[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 30 (Thursday, March 9, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H795-H802]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2829, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG 
               CONTROL POLICY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 713 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 713

       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. 2829) to reauthorize the Office of National 
     Drug Control Policy Act. 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 Government Reform. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived. Notwithstanding 
     clause 11 of rule XVIII, no

[[Page H796]]

     amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dent). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this structured rule under consideration provides 1 hour 
of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform.
  It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and 
provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall 
be considered as read.
  It waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute and makes in order only those amendments printed 
in the Rules Committee report accompanying this resolution.
  This rule provides that the amendments made in order may be offered 
only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read and shall 
be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent. They shall not be subject 
to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
  Finally, this rule waives all points of order against the amendments 
printed in the report, and provides one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and its underlying 
important legislation reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy, which was created in 1998 to be the primary shaper, coordinator 
and proponent of Federal efforts to end drug abuse in our communities 
across America.
  By supporting this legislation to reauthorize the ONDCP's activities 
for the next 5 years, Congress will reaffirm its support for national 
programs to combat the consequences of drug abuse in the National Youth 
Anti-Drug Media Campaign and the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area 
Program known as HIDTA. It also makes the development and 
implementation of Federal drug policy more streamlined, efficient and 
accountable.
  H.R. 2829 accomplishes this goal by implementing a number of 
meaningful reforms to ONDCP and to our national drug control strategy. 
It provides the director of the ONDCP with a rank equal to Cabinet 
secretaries. While not affecting the President's ability to undermine 
the makeup of his Cabinet, it will ensure that the director will be 
able to interact with other department heads as an equal peer as this 
person coordinates our national drug policies.
  This legislation also reaffirms the role of the ONDCP director as the 
principal coordinator of national drug policy and enhances 
effectiveness and accountability in drug treatment by requiring a 
uniform system of drug treatment evaluation based on results. It also 
enhances the national antidrug abuse media campaign, preserves and 
strengthens the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program and places 
a greater emphasis on providing resources to critical emerging drug 
threats that face our country.
  Mr. Speaker, we know that the war on drugs is an ongoing struggle, 
but one that is also where we are seeing improvement, real improvements 
with positive real-world effects for American families. As President 
Bush outlined in his State of the Union address, there has been a 19 
percent decline in overall drug teen use over the last 5 years, which 
translates into about 700,000 fewer young people using drugs. I think 
that is significant. This did not happen by accident.
  But despite the fact that illegal drug use for 8th, 10th and 12th 
graders has been trending down since 2001, American teens still engage 
in risky drug-related behavior far too frequently. Nationwide, each day 
approximately 7,500 children between the ages of 12 and 17 try alcohol 
for the first time and over 30 percent of high school students report 
having ridden in a car with a friend who has been drinking.
  Even more alarmingly, each day about 3,500 teens try marijuana for 
the first time, 3,500 teens try marijuana for the first time every day, 
and one in four children have been offered drugs at school.
  Most disturbing of all, 12 million Americans age 12 and older have 
tried what is called methamphetamines, known as meth, a drug known 
principally for its equally addictive and destructive qualities.
  We all know that the battle to keep our kids drug-free starts at 
home. Over two-thirds of teens say that the greatest risk for them in 
using marijuana is upsetting their parents, and we know that children 
who are not regularly monitored by their parents are four times more 
likely to use illicit drugs.
  Congress has an important role to play in the process of protecting 
our Nation's families and communities from the devastating effects of 
drug use and drug addiction. This legislation will allow the ONDCP to 
continue fighting on the domestic front in the war on drugs through 
comprehensive efforts like what we call the Major Cities Initiative, 
which targets drug abuse in large metropolitan areas that have the 
highest rates of current illicit drug use by developing inventories of 
Federal, State and local resources for prevention, treatment and law 
enforcement.
  By passing this legislation, the ONDCP will also be empowered to 
continue its involvement in a number of education programs and outreach 
activities whose results are backed by sound scientific data which have 
dramatically helped to reduce drug addiction across America.
  This legislation will also allow ONDCP to continue its fight on the 
international front of the war on drugs. America has gotten a little 
bit better in choking off the supply for drugs through fostering a 
closer working relationship with countries, including our neighbors to 
the south, including Mexico, where marijuana cultivation fell almost 25 
percent between 2003 and 2004 and opium poppy cultivation dropped about 
27 percent during that same time.
  In Colombia, the coca crop has declined by more than one-third from 
its high point of expansion in 2001, a pattern that holds true for the 
other large Andean coca-growing countries of Peru and Bolivia.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, America can by no means declare victory 
in the war on drugs. Many challenges lie ahead in teaching our children 
to simply say no and abstain from using drugs, in protecting our 
communities from crime and domestic upheavals caused by drug use and in 
disrupting international markets that bring to and provide this country 
with illegal drugs.

