[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 113 (Wednesday, September 13, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6439-H6446]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 994, EXPRESSING SENSE OF THE 
  HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF TERRORIST ATTACKS 
        LAUNCHED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 996 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows

                              H. Res. 996

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 994) 
     expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the 
     fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched against 
     the United States on September 11, 2001. The resolution shall 
     be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to final 
     adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of 
     the question except: (1) four hours of debate equally divided 
     and controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or 
     their designees; and (2) one motion to recommit which may not 
     contain instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of House Resolution 994 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the resolution to a time designated by the 
     Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for 4 hours of debate in the House, 
equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and minority 
leader or their designees. It waives all points of order against 
consideration of the resolution and also provides one motion to 
recommit, which may not contain instructions.
  Finally, it provides that notwithstanding the operation of the 
previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
resolution to a time designated by the Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today, 5 years after the tragedy of 
September 11, to speak with one voice to let the world know that we 
have not forgotten the lessons of that terrible day. We are here to 
remember the thousands ruthlessly murdered by our enemies who hijacked 
four civilian aircraft and crashed them into the World Trade Center 
towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, and to recognize the 
unimaginable losses suffered by their families. We are also here to 
honor the sacrifices and the courage shown by our first responders who 
selflessly rushed to the flaming buildings in order to rescue the 
victims of these attacks.
  We are also here to let our allies in the war on terror know that we 
stand united with them in the war on terror, and to recognize the 
progress that continues to be made by our Federal intelligence, law 
enforcement and security agencies in conjunction with intelligence, law 
enforcement and security agencies of our allies, in keeping Americans 
safe. And we are here to remind these allies and to place our enemies 
on notice that we will never shirk from the war on terror and that we 
will never forget what happened on September 11, 2001.
  The six-page resolution should be recognized by every Member of this 
body as an opportunity to remember our Nation's tragic loss and to 
encourage every American to do the same. It is an opportunity to extend 
our sympathies to the families of the lost and to honor those who 
risked their own lives and health trying to protect the lives and 
health of others.
  It is an opportunity to extend our gratitude to our intelligence and 
military personnel serving at home and abroad and their families for 
their service. It is to thank the citizens of other nations who are 
contributing to the effort to defeat global terrorism.
  More importantly, it is an opportunity by this body to reaffirm that 
we remain vigilant and steadfast in the war on terror, that we remember 
the sacrifices made by so many innocent Americans on September 11 and 
that we will never succumb to the cause of terrorists.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution that will be brought here before the 
House for a vote is an earnest, heart-felt and comprehensive resolution 
putting the House on record and standing once again against terrorism.
  This House already has a strong record on this topic and has already 
passed a number of bills designed to accomplish the main goal laid out 
in this resolution, to remember the lessons of 9/11 and to honor the 
victims by preventing another attack on American soil. We have voted to 
give our law enforcement the tools they need to prosecute the war on 
terror in the United States and throughout the world, and through the 
passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and its reauthorization we have once 
again reaffirmed that.
  We have voted to implement a key component of the 9/11 Commission by 
creating Federal standards for the application process in the issuing 
of State identification cards through the REAL ID Act.

                              {time}  1115

  And this House has voted to secure our borders through the Border 
Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act and to 
defend our ports through the Security and Accountability for Every Port 
Act. We have made important reforms in the intelligence community 
through the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act and 
provided our first responders with the resources that they would need 
with our annual Homeland Security authorization and appropriations 
process.
  Mr. Speaker, this House has accomplished a great deal on behalf of 
the American people to ensure the citizens of the United States that 
they can be safe here and abroad, but we understand that this job is 
not yet done. Next week the House is scheduled to consider legislation 
that will build upon all of this hard work, legislation to further 
boost our national security and to give our law enforcement the tools 
it needs to prevent our shadowy, ever-shifting, and determined enemy to 
once again demonstrate that we do not rest in the war on terror and 
that we will not forget.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule 
to let our allies and our enemies alike know that we will continue the 
war on terror both in memory of those murdered on September 11 and for 
the generations still to come who will look back and evaluate our 
ability to put partisanship aside and to stand together on behalf of 
our Nation, our citizens, and, in fact, our civilization.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions), my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we remember that terrible day of September 11, 
2001. We continue to mourn for those who are lost. Our hearts continue 
to ache for the loved ones left behind. We honor those first responders 
who saved so many lives. We continue to stand firm as we pursue justice 
against those who perpetrated those attacks. And we remain committed to 
finding and eliminating terrorists around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, almost every year since 2001, Congress has passed 
resolutions commemorating the September 11 attacks. In past years those 
resolutions have been thoughtful, appropriate, and solidly bipartisan, 
as they should be. Sadly and unfortunately, that is not the case this 
year.
  Instead, the Republican leadership of this House has chosen to 
include controversial language in the resolution, including language 
celebrating the passage of legislation that many of us, both Democrats 
and Republicans, find to be deeply problematic.
  For example, the resolution before us celebrates the passage of the 
USA PATRIOT Act, which I and many others, Republicans and Democrats, 
believe went too far in sacrificing American's constitutional civil 
liberties.
  Rand Corporation terrorism expert Brian Michael Jenkins recently made

