Waiving Points Of Order Against Conference Report On H.R. 5441, Department Of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007; Providing For Consideration
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 5441, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 3930, MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4772, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 2006 -- (House of Representatives - September 29, 2006)
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1054 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today will provide for consideration of three measures of vital importance to our Nation: The conference report for Fiscal Year 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This rule will enable the House to consider these bills and complete this important work on behalf of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation. These three bills address some of our Nation's most pressing priorities. First, the Homeland Security Appropriations Conference Report funds our most important Federal programs aimed at securing the Nation against terrorist attacks. It provides $34.8 billion for the operations and activities of the Department of Homeland Security in fiscal year 2007, an increase of $2.3 billion over fiscal year 2006 and $2.7 billion above the President's request.
The conference agreement aggressively addresses our most critical homeland security needs, including border and immigration security; nuclear detection; port, cargo and container security; transportation security; natural disaster preparedness and response; and support to State and local first responders.
This legislation secures our homeland first and foremost by protecting our borders and revitalizing immigration enforcement, because border security is homeland security. It provides over $21 billion for border protection, immigration enforcement and related activities. It includes an increase of $2.1 billion over funding in 2006. This includes $5.2 billion for the Secure Border Initiative and additional funding to support technology, personnel and infrastructure to prevent terrorists and other criminals from exploiting our borders and immigration system.
Among other security-enhancing measures, this funding includes $2.77 billion for Border Patrol, adding 1,500 new Border Patrol agents, for a total of 14,800. It includes $1.2 billion for border fencing, vehicle barriers, technology and infrastructure; $4.2 billion for immigration and customs enforcement; $1.38 billion for Immigration and Custody Enforcement custody operations, adding 6,700 detention beds, for a total of 27,500; and $28.2 million to assist State and local efforts to enforce immigration laws.
This conference report also recognizes the need to enhance port, container and cargo security by providing the funds necessary to secure our ports and inbound cargo in order to prevent terrorists and criminals from exploiting the international commerce system.
It supports our first responders by paying attention to the needs of high-threat areas, firefighters and emergency management. It supports ongoing efforts to enhance the current inventory of our Nation's critical infrastructures, develop secure communication systems with Federal, State and local entities, and it continues to work with the private sector to implement protective measures around the Nation's infrastructure.
This agreement continues ongoing efforts to enhance security for all modes of transportation, including ports, rails and aviation with a focus on developing and installing next-generation technology to inspect cargo, baggage and passengers. And it supports traditional missions, such as drug interdiction, law enforcement, maritime safety and Presidential protection.
Finally, this conference report provides for the necessary and appropriate oversight of the Department of Homeland Security. It fences off $1.6 billion from being spent until DHS meets certain planning and management requirements. Under these requirements, DHS must develop a comprehensive strategy and plan for port, cargo, container security, and for the Secure Border Initiative. Department of Homeland Security must also provide expenditure plans for the border security system, U.S.-VISIT, Federal Protective Service, business transformation for CIS, explosive detection systems in airports, Customs information technology systems, and overall better financial data throughout the department, and in particular, science and technology.
Finally, the agreement directs the preparedness Directorate and FEMA to improve its capacities in communications, training and other capacity assessments, including management logistics, emergency housing, debris removal and victim registration.
Second, this rule provides for consideration of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 as modified by the other body. The House version of this legislation passed the House on Wednesday by a vote of 253-168 and was sent to the other body. Today's legislation again provides congressional authorization for military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants for war crimes committed before, on or after Ð9/11/2001. It amends the War Crimes Act to criminalize grave breaches of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, while fully satisfying U.S. treaty obligations. It also authorizes the establishment of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants, which is the legal term used to define international terrorists and those who aid and support them, for war crimes. While this new chapter is based upon the Code of Military Justice, it also creates an entirely new structure for these trials.
These commissions will only be used to try alien terrorists for war crimes. Any U.S. citizen will be tried within the Federal United States judiciary. These alien terrorists acquitted of a war crime will still be detained as enemy combatants according to the principle in international law that there exists an undisputable right to keep the enemy from returning to the battlefield. Thus, an acquittal at a war crime trial will not result in terrorists being released. This legislation also provides for an independent certified military judge to preside over all proceedings.
This agreement creates the process necessary to prosecute terrorists effectively and fairly, while also protecting American troops and intelligence agents fighting the global war on terror.
I would like to thank Chairman Duncan Hunter and Chairman Sensenbrenner for all of their hard work in reaching an agreement with the other body that keeps Americans safe while observing the rule of law.
