Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1684.

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

Mr. Chairman, today we are considering H.R. 1684. This bill takes important steps to build capacity, provide resources, and ensure accountability at the Department of Homeland Security.

H.R. 1684 authorizes $39.8 billion in appropriations for the Department. This is $2.1 billion more than the President requested in his budget earlier this year. This bill sends a message to the President, America's security cannot be done on the cheap. Congress will not stand by as he cuts programs that help our hometown heroes protect our communities.

In this bill, we reinstate critical funding for first responder programs like the State Homeland Security grant program and FIRE Act grants.

In addition to authorizing funds, H.R. 1684 addresses issues that some of the committee's oversight efforts have exposed. For example, it has become obvious to us that the Department has no long-term vision. We created a Directorate of Policy to do just that. This office will also focus on private-sector partnerships, tribal security, and school security.

As another tool to help the Department get its house in order, we created a Comprehensive Homeland Security Review. This legislation also strengthens interagency coordination and supports integrating DHS at a single headquarters.

The Inspector General, GAO and the committee have all observed that DHS is spending a lot of money with little accountability. In the past few years, we have seen ice trucks take the scenic routes to disasters, trailers rotting in Arkansas, and border cameras packed away in warehouses. All of this waste was on the taxpayers' dime. No more. H.R. 1684 gives the Inspector General sharper teeth to investigate disaster response and border security programs.

The bill strengthens the integrity in the agency's contracting practices and promotes small business opportunities. This bill makes sure our Homeland Security agency is buying its uniforms and equipment here at home from U.S. sources. H.R. 1684 covers numerous other areas, including biosecurity, intelligence and cyber security.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is part of the real deal. It's the sixth Homeland Security bill that Democrats have brought to the floor since January. Only two bills made it to the floor last year in a Republican- led House. This Congress, we passed a 9/11 bill; and staff discussions have begun in preparation for a Member conference. We also passed bills on rail security, Homeland Security technology, international cooperation, and employee morale.

Winston Churchill once said, ``The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees opportunity in every difficulty. ``

In H.R. 1684, we have an opportunity to protect our homeland. We can be naysayers and complain about bureaucratic bungling, or we can tackle head on the difficult issues of Homeland Security.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill that puts DHS on the path to becoming the agency that Congress envisioned and the American people deserve.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, our majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Chairman, I now recognize the gentlelady from California for 2 minutes, Ms. Harman.

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I wish to help the gentlelady from Florida. If you will check, the data sharing and the child predator requirements are left in the bill. They're not taken out. I just want to make sure that you have the latest version of the bill in that respect.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

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

Mr. Chairman, I now recognize the chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, Ms. Jackson-Lee, for 2\1/ 2\ minutes.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to a former member of the committee, who is still very much interested in homeland security, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from south Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Kirk as well as Mr. Lipinski for bringing this to the committee's attention. I agree with the gentleman that the issue of airport security badges must be examined in closer detail.

I share your commitment to securing our airports and look forward to working with you on this issue in the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of a colloquy, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) for his willingness to work with the committee. I know very well how important border security is to his constituents and how hard he has worked since returning to Congress to keep his community safe and bring the necessary resources to Federal, State and local law enforcement on the border. I certainly appreciate his expertise on border security issues. I look forward to working with him to ensure that our brave law enforcement men and women receive the assistance they need to keep border communities in our Nation safe and secure.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I will insert into the Record letters from the American Federation of Government Employees and The National Treasury Employees Union in support of this legislation.

American Federation of

Government Employees, AFL-CIO,

Washington, DC, May 7, 2007.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Federation

of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents 26,000

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) workers, I strongly

urge you to vote in support of passage of H.R. 1684, the

Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2008. The legislation responds to many issues AFGE has

raised on behalf of the Border Patrol Agents, Customs and

Border Protection Officers, Transportation Security Officers,

Federal Protective Service Officers and other workers

important to the agency's mission of keeping our country

safe.

