[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 94 (Friday, July 9, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5405-H5412]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2828, WATER SUPPLY, RELIABILITY,
AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT ACT
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 711 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 711
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2828) to authorize
the Secretary of the Interior to implement water supply
technology and infrastructure programs aimed at increasing
and diversifying domestic water resources. The bill shall be
considered as read for amendment. The amendment in the nature
of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Resources now
printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. All
points of order against the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Resources; (2) the further amendment in the
nature of a substitute printed in the report of the Committee
on
[[Page H5406]]
Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by
Representative Calvert of California or his designee, which
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order,
shall be considered as read, and shall be separately
debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 711 is a
modified closed rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2828, the
Water Supply Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Resources. The rule also waives all points of order against the
bill, provides that the amendment recommended by the Committee on
Resources now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted and
waives all points of order against the bill as amended.
The rule further provides for consideration of the amendment in the
nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on Rules report and
accompanying the resolution, if offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert) or his designee. Said amendment shall be
considered as read and shall be separately debated for 20 minutes
equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent.
Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendment in
the nature of a substitute printed in the report and provides one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2828 was introduced by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert) and passed by the Committee on Resources on
May 5, 2004, by a voice vote. The bill would authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to implement badly needed water supply technology and
infrastructure programs aimed at increasing and diversifying domestic
water supplies.
As is the case if many parts of the West, considerable controversy
has arisen over allocation of water from a vast network of rivers,
marshes, wetlands, and open water known as the California Bay-Delta.
This area covers 780,000 acres and supplies water to two-thirds of
California's population and nearly 7 million acres of farm land through
a series of pumps, canals, and dams operated by the Federal and State
governments.
The competing demands for Bay-Delta water have stretched the
resources capacity to provide reliable amounts of water to users and
the ecosystem and cause conflicts among farmers, urban water
contractors, and environmental groups.
The California Bay-Delta program, known as CALFED, was initiated in
1995 to resolve these water conflicts. Although a record of decision
for the current CALFED program was issued in 2000, legislation to
implement that program has yet to be enacted by Congress. H.R. 2828
establishes within the Office of the Secretary of the Interior an
office of the Federal Water Resources Coordinator to be responsible for
coordinating the activities of all Federal agencies involved in
implementing the activities authorized under this act.
The bill directs the Secretary to undertake a competitive grant
program to, one, investigate and identify opportunities for studying,
planning, and designing water resource activities; and, two, construct
demonstration and permanent facilities to further these purposes as
well as other programs, projects and activities.
The bill also authorizes the Federal agencies to participate in the
CALFED Bay-Delta program in accordance with the objectives and solution
principles that will be set forth in the Record of Decision.
In addition, H.R. 2828 authorizes the Secretary to establish a
program for the construction of rural water systems in the reclamation
States in cooperation with other Federal agencies with rural water
programs as well as non-Federal project entities.
Mr. Speaker, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2828 would cost
$427 million over the 2005 to 2009 time period and $65 million after
2009. These amounts do not include the cost of constructing four new
water storage projects authorized by this bill because construction
would be begin after 2009.
CBO estimates that the Federal share of those additional construction
costs could range from $200 million to $400 million over the 2010 to
2020 time period.
Enacting this bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. H.R.
2828 contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs
on the State, local, or tribal governments.
Mr. Speaker, those of us from western States in particular are
acutely aware of the importance of providing adequate water supplies in
ways that protect sensitive environmental resources. Indeed, this is
among the most challenging areas of domestic policy that we have. I
commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and his colleagues
on the Committee on Resources for tackling this difficult issue in a
way that strikes a reasonable balance between economic development and
environmental protection.
This bill is badly needed and long overdue. So accordingly, Mr.
Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes so we can talk about
H. Res. 711 which is providing for the consideration of H.R. 2828, the
Water Supply, Reliability and Environmental Improvement Act. I was kind
of hoping the gentleman might yield me 38 minutes instead of the
customary 30 minutes; but then again, he is not in the chair so he is
not able to do that today.
