands of commuters coming in from the suburbs of Long Island, upstate New York and New Jersey every day.

It is not just a New York issue, by any means. This is an issue which affects rail and transit throughout the country, but it is an issue that must be addressed.

We have to look at the possibility that the next terrorist attack, like London, Madrid and India, will be launched from the suburbs. It is not just the inner city subways, big city commuter systems, but it is all of them. All of them have to be protected to the extent that we can.

We also have to support those systems which we believe can work, such as the VIPER system, which I believe is essential.

We have to have training for the security personnel. I wish that the legislation had also provided that the funding could go directly to the police, who provide security. It won't be you will have to go through the intermediary carriers, which I think is not a step in the right direction, but I also understand the realities of what has to be done. I think that certainly the police and the transit workers are the front line of defense when it comes to securing our mass transit, and it is essential that they receive the training that they need.

It is also essential that there be capital improvements, that, for instance, the tunnels leading into main terminals be reinforced, that the escape precautions be improved upon, that the first responders have access to tunnels and terminals in times of terrorist attack.

So these are all issues which I believe are addressed to a significant extent in the legislation.

As we said during the previous debate on the rule, there are parts of the legislation, though, which would have been very, very essential, I think, to have had amendments ruled in order. Mr. Lungren, I am sure, will be addressing some of these issues, but I am concerned about the whole issue on the whistleblowers as to what we do to protect national security secrets and top secret materials and why the government will be, in effect, precluded from asserting the State secret defense. That is, to me, a very, very significant issue, and it is one where I believe the legislation does not give us adequate protection.

Also, on the issue of Freedom of Information, which Ms. Ginny Brown- Waite will discuss as to how we can protect top secret and classified information, all of this to me is important.

But, having said that, this legislation is a very, very significant step forward. It is a major step forward, and it is an area where, again, we realize in a bipartisan way that more had to be done. While significant, more has to be done in the future, because we have an enemy which is constantly adapting, an enemy which is vicious and deadly. As has been proven on 9/11, they can use any number of means at their disposal.

We have to think outside the box. We have to try to anticipate what they are going to do. If, God forbid, there is an attack, we want to make sure our people are able to respond as quickly and as effectively as possible. I believe that this legislation addresses much of that.

I want to thank the chairman for, again, the open-mindedness that he has had on this in accepting many of our suggestions and also negotiating and working with us and, again, just developing and showing a spirit of bipartisanship, which I think is really essential.

Homeland Security should not be a partisan issue. We will and we do have

honest differences, but I think the overwhelming majority of the issues affecting Homeland Security can and should be addressed in a bipartisan way.

On those issues that we cannot resolve, we can have honest, intelligent differences on them without in any way questioning the motives of either side and also realizing that sometimes very pragmatic decisions have to be made. We can't allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

I thank Chairman Thompson. I certainly thank Ranking Member Lungren both for his efforts in the last Congress and in this Congress for all that he has done and also the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the former sheriff of King County in Washington State and current ranking member of the Intelligence Subcommittee, Mr. Reichert.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me again commend Chairman Thompson for his very high level of cooperation, for the dedication he has shown to this, and again thank Mr. Lungren, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for his efforts in the previous Congress and this Congress, and also the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her efforts.

Mr. Chairman, the country was caught unaware on September 11. We could perhaps say that we did not anticipate the ferocity of the attack or the nature of the attack or the nature of our enemy, but we no longer have that excuse. September 11 certainly made us fully aware of how deadly our enemy is. Since then, whether it be intelligence reports or whether it be the attacks in London, Madrid or Mumbai, we realize also that mass transit is a favorite target of Islamic terrorists.

So we have no excuses. We have to move forward, and that is what this legislation does. It sets a coordinated national policy toward dealing with attacks on our public transportation system. It coordinates at the national level with the State and local officials what has to be done. It provides a level of training to our transit workers and to our police.

As I mentioned before, in New York, as Ms. Clarke knows well, there are more than 5 million riders on our mass transit system every day.

As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) mentioned, he and I and a number of other members of the committee last year visited London and we visited Madrid. We saw the extent of the carnage and the destruction that was caused. We full well realize that the next terrorist attack may very well be launched from the suburbs. It could be brought in on a commuter train to our cities. The subway systems themselves, the mass transit systems themselves are extremely vulnerable to attack.

We can never be 100 percent secure. We can probably never reach the same level of protection on a subway system or mass transit system, for instance, that we can at our airports.

We do a great deal. And that is what this bill does, it moves us forward. It provides levels of protection that we do not currently have. And it is going to be an ongoing work in progress. It is going to be something that requires our continued dedication, our continued effort. It is going to require continued bipartisan effort, bipartisan support.

