[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 65 (Tuesday, May 17, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H3340-H3346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2360, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 278 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 278
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2360) making appropriations for the Department
of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2006, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the
bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are
waived except as follows: beginning with the colon on page 6,
line 8, through ``Office'' on page 7, line 7; beginning with
``of'' on page 7, line 17, through the semicolon on line 23;
beginning with the colon on page 8, line 19, through ``108-
541'' on page 9, line 15; beginning with the colon on page 9,
line 23, through ``checkpoint'' on page 10, line 3; beginning
with the colon on page 10, line 9, through ``Office'' on page
11, line 6; beginning with the colon on page 11, line 24,
through ``Representatives'' on page 12, line 7; beginning
with the colon on page 17, line 2, through ``intent'' on line
11; page 17, lines 21 through 24; beginning with the colon on
page 18, line 5, through ``Act'' on line 18; beginning with
the colon on page 21, line 2, through ``assets'' on page 22,
line 12; beginning with the comma on page 26, line 22,
through ``law'' on line 23; beginning with the colon on page
27, line 2, through ``funds'' on page 27, line 13: page 27,
line 19, through page 28, line 5; beginning with the colon on
page 28, line 15, through ``funds'' on page 29, line 2;
beginning with the colon on page 29, line 6, through ``2005''
on page 30, line 8; beginning with the comma on page 36, line
19, through ``funds'' on line 22; and sections 507, 512, 515,
517, 518, 522, 523, 524, 525, 527, 529, 530, 532, and 534.
Where points of order are waived against part of a paragraph
or section, points of order against a provision in another
part of such paragraph or section may be made only against
such provision and not against the entire paragraph or
section. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to
the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
{time} 1030
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam 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.
Madam Speaker, the rule before us today is a fair and completely open
rule that provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member on the Committee
on Appropriations.
It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and
provides that under the rules of the House the bill shall be read for
amendment by paragraph. It waives points of order against provisions in
the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, which
prohibits unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an
appropriations bill except as specified in the resolution.
Finally, the rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in
recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the
Congressional Record and provides for one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the
underlying legislation. This bill, sponsored by my friend, the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, funds an array of
Federal programs aimed at securing the Nation against terrorist
attacks, including Customs and border protection, transportation
security, and Federal assistance to State and local first responders.
In addition, it funds some additional and vitally important missions
of agencies that were included in the Democratic of Homeland Security
when it was formed 2 years ago, such as disaster relief. This carefully
considered legislation provides almost $31 billion for operations and
activities of the Department of Homeland Security, an increase of $1.37
billion above fiscal year 2005 enacted levels, excluding $2.5 billion
in advance appropriations for BioShield and $1.3 billion above the
President's request.
It also provides $1 billion in mandatory budget authority for
programs in the Department. Some of the other initiatives that the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman, and his
subcommittee have funded through this bill on behalf of the American
public include: $7.5 billion to the Coast Guard, who are called today
to defend our coast from the threat of terrorism;
$6.9 billion for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection,
including $4.9 billion for enforcement activities and assets; $458
million for computer automated import and export tracking
[[Page H3341]]
functions; $348 million for maintenance of air and marine vessels; and
$93 million for facilities construction and maintenance;
$5.7 billion for the Transportation Security Administration,
including $2.5 billion for aviation, passenger and baggage screening;
$983 million for aviation security direction and enforcement; and $36
million for surface transportation security;
$4.5 billion for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
including $3.1 billion for immigration enforcement, detention and
removal; and $699 million for Federal air marshals;
$3.6 billion overall for terrorism preparedness grants, including
$750 million for formula-based grants to States; $1.2 billion in
discretionary grants for high-threat urban ports, port security and
public transportation security; $600 million for fire prevention and
control grants; $200 million for training exercises and technical
assistance grants; and $180 million for emergency management
performance grants;
$3 billion for emergency preparedness and response, including $2
billion for disaster relief; $861 million for information analysis and
infrastructure protection; and $422 million for the Office of the Under
Secretary for Border and Transportation Security, including $390
million for the United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator
Technology known as US-VISIT program; $14 million for the NEXUS/SENTRI
program; and $7 million for the free and secure trade programs.