[[Page H6440]]

this point very well. He argues that strengthening America must involve 
preserving American values. And I quote: ``We cannot claim to be a 
Nation of laws, a champion of democracy, when we too easily accept a 
disturbing pattern of ignoring inconvenient rules, justifying our 
actions by extraordinary circumstances, readily resorting to 
extrajudicial actions based on broad assertions of unlimited executive 
authority, and espousing public arguments against any constraints on 
how we treat those in our custody. The defense of democracy demands the 
defense of democracy's ideals. To ignore this is to risk alienation and 
isolation. And defeat.''
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us celebrates the 
2005 passage of what many of us consider to be a punitive, 
controversial immigration bill, a bill that couldn't even pass the 
Republican Senate and a bill that President Bush does not even support.
  Mr. Speaker, it did not have to be this way, and it should not be 
this way. On Monday night the United States Senate passed its own 
version of the September 11 resolution, S. Res. 565, and I will insert 
a copy of the Senate bill at the conclusion of my remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill approaches this issue the right way. It 
sticks to remembering the victims, condemning the attacks and their 
perpetrators, recommitting the United States to fighting terrorism, and 
commending the members of our Armed Forces, law enforcement personnel, 
first responders, members of the intelligence community, and others who 
are on the front lines of this effort. The Senate bill was cosponsored 
by every single Senator, Republican and Democrat. Every single Senator 
put their names on this bill, and it was passed unanimously. For the 
life of me, I cannot figure out why the same thing is not good enough 
for the leadership in this House. Why on this subject, where unity is 
vitally important, does the leadership of this House seek disunity? Let 
us commemorate, not politicize, September 11.
  This resolution should not be a Republican resolution. It should be a 
resolution that defies party label. I am worried that some in this 
House are so consumed with politics that they would use this terrible 
tragedy for partisan gain, and I find that offensive.
  The resolution before us also states as fact that ``the Nation is 
safer than it was on September 11, 2001.'' Mr. Speaker, I would argue 
that the actions of this administration, particularly the war in Iraq, 
have made us less safe. Five years ago the world stood in sympathy and 
solidarity with America. Today, America's standing in the world is at 
the lowest point in history. Mr. Speaker, we invaded and now occupy a 
country that posed no imminent threat to the United States. Despite 
definitive and repeated findings that there were no ties between Iraq 
and al Qaeda, a finding most recently echoed by the Republican-
controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, the President and Vice 
President continue their misleading efforts to link al Qaeda, Osama bin 
Laden, Iraq, and 9/11 all together.
  The war in Iraq and the war against terrorism are distinct. The 
present Iraq policy, many of us believe, has made us less safe and must 
be changed. Even our top generals in Iraq have conceded that our policy 
in Iraq has actually produced more terrorists. This does not make us 
safer, Mr. Speaker. It makes us more isolated and more vulnerable in an 
increasingly dangerous world.
  We know that resources were diverted from Afghanistan, where the 9/11 
deadly plot was born, in order to invade and occupy Iraq. And we know 
now that the trail of Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11, has 
grown stone cold. We know that the President's policies in Iraq have 
put an enormous strain on our military, with U.S. military readiness 
levels now at historic lows.
  We know that the independent 9/11 Commission has just issued a 5-year 
report card on President Bush and the Congress filled with D's and F's 
on homeland security. And I think we all know, if we are being honest 
with ourselves, that we in this Congress have underfunded so much of 
our homeland security.
  We know that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has increased the 
budget deficit to record proportions because this administration and 
Congress have done what no other President and Congress have ever done 
in the history of the United States: they have continued to fund this 
war completely outside the normal budget and to grant a series of tax 
cuts to the wealthiest of the wealthy during a time of war.
  And we know, Mr. Speaker, that Iraq is rapidly descending into an 
ethnic and religious civil war with a daily civilian toll that tells 
every single Iraqi that nowhere is safe from violence, not their homes, 
not their jobs, not their schools, not even their hospitals.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution could have been, should have been a 
thoughtful, bipartisan commemoration of September 11, its victims, and 
the men and women who fight to protect us each and every day. That is 
what we should have on the floor today. Unfortunately, the resolution 
before us does not meet that standard.
  Members of this House have differences about policy. There are 
differences about the war in Iraq, and I respect and appreciate my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have a very different 
opinion on this war than I do. We have differences about protecting 
civil liberties. We have differences about how best to deal with 
immigration. But there are no differences, there are no differences, 
when it comes to honoring the memories of those lost on September 11. 
There are no differences when it comes to commending the men and women 
on the front lines of the war on terror. And there are no differences 
when it comes to the desire to protect this country from future 
terrorist attacks.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret that the leadership of this House, during this 
most solemn week, has chosen not to focus solely on the things that 
bring us together as Members of Congress and as Americans