                              {time}  1030

  But progress is being made in no small part due to the actions taken 
by this Congress, my colleagues who care very immensely and deeply 
about the children and families of our home districts, and due to this 
administration to continue the fight for our communities, our children, 
and our future.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation.

[[Page H797]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the restrictive rule and the 
underlying legislation reauthorizing the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy.
  As our colleague from Texas has already noted, the rule makes in 
order 15 amendments to be offered by Members from both sides of the 
aisle. But what he did not mention is that the rule blocks 10 other 
amendments which were considered yesterday in the Rules Committee. It 
blocks them from being offered on the floor today.
  Included in the 10 blocked amendments is a proposal offered by my 
good friend, Representative Bean, that would have required the 
Government Accounting Office to examine the unintended effects of 
hyperactive disorder drugs.
  At a time when more and more children and adults are being diagnosed 
with some form of attention deficit disorder, this study could go a 
long way towards helping all of us better understand the problem. Yet 
my friends in the majority on the Rules Committee blocked this 
amendment from being considered. Perhaps it is because they do not want 
to address the issue, or perhaps it is because they are trying to 
defeat Representative Bean in November. Whatever the reason, the House 
will not have the opportunity to consider this important amendment 
today because the rule prohibits it.
  The rule also does not permit Representative Waters from offering her 
amendment, which would have required the ONDCP to develop objectives 
for reducing drug overdoses and the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis. 
Her commonsense amendment, too, is blocked from consideration under the 
rule. So while this rule is certainly more generous than most of those 
in the past, it is not by any stretch of the imagination open.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not going to dwell on the specifics of this 
legislation, which we all agree is important and necessary. I do, 
however, wish to speak briefly about the issues facing our communities, 
mine specifically, due to drug abuse and our failed efforts to 
rehabilitate abusers.
  A little history, first. In 1971, President Nixon declared the so-
called modern-day ``war on drugs.''
  He characterized drug abuse as ``America's Public Enemy No. 1.'' He 
argued that drug addiction is a public problem. Since then, since 1971, 
Congress has attempted to pass laws, or passed laws, that cracked down 
on drug usage and harshly punished those who used these addictive 
poisons.
  Though our intentions have largely been sincere, we have yet to 
institute policies that reflect a comprehensive understanding of this 
continuing problem. In America's black communities, minimum sentencing 
guidelines instituted by Congress and State legislatures for drug 
offenders and for other nonviolent crimes have had a lasting effect 
that will linger for generations to come.
  Consider this: under current Federal law, the mandatory minimum 
sentence for being caught with 1 ounce of crack cocaine, a drug that 
the statistics show is more likely to be used by blacks than anyone 
else in our country, that mandatory minimum is longer than the 
mandatory minimum sentence for being caught with the exact same amount 
of powder cocaine, a drug that the statistics have shown is more likely 
to be used by whites than anyone else.
  Even more, mandatory sentencing guidelines prohibit judges from using 
reasonable discretion to rehabilitate and not incarcerate the persons 
that are abusers. As a direct result of these draconian and 
discriminatory laws, black men in America are nearly 10 times more 
likely to be incarcerated for drug use than white males, 
notwithstanding the fact that they had the same amount; it was just 
nuanced as crack or powder cocaine.
  Tens of thousands of black children are growing up in America in 
single-parent households, often plagued by poverty. Sure, drug usage is 
certainly a component of that problem. But the senseless mandatory 
locking up of first-time nonviolent drug offenders has done more to 
tear black and white families apart in America than almost anything 
else.
  Drug prevention programs, such as those authorized in the underlying 
legislation, are important, as is the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy. The 1990 designation of south Florida as a High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Area has been very useful in directing Federal resources 
into our region to stop or attempt to stop the flow of drugs into the 
State and country.
  I supported efforts under different programs, different 
administrations, Republican and Democratic, when I was a Federal judge 
two decades ago. I continue to support them today.
  Nevertheless, I refuse to accept that our drug policies have had the 
positive effect that so many in this body claim. Drugs are still easily 
accessible on our streets and in our schools, and our drug laws are 
senseless, outdated, and in dire need of revision.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a day when the Members of this body 
will be willing to have a meaningful debate about the successes and the 
failures of Federal drug policies and mandatory minimum sentencing 
guidelines. Only then will we fully recognize how big a failure our 
policies have been and take the necessary, indeed the appropriate, 
steps, to rehabilitate, not write off drug abusers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, back in 1997 when I was elected to Congress, I was aware 
of the drug issue as it related to not only my district but, in 
general, to Texas and the country. And I became engaged in working with 
a group of Members who were intensely interested in understanding, 
developing a process, a policy, and a regular format for discussing 
drug use in America, those people who would bring drugs into the 
country, understanding how we stopped it, how we rehabilitated people, 
how we worked with law enforcement, how we dealt with the entire issue 
of policy from top to bottom.
  One of those leaders at that time who continues to be one today will 
be our next speaker. He is a gentleman who intensely cares about the 
issue. He has traveled internationally, South America, around the 
world, to become an expert on not only drugs but also those things that 
surround drugs.
  As we know, terrorism and terrorists make money off the money that 
comes from users in the United States of America. And so I am pleased 
to have at this time the gentleman who is the vice-chairman of the 
Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Subcommittee for Government Reform and 
the main author of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder).
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. In 
background with this, I would like to make a couple of comments about 
ONDCP and the drug issues before commenting on the amendments in 
particular.
  We are, right now, over in the Government Reform Committee passing 
the 2006 Congressional Drug Control Budget and Policy Assessment. If 
you want to go to the Government Reform Web site, look under our 
subcommittee, Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Services, which I 
chair, ranking member Elijah Cummings and I have put together a 
unanimous report that I believe will be adopted unanimously through the 
full committee as well, that outlines, Department by Department, the 
budgets and our concerns with the national drug control policy.
  There are five major concerns in this overall budget policy 
assessment that you will see reflected both in the underlying bill 
today in ONDCP and the amendments that are coming to the floor.
  First is the appalling lack of a methamphetamine strategy coming out 
of ONDCP and this administration. Individual agencies such as DEA have 
worked on methamphetamines, but there is an appalling lack of national 
strategy you will see in amendment after amendment today on the floor, 
fully supported by myself and Congressman Cummings.
  And we worked helping draft many of these amendments. The frustration 
is