Mr. Speaker, what happened yesterday on this House floor was a
disgrace. And the Republican leadership who run this House should be
ashamed of themselves. The majority Members who allowed that to happen
yesterday should also be ashamed of themselves.
The gentleman from Vermont along with several of his colleagues
offered an amendment to strike a controversial provision of the PATRIOT
Act. This provision allows authorities to demand library and Internet
records of people who use our public libraries.
Three years ago, Mr. Speaker, I voted against the PATRIOT Act because
it expanded the authority of the Attorney General and the FBI without
requiring any corresponding accountability. And yesterday I voted for
the Sanders amendment because it protects the American people and our
public libraries and book stores from the overreaching arm of the
Department of Justice.
Mr. Speaker, the Sanders amendment won. And this deliberative body,
in this place where democracy is the standard, the Sanders amendment
won. And after 15 minutes there were 213 people voting for the
amendment, and only 206 voting against it. That is a clear victory. One
does not need a Ph.D. in mathematics to figure out that the Sanders
amendment won, fair and square.
Yet the House Republican leadership held the vote open for 23 more
minutes for a total of 38 minutes so they could twist the arms of their
rank and file to change their vote so they could rig this vote. After
these 38 minutes were over and the vote was finally closed, the vote
was tied 210 to 210.
The Republican leadership did what they do best, they hijacked the
democratic process and they did it. And they did it because they could,
and they did it because they could get away with it.
What happened yesterday on the House floor was unique in only one
respect, Mr. Speaker, and that is it happened in broad daylight.
Usually, this heavy-handedness happens late into the night or in the
early morning hours
[[Page H5407]]
so that nobody is watching, so that there is nobody in the press
gallery who was watching, so that people at home are asleep. So what
happened yesterday was unique only in that one respect.
Mr. Speaker, the actions of the Republican majority have diminished
the people's House. They have made a mockery of democracy, and they
have demonstrated a heavy-handedness that is becoming all too common
here.
Yesterday, once again, the Republican majority demonstrated an
incredible arrogance toward the American people. They demonstrated an
incredible contempt for the Members of this House, Members of their own
party who they intimidated into changing their votes.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, they are unqualified to run this people's
House. They have made a laughing stock of this place. They have turned
this House into a national embarrassment. This is unacceptable. This is
unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. And the American people need to know what is
going on here. This is not a deliberative body anymore. This is not a
place of democracy. This is not a place where people can debate ideas,
where people then can vote, Members can vote and then the majority
wins. This place is not being run the way it is supposed to be run. It
is an absolute disgrace.
Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses an issue that affects the State of
California--the distribution of water from north to south, and other
related issues unique to California. However, I am concerned with many
of the provisions in the bill and their potential to impact all of us.
Specifically, I'm concerned about a seemingly technical provision in
this bill that could have far-reaching effects on how water is used in
California and how we conduct our business here in Congress.
Section 103(b)(5)(A) of this bill grants an ongoing, rolling
authorization to the Federal Bureau of Reclamation to plan and build
water projects in the California Bay-Delta area. In plain English, this
means that Congress would be writing a blank check to the Department of
Interior to build as many billion-dollar dams in central California as
they want, even if these projects end up harming the environmentally
sensitive areas we say we want to protect.
Mr. Speaker, the way our legislative process is supposed to work is
that Congress writes the laws and sets the policies about how and where
our tax dollars get spent. The job of the executive branch is to
implement these laws through the various agencies of the Federal
government.
This bill sets up a process that turns the legislative process on its
head. It hands over the Congressional power to spend public funds to an
unaccountable Federal agency. It tells officials in the Department of
Interior they can spend billions of the taxpayers' dollars any way they
want and then, only afterwards, check in with Congress. And if Congress
doesn't act in 120 days, the Department can continue on its merry way,
spending billions of dollars on dams and other water projects that may
or may not accomplish the objectives of the CALFED water agreement.
Supporters of this provision claim there are precedents for their so-
called ``non-project-specific authorization'' language, but their
precedents involve only small projects and small dollar amounts.