H.R. 1684 supports DHS workers by repealing the portion of

MAXHR (the agency's flawed attempt to re-make civil service

rules and protections) relating to employee appeal rights and

performance management goals. The repeal of these provisions

is of great importance because DHS has stated its intention

to implement MAXHR regulations on employee appeal rights and

performance management goals despite the likelihood that they

will be overturned in federal court. The legislation also

restores statutory authority for collective bargaining rights

for DHS workers because the DHS regulations establishing a

new collective bargaining system have been overturned by the

courts. The reinstatement of fairness in DHS workplace rules

and procedures is vitally important to keeping the expertise

of highly trained, committed homeland security professionals

at the agency.

H.R. 1684 recognizes the legitimate law enforcement

responsibilities of Customs and Border Patrol Officers by

including them in the federal Law Enforcement Retirement

System, and strengthens Border Patrol Officer recruitment and

retention measures, which will ensure that there are adequate

personnel available to patrol our borders. The legislation

also includes provisions that will prevent Immigration and

Customs Enforcement from implementing its unsound plan to

eliminate police officers and special agents at the Federal

Protective Service. H.R. 1684 recognizes that worker security

in the DHS workplace facilitates greater homeland security

for us all.

The workers at DHS have performed above and beyond the call

of duty, even with bad workplace rules and policies. H.R.

1684 recognizes the contribution of the men and women on the

front lines of security and provides them with the resources

necessary to ensure

that they continue to provide the best security in the world

today. AFGE again strongly urges you to vote in support of

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time for closing.

First of all, let me pay tribute to my colleague from New York, Ranking Member King. We have worked very well on this bill. This is the first time that we have done an authorization bill before an appropriation bill. We are trying to establish jurisdiction for this committee going forward. This is the first Democratic effort in that direction.

Some of us would have preferred a broader bill, but my colleague understands that, given the nature of Congress and the nature of how we do business, sometimes that's not practical.

What I did was brought, through this manager's amendment, which you will see after this debate, a bill that we all have agreement on, even the chairmen of the various communities of jurisdiction. So I am committed, just like the ranking member and most Members in Congress, to support the Department of Homeland Security, to make sure that we defend ourselves against terrorists abroad as well as terrorists at home, to make sure that we respond to disasters regardless of what nature they come in. But in order to do that, we need a robust organization. We need someone with accountability. This bill, H.R. 1684, builds on that.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on H.R. 1684.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, my manager's amendment strengthens H.R. 1684 by adding some things and taking out some others. Ninety-two percent of the provisions that I am seeking to have removed were items offered for the first time in the committee's mark-up. They were good ideas, but we haven't had the benefit of giving these novel ideas the full consideration they deserve.

After the mark-up, I had the opportunity to speak with a number of chairs who had a shared interest in these items. Collaboration is a wonderful thing, Mr. Chairman. In some cases, they offered suggestions to make the bill better. Those changes are contained in this amendment. In other cases, they offered to work together on these issues and other legislative vehicles. So, as a testament to the collaborative spirit of this majority, I offer this amendment.

I am well aware that some of my Republican colleagues are complaining about what my amendment does. I am reminded of what LBJ once told an audience: ``Perhaps you can help. Don't just complain, develop a better doctrine.'' This Congress, we're developing a better doctrine.

It is important to look at this milestone in context. Let me provide a little lesson on the Committee of Homeland Security's history.

In 2003, the year the committee was created, then Chairman Chris Cox failed to put forth an authorization bill.

In 2004, Chairman Cox scheduled his first markup of an authorization bill but barely got half the committee Republicans to show up. Outnumbered by Democrats, the markup was cancelled after opening statements. Even if the markup had proceeded, it was still 2 months late, as the appropriations bill had passed a month earlier.

In 2005, Mr. Cox was still a day late and a dollar short in getting the bill passed through the House. The appropriation bill still came first.

In 2006, the committee took two steps back. My colleague from New York didn't even mark up an authorization bill until late July, a month and a half after the appropriation bill passed the House. His bill never even went to the floor for a vote. Come on, now. We've all learned Legislation 101, that Congress first authorizes, then appropriates.