[[Page H798]]

incredible in this body and in the Senate, and that is reflected in 
today's debate and in this report; also interdiction assets, the 
frustration at an OMB-driven clause in the Homeland Security Department 
that would have separated narcotics from terrorism. Narcotics are the 
number one cause of terrorism deaths in America.
  On September 11, 2001, 3,500 people died because of terrorism. That 
fall, 7,500 people died with narcotics abuse and the terrorism 
associated with that in the United States.
  The next year, 30,000 people died in 2002. In 2003, 30,000 people 
died. In 2004, 30,000 people died. Already 7,500 people, approximately, 
have died in the United States. 105,000 people have died related to 
drug terrorism and abuse in America since 9/11.
  We need to understand that while we have to watch for the major 
terrorist attacks in America, we are fighting terrorism in family 
homes, on the streets, and in neighborhoods on a daily basis in every 
suburban area, every rural area, and every urban center of the United 
States.
  The Office of National Drug Control Policy, the so-called drug czar's 
office, was a creation of Congress. Senator Biden started it in the 
Senate. It was not something that the administration willingly did.
  The administration today says they do not like this bill. Why do they 
not like this bill? They opposed it in my committee, but it passed 
unanimously. They opposed it in the Government Reform Committee. It 
passed unanimously. It was accepted by the joint referrals, and it went 
to the Judiciary Committee.
  They came up with four proposals they did not like in it. It turned 
out that three, unbeknownst to them, and quite frankly showing some of 
our frustration with the drug czar's office, they did not even realize 
that three of the four amendments that they were objecting to were 
asked for by the Judiciary Committee, and now they were asking the 
Judiciary Committee to challenge that.
  Of course, Chairman Sensenbrenner did not take the amendments and 
knock them out; they were his in the Judiciary Committee. The fourth 
was the Dawson Community Act that was added to protect witnesses that 
was added by Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat of my subcommittee, 
and had been supported earlier by the administration. Then they wanted 
to knock it out.
  Right up until the Rules Committee, they were still trying to demote 
the drug czar from a Cabinet-level equivalency position. How can he 
give advice, and how can he review the budgets, as this act requires of 
the State Department, of the Defense Department, of the Department of 
Homeland Security if he does not have Cabinet status? It makes no 
sense.
  They are continually trying to undermine the attempts that we have 
had here. Over the past few years we have worked together in trying to 
move this bill. This bill moved unanimously through the House the last 
session of Congress. We believe we now have a bill that we will work 
through with the Senate as we work with the Republicans and the 
Democrats in the other body.
  And we believe this bill will become law if not unanimously, nearly 
unanimously. There are 15 amendments today. Some amendments did not 
directly relate to this bill. But if Members want votes on some of 
these, that will be fine. We are prepared to accept, I believe, 13 of 
the 15 amendments, one we believe we can work out in conference. We are 
opposing one.