So I look forward to working with the chairman at least for the next 21 months in his role as chairman and, whatever happens after that, continue to work with him. Because this is, again, an issue, it is a threat that goes far beyond any type of partisan divide. It is something that should bring us all together as Americans. There is so much that we have in common where our values and principles are shared, are in common that, as Democrats and Republicans and, most importantly, as Americans, we can work together. This bill goes very far in that direction.

Again, I commend the chairman. I commend all of the members of the committee on both sides for their efforts.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute; and I reluctantly oppose the manager's amendment.

The first basic reason is, when the original legislation was passed out of our committee, we would have had funding going directly to police agencies, the police departments who actually do security work. Now the money will have to go through the carriers, and the police will have to seek reimbursement from them. This is an added level of bureaucracy we don't need. It will impede a well-coordinated and structured security response. For that reason alone, I have to oppose it.

Also, by having a bifurcated rent distribution system between DOT and DHS, to me this goes against the letter and the spirit of the 9/11 Commission. For those basic reasons, I reluctantly oppose the manager's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

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

Mr. Chairman, I would claim the time in opposition, even though I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman from New York, I commend him for his amendment and I appreciate his concerns. My only thought is that these seem to be primarily safety concerns, as opposed to security, and there are already so many reporting requirements on the Department of Homeland Security that I am reluctant to request another report from the Department of Homeland Security.

Having said that, as this legislation goes forward, I would just ask the gentleman to work with us as it goes to conference in the event that after speaking with the Secretary and the Department that they do consider this a burden and perhaps refine it.

With that, I have no objection to it. I just would ask the gentleman if he would work with us as the process goes forward.

I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just make two points.

There is nobody on our committee who is more dedicated to this issue than Mr. Rogers. There is also no one in the Congress who I know that is more dedicated to contracting out than Mr. Rogers, his dedication on this issue and the fact that we have to realize that it is more important to know the value of something rather than just the price. The fact is, this is a situation where both the price and the value call for us to go forward with this program. This is an issue of Homeland Security. We can trivialize it. We can have some fun with it. But the fact is it is a very, very important issue. So I ask for defeat of the amendment.

I thank the ranking member for that and at the outset if I could ask the gentleman from Colorado if he would engage in a colloquy to clarify a section of the bill with me.

At committee, the gentleman and I worked to clarify language in section 120, which he just referred to, regarding background checks on employees. We included language that specified that nothing in this section of the bill was intended to preempt State and local governments from enacting or enforcing requirements regarding criminal background checks.

Further, we agreed, and the committee agreed in report language, that this section was not intended to prohibit an employer, including State and local governments, from making any employment decisions otherwise permissible under Federal, State or local law.

I would also like to clarify my understanding that this section is intended to impact employers who are complying with the Department of Homeland Security requirements, regulation or guidance, but does not apply to employers who conduct background checks for other reasons.

I would ask the gentleman and yield to him whether this is his understanding of the intent of the section.

I thank the gentleman for working with me on this bill and for clarifying this section.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. This is a bill which we have worked on for some time. We started in the last Congress, holding hearings on this in a bipartisan basis. We attempted to get information from the public and private sector in these areas of our economy.

I congratulate the chairman of the full committee and the chairperson of the subcommittee for moving forward with dispatch on this issue.

We did work on other sectors of our economy with respect to the issue of security against terrorist threats. We did very good work in the area of port security. We did very good work in the area of chemical facility security. I hope that we will continue to do work in the area of the trucking industry.

Where we are talking about the rail system and mass transit systems there is a demonstrated need for us to act, for us to have guidance from the Federal Government to State and local governments in cooperation with State and local governments, and for us to have guidance for the private sector and to work with the private sector in dealing with this threat that threatens all of us, public and private sector combined.

At the same time, I would suggest that there are a couple of concerns that I have about what form this bill may take. One of the areas that I tried, by way of presenting a suggested amendment to the Rules Committee to improve this legislation, was in the area of whistleblower. I mentioned this earlier in the debate on the rule, but let me just stress why this is important. We are dealing with an area in which we are requiring and requesting that other entities work with the Federal Government in coming up with security measures. And as a result of that, there will be information that we do not want shared with the outside world, that we certainly do not want shared in a public venue such that those who would do us harm would have an opportunity to be effective in their intent.

And that is why I was concerned, and other Members on my side of the aisle were concerned, about the whistleblower provisions here, which, frankly, do not carve out an exception for that area of the law dealing with security-sensitive information.

This is of such concern that I understand the administration would recommend a veto of this bill, not on the substance of it, but on the whistleblower provision, and there is no reason for us to run into that difficulty.

Secondly, in the area that will be discussed by the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Brown-Waite, we have the concern about allowing this information out, not in a whistleblower setting, but just

allowing this information out as a result of requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

And remember, prior to 9/11 we used to have all sorts of information about nuclear facilities and other entities dealing with power, such that someone could go on an Internet search and find out exactly what the vulnerabilities of those particular facilities happened to be. We realized after 9/11 that in our effort to get everything out to the public we had probably damaged ourselves in terms of our vulnerability.

