[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 24, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H5734-H5742]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1145
To further ensure the safety of the American people, we have
instituted very clear guidelines for grant eligibility. Local and State
officials must create a multiyear Homeland Security Plan. This will
ensure that Congress is not just throwing money at the problem, but
working to find a forum in which State and local governments can find
comprehensive, long-term solutions.
The Department of Homeland Security is also working diligently to
protect our ports of entry. There is $61.7 million in this bill for the
Container Security Initiative known as CSI. It is our belief that
security at the ports of the United States should really be the last
line of defense, if possible, and not the first.
Through the Container Security Initiative, the Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection is working with the world's largest ports to secure
and screen cargo before it leaves for the United States. We now require
24-hour advanced notice for manifests of cargo ships heading to the
United States. This allows the Department of Homeland Security to see
what is on a ship before it gets near the coasts of the United States.
Through a sophisticated database screening system and ground personnel
working with other countries, the Department of Homeland Security is
creating a frontline of defense hundreds, and, in many instances,
thousands of miles from the United States.
H.R. 2555 also continues funding for the Transportation Security
Administration at over $5 billion, $5.172 billion to be exact, $360
million over the President's request, as we continue to work to ensure
that airplane travel is as safe as possible.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses the creation of Project
Bioshield. In a speech to the Bio 2003 Convention Center and Exhibition
yesterday, President George W. Bush stated, ``Project Bioshield will
give our scientific leaders greater authority and more flexibility in
decisions that may affect our national security. Our labs will be able
to hire the right experts, to buy the right equipment, and to speed the
construction of the right facilities to accelerate urgently needed
discoveries.''
Mr. Speaker, I believe that Project Bioshield is truly one of the
most important programs created as a direct result of the threats to
the homeland of the United States. Similar to the space race during the
decade of the 1960s, the Nation faces a time when it must rely on the
great innovations of science and research, in this instance, to keep
our communities safe. I am confident that this legislation addresses
those needs by providing Project Bioshield with nearly $6 billion over
the next 10 years.
H.R. 2555, Mr. Speaker, is very important legislation. It is
important that we bring it forth today. I am proud to be able to do so.
It is essential to the continued commitment by this Congress for the
security and safety of all citizens and residents of the United States
and, in fact, to the well-being of our homeland. We bring it forth
under a fair and open rule. The legislation was reported out of the
Committee on Appropriations by a voice vote. I think it is very
appropriate to thank, and I do so, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Young) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for their
leadership on this important issue; and I urge my colleagues to support
both the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H5735]]
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I supported the Department of Homeland
Security back when most Republicans still opposed it, and I served on
the Select Committee that created the new Department last year, so I
expect to vote for this bill to fund the Department on final passage.
But before we get to that point, Members will have the chance to
address several serious weaknesses in America's homeland defense
system.
First, we need to pass the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the committee, to increase security
at our ports, our airports, and our northern border, and to meet other
vital security needs identified by the Bush administration. As it
stands, the base bill does not address major holes in homeland defense,
and the Obey amendment would plug some of those. And to do it, all we
have to do is ask millionaires to take slightly smaller tax breaks than
they are already getting next year. It is a reasonable trade: about
200,000 millionaires would give up just $5,000 of the over-$88,000 in
tax breaks they are getting next year, and all Americans would get
critical homeland security investments.
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership is not willing to ask
millionaires to accept an $83,000 tax break next year rather than an
$88,000 tax break, so they blocked the Obey amendment.
Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, addressing the second issue does not cost a
dime, but it is fundamental to the success of the new Department of
Homeland Security. As my colleagues will recall, when the Congress
created this powerful new domestic security agency last year, several
Members, Republicans as well as Democrats, expressed concern that its
powers could be abused and turned against law-abiding American
citizens. The former House majority leader, Dick Armey of Texas, was
particularly outspoken on this issue.
Unfortunately, we have already seen an example of the danger that
concerned Mr. Armey.
And that is why it is absolutely critical that the House act to
protect the Department of Homeland Security from ever again being used
as the Department of Political Security, as happened just last month.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Homeland Security became involved in a
partisan political dispute last month when it helped Texas Republicans
hunt down law-abiding Democratic State legislators. Specifically, the
Homeland Security agency charged with tracking terrorists was enlisted
to help Texas Republicans trying to track Democratic lawmakers who had
stood up to the Republican leadership in Austin. These Democratic
legislators violated neither State nor Federal law. They simply used a
legal parliamentary tactic, breaking a quorum, in a legislative battle
to stop an unprecedented bill to unnecessarily redraw Texas's
congressional districts. They employed a legitimate parliamentary
tactic that Republicans have used at other times and in other places.
But when Abraham Lincoln broke a quorum in the Illinois legislature
in 1839, his political opponents did not have the option of using the
Department of Homeland Security to track him down. Neither did the
officers of the U.S. Senate in 1988 when Senate Republicans tried to
break a quorum.
Today, however, the Department of Homeland Security has enormous
domestic intelligence powers. And somehow, on May 12, 2003, America's
homeland security resources were employed to help Texas Republicans
against their political rivals.