Today, under Democratic leadership, we are considering a timely, thorough and thoughtful authorization bill that has the input of numerous committees.

This is the earliest a Homeland Security authorization bill has ever appeared on the floor. It also bears mention that it is on the floor before the appropriations bill. America is not interested in congressional infighting but in getting the job done. We are doing just that.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my manager's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I insert for the Record a letter from the chairman and ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee in support of our legislation but reserving, under rule X, the jurisdiction of their committee.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, May 1, 2007.

Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,

Chairman,

Hon. Peter T. King,

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Homeland Security,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Thompson and Mr. King: We are writing regarding

the bill H.R. 1684, the ``Department of Homeland Security

authorization act for Fiscal Year 2008.'' We understand that

the Committee on Homeland Security intends to report this

bill in the next few days, and that it may come to the House

floor as early as next week.

H.R. 1684 is an ambitious bill that contains a number of

provisions that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the

Committee on the Judiciary rather than the Committee on

Homeland Security. Our Committee was not furnished the text

of the bill as it will be reported until almost a month after

your Committee approved it, and was not consulted regarding

any of the provisions in question. As there is not adequate

time now for our Committee to take a referral of this bill

and appropriately consider these provisions, we would request

that they be removed from the bill before its consideration

on the floor.

The provisions in question include: section 305; section

507; section 901; section 904; section 906; section 1104; new

subsection (d)(2) of 6 U.S.C. 455 as it would be added by

section 1109; section 1110; section 1111; section 1120;

section 1121; and all of title XII.

Thank you for your attention to our request.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.

Chairman.

Lamar Smith,

Ranking Minority Member.

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

Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R.

1684 in the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to House Resolution 382, the following amendment be permitted to be offered at any time: Sherman amendment No. 14.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 1684 in the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to House Resolution 382, the following amendment be permitted to be offered at any time: Kucinich amendment No. 11.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 1684 in the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to House Resolution 382, the following amendment be permitted to be offered at any time: Rothman amendment No. 12.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 1684 in the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to House Resolution 382, the following amendment be permitted to be offered at any time: Rothman amendment No. 13.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

For the purpose of support only, I am in support of Mr. Royce's amendment. The database created by Interpol has proven to be very, very successful. The Swiss presently use the database provided by Interpol. They stop some 100 persons entering into that country per month. For the life of me, I cannot understand why CBP will not use it.

It is a commonsense amendment. I trust the Department, once we approve

it and ultimately pass the legislation, will follow the directions of Congress.

So I support the Royce amendment in its present form.

Imposters who would do us harm prize fraudulent passports as a way to gain entry into our country under false identities in order to carry out criminal or terrorist activities.

INTERPOL has created a ``Stolen and Lost Travel Document'' (SLTD) database to provide valuable and timely information about passports reported lost or stolen to database users in order to intercept imposters and assist law enforcement.

In the last couple of years, INTERPOL has populated its SLTD database with millions of passport numbers that were reported lost or stolen.

Receiving real-time reporting of lost and stolen passports would allow us to detect these imposters and prevent their entry into the

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, for the record, CBP filed a privacy notice act informing the public that they had been utilizing the Automated Targeting System, otherwise known as ATS, for 5 years without public notice. When I learned of the problems associated with ATS, I immediately joined hundreds of others by filing a comment.

I will not.

Filing a comment requesting that CBP take a second look at this program.

CBP has not re-issued a new notice, and the questions that I and many others have about ATS have not yet been answered. Until a new notice is released, I consider this program and this motion to recommit premature and the program itself highly questionable.

The amount of information collected by ATS and the fact that the information remains in the system for up to 40 years is reason enough to warrant a closer look.

The motion to recommit ignores the privacy act notice process that is under way, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House on the motion to recommit, I report H.R. 1684 back to the House with an amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that title XII, the Maritime Alien Smuggling provision of the bill, as reported, be restored to the bill.