                              {time}  1045

  This is a bipartisan bill. And for those who have been concerned 
about meth, there is a lot in this bill related to meth that will force 
their hands. But the amendments today will make it clear that the 
United States Congress wants some action out of this administration on 
meth. It is bipartisan. It is suburban, rural, and urban and it is time 
that we started to act aggressively.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am asking the House to vote down the previous question 
on this rule today so that the House might have an opportunity to 
consider two provisions which were dealt with in the Appropriations 
Committee yesterday. As we all know, this country has been rocked with 
stories about the potential purchase of port facilities in this country 
by a foreign corporation. I am not quite sure what the policy ought to 
be, but I do know that we ought to have a policy.
  In fact, this country needs to have an overall policy with respect to 
the question of foreign investment in this country in general, but we 
do not. What we have discovered in this episode is that when a company 
such as the port terminal that has been discussed in newspapers, when a 
company like that is purchased by another foreign entity, it is only at 
the option of the two parties who have an economic interest that our 
government is even informed that the transaction is taking place. That 
is why our President had to tell the Nation that he did not have a clue 
about this port transaction.
  Well, our President ought to have a clue and we ought to have a 
process that guarantees that he will be informed and that process 
should not rely on the voluntary action of the parties who stand to 
make money in the deal.
  Yesterday in the Appropriations Committee we had an amendment adopted 
by Mr. Lewis, the chairman, which threw out the Dubai port deal. But 
the committee in that process declined to support the Sabo amendment 
which would have tried to establish a process under which this country 
would be guaranteed that our government would always know when such a 
transaction is being contemplated. And it would have set up a process 
which would have assured a time certain for Presidential action and 
would have given the Congress a role to play in that process.
  Without the action of the Sabo amendment, we are simply, on an ad hoc 
basis, taking one action to forbid one port from being purchased by a 
foreign party but we are still leaving the country open to other deals 
about which our government could know nothing. I do not think there are 
10 people in the Congress who knew, for instance, that a Chinese 
corporation had taken over the port at Long Beach. It would be nice if 
our Government knew things like that.
  The only way that we are going to get something like this done is if 
we force the Congress to face the entire issue. And it seems to me that 
this bill is a handy vehicle for doing that. I know that people will 
say, ``Well, you are trying to attach a matter to a bill that does not 
have anything to do with the matter at hand.'' I would simply say I 
have learned plenty from the majority leadership of this House about 
how to do that in the past few years, and I think we need to take 
advantage of that learning at this point to deal with what is a very 
serious problem facing our country on this question.
  We need to have a policy on this so that we do not look as we did 
yesterday, like a bunch of chickens flying in all directions the minute 
an issue becomes controversial. We need to have a long-term policy to 
deal with this issue. The Sabo amendment, as it amends the Lewis 
amendment in the Appropriations Committee yesterday, would do that. And 
this bill before us today would be a decent venue to discuss that in a 
broad fashion, which is why I would urge defeat of the previous 
question so that we might be afforded the opportunity to offer such an 
amendment and have the House work its will on it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to hear from the vice 
chairman of the Committee on Government Reform about this important 
issue today, about ONDCP, is important. Today we have an opportunity to 
hear from the youngest member of the Republican leadership, newly 
elected chairman of our policy committee; a young man who is from 
Florida; a young man who has been in the thick of the battle of seeing 
not only the devastation of drugs but also what communities and what 
effective law enforcement can do in combating drugs. He is a young man 
who has an opinion. He is bringing that opinion to the Republican 
policy committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman

[[Page H799]]