There is really no disputing this, Mr. Speaker. According to a report
by the Department's own Inspector General, the Homeland Security
Department's Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center spent its
resources helping the Texas State police and the Texas Republican
leaders directing the manhunt trying to find the plane of former Texas
Speaker Pete Laney, a Democratic legislature who had flown to Oklahoma,
to break the quorum. Many of my colleagues will remember Mr. Laney as
the Democrat who introduced George W. Bush to the Nation on the night
that he was declared President by the Supreme Court.
If my colleagues can believe it, Mr. Speaker, Homeland Security
officials maintain that the 40 minutes they spent assisting in the
Texas Republican's manhunt was only a ``minimal'' amount of work. That
is a troubling excuse.
If the Department of Homeland Security spent just 1 minute in a
domestic political dispute, then it was 1 minute too long. But they
spent 40 minutes, which is longer than it took for terrorists to carry
out their September 11 attack on the World Trade Center.
Even the office of a Republican member, Representative Ken Calvert,
who represents the Riverside area where the AMICC is based, called to
express shock at their involvement, at the Homeland Security
Department's involvement in this political matter.
Mr. Speaker, Homeland Security officials also contend that they were
tricked into getting involved. The report issued by the Department's
Inspector General indicates that ``several individuals'' were
instructing the Texas State police officer who got homeland security
involved in the manhunt. According to a partial and heavily blacked-out
transcript released by the Homeland Security officials, the officer was
taking direct orders from a ``State representative.''
The Texas State police refused to identify who was directing them,
and they quickly destroyed most of the documents relating to the
episode. As a result, Homeland Security referred this case to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, but the FBI says it has no interest in
investigating.
Fortunately, some Texas State police field notes survived the
document purge and they indicate that Texas Republicans, Governor Rick
Perry, State House Speaker Tom Craddick and others, personally
instructed the State police during much of the manhunt which was run
out of Speaker Craddick's office.
So as my colleagues can see, Mr. Speaker, a lot of disturbing
questions remain unanswered about how homeland security resources were
used to help the Texas Republicans track their political rivals.
Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: my goal here today is to protect the
Department of Homeland Security. Its mission, safeguarding Americans
against the threat of terrorism, is too important to risk undermining
its credibility with the public.
But even if homeland security officials were misled, and the
available facts do not clearly support that excuse, the entire episode
still reveals the Department of Homeland Security's dangerous
vulnerability to abuse.
Unfortunately, Homeland Security officials have refused to even
acknowledge the Department's vulnerability or the threat it poses to
their mission. Secretary Ridge has refused to release the complete
tapes of the Department's communications with Texas officials or anyone
else involved in this episode, despite legitimate requests from
numerous Members of Congress, including the ranking members of the
House and Senate committees that oversee the Department.
And the Department's Inspector General declared that its own agency's
actions were ``appropriate.''
Mr. Speaker, that is so wrong that it is frightening. It is never
appropriate to use homeland resources for partisan purposes, no matter
how many minutes Homeland Security officials spend helping one
political party, or which party they help. On the contrary, it is a
dangerous abuse of power, one that threatens the liberties of all
Americans, and one that risks public support for the Department of
Homeland Security.
That is why the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), a member of the
Committee on Appropriations, and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee), a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security,
submitted amendments to the Committee on Rules last night to ensure
that the Department of Homeland Security never again finds itself being
used for partisan purposes.
Republicans on the Committee on Rules, however, seem not to
understand the seriousness of the Department's vulnerability or the
importance of closing this loophole immediately, because they blocked
both amendments.
[[Page H5736]]
As a result, there is only one way to protect the Department of
Homeland Security against political abuse: by opposing the important
procedural vote known as the previous question. If we defeat the
previous question, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider
these two amendments to restore public trust in America's homeland
security officials.
Mr. Speaker, this should not be a partisan issue. I urge my
colleagues to put politics aside and oppose the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Sabo), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of
the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in opposition to the rule for the fiscal year 2004
Homeland Security appropriations bill. The rule should be opposed for
several reasons. I will raise two of them.
First, the rule does not protect an amendment I offered that was
adopted in committee which concerns the Transportation Security
Administration's new computerized airline passenger profile system
called CAPPS2.
As proposed, CAPPS2 potentially represents the largest-ever intrusion
of the Federal Government into our personal lives. Under it, a Federal
agency would mine sensitive personnel data on millions of people for
the routine event of flying on an airplane. The privacy and due process
concerns are immense. The administration has been working on CAPPS2
since late last year.
{time} 1200
But there remains many unanswered questions about it. It deserves far
more scrutiny than has been paid so far. I am concerned that TSA may
not currently possess the expertise to design a fair and effective
passenger screening system, one that catches the people who mean us
harm, while protecting those who do not.
I am concerned for law abiding people, especially those with common
names and those who move residences often or who do not have well-
established credit histories like college students and older Americans.
I worry that these honest people will be singled out for further TSA
screening, not based on risk but simply because the system is not well
designed.