In the case of the CALFED Water Project, the public policy stakes are
just too high for Congress to hand over our decision-making
responsibilities to a Federal agency. Congress has a constitutional
responsibility to make these kinds of decisions, and we shouldn't shirk
those responsibilities by passing the buck to a Federal agency. The way
the CALFED project is managed over the next 30 years will have a
profound effect on the 35 million water-drinking citizens of the State
of California, the State's agricultural industry, and some of our
country's most fragile and endangered ecosystems.
And what about our responsibility to be careful stewards of taxpayer
dollars? I constantly hear fiscal conservatives on the other side of
the aisle complain about the lack of budget discipline. Prior to the
recess, these fiscal conservatives led a charge trying to slow down
Federal spending, and make it harder for Congress to spend taxpayer
dollars. But this bill basically gives the executive branch a blank
check to spend on potentially costly projects like dams and canals.
I hope that some of those same members join me today in expressing
concern about a policy that allows an agency to ``Spend the money
first, then check in with Congress later.'' That doesn't strike me as a
policy that will help us get out of the deep budget deficit hole--a
hole that has been deepened by President Bush and this Republican
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, this provision is bad policy and this bill is poorly
drafted. I will vote against this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do
the same.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the author of this legislation
and one who has been a leader on this issue.
{time} 0930
Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of this rule. Certainly water is
extremely important, not just to California but the entire west, and
certainly to all of those who have been associated with the current
CALFED program, ecosystem restoration activities appears to be somewhat
haphazard. The measurable outcome has focused on dollars spent rather
than increased numbers of fish and wildlife. This legislation proposes
new congressional oversight and accountability, requiring Federal
agencies to report on certain ecosystem restoration program goals and
accomplishments. For example, landowners want to see accomplishments of
land and water management plans and how new ecosystem restoration plans
will fit into the big picture.
The manager's amendment to the bill will be reducing the Federal cost
of implementation of this from over a billion dollars 4 years ago, and
$890 million as introduced to a Federal authorization of $427 million.
This bill has bipartisan support. H.R. 2828 is the product of
congressional deliberation and lengthy negotiations. That is why it was
reported by the Committee on Resources with bipartisan support.
Democrats and Republicans throughout the State of California support
this bill because it is balanced in nature and it will be, as I
mentioned, not just good for California but the entire West.
I urge the adoption of this rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I know that we are debating the rule on
legislation that is being proposed this morning, but I have to say, I
do not really know what the rules are anymore in the House of
Representatives. I listened last night when the Sanders amendment came
up and all that the majority were trying to do, the bipartisan
majority, was to protect Americans' civil liberties. After the vote
took place, all of a sudden the floor and the vote stays open for
another 30 plus minutes, even though everyone had voted and there was
not anyone left in the well to cast a vote. It is a total abuse of
power by the Republican majority here on the floor of the House of
Representatives.
Think about it. When you go to the polls and vote in a general
election, in New Jersey the polls close at 8 o'clock. Then you count
the votes. You do not have the opportunity to keep the voting machine
open and have the people come back and say, well, I changed my mind
because I heard about something new that somebody told me and now I
want to change my vote, so let's keep it open.
How long is the vote going to be kept open here in the House of
Representatives until the Republican majority get their will regardless
of what the American people and their representatives want. Will we
keep it open 30 minutes as it was yesterday on the Sanders amendment?
Will we keep it open 3 hours as we did on the Medicare prescription
drug bill which was a lousy bill and the majority, including a
significant number of Republicans, were against it until they were
cajoled in a 3-hour delay and promised all kinds of things and probably
laws were violated to get Members on the Republican side to change
their vote. What are the rules?
We act as if this is the House of Representatives that is based on
rules. That is why we are having a debate on a rule today for a piece
of legislation. But there are no rules. The majority abuses its power
and does whatever it pleases. We never know at any given time when the
vote is going to be over. I think if this continues, it is just going
to be worse and worse for our system of government, the democratic
system that we value and cherish here in the House of Representatives
and across the country. All that everyone who voted for the Sanders
amendment yesterday were trying to do was to protect civil liberties.
