[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.

                          ____________________