from Florida (Mr. Putnam), my colleague from the Rules Committee.
  Mr. PUTNAM. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, drugs are a scourge. It is a scourge that is not just an 
inner-city problem. It has spread like a cancer into our small towns, 
our suburban areas, farming communities, areas that used to view the 
war on drugs with a certain jaundiced eye as being somebody else's 
problem.
  In Florida, unfortunately, we have been on the cutting edge of this 
war, beginning with the cocaine cowboys of the eighties, the dope 
runners who would use our airstrips and grassy areas to bring things in 
from the Caribbean and from Central America, and we have seen how it 
has ripped apart our communities.
  We have seen how it has filled our schools with children with severe 
learning disabilities and developmental difficulties because of 
decisions that their parents made in using these terrible drugs, these 
highly addictive and dangerous chemicals. We have seen the costs that 
it has on society, and it is nothing short of a national tragedy. So I 
am pleased that there is such bipartisan concern for dealing with this 
scourge.
  I am heartened by the bipartisan number of amendments that are being 
offered to try and improve upon this work of really giving the ONDCP 
the authority and the teeth that they need to continue to go after 
this. This Congress is working together to curtail the dangerous 
proliferation of drugs, and particularly that of methamphetamines. Meth 
abuse is where we really see a tremendous amount of growth outside of 
the cities, outside of those traditional areas where we have associated 
drug use.
  My home district in central Florida is not what you would 
stereotypically think of as a high-drug trafficking area, a high-crime 
area. It is an area of suburban bedroom communities for larger cities 
and rolling citrus hills and cattle ranches. The largest city has less 
than 80,000 people in it. And yet it is, unfortunately, on the short 
list of major production areas for methamphetamine because of its rural 
nature, because they can have these labs in the middle of nowhere, 
where the stench from the creation of that terrible drug is not 
noticed.
  In fact, the DEA says that meth has become the most dangerous drug 
problem of small-town America. They note that young people ages 12 to 
14 who live in small towns are 104 percent more likely to use meth than 
young people living in larger cities. What a frightening statistic for 
people who think that they are escaping big-city problems when they 
move to smaller towns. Meth abuse is most prevalent in these rural 
areas, as we said, because you can set these labs up anywhere without 
detection, the more rural the area is.
  My district has seen a huge spike in meth abuse, meth production, 
since the nineties, which has a direct correlation to rising crime 
rates, overcrowded prisons and an impact on local law enforcement and 
local schools.
  I appreciate the work of the Meth Caucus here in this Congress for 
continuing to bring attention to this epidemic of methamphetamine 
abuse. It is imperative that our Congress ensure that the Federal 
Government start treating this national problem with the same urgency 
and the same commitment that our State and local governments and 
grassroots advocacy groups have been treating it with for years.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule. I appreciate the hard work 
of Mr. Souder and Mr. Sessions and all the folks who have put so much 
into this, and I urge Members to support the underlying bill as well.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so I can amend this rule to allow a vote today to block the 
President's plan to turn over our Nation's ports to a government-run 
company in Dubai.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dent). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. My amendment provides that immediately after 
the House adopts this rule, it will bring up legislation that does two 
things, undergirding what my good friend, the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, mentioned in his remarks earlier.
  First, it stops the President from moving forward with his deal to 
transfer operations at a number of our Nation's busiest ports, 
including the Port of Miami immediately south of my district, to the 
Government of Dubai state-owned Dubai Ports World. This is the 
identical language that was offered in the Appropriations Committee 
yesterday by Chairman Lewis and later adopted by the committee on 
yesterday.
  Secondly, the legislation would strengthen the process by which our 
government reviews future foreign takeovers. Specifically, it would 
require that all foreign transactions that could result in foreign 
control of any entity engaged in interstate commerce to undergo a 
thorough review that mandates the direct involvement of the President 
and the Congress. Whatever Members believe about the Dubai agreement, 
the House should be guaranteed an up-or-down vote on whether or not we 
want to turn control of a significant number of our Nation's ports over 
to a company that is owned by a foreign government.
  This administration, without consulting the Congress, negotiated a 
secret backroom deal to turn the management of our vital ports over to 
a foreign entity. The House must be involved in this process that 
directly affects our national security now and in the future. We are 
sent to Washington to protect this Nation and its citizens. We owe it 
to them to make sure this type of deal is never allowed to slip through 
the system again.
  I want to emphasize that this vote, the vote on whether to order the 
previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A 
vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the 
agenda of the Republican majority. A ``no'' vote will allow those of us 
concerned about the safety and security of America's ports to offer an 
alternative plan right here and right now.

                              {time}  1100

  It is a vote to consider homeland security priorities for the 
American people which the majority today has refused to consider.
  I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can 
bring up legislation that gives Congress the right to cast a vote and 
be heard on this matter of significant national security. I wish to 
repeat that: I urge all Members, both sides, to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question so we can bring up legislation so that we can do our 
job that gives Congress the right, just the right, to cast a vote and 
to be heard on this matter of significant national security.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to be on the floor today 
to talk about the ONDCP, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, 
and the reauthorization of that important act is why we are here today, 
and I do understand that the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin have some very strong feelings about some other issues 
that are not germane to the discussion of ONDCP.
  I would also note that I am sure there will be a discussion today as 
we adjourn between the leadership parties, as they always meet on the 
floor to talk about thoughts, issues and ideas; and I am sure part of 
that discussion is going to be about the process that has been 
discussed through the Appropriations Committee, where there appears to 
be bipartisan agreement on moving forward on that important 
legislation.
  However, today, I encourage all my friends and colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to maintain their focus on what the attempt is 
today, and that is to support the rule that reauthorizes ONDCP on 
behalf of America's families and for our future.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks by reminding my 
colleagues that defeating the previous question is an exercise in 
futility because the minority wants to offer an amendment that would 
otherwise be

[[Page H800]]

ruled out of order as nongermane. So their vote or the request is 
really one without substance.
  The previous question vote itself is simply a procedural motion to 
close debate on this rule that we are speaking about and proceed to 
vote on its adoption. The vote has no substantive policy implications 
whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, at this point I will insert in the Record an 
explanation of the previous question.

             The Previous Question Vote: What Does It Mean?