I am concerned that while TSA may set up a mediator to deal with
passenger problems, it may be a mediator in name only. There may be no
adequate process for passengers to get problems fully resolved because
TSA will not control all the data bases it plans to use. If so, once
red flagged, will law abiding people be needlessly hassled every time
they fly? And to make matters worse, would such mistaken red flags of
people who pose no risk cause the passenger and baggage screening
systems to become overburdened, thereby raising the risk of lowering
it?
My amendment, the CAPPS2 provision in the bill, requires the GAO to
review CAPPS2 as it exists today before funding can be obligated on a
planned pilot program.
GAO's review would mirror the recommendations put forth by the
Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General in the report they
submitted on May 20 on DOD's Terrorism Information Awareness Program.
It is unclear how many of these recommendations, if any, have been
filed by the TSA or by the Department of Homeland Security. I suspect
none.
The CAPPS2 provisions in the bill are reasonable and should have been
protected in the rule from points of order.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. PENCE), truly one of the most
thoughtful and really an extraordinary leader in this House.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I was here, as you were, and as most of us in this
institution were on the day September 11, 2001. It was a sunny day,
just really very much like today. All of us were busy about our
business, breakfast meetings of that Tuesday, when we received word of
what happened in New York and then happened again and then happened
within a proximity of these buildings that is still jarring to the
memory of most Americans, the causality and the horrific tragedy at the
Pentagon.
So this business of homeland security is a very serious and near-to-
the-heart business for me. While I am not a member of the Committee on
Appropriations that crafted the critical legislation upon which this
rule is based, I am a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary's
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security; and I was
compelled to come to the floor today, Mr. Speaker, and speak about what
it is that we are doing in the majority for homeland security. And
because there is much in the national debate and much in the debate on
this blue and gold carpet that suggests that we are not doing our part.
And I am duty-bound to come here today and say that I believe we are.
In fact, I helped to draft the legislation that created the new
Department of Homeland Security.
And the first priority of that new department, the first of its kind
in decades, is to protect our Nation against further terrorist attack.
Our first priority, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure the Department is
properly funded to fulfill its mission. And I believe the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the members of the subcommittee who
prepared this critical appropriations legislation in the area of
homeland security have crafted a balanced bill that will keep our
homeland safer in an age of growing terrorist threats, will meet those
needs of first providers.
The bill recognizes the need for coordination at every level of
homeland security. Here are a few examples: We do support State and
local first responders, $1.9 billion for an Office of Domestic
Preparedness basic formula grants; $500 million for State and local law
enforcement terrorism prevention grants; $750 million for firefighters
grants; $168 million for emergency management performance grants.
Also, this legislation today will do much to strengthen and protect
our borders, porous as they have been, threatening our national
security. This bill will provide $9 billion for border protection and
related activities, including $129 million for inspection technologies
for vehicles and cargo; $61.7 million for container security, and $12.1
million for Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism.
We also are enhancing the transportation security, $1.6 billion for
passenger screening, $1.2 billion for baggage screening efforts, and
the list goes on and on and on.
Mr. Speaker, much will be said today as we proceed through this rule,
debate, and through general debate that the majority has not done
enough. But there are literally billions and billions of dollars
carefully crafted in the area of first responders, protecting our
borders, transportation security that argue eloquently and forcefully
otherwise.
I urge my colleagues to support the Homeland Security Appropriations
Act and this rule. I believe it strikes a balance perfectly between the
missions previously under the umbrella of other agencies that now find
themselves under this new department.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, Austin, Texas is the proud capital of the
Lone Star State. And we say rather modestly there that we are the live
music capital of the world. We do so because of an immense amount of
talent and a great interest in music in our community. But of late
there has been music of a different type.
We have had the Republican majority leader, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay) trying to call the tune and forcing the leaders of our
State to dance to his tune. Indeed, he has spent so much time in Austin
arm twisting and cajoling State legislators, huddling a week ago today
with the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Speaker of Texas House,
that just this past Friday he was named by Texas Monthly as one of the
10 worst members of the Texas legislature, not of the United States
Congress. It is difficult to determine for which body he is devoting
the most time.
Against that backdrop, we consider this legislation. The problem that
we face today is that no matter how much
[[Page H5737]]
we appropriate for homeland security to protect us against terrorism,
if its resources are being diverted to political purposes, such as
fulfilling the desires of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), then we
will not have the protections that the American people deserve. We know
that the Department allocated some of its resources to searching for
Texas legislators who were involved in legitimate opposition to the
DeLay Redistricting Plan.
The Department first assigned a former Republican Congressional
candidate from Texas as the Inspector General to conduct an
``independent'' investigation to decide whether the resources had been
misallocated. When that gentleman, after his biased and partisan
background on this matter was exposed, recused himself, and then
another person was appointed, we were assured that she, as an Inspector
General at the Department of Homeland Security, would get to the bottom
of this.
She assured us she would explore all aspects of the misuse of the
Department of Homeland Security, but then produced a report that only
looked at the sole issue of the Department's inability to find a cotton
farmer from Plainview and where his plane had gone. I hope they are
able to do a better job with terrorism than they did in locating an
airplane of a former Democratic Speaker of the Texas House. She did
not, as promised, conduct a broad examination of misuse of any
resources in any part of the Department. Though she told us she would
get to the bottom of who required that this investigation be
undertaken, she did not do that and her report is silent on whether any
federal office holders or their employees were involved.