Absolutely. Some Members have raised the issue about the Maritime Alien Smuggling provision of the bill, and we have decided if we can get unanimous consent, we will put it back in the bill, as originally approved by our committee. And we are asking unanimous consent to do it.

Mr. Ranking Member, there is somebody on your side who received notice of this.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to recognize two police officers from nearby Fairfax County, Virginia who served their community with great honor and distinction. Today marks the first anniversary of when Detective Vicky Anne Owen Armel and Master Police Officer Michael E. Garbarino were shot in the line of duty during a shooting incident at the Sully District Police Station in Chantilly, Virginia.

Detective Armel was killed while engaging and exchanging gunfire with the shooter. Master Police Officer Garbarino succumbed on May 17, 2006 to injuries sustained when the shooter opened fire on him in the Station's parking lot. Despite being shot five times, Master Police Officer Garbarino managed to get on the police radio to notify and warn fellow officers. The two line-of-duty slayings were the first in the 66-year history of the 1,364-member Fairfax County Police Department.

Detective Vicky Armel, badge 2806, spent 17 years as a dedicated law enforcement officer', eight years with the Fairfax County Sheriff's Office, and the last nine with the Fairfax County Police Department. Detective Armel is remembered for many things, including her devotion to family, faith, and an upbeat and positive attitude.

Master Police Officer Michael Garbarino, badge 1417, spent 23 years as a dedicated law enforcement officer with the Fairfax County Police Department. MPO Garbarino, also

known as ``Gabby,'' was admired and respected by those who knew and worked with him. He is remembered for his devotion to family, faith, willingness to lend a helping hand, and his sense of humor.

Both are missed every day by family, friends, fellow officers, and citizens of the community. Both are remembered as mentors and role models. The courage, honor and valor exemplified by Detective Armel and MPO Garbarino serve as a reminder for us to remember, celebrate and thank police officers and first responders for their dedication and service to the community and our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize the work of Captain Langston D. Smith, who has completed 30 years of active duty in the Dental Corps of the United States Navy.

Captain Langston Delano Smith was born in the Richland Community of Pickens in Holmes County, Mississippi. He is the eldest of six children born to the late Mr. James A. Smith, Sr. and Mrs. Elma Maxine Howard Smith. He attended Humphreys County McNair Elementary School and William Sullivan High School, formerly Durant Attendance Center.

Captain Smith received his Bachelor of Science Degree in Biology from Jackson State University in 1967. After obtaining his B.S. degree, he taught science for a year in the Jackson Public School District in Jackson, Mississippi. He, then, went on to Morehead State University, in Morehead, Kentucky, where he earned a Master of Science Degree in Biology in 1969 and a Master of Higher Education in Administration in 1973. While attending Morehead State, he was an Assistant Professor of Biology and the Assistant Director of Housing at the university.

In September 1973, Captain Smith entered dental school at the University of Kentucky and graduated in 1977 with his DMD degree. After graduating from the University of Kentucky, he entered active duty and received orders to the Naval Training Center in San Diego, California. From 1982 to 1987, Capt. Smith was an Adjunct Associate Professor of Biology at Chapman College. In 1987, he received orders to the National Naval Dental School in Bethesda, Maryland, where he completed his residency.

Captain Langston Smith, in 2002, reported to the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery as Director of Clinical Operations Division for Navy Dentistry, later becoming Director of Health care Support, with the responsibility for coordinating planning and policy for Naval dental care. Captain Smith is currently assigned as Director of Clinical Services in the Office of Integration, National Capitol Area in Bethesda, Maryland.

Captain Langston Smith is a very accomplished man. He is a member of a number of professional organizations, including the American Dental Association, American Association of Endodontists, American Board of Endodontics; and, social and civic organizations, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., Sigma Pi Phi Fraternity, and Colesville United Methodist Church. He has received a number of military and non-military awards, which includes the Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal with Gold Star, Navy Commendation Medal, Navy Humanitarian Medal, Alpha Phi Alpha Man of the Year in 1976, 1982 and 1996, Nominated for the NAACP Springard Award in 2002, and Outstanding African American Alumni (Torch of Excellence Award), College of Dentistry, University of Kentucky in 2005.