Third, this rule provides for the consideration of legislation to give private property owners the ability to litigate cases in Federal court when local and State regulations deprive owners the use of their own land.
Although this legislation already passed the House this week with the support of the majority of its Members, it did not achieve the support of the super majority needed to pass under the suspension of the rules.
So, today, the House will once again have the opportunity to support this commonsense bill to ensure that property owners have the same access to Federal courts as other plaintiffs claiming a violation of their constitutional rights.
It removes the judicial detour of forcing claimants raising solely Federal claims to first pursue their litigation in State court on the very same case and dramatically reduces the amount of time that property owners must spend in negotiation and litigation before takings claims that can be heard on their merits.
I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for all of his hard work in constructing and perfecting this legislation, and I look forward to supporting his efforts on the floor later this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this work product that the majority has brought to the floor today. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation that will keep Americans safer, uphold the rule of law and protect the private property rights of citizens. I encourage each of my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the three underlying bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, during the last few years, Members of Congress have spoken very plainly and openly to this administration about our thoughts and ideas and hopes and dreams, about how we can better protect not only this country and our borders but the rule of law, and this administration has been very open to hearing from Members of Congress about these thoughts and concerns.
Our next speaker is a gentleman who has engaged the administration, has talked about how important border initiatives are, to make sure that not only are we secure on our border but to make sure that we deal effectively and carefully with people who have come to this country, to make sure that they are safe, to make sure that they are not harmed in that process. If they have broken the law, they will take the full measure of law as it is given, but that we do so in a compassionate way.
Our next speaker is the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and I yield to him such time as he may consume.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in the month of August, I had an opportunity with several other Members to go to Laredo, Texas, to visit our border to see the border operations and to see the things that were happening there. I had a chance to run across Texas Army National Guard personnel who were attempting to not only work but work successfully with Border Patrol and other Customs and Immigration enforcement personnel.
I wanted to draw attention to how important our National Guard has been from each of our States in protecting our borders, working on border security and doing those things that are necessary. This came as a result of a plan that happened with input from Congress, that happened through the great work that was done not only with the President but also with local Governors and people who are interested in doing this.
I had a chance to go with the Honorable JO BONNER from Alabama down to Laredo. And both he and I together had a chance to see firsthand how the Army National Guard worked with Border Patrol. We went out that night to see firsthand their needs.
Mr. Speaker, that is what is in this bill, the ability that we have to protect our border, to provide the necessary resources, to make sure that our men and women who are with official law enforcement and also those who are with the Guard are able to make sure that this country is protected.
That is what is in this bill. I am proud of it. I am going to ask for everyone's vote for not only the rule but also the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, here we are talking about the rule for Homeland Security, and yesterday, the Rules Committee had an opportunity to speak very plainly with the appropriators who were responsible for this Homeland Security appropriations bill. We spoke with them about several matters. One of them was about the air marine operation under the CBP, Customs and Border Protection.
I would like for my colleagues to know, who have joined me and others in the effort to talk about the air interdiction program that we have about drugs that come into this country, that this bill provides $600 million for their border and air space protection.
Secondly, we had an opportunity to talk about the fugitive operation teams that nationwide are gathered together under Customs and Border Protection to make sure that the apprehension of those people who are illegal aliens that are in our country here who are fugitives and who are dangerous are picked up and dealt with by our judicial system in this country.
Over and over and over, the things that we have talked about that were necessary and needed throughout the years are contained with funding in this bill. I am very happy to say that I am proud of what this administration has done by listening to us, and perhaps more importantly, our appropriators, like HAL ROGERS who brought this bill, who listened and who have done something about it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Our previous speaker has just hit on probably one of the most important aspects of freedom in America, and that is the right of a person to be able to own property, the ability that we have to have our house to be our castle. Yet as we talk about the issue, I would like to add my dimension to it.
The bottom line is that we are engaged in this on behalf of people who own property, people who own property who have grown weary of having local government take their property without due compensation for the benefit of local government, and we are going to protect the private property owner. We believe private property rights are very important, and that is why we are getting engaged, because we have seen local communities do for their own best interest those things that they wanted to do by taking private property from a person.
We believe it is a simple part of what the Constitution is about. We believe that private property rights are important. I do understand the argument, and it is related to a person who cannot fight government even in their own local community when that is what government wants to do.
We are going to give a level playing field to those individuals because we believe that the individualist who owns his own property should have equal rights also, not just to be taken advantage of by local communities.
Mr. Speaker, that is also in this rule. We support the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this up as an issue, because I think, once again, it shows clearly the differences between our parties and the way we think about this.