       House Rule XIX (``Previous Question'') provides in part 
     that:
       There shall be a motion for the previous question, which, 
     being ordered, shall have the effect of cutting off all 
     debate and bringing the House to a direct vote on the 
     immediate question or questions on which it has been ordered.
       In the case of a special rule or order of business 
     resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing 
     for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the 
     previous question is moved following the one hour of debate 
     allowed for under House Rules.
       The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural 
     vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting 
     the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and 
     amendment on the legislation it would make in order. 
     Therefore, the previous question has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.

  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

 Previous Question on H. Res. 713--Rule Providing for Consideration of 
                               H.R. 2829

       At the end of the resolution add the following new 
     sections:
       ``Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
     it shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order to consider in the House a bill consisting of the text 
     specified in Section 3 to prohibit the merger, acquisition, 
     or takeover of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation 
     Company by Dubai Ports World and for other purposes. The bill 
     shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) 60 minutes of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
     Services; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.''
       Sec. 3. The text referred to in section 2 is as follows:

                                 A BILL

       To prohibit the merger, acquisition, or takeover of 
     Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company by Dubai 
     Ports World and for other purposes.
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
       Sec. 1. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act or 
     any other act may be used to take any action under section 
     721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 
     2170) or any other provision of law to approve or otherwise 
     allow the acquisition of any leases, contracts, rights, or 
     other obligations of P&O Ports by Dubai Ports World or any 
     other legal entity affiliated with or controlled by Dubai 
     Ports World.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any prior 
     action or decision by or on behalf of the President under 
     section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 
     App. 2170), the acquisition of any leases, contracts, rights, 
     or other obligations of P&O Ports by Dubai Ports World or any 
     other legal entity affiliated with or controlled by Dubai 
     Ports World is hereby prohibited and shall have no effect.
       (c) The limitation in subsection (a) and the prohibition in 
     subsection (b) applies with respect to the acquisition of any 
     leases, contracts, rights, or other obligations on or after 
     January 1, 2006.
       (d) In this section:
       (1) The term ``P&O Ports'' means P&O Ports, North America, 
     a United States subsidiary of the Peninsular and Oriental 
     Steam Navigation Company, a company that is a national of the 
     United Kingdom.
       (2) The term ``Dubai Ports World'' means Dubai Ports World, 
     a company that is partly owned and controlled by the 
     Government of the United Arab Emirates.
       Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and 
     any prior action or decision by or on behalf of the 
     President, the President shall exercise the authority under 
     Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 
     App. 2170) to prohibit the merger, acquisition, or takeover 
     of P&O Ports by Dubai Ports World.
       (b) Investigation of Certain Transactions for National 
     Security Implications.--Section 721 of the Defense Production 
     Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 721. INVESTIGATION OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS FOR 
                   NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) Investigations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Upon receiving written notification, as 
     prescribed by regulations under this section, of any merger, 
     acquisition, or takeover proposed or pending on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this section by or with any foreign 
     person which could result in foreign control of any person 
     engaged in interstate commerce in the United States, the 
     President, acting through the President's designee and the 
     Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States shall 
     conduct an investigation to determine the effects, if any, of 
     the proposed or pending merger, acquisition, or takeover on 
     the national security of the United States.
       ``(2) Timing.--Any investigation required under paragraph 
     (1) shall be completed before the end of the 75-day period 