Captain Langston Delano Smith has garnered the personal and professional respect of his community, patients, and colleagues. I would like to commend Captain Langston Delano Smith for his 30 years of service in the Dental Corps of the United States Navy, and wish him much success in his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker. I would like to congratulate the Indianola Gentry High School ``Lady Rams'' Girls Basketball Team and Head Coach Charles Williams for their perfect 2006- 2007 Season, 4A State Championship and Mississippi High School Activities Association Grand Slam Championship.

The Indianola Gentry High School ``Lady Rams'' Girls Basketball Team had a stellar basketball season this year. They began the season ranked No. 2 in The Clarion-Ledger Super 10, and finished 40-0 to become the first Mississippi High School Activities Association team (boys or girls) to go unbeaten since the Yazoo County Lady Panthers did it in the 1999-2000 season. In the process, the Class 4A State Champion Lady Rams staked their claim as the undisputed best team in Mississippi by knocking off the 5A Champions, Murrah High School ``Lady Mustangs'' Girls Basketball Team of Jackson, ranked No. 1 in the Super 10 and No. 14 nationally by USA Today, in a 63-58 victory.

On the journey to be the Mississippi State Championship, the Lady Rams won the Coahoma County Tournament, the Ram Holiday Classic Tournament, the NCAC Tournament, the Division 3-4A Tournament, the North State Tournament, and of course the 4A State Tournament and the Mississippi High School Activities Association Grand Slam Championship.

The Lady Rams had a phenomenal group of people that lead them to the championship. The basketball team consisted of Sarita Cooper, Veronica Walker, Laneisha Jennie, Jerrica Crawford, Brittney Crawford, Jasmine Walker, Ashney Simpson, Jessica Huggins, Chrysanthemum Hawthorne, Cecily Hutchenson, Brizanna Washington, and Taconka Johnson. They were lead by Head Coach Charles Williams, two Assistant Coaches, Ella Hamilton and Mary Elmore. The managers, Felecia Jones, Paula Galloway, Ambroshia Hope, Kenyon Butler, and Bryan Hargrove, assisted the team in their endeavors.

In addition to the team's accomplishments, there were some players who received individual recognition: Sarita Cooper and Veronica Walker received All-District, All-Conference, and All-State; and Laneisha Jennie received All-Conference and All-State.

I would like to take this time to commend and congratulate the Indianola Gentry High School ``Lady Rams'' Girls Basketball Team for being the Mississippi High School Activities Association Grand Slam Champions. They have brought pride to their school, city, and State.

Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing the Secure Visa Waiver Travel Act of 2007. Dating back to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) has been a highly successful program that allows nationals of designated countries to travel to the United States visa-free for up to 90 days for temporary business or tourism. VWP countries are required to grant reciprocal visa-free travel to Americans. The VWP has been a boost for tourism and commerce between the United States and the 27 countries that currently participate. For this reason, many other countries hope to join the VWP. There is strong support within the Administration, the business community, and among our allies and friends for Congress to take up legislation to expand the VWP.

I also support expansion of the VWP, and that is why I am introducing this bill. The VWP has been beneficial to American tourism and businesses. However, the VWP also has serious security vulnerabilities; both ``shoe-bomber'' Richard Reid and convicted al-Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui traveled under the VWP. As we consider ways to expand the VWP, I believe security considerations must be foremost in our minds. The United States must enhance partnerships with VWP countries to ensure that terrorists and those who would violate our laws cannot travel visa-free. I believe my bill accomplishes this.