It is true that the Republican Party would be accused of having a balanced approach not only to making sure that these chemical companies have taken care of their responsibility for security but making sure also that we protect the jobs that come with those and the security of the towns in which they are located in.
We heard the gentleman use words like stronger, tougher, harder and making it more difficult. Everything he talked about was to simply make it harder for these companies to operate in America. Tougher sanctions, more rules, more regulations and being tough on the chemical companies. Yes, we get it, run them out of town. Run them out of the country. Take the jobs and leave.
Mr. Speaker, we are not going to do that in this bill. We are going to bring a balance, a balance that says that these chemical companies are a natural asset to the United States of America. As a part of our ability not only to make sure that we can receive the things that we need, technology and these things which chemical companies provide, that make our lives better every day, we are not going to run them out of town and we are not going to run them out of the country.
They have a responsibility to make sure that their internal elements are safe and the controls they put in place are doing the right thing. They want to take care of their responsibilities, and we are going to make sure that that is balanced. So we are not going to allow the tougher sanctions, the tougher things that our friends on the other side of the aisle want to do. We are going to strike a balance, a balance for safety, a balance for comprehension that what we want is to make sure that they are good corporate citizens and that they look closely at where their own frailties exist.
That is why this bill is going to pass today, because we are not going to run them out of town. We are not going to speak from a position of weakness; we are going to speak from a position of strength. That is another one of the differences between the Republican Party. We are going to balance it out and do the right thing.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in thanking the Honorable MARTIN SABO for his service to this House and for his additions of the things he has brought forth in this legislation, not only working in a bipartisan basis but also his leadership on behalf of making sure that the next generation understands things like port security and other things which the gentleman has specialized in.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank our Speaker, DENNIS HASTERT, and majority leader, JOHN BOEHNER, for their vision and hard work to bring this bill forward today. They worked very closely with Chairman HAL ROGERS and Chairman Jerry Lewis of the Appropriations Committee, DUNCAN HUNTER of the Armed Services Committee, Chairman JIM SENSENBRENNER of the Judiciary Committee, and certainly STEVE CHABOT of the Judiciary Committee.
This bill we bring forward today is a negotiated product, one where we have worked hard with not only members of the administration, but we have taken, as Members of Congress, trips to see our borders wherever they might be, the northern border or the southern border. We have our appropriators, who have taken time to understand the intricate details and the needs of this great Nation. We have engaged with the Department of Defense to talk about those things that will be necessary to protect our men and women on the battlefield. We have taken time to make sure that we have talked to our CIA, Central Intelligence Agency, about the way that they need to do business and those attributes about who they engage across the world and how we can treat fairly, yes, but treat properly those who would engage in killing Americans and bringing down reigning terror in our cities.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this underlying legislation is very important to America's learning lessons from the prior years and bringing those lessons to bear to protect this great Nation. We will speak from a position of strength, not fear. We will not worry about the things that we cannot get done but the things that we can get done. We will learn from our mistakes, and we will learn that, as terrorism in the 21st century evolves, we will, too. That is what these bills are all about.
I am proud of our country, and I say God bless America. Mr. Speaker, I ask for all the Members to support this bill.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 1054--Rule on Conference Report for H.R. 5441 Department of Homeland Security FY07 Appropriations
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
``That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 5441) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.
Sec. 2. (a) A concurrent resolution specified in subsection (b) is hereby adopted.
(b) The concurrent resolution referred to in subsection (a) is a concurrent resolution
(1) which has no preamble;
(2) the title of which is as follows: ``Providing for Corrections to the Enrollment of the Conference Report on the bill H.R. 5441''; and
(3) the text of which is as follows:
(1) In subsection (a), strike: ``Provided further, That the Secretary may not disapprove a site security plan submitted under this section based on the presence or absence of a particular security measure, but the Secretary may disapprove a site security plan if the plan fails to satisfy the risk-based performance standards established by this section: Provided further, That the Secretary may approve alternative security programs established by private section entities, Federal, State, or local authorities, or other applicable laws if the Secretary determines that the requirements of such programs meet the requirements of this section and the interim regulations:''
(2) In subsection (c), strike: ``: Provided further, That in any proceeding to enforce this section, vulnerability assessments, site security plans, and other information submitted to or obtained by the Secretary under this section, and related vulnerability or security information, shall be treated as if the information were classified material''
(3) In subsection (d), strike: ``: Provided, That nothing in this section confers upon any person except the Secretary a right of action against an owner or operator of a chemical facility to enforce any provision of this section''
--
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution *.*.* [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule *.*.* When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/