     beginning on the date of the receipt by the President or the 
     President's designee of written notification of the proposed 
     or pending merger, acquisition, or takeover.
       ``(b) Confidentiality of Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any information or documentary material 
     filed with the President or the President's designee pursuant 
     to this section shall be exempt from disclosure under section 
     552 of title 5, United States Code, and no such information 
     or documentary material may be made public, except as may be 
     relevant to any administrative or judicial action or 
     proceeding.
       ``(2) Availability to the congress.--No provision of 
     paragraph (1) shall be construed as preventing the disclosure 
     of any information or documentary material to either House of 
     Congress or to any duly authorized committee or subcommittee 
     of the Congress.
       ``(c) Committee on Foreign Investment in the United 
     States.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Committee on Foreign Investment 
     in the United States established pursuant to Executive Order 
     No. 11858 (hereafter in this section referred to as the 
     `Committee') shall be a multi-agency committee to carry out 
     this section and such other assignments as the President may 
     designate.
       ``(2) Membershlp.--The Committee shall be comprised of the 
     following members:
       ``(A) The Secretary of the Treasury.
       ``(B) The Secretary of State.
       ``(C) The Secretary of Defense.
       ``(D) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
       ``(E) The Attorney General.
       ``(F) The Secretary of Commerce.
       ``(G) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
       ``(H) The United States Trade Representative.
       ``(I) The Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.
       ``(J) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
     Policy.
       ``(3) Chairperson.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall be 
     the Chairperson of the Committee.
       ``(4) Other members.--The Chairperson of the Committee 
     shall involve the heads of such other Federal agencies, the 
     Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and 
     the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy in any 
     investigation under subsection (a) as the Chairperson 
     determines to be appropriate on the basis of the facts and 
     circumstances of the transaction under investigation.
       ``(5) Role of the director of national intelligence.--The 
     Director of National Intelligence shall provide appropriate 
     intelligence analysis and intelligence briefings to the 
     Committee.
       ``(d) Action by the President.--
       ``(1) In general.--No proposed or pending acquisition, 
     merger, or takeover, of a person engaged in interstate 
     commerce in the United States by or with foreign persons may 
     occur unless the President, on the basis of an investigation 
     and report by the Committee, finds that such acquisition, 
     merger or takeover, will not threaten to impair the national 
     security of the United States, as defined by regulations 
     prescribed pursuant to this section, and approves the 
     transaction.
       ``(2) Enforcement.--The President shall direct the Attorney 
     General to seek appropriate relief, including divestment 
     relief, in the district courts ofthe United States in order 
     to implement and enforce--
       ``(A) any finding, action, or determination under this 
     section of disapproval of an acquisition, merger, or 
     takeover; or
       ``(B) any conditions imposed on any approval of any 
     acquisition, merger, or takeover.
       ``(3) Finality of determinations.--All actions and 
     determinations under this section shall be final and not 
     subject to judicial review.
       ``(e) Findings by the President.--
       ``(1) In general.--A finding under this section of 
     impairment or threatened impairment to national security 
     shall be based on credible evidence that leads the President 
     to believe that--
       ``(A) the foreign interest exercising control might take 
     action that threatens to impair the national security; and
       ``(B) other provisions of law do not provide adequate and 
     appropriate authority for the President to protect the 
     national security.
       ``(2) Factors to be considered.--Any investigation under 
     this section shall take into account the following factors:
       ``(A) Domestic production needed for projected national 
     defense requirements.
       ``(B) The capability and capacity of domestic industries to 
     meet national defense requirements, including the 
     availability of human resources, products, technology, 
     materials, and other supplies and services.
       ``(C) The control of domestic industries and commercial 
     activity by foreign citizens as it affect the capability and 
     capacity of the United States to meet the requirements of 
     national security.
       ``(D) The potential effects of the proposed or pending 
     transaction on sales of military