In addition to providing these much needed funds throughout this
legislation, the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and his
committee have also focused sharply on the need for strong oversight
and Congressional review of how the taxpayers' money is being spent
wisely and efficiently on homeland security.
This much needed emphasis on oversight of the efficiency and
effectiveness on how money is spent on defending our homeland will
ensure that the money is spent wisely. It will also limit waste and
abuse so that the programs that are truly needed to protect the safety
of American citizens will have the funds when they are needed and the
ability to operate those plans.
Madam Speaker, I strongly support this legislation and this open
rule. I commend my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their
hard work in developing this legislative product.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Madam Speaker, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill is one of
the most important bills this or any Congress will consider. The
protections provided in this bill are designed to make our country
safer and to prevent future terrorist acts from taking place inside the
United States.
The Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee has a difficult
job. The gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the ranking
member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), have done the best
they could with the limited resources provided to them. While I do not
agree with every choice they made, they certainly have my appreciation
and gratitude for the job that they have done.
Nonetheless, Madam Speaker, I am very concerned with the inadequate
funding levels provided to the Appropriations Committee and with the
continuing lack of accountability on the part of the Bush
administration.
Now, let us not kid ourselves today. Congress must provide more
funding to protect our Nation from terrorist attacks. We should not be
forced to choose among funding port security, air security, border
security and first responders. These distinct areas of security are all
necessary parts of an integrated whole, and none of them should be
short-changed. But the reality is that the reckless fiscal policies
enacted by the Bush administration and the Republican leadership in
Congress are short-changing these and other important programs.
The tax cuts enacted over the last 5 years, coupled with the hundreds
of billions of dollars spent on the war in Iraq, have drained the
Federal Treasury to the point where even the fire grants that help our
local fire departments prepare for the challenges they face every day
will be severely cut in this bill.
Madam Speaker, that is the wrong choice. Many of my Republican
friends will claim that the Homeland Security Appropriations
Subcommittee did the best they could with the allocation provided to
them. That argument does not tell the whole truth. Many of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle will try to have it both
ways. They want to criticize the low funding level in this bill, but
they do not want to criticize the fiscal policies that have put us in
the hole we are in today.
I know that my colleagues on the Homeland Security Appropriations
Subcommittee will describe this bill in more detail, but I want to
highlight a few key programs.
Again, I am disappointed that this bill short-changes the fire grant
program. It is one of the most successful programs in the country and
it deserves to be increased and not cut.
I am also disappointed that this bill fails to live up to the
promises made in the Intelligence Reform Act, enacted just in December.
This bill short-changes border security, a key component of the 9/11
Commission report that was released last year.
The silver lining, thin as it is, Madam Speaker, is that the
gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), were able to increase some funding
for port security and transit security, and I am pleased that this bill
also directs the Homeland Security Department to take concrete actions
to protect this country.
For too long the administration has refused to hold the Department of
Homeland Security accountable for its actions, and the gentleman from
Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), included provisions to make the Department
accountable, and to provide the necessary oversight of the Department
that has been lacking since its creation.
For example, this bill will impose penalties on the TSA Administrator
if a requirement to increase the screening of air cargo is not
implemented by the end of the fiscal year.
Madam Speaker, for too long the Bush administration has refused to
provide general oversight on the Department of Homeland Security. This
fits the pattern of a complete lack of accountability on the part of
this administration. From the Education Department paying for its own
propaganda with taxpayer funds, to the absence of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq, to the wasting of billions of dollars in Iraqi
reconstruction contracts, this administration has made mistake after
mistake after mistake.
Yet the Republican Congress does not want to do anything. Ask no
question, demand no answers. Under this Republican leadership, the
legislative branch of government is barely a twig. And so, Madam
Speaker, we see the same things happening in the Department of Homeland
Security. After publicly supporting a dramatic increase in the number
of air marshals, the last two Bush budgets actually proposed cuts in
funding for this important program.