[[Page H5408]]
One may disagree, think that the PATRIOT Act is good or think it is
bad, but when a majority on a bipartisan basis makes a decision that it
should be amended and should be changed because they want to protect
civil liberties, then that majority should be allowed to vote in a fair
way. We do not keep the vote open as we go around and tell Members,
well, maybe I am going to give you this or give you that if you change
your vote on something that is so basic to American civil liberties. It
is just not right. It is shameful.
I just want to join with my colleagues again, on both sides of the
aisle, essentially last night who said shame, shame on the Republican
majority for what they continue to do and this abuse of power.
Something has got to be done so that we know what the rules are. I do
not know what the rules are anymore around here and how this Republican
leadership goes about deciding what the rules are.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, as we discuss the rules, it
is impossible for those of us on our side to proceed without talking
about the degrading spectacle of yesterday. It is particularly ironic
that the Republican leadership chose to use extremely undemocratic
tactics because there was a fear that democracy might break out in the
law. What you had was a bipartisan coalition which formed a majority of
the House seeking to change a provision of the PATRIOT Act.
Point of Order
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman will state
his point of order.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that
the gentleman is in violation of House rule XVII, which requires that a
Member's remarks in debate shall be confined to the question under
debate, and ask to be heard on my point of order.
Mr. Speaker, House rule XVII, pertaining to Decorum and Debate
provides in part that when a Member desires to speak or deliver any
matter to the House, they shall on being recognized confine themselves
to the question under debate.
To quote from section 948 of the House Rules and Manual:
``Debate on a special order providing for the consideration of a bill
may range to the merits of the bill to be made in order, since the
question of consideration of the bill is involved, but should not range
to the merits of a measure not to be considered under that special
order.''
Mr. Speaker, nothing in this rule or the bill it makes in order has
anything to do with what occurred on the floor yesterday afternoon.
Therefore, I urge that the Chair uphold this point of order against
this irrelevant debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts wish
to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I wish to be heard on the point of order
and to contest it vigorously.
I understand the sensitivity of the author of the point of order to
discussion of the events over which he presided yesterday, but we are
talking about the rules of the House, and we were confronted with what
we believed to have been a grievous abuse of the spirit of the rules of
the House and we need some reassurance that we will not have a
repetition of this as we go forward.
We are, after all, now debating whether or not we will have a
previous question motion. If it were to fail, we would then be able to
offer some amendments that might prevent that kind of abuse. So I
believe a discussion of the abusive pattern of behavior of yesterday is
directly relevant to a discussion about whether we ought to go forward
with a rule with a previous question or whether or not we ought to be
allowed to propose some amendments to this rule that will protect us
against the abuse of power of yesterday.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair finds that the gentleman from
Washington is correct, that the remarks during this debate should be
confined to the special order of business before the House. The pending
business before the House is not a discussion of the rules of the House
generally. It is the rule that is pending before the House.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the decision of the
Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on
the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table
offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 197,
nays 165, not voting 71, as follows:
[Roll No. 348]
YEAS--197
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NAYS--165
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Chandler
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth
Hill
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
[[Page H5409]]
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
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
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--71
Ackerman
Barton (TX)
Bell
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Brown, Corrine
Burton (IN)
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Collins
Cox
Culberson
Cummings
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dooley (CA)
Dunn
Engel
English
Fattah
Flake
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gillmor
Goode
Green (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Herger
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Isakson
Jefferson
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kleczka
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Linder
Lipinski
Majette
McIntyre
McKeon
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Norwood
Oberstar
Otter
Owens
Paul
Pitts
Platts
Quinn
Reyes
Reynolds
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauzin
Turner (TX)
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Wexler
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this
vote.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. McGOVERN (during the vote). Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. McGOVERN. I would like to ask the Speaker how long he is going to
keep this roll call open.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The rules of the House provide for a minimum
duration of 15 minutes.
The Chair would also advise the gentleman that at the moment, because
this is the first vote of the day, the Chair is attempting to afford
courtesy to Members. The Chair will continue to exercise its discretion
and will let the Members know.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a further
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that
the Speaker is offering this courtesy to Members in keeping the roll
call open, but there will be no need to keep it open for too long
because I assume the Speaker is aware that this time you are winning.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has failed to state a
parliamentary inquiry.