[[Page H801]]

     goods, equipment, or technology to any country--
       ``(i) identified by the Secretary of State--
       ``(I) under section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act 
     of 1979, as a country that supports terrorism;
       ``(II) under section 6(l) of the Export Administration Act 
     of 1979, as a country of concern regarding missile 
     proliferation; or
       ``(III) under section 6(m) of the Export Administration Act 
     of 1979, as a country of concern regarding the proliferation 
     of chemical and biological weapons; or
       ``(ii) listed under section 309(c) of the Nuclear Non-
     Proliferation Act of 1978 on the `Nuclear Non-Proliferation-
     Special Country List' (15 C.F.R. Part 778, Supplement No. 4) 
     or any successor list.
       ``(E) The potential effects on the proposed or pending 
     transaction on United States international technological 
     leadership in areas affecting United States national 
     security.
       ``(f) Report to the Congress.--Upon making any 
     determination to approve or disapprove any merger, 
     acquisition, or takeover by or with any foreign person which 
     could result in foreign control of any person engaged in 
     interstate commerce in the United States, the President shall 
     immediately transmit to the Secretary of the Senate and the 
     Clerk of the House of Representatives a written report of the 
     President's determination under this section to approve or 
     disapprove such merger, acquisition, or takeover, including a 
     detailed explanation of the finding made and factors 
     considered.
       ``(g) Congressional Action.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the determination of the President 
     contained in the report transmitted to the Congress under 
     subsection (f) is that the President will approve any merger, 
     acquisition, or takeover under subsection (d) and not later 
     than 30 days after the date on which Congress receives the 
     report, a joint resolution described in paragraph (2) is 
     enacted into law, then the President shall take such action 
     under subsection (d) as is necessary to prohibit the merger, 
     acquisition, or takeover, including, if such acquisition has 
     been completed, directing the Attorney General to seek 
     divestment or other appropriate relief in the district courts 
     of the United States.
       ``(2) Joint resolution described.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), the term `joint resolution' means a joint 
     resolution of the Congress, the sole matter after the 
     resolving clause of which is as follows: `That the Congress 
     disapproves the determination of approval of the President 
     contained in the report submitted to Congress pursuant to 
     section 721(f) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 on 
     ___.', with the blank space being filled with the appropriate 
     date.
       ``(3) Computation of review period.--In computing the 30-
     day period referred to in paragraph (1), there shall be 
     excluded any day described in section 154(b) of the Trade Act 
     of 1974.
       ``(h) Regulations.--The President shall direct the issuance 
     of regulations to carry out this section. Such regulations 
     shall, to the extent possible, minimize paperwork burdens and 
     shall to the extent possible coordinate reporting 
     requirements under this section with reporting requirements 
     under any other provision of Federal law.
       ``(i) Effect on Other Law.--No provision of this section 
     shall be construed as altering or affecting any existing 
     authority, power, process, regulation, investigation, 
     enforcement measure, or review provided by any other 
     provision of law.
       ``(j) Technology Risk Assessments.--In any case in which an 
     assessment of the risk of diversion of defense critical 
     technology is performed by the Committee or any other 
     designee of the President, a copy of such assessment shall be 
     provided to any other designee of the President responsible 
     for reviewing or investigating a merger, acquisition, or 
     takeover under this section.
       ``(k) Biennial Report on Critical Technologies.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order to assist the Congress in its 
     oversight responsibilities with respect to this section, the 
     President and such agencies as the President shall designate 
     shall complete and furnish to the Congress, not later than 
     May 1, 2007, and upon the expiration of every 2 years 
     thereafter, a report, both in classified and unclassified 
     form, which--
       ``(A) evaluates whether there is credible evidence of a 
     coordinated strategy by 1 or more countries or companies to 
     acquire United States companies involved in research, 
     development, or production of critical technologies for which 
     the United States is a leading producer; and
       ``(B) evaluates whether there are industrial espionage 
     activities directed or directly assisted by foreign 
     governments against private United States companies aimed at 
     obtaining commercial secrets related to critical technology.
       ``(2) Definition.--For the purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `critical technologies' means technologies identified 
     under title VI of the National Science and Technology Policy, 
     Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 or other critical 
     technology, critical components, or critical technology items 
     essential to national defense or security identified pursuant 
     to this section.
       ``(1) Biennial Report on Critical Infrastructure.--In order 
     to assist the Congress in its oversight responsibilities, the 
     President and such agencies as the President shall designate 
     shall complete and furnish to the Congress, not later than 90 
     days after the date of enactment of this subsection and upon 
     the expiration of every 2 years thereafter, a report, both in 
     classified and unclassified form, which--
       ``(1) lists all critical infrastructure, as defined under 
     subtitle B of Title II of Public Law 107-296, that is owned, 
     controlled or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation, 
     or a foreign government;
       ``(2) evaluates whether there is credible evidence of a 
     coordinated strategy by 1 or more countries or companies to 
     acquire United States critical infrastructure; and
       ``(3) evaluates whether there are industrial espionage 
     activities directed or directly assisted by foreign 
     governments against private United States companies 
     controlling critical infrastructure.''.
       (b) Appropriation.--
       (1) In general.--There is hereby appropriated to the 
     Secretary of the Treasury as an additional amount for 
     ``Salaries and Expenses'' for operation of the Committee on 
     Foreign Investments in the United States, $10,000,000.
       (2) Emergency designation.--The amount appropriated in this 
     subsection is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
       (3) Transfer authority.--Any amount appropriated in this 
     subsection may be transferred to any agency that is a core 
     member of the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United 
     States in order for such agency to carry out its member 
     responsibilities.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (b) 
     shall apply to the review and investigation of any 
     acquisition, merger, or takeover which is or becomes subject 
     to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 2170) (as in effect immediately before the date 
     of the enactment of this Act or on or after such date) that 
     has not become final before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.


        the vote on the previous question: what it really means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.

[[Page H802]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dent). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of 
the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 195, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 33]

                               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 (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     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
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     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
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     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
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     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)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Burton (IN)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     McKinney
     Norwood
     Salazar
     Shays
     Sweeney
     Weiner


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dent) (during the vote). There are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1128

  Mr. TOWNS and Mr. MORAN of Virginia changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. GOHMERT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, today, March 9, 2006, I missed rollcall 
vote No. 33, H. Res. 713, on ordering the previous question to provide 
for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2829) to reauthorize the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy Act. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 33.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, this morning, we voted on the previous 
question on the rule for H.R 2829, the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy. At the time that the vote was called, I was in the Energy and 
Commerce Committee participating in a hearing regarding the Department 
of Energy Budget. In my rush to go from the hearing to the House floor 
and for more meetings, I inadvertently voted ``yes'' on the previous 
question rather than ``no'' as I had intended.
  While I know that my vote would not have changed the outcome of the 
previous question vote, I feel strongly that the House should be 
allowed the opportunity to consider legislation that would block the 
Dubai port deal and strengthen the review process for future foreign 
port deals I would like the Record to reflect that I intended to vote 
``no''.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                             general leave

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 2829.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________