Yesterday at the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky
(Chairman Rogers) testified at length how the Coast Guard refuses to
provide detailed plans for their Deepwater program and how the only way
to get their attention is to withhold funds for this program. The same
is true with the TSA's implementation of cargo screening measures and
the deployment of explosive detection technologies at airports around
the country.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased that this bill attempts finally to force
some kind of accountability from the administration.
But, finally, Madam Speaker, I want to say something about the rule
today. I am pleased that it is an open rule. There have been 30 rules
considered so far this year, and only three of those rules have been
open. That is a batting average of 100, which will get you kicked off
of any self-respecting Little League team. This is no way to run the
people's House.
[[Page H3342]]
I am also disappointed with the way this rule jeopardizes much of the
oversight language written by this bill, by exposing it to points of
order. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) worked in a bipartisan way, as they should on an
issue like this. This rule undercuts that bipartisanship.
Madam Speaker, for the past 3 years the Homeland Security
Appropriations Subcommittee has been this body's only source of
oversight of the Department of Homeland Security. Earlier this year the
Committee on Homeland Security was established. This committee just
reported out its first authorization bill, which will be considered
later this week.
Madam Speaker, it is not good policy to strip out the oversight
language provided by the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and
the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), because of
a turf fight between two committees.
{time} 1045
The Committee on Homeland Security will have a chance to bring forth
its bill this week, and in the future I hope will provide the necessary
oversight of the Department so that the Committee on Appropriations
does not have to do two jobs; but we should not strike this language
from this bill today just because the authorizing committee is unhappy.
To do so would be irresponsible, and that is why the rule today should
be defeated.
I would say to my friends, especially on the other side of the aisle,
that it is a little bit frustrating to hear them talk about
accountability on one hand and to support a rule that strips all the
accountability from this bill.
We heard last night in the Committee on Rules of the fact that the
Homeland Security Department has failed to provide Congress with
required reports. We have heard about how deadlines have been missed,
one after another. There needs to be accountability.
It is clear that this bill, if this rule passes, does not hold up to
that standard of accountability, and I would like to think that the
Members of Congress, since we had a role in creating this agency, would
want to hold this committee accountable.
This is about our safety. This is about protecting the people of this
country, and it is clear that we need to rein in the people over at the
Department of Homeland Security.
So, Madam Speaker, I would say in closing that I have great respect
for the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman
from Minnesota (Ranking Member Sabo). I think they provided the
Committee on Rules last night with a good bill that had some teeth in
it, that would hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable,
but apparently, the Committee on Rules last night decided to just throw
all that away.
So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, the opportunity to be here on behalf of this rule
today, as my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), points out, is all taking place as a result of the hard work
that took place not only between the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman
Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Sabo); but,
really, it was from a lot of work that has taken place over a long
period of time, working with the administration, working with the
Homeland Security Department.
I must confess that I believe that we should have stronger oversight.
I think we agreed on that last night in the Committee on Rules. We are
also of the belief that the new leadership at homeland security will
continue in this very important task of working with not only the
administration but working with our appropriators, our authorizers, the
people who are very interested in making sure that we move in a
collaborative effort forward for homeland security.
So I am proud of what the bill is today. I think that what the
subcommittee did was good work. We are going to get it on the floor
today. We are going to debate it. We are going to make it better, and I
am proud of the progress that we are making.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Well, I appreciate my colleague from Texas talking about the fact
this is a good bill. I agree with him. If it is such a good bill, why
did the Committee on Rules allow half the bill to be stripped out?
During the testimony before the Committee on Rules, I think
everybody, Democrat and Republican, on that committee praised the work
of the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from
Minnesota (Ranking Member Sabo) and talked about the fact that we do
need to hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable. I did not
hear any dissension during the discussion in the Committee on Rules,
and we also think it was a good bill.
Yet, here we are with a rule that would basically strip half of the
most important provisions out of the bill. I do not think that is very
responsible.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, whoever designed this proposition today is a
real piece of work.