{time} 1008
Messrs. CARDOZA, MILLER of North Carolina, DOGGETT, GORDON, STARK and
FORD changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. HARRIS, Mrs. MYRICK, and Messrs. GREEN of Wisconsin, BONNER,
DeMINT, BALLENGER, BONILLA and HOBSON changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair was
agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Before the last vote, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) was under recognition. The
gentleman has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining of the 4 minutes yielded to him.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to avoid today the travesty
which occurred on the House floor yesterday, I am going to urge my
colleagues at the end of this debate on the rule to vote no on the
previous question so that I will be able to offer an amendment that
will state very simply that during consideration of H.R. 2828, a record
vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose
of reversing the outcome of a vote.
So I will urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank
the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Speaker, it is now very clear we are talking here about whether
or not we should keep open this rule to amendment, and the amendment
that the gentleman from Massachusetts will offer will be to prevent
keeping open the roll call for the purpose of manipulation.
Now, I was talking about that before, and I was told I was out of
order. It is an interesting sequence. Yesterday, many of us thought we
were changing a provision of the PATRIOT Act, which we find to be
insufficiently cognizant of democratic values, and the majority then
used what many of us believed to be very undemocratic procedures to
prevent us from dealing with an undemocratic provision. And today, to
complete the trifecta of disrespect for democracy, I was silenced when
I tried to talk about, in an open forum, the undemocratic approach to
yesterday's democracy.
Now, I know one of the things we are trying to do is to instruct the
people of Iraq, to help the people of Iraq understand democracy. We
want them to be open. We want them to fully engage debate, not to
suppress dissension. And the only thing I can say is this, Mr. Speaker,
and I know we are not supposed to address the television audience, so I
address this to you.
I hope you will convey to any Iraqis who might be watching the
proceedings of this House on television with regard to democracy, if
they see what we are doing, please do not try this at home.
Now, let me explain why we are upset about the delay. It is not
simply ``the delay.'' Delay is not bad. We will have a chance today to
show, in fact, that we are prepared to delay things as well. The
question is what happens during the delay.
The purpose of delaying a roll call, the reason the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) will offer this amendment, is to preserve
the integrity of the House, because here is what happens. We have a
roll call and Members vote, and Members will have, in some cases, said
to their constituents, I support this position and I will vote that
way.
Then the vote tally is taken, and when the vote tally is taken, it
turns out that the Republican side has lost. Then the roll call is held
open, and that is why we want to prevent the reoccurrence and why we
will be offering this amendment if the previous question is defeated.
What happens then is this: The roll call is held open indefinitely so
that Members who have told people in their districts they will vote one
way can be pressured into voting another way. That is the purpose of
holding the roll call open, to orchestrate a scheme by which the voters
are misled; to orchestrate a scheme in which people can take a certain
position, with the silent footnote that that position that they are
taking will hold only so long as it does not prevail. But if it looks
as if what they have told their constituents will prevail, they are
prepared under the pressure from their leadership to abandon it.
So we are not simply talking about the convenience of the House, we
are talking about the integrity of the democratic process, because the
sole purpose of that sort of delay, we are not trying to accommodate
people just so they can vote, this is a very particular form of delay.
It is a ``DeLay-delay.'' And this kind of ``delay squared,'' carried
out at the behest of the majority leader, is to allow Members of the
Republican leadership to press members of the Republican Party who have
voted one way to now abandoned that position lest the way they voted
prevail. And the only reason for that, as I said, is to perpetuate
misinformation. So let us not have this situation.
By the way, there is one other thing the voters ought to understand,
Mr. Speaker. What we used to have in this Congress was individual
Members voting, they consulted with their party leadership and then
they voted.
What has become clear now, and it was clear in the Medicare
prescription drug bill, it is clear with the PATRIOT
[[Page H5410]]
Act, it is now clear the Republican leadership is not prepared to allow
its Members to vote contrary to the Republican leadership position if
it will prevail. Republicans are allowed by their leadership the
freedom of their conscience, as long as it is not operative. But if, in
fact, there is any danger that what they say they are for will, in
fact, reach fruition, the rug is yanked out from under them and they
have to change their position.
