[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.

                          ____________________