This is the bill that was submitted to the Committee on Rules last
night, a perfectly coherent bill. I had already indicated my intentions
to support the Republican chairman's effort. I thought he did a
reasonable job, even though he had inadequate resources.
This is the bill after the Committee on Rules has gotten done with
it. Look at this. The Committee has shredded the document that we are
supposed to take seriously when we come to this floor and debate it
today. It is eviscerated.
I do not understand the majority leadership in this House. Earlier
this year, I was asked if I would work out a process which would enable
the majority to pass its appropriation bills in a timely fashion. I
have been working with the majority; and so far, we have worked out a
process which we expect will enable us to support at least seven of the
appropriation bills that are coming to the floor.
I had fully expected to stand shoulder to shoulder today with the
gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the subcommittee, who has done
a most thoughtful job in providing necessary oversight for one of the
most dysfunctional agencies in this government; and even though he had
been given inadequate resources, I had indicated that because of the
quality of that oversight I intended to vote for the bill.
That is no longer the case. If this bill is shredded on the floor by
points of order made by willful single Members, I will vote against the
bill because it will then make no sense whatsoever.
What this action does, in making these provisions subject to a point
of order by a single Member, this action puts at risk the thoughtful
effort that the committee has put together with respect to securing
screening of cargo on passenger airplanes. It puts at risk the funding
to ensure that we have a rational terrorist watch match list operation.
It puts at risk funding for port security and a number of other items
critical to the national defense of the country.
This bill is being eviscerated because of a juvenile, a juvenile,
dispute within the Republican caucus about committee jurisdictions. It
is what Dick Bolling, my old mentor, used to call dung hill politics,
where people put the welfare of their own committee ahead of the
welfare of this institution and the welfare of the country. It is
little league politics at its worst.
I do not understand how we can be asked on the minority side to sit
down and work out a bipartisan agreement on this appropriation bill,
and then after we have done so, we are then told that some whiz kid,
either in the Committee on Rules or in the leadership's office, has
decided that they do not like the compromise and they are going to open
it up, to shred it.
The Committee on Homeland Security, the authorization committee that
is objecting to some of these provisions in the bill, this is a
committee that has existed for 3 years and never put one bill into law.
The one bill that has to pass in order to assure this country
[[Page H3343]]
adequate security is this bill, the appropriation bill for homeland
security; and yet we are going to follow a process today which not only
shreds this bill but makes much less likely the prospect that we will
finish our regular appropriation bills on time.
If the leadership did not intend to allow this bill to go forward,
then why did it even allow it to come up until the authorization
committee had gotten off its duff, done its job, completed action on
the authorization, so the appropriation committee could then bring the
bill to the floor? If the House leadership on the majority side of the
aisle did not think it was important enough to pass this bill, then why
are we here? Why are we here? Why are we wasting our time?
All this process means is that in the name of jurisdictional purity,
the average Member of this House will not have any say whatsoever about
the eventual content of the provisions stricken from this bill because
those choices will be made behind closed doors, in conference between
the two Chambers, out of reach of the average rank-and-file member on
both the Committee on Appropriations and the authorization committee.
This is a lousy way to run a railroad.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The gentleman makes some very good points about not only his vision
and ideas about jurisdictional issues, but I would say to my colleagues
today that there is some disappointment on behalf of the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), our great chairman, who worked very diligently,
faithfully not only with homeland security but also others in this
Congress who are attempting to make sure that Congress not only has a
say about the money that is appropriated but an expectation back from
the administration and homeland security about the worthiness of what
we believe public policy should be. I think this leadership, I think
the Committee on Rules last night heard the argument and were very
hopeful that we can reach resolution.
Today, we are going to debate this bill. Today, we are going to pass
this rule, and we are going to pass this bill, and it is going to
empower not only the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) but also the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) to continue, to go back and do
their work, to go back, yes, to the table once again with homeland
security and to talk about how important it is that the Homeland
Security Department provide information on a timely basis.