What it means is people should understand, come election, no matter
who they think they are voting for, they are voting for the Republican
leadership, because the Republican leadership is prepared to change the
spirits of these rules, to hold roll calls open indefinitely, as long
as it takes to pressure Republican Members who have voted one way,
presumably having told people in their districts they will vote that
way, to switch their votes.
The sole purpose of these open roll calls is to allow deception, to
undermine democracy.
I hope that we vote down the previous question, that the gentleman's
amendment is adopted, and that we restore the principle of intellectual
honesty and integrity and democracy to this House.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous
question in order to consider the McGovern amendment, and I do so
because I think the question before this House really is under what set
of rules are we operating?
We say we have the Jefferson book, and we bring it out here and it is
a foot thick, of all the rules this place runs under. But the
leadership on the other side operates on another set of rules called
the King George II rules. Those rules have made it possible for the
President of the United States to serve for 3\1/2\ years without using
his veto pen on one single occasion.
The White House sends down the message to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay) and says this is what I want, and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay) says yes, sir, and comes out on the floor, and if it is not
coming out that way, we switch from the House rules to the King George
II rules.
Now, you might say yesterday was an anomaly. No, this is just a
little blip in the curve. We all remember fast track. Fast track came
out here and it got to a point where it had lost; and the word came
from the White House, and, lo and behold, some arms were broken, there
were bodies down here in the well, and suddenly we had four or five
votes from the Carolinas and other places that suddenly changed that
vote.
Then we came to Medicare and we see that this is a bill that came out
here, and it lost, it was going to lose. And the message came from the
White House, keep that vote open. They sent Mr. Thompson over from HHS,
they sent everybody in sight over here to walk around on this floor to
make sure that that vote came out under the King George II rules.
{time} 1015
Yesterday, we have the President of the United States, we have the
Attorney General going nationwide, trying to pump up people to believe
that the PATRIOT Act is the best thing since sliced bread. But on a
bipartisan basis on this floor, we turned it down. We said, we need to
tighten it up. We opened it too much when it was passed some months
ago. But the King George rules turned on and said no, no, you are not
changing one word. You are not going to change one word. When we send
something over there to you guys, you remember how the PATRIOT Act came
to be. It was worked out in committee. It was a vote, bipartisan
effort, it came out of the Committee on the Judiciary; it went to the
Committee on Rules and the King George rules came into play: throw that
in the wastebasket. Here is the bill that we will print tonight and
tomorrow morning you will vote on. Very few of us knew the details of
that bill. Having seen it in action, we now want to change some of it.
That is the democratic process. But the King George rules are meant to
shut down debate, to shut down dissent.
What would this body be if suddenly people from all over the country;
in this legislative body, the first part of the Constitution, article
I, says we are the ones who are supposed to decide the policy in this
country. Yet, when we come to a decision, suddenly a phone call from
the White House and bingo, it turns over. The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay) is not a free man. I do not think he is a bad guy. I think he is
doing what he is told. This is a one-party government that is trying to
stop dissent, and we need to resist that. We need to vote for the
McGovern amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous
question so that we may consider and support the McGovern amendment.
What happened here yesterday was not an affront to the members of the
minority. It was not even an affront to the 140 million people that we
represent. It was an affront to the tradition of this institution that
says that rules should reign over personal agendas.
We all come here believing passionately in the rightness of our
cause, and we fight passionately for victory for our causes. But we
have learned that when we lose that fight, the right result is to come
back tomorrow and fight again. When you lose, Mr. Speaker, the right
result is not to wait until you can win by manipulating the rules. That
is just plain wrong. And it has become a malignant practice here in
this House.
When we considered the Medicare legislation, probably the most
important legislation this Congress will consider, the vote was held
open for more than 3 hours because the majority lost the vote. And
during those 3 hours, the majority took advantage of whatever leverage
it had, and some of that leverage is now the subject of an
investigation by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. It
took advantage of every piece of leverage it had to alter the outcome
of the vote.
Yesterday, on a very significant vote regarding the civil liberties
of the people of this country who go to a library or a bookstore, the
majority lost the vote and was unwilling to settle for that response.