As with the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the United States Attorneys Office, the U.S. Marshals
Service, we have received no information in response to repeated
requests about how they may have been misused by the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay) or others in this investigation in the State of
Texas. In fact, we have a stone wall and we have asked the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), well known as ``the hammer'' to tear down that
stone wall. To date we have nothing but silence and excuses and
stonewalling with reference to these matters.
What relevance does that have to today's appropriations request? All
the relevance in the world. If the Department of Homeland Security, the
U.S. Marshals Service or the Department of Justice can be used for
partisan political purposes like this and all it takes is a call from
someone with a badge, what is there to prevent a sheriff somewhere in
America who wants the Department of Homeland Security to help with a
divorce investigation to involve them in this? If there is a local
police chief who wants to do some opposition research on the opponent
of a local mayor who is up for reelection, who will prevent the
Department of Homeland Security from getting involved in that? If you
have a local police officer who is suspicious of a political or
religious group, what is there to prevent the Department of Homeland
Security from responding to his request.
Well, from what we have learned in ``Texasgate'' so far, one would
say there is very little and that this episode only reinforces the
concerns of many Americans that this Department, well intentioned as it
may be, would bring us a new America in which the watchword is ``spy on
our neighbors.'' There is very real concern about government resources
that should be dedicated to protecting American families and instead
could be misused for personal or political gain.
Until we get a full and complete disclosure from all the participants
in this scandal, we will not have a complete answer as to whether
Americans are adequately protected, and that is the purpose of
defeating this motion for the previous question on this rule. In this
way, we can attempt to get to the bottom of this and to ensure that the
resources are not diverted from where they should be to protect our
families, into protecting some political partisan who is trying to
reshape America in his image.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the full Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the Chair notify me when I have used 5
minutes?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair will.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill should not even be here at this
time. The Committee on Appropriations chairman, the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), knows his stuff. And he demonstrated that last
year when he did very heavy oversight of the Transportation Security
Administration, which was totally screwed up at the time.
The problem we have with this bill being before us today is that this
new agency was extremely reluctant to provide useful information to
this Congress so that we could make intelligent judgments about how to
allocate money to this new agency. And we have a specific problem,
because the reorganization bill that passed with much ballyhoo last
year is not what it is cracked up to be. Before the passage of that
legislation we had 133 agencies that had something to do with homeland
security. And what the bill finally did was to take 22 of those
agencies, not including the FBI and the CIA, the two gut agencies in
our fight against terrorism, so they took 22 agencies, put them in the
department that they called ``Homeland Security,'' and we are supposed
to stand up and sing Hosannas. The problem is that left 111 other
agencies uncoordinated, outside the tent.
So we had that basic confusion to begin with, and now we have even
more confusion at the agency. This new agency, for instance, we are
told still has not prepared a telephone directory for its employees so
people can reach who they are supposed to reach if they have a problem.
Now, there is nothing wrong with this bill if you think it is
perfectly okay to proceed on the status quo, because this bill provides
a meager 1.8 percent increase over last year's budget for the agencies
meant to protect us against terrorism. But because of inflation that
means there will be on a per capita basis less security provided to
each and every citizen of this country this year than was the case last
year. And yet we hear many stories about deficiencies in securing this
country.
{time} 1215
Example, we had over 60 uncleared aircraft that flew from Canada into
the United States last year. We have no assurance about what was in
those planes or who was in those planes. We have $4 billion that the
Coast Guard has told us that we need to provide over time to our port
facilities for security purposes. We are only inspecting 2 percent of
all of the cargoes that come into our national ports; and we have what
was supposed to be the brain of the agency, the information analysis
division, having a terrible time getting off the ground after the
reorganization.
So I want to put the House on notice now. I intend to offer an
amendment that would add $1 billion to key security functions. I would
add $400 million for port security grants. The Coast Guard has told us
that we need $4.4 billion, and this will speed up that timetable a bit.
My amendment would also bring to 25 percent the Federal contribution of
port facility security needs. That leaves a huge percentage of the bill
still in local hands. If we do not do this, it will take close to 20
years before we are providing half the cost of meeting that security.
That is a little bit too long to wait, I think.
Thirdly, we would add $100 million to the Coast Guard to effectively
implement the Maritime Security Administration Act, which was created
in order to improve our ability to analyze vessel threat information.
And my amendment would also provide $100 million to increase the number
of Customs inspectors now inspecting container ships into the United
States. This would allow 1,300 additional Customs inspectors to be
brought on. That is still a drop in the bucket in comparison to what
they need.
We would also provide $200 million to improve security on the
northern borders, some 5,500 miles long; and we have virtually no
capacity to cover large sections of it. During Operation Liberty
Shield, there were 10 aircraft that came across that border without a
[[Page H5738]]
clearance, even though that border was being patrolled by air for 30
straight days. I would say that is a problem.