It is important for us to continue providing reassurance to the
American people that the philosophy, that the plans that are in place
and moving forward will meet the continuing threat needs against this
country.
What I would say is that we are not going to give up on the process.
I do not know that it is perfect. I expressed some reservations myself
yesterday in the Committee on Rules about things which I supported, but
I believe that our chairman and the ranking member are forthright about
their need, their desire to make sure that we will continue working
with Department of Homeland Security, even when we have the
disagreements. This is a strong sense of the support in Congress that
we have for the appropriators to go back and continue to do their work.
So I am proud of what we are doing. I do not think it is a sham. I
understand completely why we are here today. I think it will be very
clear when we vote today, and it will be a strong signal back to the
American public that we intend to be serious about not only the threats
that are placed against this country but also those avenues that make
sure that our border security continues to provide on a moving-forward
basis the ability that we have to meet the threat that is placed
against this country.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am not proud what we are doing here today. I mean, this is a sham;
and I would say to the gentleman that the choice is clear: you either
support the chairman and you either support holding the Department of
Homeland Security accountable or you do not.
The way the Committee on Rules came up with this rule, which subjects
all these very important provisions to points of order, makes it
impossible to hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable. I
do not know how anybody who sat in that Committee on Rules meeting last
night, all who agreed that what is going on in the Department of
Homeland Security right now is very troubling, missing deadlines, not
fulfilling requirements that this Congress has asked them to fulfill, I
do not know how they could express solidarity with what the chairman
and the ranking member were saying and then support a rule like this
which undercuts all the accountability. I mean, this is wrong.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Sabo), the ranking Democrat on the committee.
Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I rise to oppose this rule. Funding government is about money, but it
is also about how that money is used. This rule leaves unprotected
virtually all of the good government provisions in the homeland
security appropriations bill. This rule should be defeated.
What does it do? It leaves unprotected provisions that will increase
the screening of air cargo trade on passenger and other aircraft.
If my colleagues think we are doing a good job of screening air cargo
on passenger planes today, vote for this rule. If my colleagues think
we should do what Congress has said in increasing screening on air
cargo on passenger planes, then vote ``no'' on this rule.
{time} 1100
This rule leaves unprotected a provision that will fund additional
explosive detection equipment to check airline passengers and carry-on
and checked bags.
This rule leaves unprotected a provision that will ensure that
passenger prescreening programs are secure and that the public's vital
information is protected.
This rule leaves unprotected provisions to protect taxpayers' dollars
from being spent on programs that are not well planned and properly
implemented.
This rule leaves unprotected $84 million for checking airline crews
and passengers against the government's terrorist watch list. Is that
really what we want to do?
This rule leaves unprotected $150 million for port security grants.
This rule leaves unprotected a provision to ensure that those
managing big government contracts have the proper training to do so. If
you believe that the Department of Homeland Security and the
Transportation Security Agency are managing contracts with quality and
professional management, then vote for the rule. If you believe there
are troubles, as indicated by report after report from the Inspector
General and the General Accounting Office, then vote ``no'' on this
rule.
This rule leaves unprotected a provision to ensure that only truly
sensitive information is designated as such. The Department's current
approach permits everyone at TSA to designate any document as sensitive
and, therefore, not releasable to the public.
This rule does not allow the Obey amendment to fund the border
security requirements of the Intelligence Reform Act and the REAL ID
Act.
This rule should be defeated.
The subcommittee developed a responsible bill that provided proper
and necessary Congressional oversight of critical homeland security
programs. This rule allows that oversight to be decimated.
The fact is that the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers), did an outstanding job in developing a bill with proper
oversight to present to the House. This rule would allow one-fourth, or
a total of 14 pages of this bill, to be deleted.
We are here to conduct serious oversight of the Department of
Homeland Security, not simply to rubber stamp the administration's
budget request.
I oppose this rule and urge Members to vote against it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think we just saw an articulate discussion about how people do need
to work together here in Washington and how the ranking member, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), and
[[Page H3344]]
our chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), worked together
in their desire to make sure that Homeland Security is listening and to
make sure it is a collaborative effort. We are going to keep after it.