We have a tradition in this institution and in this country. You
fight fiercely for the things in which you believe; but when you lose,
you lose, and the remedy is to come back tomorrow and fight again. The
remedy is not to bend and subvert the rules so that you do not lose.
Our party lost the majority in this House a decade ago because there
was a perception that we had subverted some of those rules. You, my
friends in the majority, are in danger not only of losing your
majority, but you are in danger of jeopardizing something far more
important, and that is a basic understanding in this country that we
all play under the rules.
Do not sacrifice the integrity of this institution again for some
short-term, hallow political victory.
Vote against the previous question and adopt the McGovern amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise to oppose the previous
question so that the McGovern amendment might be considered.
I want to join in the plea of the gentleman from New Jersey for
civility and responsibility in this body. I could not think of a better
document to bring to this floor than to refer my colleagues to the
opening language of the Constitution where it states: ``We, the people
of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish
justice and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity.''
Tragically, yesterday, my good friends on the other side of the
aisle, and I do call them good friends because I would hope that they
would take an oath of office to do what is right for the American
people, began to utilize their majority in the context of tyranny. They
began to reemphasize the
[[Page H5411]]
very reason why this Union was formed, and that is to eliminate
persecution. What they did yesterday is they persecuted the issues of
liberty, because they denied the majority vote the right to prevail.
We prevailed yesterday in a bipartisan vote. That vote established
the conscience of this Congress as it relates to the protection of
civil liberties. What better stand than to take a bipartisan stand on
the question of protecting all of these people who are here, their
civil liberties, so that when a mother takes a child to the library, or
a father takes a child to the library, they do not have to be
intimidated by the law enforcement offices of this Nation. What a
tragedy that this side disallowed the posterity of liberty, the liberty
that we are blessed with. How they ignored it yesterday by refusing to
allow an amendment that would protect our liberties and to stand united
for civil liberties in a bipartisan way. What a tragedy that reflected
on this body in the worst of ways.
Might I say, even with the pronouncement yesterday by Secretary
Ridge, which many of us wonder in its substance and its timing, and as
a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I do not take lightly
the protection of this homeland, but I also hope that the executive
does not take lightly the protection of our Constitution and our civil
liberties.
But, Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues what else yesterday
reminded me of: the sad day in November 2000 when an election was lost,
not by the people of the United States, because they voted in the
majority for a candidate that would have assumed the Presidency of the
United States, but it was because we lost votes that could not be found
and, ultimately, a decision was made in the judiciary and not by the
people of the United States of America.
Yesterday, the people voted and won but the majority denied that
vote. I ask that we defeat and oppose the previous question so that the
McGovern amendment can be heard, Mr. Speaker, so that the people can
speak again on the floor of the House of the United States of America.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the McGovern amendment
and in opposition to the pending motion to support the McGovern
amendment.
Let us remind ourselves what the McGovern amendment says. If we
defeat the previous question, we will be able to consider this
amendment, and all the amendment says is that a record vote by
electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of
reversing the outcome of a vote. Since the majority party here rigged
the vote yesterday, rigged the vote for Medicare in November, they are
afraid to vote on this amendment, because they want to have the ability
to continue to rig the votes.
Let us understand what this really means. A Republican senior
leadership aide is quoted in this morning's Congress Daily as saying, a
senior GOP aide said, ``It was important to defeat the amendment. It is
not normal to hold a vote open, but it is not that unusual either. It
happens.''
In other words, whenever it is necessary to defeat the amendment or
the vote, we will hold the vote open. What does that mean? It means
that if you can hold the vote open for as long as necessary to twist
arms for days, if necessary, then whoever holds the gavel can never
lose the vote. It means it does not matter who the people elect and
send here. It does not matter the convictions of people here. All that
matters is who holds the gavel. Because if they can keep the vote open
forever until the vote goes right, the majority party can never lose
the votes. That means there is no democracy in the House.