People will say how do we intend to pay for this amendment. We would
intend to pay for the amendment by reducing the size of the tax cut
that this Congress just provided for people who make over $1 million a
year. We would reduce that average tax cut from $88,300 to $83,300.
That is hardly crippling the most well-off people in this country, but
that tiny adjustment in their windfall would enable us to significantly
enhance the security of the United States. It would inure to their
benefit as well as citizens who do not get that fat a tax cut. I think
it is perfectly rational.
I know some people will say, ``Oh my goodness, you must not do that
because you will be invading the jurisdiction of another committee.'' I
would point out that if you go back just a few months ago on the
omnibus appropriation bill, we had a whole slew of proposals that the
House leadership insisted that we put into that appropriation bill.
Most of those items were under the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Ways and Means. So all we are doing is what the leadership of this
House itself did last year, and it seems to me that we ought to put the
welfare of the country, ahead of what Dick Bolling, my mentor from
Missouri, described years ago as being jurisdictional dung hill
politics. We should not worry about jurisdiction. We should worry about
what kind of a job we do on the substantive level.
So basically, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules did not allow my
amendment to be made in order. What is happening is this: when the
budget resolution process was first established by the Congress, the
purpose was to make Congress face up to choices and to recognize what
the trade-offs would be when you made those choices; but the way the
House leadership is running the budget process today, they are
guaranteeing that there is never any linkage between actions and
consequences.
What this House did on the budget resolution, what this House did on
the tax bill has now dictated to this committee the limitations under
which we bring this bill to the floor, and that is why this bill is
woefully inadequate in terms of meeting the security interests and
needs of the United States.
So I make no apology for trying to do something a little different in
order to try to get more resources into this area. I think any American
concerned with our security would understand why we do it; and I think
it is about time that we demonstrate that there are costs, there are
costs to the tax action that was just taken in Congress. Those costs
mean that we have less money available to make the crucial investments
we need in homeland security and, for that matter, also health care,
education, science, you name it.
What I am trying to do is to demonstrate what those real trade-offs
are, even though it is apparent that the majority leadership in the
House wants to hide those trade-offs from the American people. I think
the public has a right to know what services they are going to be
denied on the security front because of that tax action.
I thank the gentleman for his time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to
my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I really did not plan to speak on this bill, but some of
my good friends on the minority side from Texas have been up talking
about alleged abuse of funding or power in terms of homeland security
officials attempting to find some missing State legislators who went
down to Austin and then left Austin and went up to Ardmore, Oklahoma,
hung out at the Holiday Inn for a couple of days while the Texas
legislature was considering a redistricting bill for Congress.
The Inspector General of the homeland security has done an
investigation of this allegation and found no substance to it, no
merit. As it turns out, the information in terms of the tail number and
things like that are available to any citizen in this country who
wishes to call the FAA. If they have a tail number, and if that
airplane is in the air, FAA will tell a person where that particular
airplane is. That is public information unless they have changed the
protocol in the last 2 or 3 weeks, and is available to anybody who
wishes to try to track where somebody is, that is, if they have the
tail number.
What happened down in Austin was that the Texas House was going to
move a bill to rectify past gerrymanders of the congressional lines
that go back over 30 years, and some of the Democratic State
legislators decided that they did not want to be part of it; and under
the Texas Constitution, it requires a two-thirds vote to have a quorum.
Enough legislators left town on an organized basis, went up to Oklahoma
and hung out until the legislature session had ended. Well, that is
according to the rules and may be good press, but it is not going to
work in the long term because the Governor called a special session
that is going to start in a couple of weeks, and the lines are going to
be redrawn to verify the voting wishes of the people of Texas, not of
some of the political polls in the minority party.
So I just wanted to come over and set the record straight. There has
been no abuse of power. There has been no illegal use of funds. There
has been nothing like that.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Austin, briefly.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman aware that the Inspector
General of the Department of Homeland Security has not reported on any
aspect of whether homeland security resources were used other than the
aircraft and has specifically declined to report on which individuals
may have asked that homeland security resources be diverted for this
purpose? In other words, the investigation is incomplete.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend from
Austin raising that question.
My information is that the Inspector General has done an
investigation. There is not an issue there. I think some State
officials when this, what I would call a ``bug out'' to Ardmore, the
gentleman may have a different term for it, he might call it something
differently, but when that happened, the Governor and the Speaker of
the House, as is their authority under the Texas law, sought to bring
the recalcitrant lawmakers back to the legislature so there would be a
quorum; and they touched bases with a number of State and Federal
officials, and some of the Federal officials made a couple of phone
calls, but there was no abuse of power and nothing illegal that has
happened, and this is what the investigation has said.
Again, I am here as a Republican, a Member of the majority party. I
have got no problem if in Austin certain legislators do not want to
report for a quorum. That is something that we have the authority to do
here; and as my colleague knows, the Texas constitution requires a two-
thirds membership present if there is a question of the quorum. So we
do not have a problem with that, but I think the State officials in
Austin had every right to try to find where those legislators went and
try to get them back if they could get them back so there would be a
quorum, and there is nothing illegal about that, and there is nothing
unethical about that, and there is nothing improper about that.