We are going to keep doing the right things that will ensure that the
American public understands and gets not only every single dollar's
worth, not a penny more, but every single dollar's worth of what is
paid for that will secure this country, and that involves the
efficiency and effectiveness of Homeland Security.
We had a discussion yesterday about the leadership of Homeland
Security; how we know it is brand new, how we know the daunting
challenge that is ahead of placing together all of these organizations
and making them work well together, having them under the same mission
statement and making sure that they are funded properly, making sure we
hear back from them, making sure they hear back from us.
Really, what this debate is about today is that we are not sure that
Homeland Security is effectively listening to us, the policies that we
would intend for them to place before the American public; to implement
those and to make sure safety and security is taken care of properly,
and then, lastly, the information back that will allow the ranking
member and our great chairman a chance to philosophically address those
changing parameters and threats against this country.
I believe that this administration will be serious about it. I
believe the new leadership of Homeland Security in their wisdom and
ability to work more carefully as time moves on will answer these
questions and they will provide those things that are necessary.
But we just saw a prime example of the kind of steady hand, proper
leadership that exists here in the House of Representatives, and I am
proud of that. I am proud of this on both sides of the aisle. I think
we will continue working together, and I think that is what this
legislation will prove worthy of today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This is an incredibly frustrating moment for many Members in this
Chamber. The gentleman from Texas talks about the incredible
partnership of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the bipartisanship and their
desire to hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable and to
make sure that we are all protected. Then he is urging that we support
a rule that would basically cut all the provisions in the bill that
would hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable. He is
urging we support a rule that would basically obliterate the bipartisan
agreement that we have come to here.
Every Member of this House gets on an airplane probably at least
twice a week. And when you look at the state of airline security, when
you look at the deadlines that have been missed, when you look at the
reports that they have failed to respond to, you have to ask yourself,
why are we not doing a better job in holding them accountable and
making sure they keep their deadlines?
Again, in the Committee on Rules last night the gentleman from Texas
seemed to agree with all these provisions that were in this bill to
hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable, and now he is on
the floor telling us to support a rule that would strip the bill of all
these provisions. It just does not make any sense to me. Why do we not
do this right?
We know what has to be done, let us just do it. Instead, you are
taking a good bill and you are just tearing it apart, and it just does
not make any sense to me. We need to do this right. We cannot afford to
get this wrong.
So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to appreciate the
fact that we have a bipartisan bill here, to appreciate the fact that
Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Sabo and members of this committee
worked tirelessly to make sure we that hold this agency accountable. It
needs to be held accountable. Nobody disagrees with that. Do not
destroy that by voting for this rule. Vote down this rule and let us go
back and report another rule immediately, one that respects the
agreement that has been reached here.
Mr. Speaker, I will also be asking Members to oppose the previous
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule
so that we can consider the Obey amendment that was not made in order
by the Committee on Rules.
Mr. Speaker, the Obey amendment does several things. First, it funds
500 additional border patrol agents, 600 additional immigration
investigators, and 4,000 additional detention beds so that the
increases called for in the Intelligence Reform Act are fully funded.
It also funds the grant program authorizing the REAL ID Act instead of
imposing a costly unfunded mandate on our States.
This amendment fully offsets the $500 million in additional funding
for this border enforcement and the REAL ID Act by capping at $138,176
the tax cut people making over $1 million this year will receive.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership likes to talk about making
this country more secure and about protecting our borders from
terrorists, yet they refuse to provide the funds necessary to do this.
They also like to brag about how they would never impose an unfunded
mandate on States and local governments, yet just 2 weeks ago they did
just that.
We have a chance to fix this today by voting for the Obey amendment.
It is very disturbing that the Republican leadership of this House
would deny Members an opportunity to vote on an amendment to make
Americans safer.