So what we are discussing now is are we going to have democracy in
the House, are we going to have a democratic form of government in this
country. Because what the Republicans have done by showing a
willingness to hold the vote open for 3 hours last November, for 38
minutes yesterday, for 2 days next week, who knows, is when a vote
matters, they will not lose it no matter what the votes, because
democracy does not matter.
For that alone, for destroying democracy in the House, for not being
ashamed of it, this party ought to hang its head in shame and ought to
surrender in November the right to govern this House until it learns
how to be a party in a democracy again.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, early on after 9/11, it
was said that this country was attacked by terrorists because the
terrorists hated our freedom and hated our democracy.
What is it about our freedoms and our democracy that the Republican
leadership does not like? What is it about the concept of majority rule
that the Republican leadership does not like? What is it about the idea
of a free and open debate that the Republican leadership does not like?
What is it about the fact that if you can put together a bipartisan
coalition to win a point, to win an amendment, to defeat a bill or to
pass a bill, if it is not consistent with the Republican leadership,
they get to then overturn it, they get to nullify the majority? They
get to nullify the actions, as they did yesterday when the time came to
end the vote; they nullified the actions of over half of the people in
the country of the United States of America because their
representatives voted to amend the PATRIOT Act. But that is not what
the Republican leadership wanted, so they simply held the vote open
until they could nullify the will of the majority in this country.
If the Republican leadership stays at it long enough, there will not
be any freedoms. There will not be any democracy for the terrorists to
hate, because the Republican leadership in this House is doing an
incredible job of destroying the history of this House, the history of
open debate, the history of the majority prevailing, while protecting
the minority.
This Republican leadership, the White House, and so many people, say
we have to go and deliver democracy to Iraq, to Iran, to Uzbekistan,
Afghanistan, Pakistan. What about a little democracy on the floor of
the House of Representatives of the United States of America? What
about a little respect for democracy here? What about a little respect
for the Rules of the House? What about a little respect for the rights
of the majority to prevail on a vote? What about respect for the right
of the minority to raise the point to offer an amendment? If you have a
good amendment and they think you will prevail on the floor, you will
get enough Republicans and Democrats to vote for that amendment, the
Committee on Rules will not allow it in order.
{time} 1030
If you sneak one by them and the majority surprises them and you win
a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives, they take that
vote away from you.
This is not what democracy is about. This is not what freedoms are
about. This is not what people think they are dying for around the
world. This is not what they pursue when they pursue the hope of
America, they have seen that beacon of liberty, that Statue of Liberty.
Do they really think that when they are all done, they get the
dictatorship of the Republican majority to shut down democracy?
Would that be worth dying for? Would that be worth putting your life
on the line for? Would that be worth to sacrifice when people take to
streets all over the world so that they can become like America only to
be tricked and find out that in America, in the House of
Representatives, the Republican dictatorship has shut down that
democracy, has shut down that freedom. And when the majority in this
country through their representatives suggest that they want to make
sure that their freedoms and their rights were protected in the PATRIOT
Act, the dictatorship of the Republican majority said no. A majority
vote on protecting the rights and the freedoms that are so fundamental
to the heritage, to the culture, to the history, to the future of this
country. A majority vote was nullified by the Republican dictatorship.
It is a sad, sad day for democracy in the House of Representatives,
the people's House of the United States of America.
[[Page H5412]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to inquire of the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Hastings), I will be closing on my side.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules will close on our side, so if the gentleman would
like to close.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the sad reality is that there are no rules in this House
of Representatives. Tradition and procedures of this House are
routinely ignored. Members will be treated with disrespect, members
even on the Republican side. This Republican leadership has diminished
the people's House. It is shameful.
I appeal to Members on the Republican side to stand up to the
bullying of their own leadership. This trampling of the rules and
traditions of this House is not an isolated problem. It happens every
day. And the only way it will stop is for good people to stand up and
to say enough is enough.
I am urging Members to vote no on the previous question so I can
offer an amendment which says simply that during the consideration of
H.R. 2828, a record vote by electronic device shall not be held up for
the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of a vote. That is all it
says. How can you be against that?
I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. Vote yes on my
amendment to stand up with us for what is right. We know what happened
yesterday was wrong. Show some guts.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment
be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
____________________