As a prerequisite to expansion, my bill requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to implement an effective biometric air border exit system, US-VISIT air exit, so we can know at all times who is in our country. My bill also requires that VWP travelers be screened against terrorist and criminal watch lists and that VWP countries report all lost and stolen passports, so these passports cannot be used by terrorists and criminals. We must also improve information-sharing with our VWP partner countries to be able to know whether a traveler might present a threat to the U.S. In addition, before admitting new countries to the VWP, DHS must consider other security factors, such as the country's passport standards, airport security, whether the country has an effective air marshal program, and whether its nationals have a history of compliance with our immigration and other laws.

My bill maintains the requirement that the nationals of a VWP country demonstrate they will comply with our immigration laws. Some who advocate expanding the Visa Waiver Program say that preventing terrorism should be our only concern and that we should not consider whether a country's nationals have a history of immigration violations or visa overstays. While preventing terrorist travel is our primary security concern, it is not our only security concern. As we have seen in recent worksite enforcement actions, persons living and working in the U.S. illegally can also present security risks to our citizens and our economy, such as engaging in identity theft, or they can be exploited by criminal or terrorist elements. Robust border security, where we have control of who enters and leaves our country and know they are here for legitimate purposes, must be central to any expansion of the VWP. To that end, I am pleased to offer an approach to accomplishing this goal--the Secure Visa Waiver Travel Act of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007. I am also grateful to the Rules Committee and my colleague from Florida for offering this rule.

The bill passed out of the Committee on Homeland Security was a comprehensive bill. I know a number of my colleagues offered amendments, and I appreciate their interest.

I am also pleased the rule makes in order the manager's amendment I will be offering. This amendment was the result of extensive negotiations with my colleagues on the Oversight and Government Reform as well as Transportation Committees. Chairman Waxman assisted in perfecting the whistleblower protections in the bill. Chairman Oberstar worked with me on clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the Departments of Transportation and Homeland Security in this bill.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I feel this is a good rule. It provides for sufficient debate on this important legislation. It also rules in order several amendments that deserve discussion and consideration by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record on H.R. 1401.

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 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.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise to claim time.

In its present form I am.

Madam Speaker, as you know, we just received the motion to recommit a few minutes ago, and if I could ask some questions of the ranking member about the motion to recommit, it would help.

You have the motion to recommit being retroactive back until November 20, 2006. Is there any reason for that date?

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Have they been charged with anything, to your knowledge?

But to your knowledge no criminal charges have been filed against the people on the plane.

Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I think the issue is if individuals who were singled out, not charged with anything in violation of the law, then why shouldn't they be able to seek remedy in a court of law?

For the sake of discussion, Madam Speaker, all of us in this body don't look alike, and it is clear that people could be profiled because of their religion or their race.

I think the record is clear in this country that some people are profiled,

and I am wondering if people are profiled illegally, not charged with a criminal act. They absolutely should have the ability to seek redress in a court of law.

What I want to do is to say that there is nothing wrong with reporting in good faith, but when it is clear that we have not defined in a good-faith language in this motion to recommit what that is, then a number of people in this country could be singled out for various and sundry reasons. And what I am saying in this motion to recommit is it sets us up to start profiling against individuals regardless of religion, custom, or what have you.

If I am praying on a plane simply because I am afraid to fly, then I could be singled out in the eyes of someone else. So I am clear that this is speculative on people who look different; it is speculative on people who perhaps act differently. I am convinced that, knowing you, you have not proven on the committee to be a punitive person; and the reason I say that, Mr. Ranking Member, is we should not be singling people out for personal reasons. We need to catch bad people, but we need to make sure that we are not profiling those individuals because of how they look. I mean, this is America. This is the melting pot with a rainbow.

The point that I am making, while this motion to recommit might be well-intended, it has unintended consequences on a lot of people, people who, for religious or other reasons, might look different; and I think that the offerers of this motion to recommit should think about this. Because we are not a body or a country of just one people. And if you look at it, we should be tolerant, and tolerant doesn't mean singling people out or having them arrested for no apparent reason other than the fact that they look different.

Madam Speaker, I accept the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 1401, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 1401, including corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering, and cross-referencing and the insertion of appropriate headings.