So I just kind of wanted to set the record straight. It may be good
political theater, but there is no illegality that has gone on and the
Inspector General said that.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost) has 6 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart) has 13 minutes remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, just to complete the record, it is very
clear that the office of Inspector General did not explore anything
other than one aircraft. They did not explore the other misuse of the
response of the Department of Homeland Security; and, second, it is
clear that they failed to provide or even pursue evidence on the
[[Page H5739]]
question of which Federal officials may have asked for this
misappropriation of resources. Finally, to complete the record, history
shows that it was Abraham Lincoln who was among the first to use this
tactic of defeating a quorum.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), my good friend.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for
yielding me this time, and I would rise in support of this rule.
It has been interesting to hear the debate, if we could characterize
it as that, thus far. We hear about an internal redistricting dispute
within the State of Texas. We have the other friends predictably come
to this well and somehow try to trot out the shop-worn thesis that the
people's economic security at home should be invalidated by command and
control spending here in Washington; and undergirding all this, Mr.
Speaker, is this simple proposition for the left: it is never enough.
Indeed, if we take the debate and the dispute as it is here and in so
many different areas, our same friends who come to us time and again on
different issues and would have the American people believe that they
are the champions of eliminating the deficit, that they are for fiscal
responsibility, when it comes to spending programs, and perhaps this
one especially, they begin from the thesis that there is never enough
spending, not that the considerable resources that we will bring to
bear in this appropriation, billions of dollars, can be utilized in
judicious, concentrated fashion to bring about the desired ends. No,
no.
Mr. Speaker, the resounding chorus from the left is, it is never
enough, with an interesting variation. If one succeeds in America, they
are to be singled out for punishment for succeeding, for paying their
taxes; we want to reinstitute taxes on them because their economic
security or the economic security they provide to workers they hire in
small business should be invalidated for the class warfare scenario
that states somehow they are unworthy because they succeed.
So my friends will offer an amendment, I suppose, later when we move
this on to raise taxes; and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, to this House
and to my colleagues, in so doing, they are denying what is obvious and
that is that there is a link between economic security for all
Americans and homeland security for all Americans.
Just as we understand the best social program on Earth is a job, we
get there not from the command and control of the left who believe the
answer is always in bureaucratically driven jobs. We get there by
allowing people to use their money to save, spend and invest to create
new jobs in the private sector; and yes, we maintain a judicious and
concentrated use of funds to protect our homeland and to protect the
American people.
{time} 1230
But again, Mr. Speaker, remember what the resounding chorus will be
from the left: It is never enough. And there are myriad uses for your
money over and beyond the saving, spending and investing of same in
your family's economic security.
You see, I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, these two goals are mutually
exclusive. I believe the American people need to keep more of their
hard-earned money to save, spend, and invest, because I believe it will
lead to higher employment and economic gains. But I also believe the
bill we will consider today stands up for national security, makes a
difference for this American Nation, and so I would ask my colleagues
to join with me in voting in the affirmative.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wish that this debate was
simply about making sure that the homeland is secure. I rise in
opposition to this rule and associate myself with the words of the
ranking member of this committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey).
This is not about stealing hard-earned dollars from taxpayers, it is
about providing for the safety of Americans and taking a few thousand
dollars from the million-dollar earners that the big tax bust this
Republican administration has given, where those making $1 million will
get a whopping $90,000 check almost, merely taking a few thousand from
that paycheck and providing Americans with the kind of security they
deserve.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, while we speak on this floor with two or three
Members, Rome burns, terrorists are planning, cells that terrorists
have are in the United States, terrorists are walking across the
border, and terrorism is much rampant around the United States and
around the world. Why? Because this administration is doing nothing
about it.
So I come to the floor today to talk about making sure that Homeland
Security protects neighborhoods and communities and ports and cities
and school districts.
This is not a joke. This is not about a mere political question in
the State of Texas where those who did not want to be struck up and
hung by the Republican Party used their constitutional rights and left
the floor of the House. This is about an OIG report that comes to the
United States Congress with all these black marks in it. There is no
truth in these reports. They are not telling us the truth. They are
hiding the truth. And yet the people on this floor and the people who
run these committees refuse to have an investigation to find out what
the truth is.
Mr. Speaker, we need an amendment that has been rejected, that simply
tells us to make sure that no homeland security funds can be used for
the surveillance powers of the Department of Homeland Security for
purposes not related to protecting homeland security. That is all we
are asking. I would say that this is a rule that should be rejected.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, with some personal experience, having
served 14 years in the Texas Legislature, and having many friends who
serve in the Texas House, and having just been elected in the 2000
election, I felt compelled to come to the floor and offer some personal
perspective on the, I think, highly improper and blatant partisan
attacks that the Democrats are making that have absolutely nothing to
do with homeland security.