Here is another area where we are not, in my judgment, giving enough concern about the possible ill effects of our effort to get everything out in the public. And what we have said, and Ms. Brown-Waite's amendment attempted to do, was to try and say, in those areas where we have security-sensitive information, there ought to be an exception from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. We did this on a bipartisan basis in the Maritime Security Bill a couple of Congresses ago. Why we are not doing the same thing here, I do not understand. And if we had had our amendment to bring forward, we could have debated that. And I hope we will take care of that problem on the Senate side or in conference.

The last thing I would suggest is I understand there is going to be an amendment presented on the floor about alternative material sources. This deals with toxic inhalation materials. We worked very closely, I worked personally with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) in this specific area, and we managed to come up with a bipartisan, balanced approach to that. And I just hope when we have the short time allowed for debate on that amendment, we will debate it in the context of the bipartisan, balanced approach that we developed in our committee and brought forth to this floor.

If you are going to present an amendment which basically is going to have the effect, whether intended or otherwise, to remove these materials from rail to our highways, how can we say we are any safer? And, frankly, that is what that amendment will do.

So I hope Members will look at this, not as a partisan issue, and not saying, well, it was offered by the majority side or the minority side, therefore I am going to vote for it or defeat it on that basis, but look at the actual words in there and look at what the impact will be.

We have made some mistakes in the past in our effort to do things that we have done in the past without the knowledge of the threat of terrorism that came upon us in 9/11. Let us not complete action on this bill as if we were dealing with it on 9/10. This is a bill that ought to be debated, considered, and voted on in the full light of the events that took place on 9/11 and thereafter.

Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the intent of the gentleman offering the amendment; but, unfortunately, upon reading it, it is obvious that this is a do-good amendment that either does nothing or does harm.

The reason I say that is that the subject the gentleman wishes to cover in this amendment is covered by the base bill already which will be retained if, in fact, we pass the manager's amendment.

Section 124 of the bill, pages 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 and 90, take into effect what the gentleman is talking about. This is the Markey amendment which was worked out in committee on a bipartisan basis in some detail to work with the problem that you have, the security- sensitive materials, that encompasses security-sensitive materials, which includes within its universe toxic inhalation hazardous materials.

The issue is, what do we do with the fact that we need some of these products as far as our society goes now but that they would also provide an opportunity for terrorists to utilize them for damage to a particular community? So we crafted a very careful amendment that allows for consideration of the needs here on the economic side and the harm done.

The way the gentleman has written his amendment, it requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish a program to minimize the need for transportation of toxic inhalation hazardous materials by rail only, by rail only. We looked at that requirement to have the Secretary come up with rules and regulations that were to take into consideration the total threat, the total need here. So by the gentleman's own amendment, we may be required to minimize the travel on rail, which will maximize the travel on our highways. Now, I do not think the gentleman believes that necessarily makes it safer, or on our barges.

This amendment, as drafted so narrowly, would require us to undercut much of what we have done in the base bill as a result of working on a bipartisan basis with Mr. Markey in an area of concern that he has expressed often on the floor and in committee hearing after committee hearing.

That is why I say either it does nothing and, therefore, is harmless or if, in fact, it does something, and there is mandatory language in here requiring the Secretary of Transportation, he shall establish such a program, requires him to move in only one direction which may, in fact, make it more dangerous overall.

One of the things we learned in our hearings was that you have to consider the entirety of the threat out there, the entirety of the universe of possible options. The gentleman denies the Secretary to do that by requiring that it minimize the transit of toxic inhalation hazardous materials by rail only,

and it undercuts what we have done in a very, very I think informed way, detailed way, talking about storage patterns, talking about rail transportation routes, talking about the analysis of these storage patterns and then requires a compilation of that information and analysis of that information and consideration of that information and then informed judgment, not something like this which says, you know, you have to do it only one way.

So, as I say, I understand what the gentleman has said. It sounds good when you first look at it; but if you really look at what it means, it is going to tie the Secretary's hands to move in a particular direction that may or may not allow us to be safer than we are today; and for that reason, I would hope that we would vote this down.

If the gentleman would like to work with us on a bipartisan basis, as I did with Mr. Markey before, that would be superior to this. This unfortunately, as I say, is a do-good amendment which either does nothing or does harm to the interests of this bill as presented by our committee on a bipartisan basis.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

No, no. I take my time back. The Markey amendment does not just deal with a study. Read the Markey amendment. It starts with a study. Then it requires the Secretary to come forward with regulations. Then it requires certain action on the part of all the parties involved. It is not just a mere study. Working that hard on it, I frankly do not appreciate you trying to say that it is just a study. That is not true whatsoever.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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.