As always, I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us
from considering the homeland security appropriations bill, but a
``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Obey amendment. However,
a ``yes'' vote will prevent us from adequately protecting our borders
and from stopping the major financial burden we are placing on States
to implement the REAL ID Act.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and a description of the amendment immediately prior to the
vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question so that we would have an opportunity to fully fund
protection of the border and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
rule.
We had a great opportunity in the Committee on Rules last night to do
something good and get it right, and they blew it, so vote ``no'' on
the rule as well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
We have had a great opportunity to air out our differences today, our
hopes and expectations about what we think the brighter and better
future will be for the relationship that we have with Homeland
Security, and today is part of that process.
I would like to once again reiterate my support for Chairman Rogers
and Ranking Member Sabo, but I would also like to extend to the members
of the Homeland Security Subcommittee my thanks for a job well done.
They have spent a lot of time not only traveling around the country,
with interaction and meeting with very important people who are focused
on a daily basis on our homeland security, and so I want to thank those
Republicans who are members of this subcommittee: The gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Sweeney), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Crenshaw), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), and the vice
chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). It has taken a lot
of their hard work, along with our friends on the other side of the
aisle to make sure that the legislation would get to the floor today.
I would like to congratulate the chairman of the full committee also,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), for his hand in making sure
this works.
[[Page H3345]]
Amendment offered by Mr. Sessions
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Sessions:
On page 2, line 21, strike ``; page 17, lines 21 through
24''.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
Previous Question H. Res. 278--Rule for H.R. 2360 FY06 Homeland
Security Appropriations
At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections:
``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order and before
any other amendment if offered by Representative Obey of
Wisconsin or a designee. The amendment is not subject to
amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for
a division of the question in the committee of the whole or
in the House.
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
Amendment to H.R. 2360, as Reported (Homeland Security Appropriations,
2006) Offered by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) The amounts otherwise provided in this Act for
the following accounts are hereby increased by the following
sums:
(1) ``Customs and Border Protection--Salaries and
Expenses'', $95,000,000.
(2) ``Customs and Border Protection--Construction'',
$25,000,000.
(3) ``Immigration and Customs Enforcement--Salaries and
Expenses'', $266,000,000.
(4) ``Federal Law Enforcement Training Center--Salaries and
Expenses'', $9,000,000.
(5) ``Federal Law Enforcement Training Center--
Acquisitions, Construction, Improvements, and Related
Expenses'', $5,000,000.
(b) For the Secretary of Homeland Security to make grants
pursuant to section 204 of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L.
109-13, div. B) to assist States in conforming with minimum
drivers' license standards, there is hereby appropriated
$100,000,000.
(c) In the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross income in
excess of $1,000,000 for calendar year 2006, the amount of
tax reduction resulting from enactment of the Economic Growth
and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-16)
and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
(Pub. L. 108-27) shall be reduced by 1.562 percent.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on both the amendment and the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question on the amendment and on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the
previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes, if ordered, on
the amendment to House Resolution 278 and the adoption of House
Resolution 278.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 185, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 174]
YEAS--223
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
NAYS--185
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boyd
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--25
Ackerman
Baird
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Burton (IN)
Carson
Cubin
Davis (IL)
Dingell
Doyle
Fattah
Gohmert
Kanjorski
Kilpatrick (MI)
Larson (CT)
Millender-McDonald
Neal (MA)
Owens
Peterson (MN)
Slaughter
Sweeney
Thomas
Waters
Wicker
Young (FL)
{time} 1136
Messrs. BOREN, GORDON, STUPAK and RUSH changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 174, had I been present,
I would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
[[Page H3346]]
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222,
noes 185, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 175]
AYES--222
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOES--185
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boyd
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Doggett
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2
Emerson
Istook
NOT VOTING--24
Ackerman
Baird
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Burton (IN)
Carson
Cubin
Davis (IL)
Dingell
Doyle
Fattah
Gohmert
Honda
Kanjorski
Kilpatrick (MI)
Larson (CT)
Millender-McDonald
Neal (MA)
Owens
Scott (VA)
Sweeney
Waters
Wicker
Young (FL)
{time} 1151
So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________