The Inspector General has already made a report on whatever
allegations the Democrats are making. The Inspector General has already
determined that everything that was done was properly done. The
majority leader's office has said repeatedly, and this is confirmed by
the Inspector General's report, that there was no contact between the
majority leader's office and the Department of Homeland Security. This
is an irrelevant distraction from the core important work that this
Congress and the Nation must do in protecting our borders, in
preventing people from coming across the border who might pose a threat
to the security of this Nation.
The Democrats in Texas who walked off the job in the regular session
of the legislature did so in a way that the public in Texas, the people
of Texas recognized was improper; that it was wrong for them to walk
off. And in fact it is incredible to me that the Democrats who walked
off the job did so in a way that completely defied the majority will of
the people of Texas.
Since Reconstruction, since 1876, the Democrats have controlled the
State of Texas. We just elected a new Republican majority to the Texas
House. The Texas Senate is now Republican. Our Governor is Republican.
The Federal courts have controlled our prisons for up to 25 years. I
led the effort to regain control over our Texas prison system from
Federal Judge William Wayne Justice. Our State courts control our
school finance system. Federal courts control our mental health
hospitals in Texas. And it is entirely proper, in fact it is essential
under our constitutional republican form of government that the people
control their institutions, that the people control the way their
congressional districts are drawn, and a majority of the people of
Texas elected a Republican Legislature to pass Republican legislation.
Now, I can attest, as the Republican whip in the Texas House, that I
still have tread marks on my back from being run over every day by Ann
Richards and Speaker Pete Laney. I always
[[Page H5740]]
got right back up and dove into the fighting, fighting the tax
increases the Democrats passed repeatedly in Texas, fighting Ann
Richards and the Democrats' creation of the first income tax on
businesses in Texas. I got right back up after they passed those new
tax increases, and I did not give up and walk out. It is a part of the
process that you make your best argument in the legislative body, and
if you lose, that is majority rule.
I think it is also very instructive that the Democrats chose to walk
out to protect their own political hides. They did not walk out to
protect some minority group or some special interest group they are so
fond of. They walked out to protect their own political hide. It is
very revealing for the people of the United States to see that the
Democrats choose to pick up this kind of dust, to make this sort of
distraction, to walk out and shut down the entire legislative process
to protect their own political power, to protect their own political
hides rather than to go and walk out or make this big statement in
defense of some group or some budget cut that they might have disagreed
with.
I think it is entirely appropriate that the Inspector General's
report has shown that everything that was done was done so properly.
And also, the Speaker of the House has authority in Texas, as the
Speaker does here, to place a call in the House and use the law
enforcement authority at his disposal to find members, to locate them
and bring them back on the job. This House Chamber has been locked down
before to keep Members in the Chamber so they would do their job, and
it has been done several times in Texas.
In fact, while I was there, the Democrats did walk out once in
protest over failure of the legislature to create a pre-kindergarten
program, I think in 1991. But again, here they walked out to protect
their own political skins. I urge the House to vote against this
amendment.
Mr. FROST. I would inquire as to how much time remains, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost) has 3\3/4\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart) has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Sweeney).
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I had no intention of coming to the floor and speaking on
this rule. I am a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security,
and I assume there will be plenty of time this afternoon for me to give
my appropriate comments. But I have to just say to my colleagues that I
am quite frustrated. I am a New Yorker, I am an American, and I lost
friends in the World Trade Center on September 11. What I would like to
say to my friends on the other side is, let us move on. Let us not use
any more distractions in this process.
We waited a year, a year, to create the Department of Homeland
Security because the other body, in its leadership from the Democratic
Party, decided a year ago that they would rather play politics than go
to the business of the people and go to the business of creating this
Department of Homeland Security.
I listened to the esteemed ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), on the floor a
little while ago. And I have to say that I have great disagreement on
policy, but I appreciate and respect the fact that he is coming to this
floor and talking about the substance of this bill and the issue facing
the American people on this most critical issue.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friends, and implore upon my friends to
allow us to move on and let us do the business of the people. That is
what leadership is about, and that is what they expect of us.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that Members on the other side of the
aisle and their colleagues in Texas sought to misuse Federal resources.
Now, the Inspector General said, oh, but it was only 40 minutes, so it
is no big deal. I would remind the gentleman on the other side of the
aisle that the attack on the World Trade Center occurred in less than
40 minutes, and so Republicans in Texas sought to divert homeland
security resources for 40 minutes.
What did they also seek to do? They also contacted the Department of
Justice, tried to involve the FBI, tried to involve the U.S. Marshals
Service, tried to involve the U.S. Attorney's Office in Texas. This was
a blatant misuse of Federal resources, even if it were one minute. But
it was not just one minute, and it was not just the Department of
Homeland Security. It was other agencies of the Federal Government.
They know it. It should never have happened and, hopefully, it will
never happen again.
I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the
previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule
that will make in order two very important amendments that were
submitted to the Committee on Rules last night and rejected by the
Republican majority. Both of these amendments seek to protect the
Department of Homeland Security against the type of political abuse it
suffered when it ended up helping Texas Republicans hunt down their
political rivals in a legislative dispute.
