[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.
____________________