The first amendment, by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), a
member of the Committee on Appropriations, would require the Secretary
of the Department of Homeland Security to implement written procedures
for the use of personnel and resources for any nonemergency use of
homeland security services; and would prohibit the Office of Air and
Marine Interdiction of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement from supporting Federal, State or local law enforcement or
humanitarian efforts until that is done.
The second amendment, by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee), a member of the Department of Homeland Security, would prohibit
the Department from using funds for political purposes or for any other
purpose not relating to protecting homeland security.
I am confident that all Americans and all Members of this House
support this sentiment expressed in these two amendments. So I urge
Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous
question. Let me emphasize a ``no'' vote will not stop the House from
taking up the Homeland Security appropriations bill. It will not
prevent other amendments from being offered under the open rule.
However a ``yes'' vote will preclude the House from considering these
two very important amendments that are critical to protecting the
Department of Homeland Security's ability to protect Americans against
terrorism.
Also, assuming that the previous question passes, there will then be
a vote on the rule, and I would urge Members at that point to vote
against the rule so that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will
have the opportunity to offer his amendment to put money back in this
legislation to do the things that should have been done originally.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. FROST. Again, Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize that to protect the
Department of Homeland Security against political abuse, vote ``no'' on
the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the legislation being brought forth
today by the Committee on Appropriations. I know that the chairman, the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), worked long and hard on this bill
and deserves commendation by all of us as well as all the other Members
that have worked so hard on this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, there are $29.4 billion in this underlying legislation
for the Department of Homeland Security. That includes $4.4 billion for
the Office of
[[Page H5741]]
Domestic Preparedness. Now, the resources that the Congress is
appropriating for the Office of Domestic Preparedness constitutes an
increase of 1,400 percent for that critically important issue since
September 11, 2001. The Congress is doing its job.
{time} 1245
I think all of us should and I am sure do praise the work of the
Subcommittee on Infrastructure and Border Security, that has permitted
them to bring forth this legislation. There is a very important
initiative of the many new initiatives to protect the Nation that is
being funded by this legislation, the Container Security Initiative, so
that commerce, trade that we see in all the ports of America, those
containers sent from abroad, that they be inspected before they leave
the ports that they come from so that the security of the Nation is
significantly augmented in that fashion. That Container Security
Initiative is funded in this bill.
There are many other reasons why we should pass this legislation. I
feel very proud of the underlying legislation and the fact that we are
moving forward to increase the security of the American people. I urge
support for the underlying legislation and this totally fair, open
rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 293 Rule on H.R. 2555: Fiscal Year 2004
Homeland Security Appropriations
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendments printed in section 3 shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order and before
any other amendment if offered by the Member designated. Each
amendment may be offered only in the order specified in
section 3. The amendments are not subject to amendment except
for pro forma amendments or to a demand for a division of the
question in the committee of the whole or in the House.
Sec. 3. The amendments referred to in section 2 are as
follows:
(1) Amendment by Representative Edward of Texas or a
designee:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
limitation on use of personnel and resources of the office of air and
marine interdiction
Sec. ____. (a) Congress finds that in May 2003 personnel
and resources of the Office of Air and Marine Interdiction of
the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement were
utilized in an improper manner to locate legislators of the
State of Texas who were not in violation of any Federal,
State, or local law, or in need of any emergency humanitarian
assistance.
(b) None of the funds made available in this Act may be
used to provide personnel or resources of the Office of Air
and Marine Interdiction of the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement to support Federal, State, or local law
enforcement or humanitarian efforts until the Secretary of
Homeland Security implements written procedures to provide
such personnel or resources for such purposes. The limitation
of the preceding sentence shall not apply with respect to the
use of funds for a bona fide emergency situation.
(2) Amendment by Representative Jackson-Lee of Texas or a
designee:
At the end of the bill (preceding the short title) insert
the following:
Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for political purposes or any other purpose not
related to protecting homeland security, including for--
(1) use of the surveillance powers of the Department of
Homeland Security, for a purpose not related to protecting
homeland security, to--
(A) tap personal or business telephones; or
(B) otherwise monitor or record conversations or activity
in any home, office, or other location; or
(2) use of the investigative powers of the Department of
Homeland Security, for a purpose not related to protecting
homeland security, to track automobiles, airplanes, or other
modes of transportation.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes on
adopting the resolution, if ordered, and on the motions to suspend the
rules relating to H.R. 923 and H.R. 1460.
The vote on H.R. 1416 will be taken later today.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 196, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 301]
YEAS--221
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--196
Abercrombie
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
[[Page H5742]]
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--17
Ackerman
Boucher
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cannon
Cardoza
Conyers
Cramer
Cubin
Feeney
Gephardt
Hulshof
Matsui
Ryun (KS)
Smith (WA)
Waters
Wicker
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1306
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York and Mrs. CAPPS changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this vote
and the remainder in this series will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220,
noes 197, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 302]
AYES--220
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--197
Abercrombie
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--17
Ackerman
Boucher
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Carter
Conyers
Cramer
Cubin
Duncan
Feeney
Gephardt
Hulshof
Ryun (KS)
Smith (WA)
Visclosky
Waters
Wicker
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1313
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________