                              S. Res. 565

       Whereas on September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four 
     civilian aircraft; crashed two of them into the towers of the 
     World Trade Center in New York City; and crashed the third 
     into the Pentagon outside Washington, DC;
       Whereas the fourth hijacked plane, United Airlines Flight 
     93, crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, near the town 
     of Shanksville, after the passengers and crew of that flight 
     struggled with the terrorist-hijackers to take back control 
     of the plane, ultimately preventing the flight from reaching 
     its likely destination in Washington, DC;
       Whereas the heroic actions of the rescue workers, 
     volunteers, Federal, State and local officials who responded 
     to the attacks with courage, determination, and skill are to 
     be commended;
       Whereas thousands of innocent Americans, and civilians from 
     many other countries, were killed and injured as a result of 
     these attacks;
       Whereas Congress declared, in the aftermath of the attacks, 
     September 12, 2001 to be a National Day of Unity and 
     Mourning;
       Whereas there has not been a terrorist attack on the United 
     States homeland since the terrorist attacks five years ago; 
     but al Qaeda has perpetrated terrorist attacks throughout the 
     world against U.S. persons, facilities, and interests, as 
     well as U.S. allies during that time; Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate:
       (1) commemorates the life of each individual who died as a 
     result of the attacks of September 11, 2001;
       (2) extends its deepest condolences to the victims of these 
     attacks, as well as to their families, friends, and loved 
     ones;
       (3) once again condemns in the strongest possible terms the 
     attacks, the terrorists who perpetrated them, and their 
     sponsors;
       (4) commits to support the necessary steps to interdict and 
     defeat terrorists who plot to do harm to the American people;
       (5) recommits itself and the nation to bringing to justice 
     the perpetrators of the attacks, along with their sponsors;
       (6) honors and expresses its gratitude to members of its 
     Armed Forces, law enforcement personnel, first responders, 
     members of intelligence community and others who have bravely 
     and faithfully participated in the War on Terrorism since 
     September 11, 2001;
       (7) declares September 11, 2006, to be a National Day of 
     Remembrance, in commemoration of the terrorist attacks 
     against the United States on September 11, 2001; and
       (8) declares that when the Senate adjourns today, it stand 
     adjourned as a further mark of respect to each individual who 
     died as a result of the attacks of September 11, 2001.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, my colleague, from Massachusetts does 
clearly talk about the differences of opinion that we have, and I 
respect that difference. I would also say that this body has an 
obligation to move forward and work on issues that we think are correct 
and right. And quite honestly, Republicans do see what has happened to

[[Page H6441]]

this country, I believe, in a significantly different way than what my 
colleagues, the Democrats, see.
  Several months ago we had a vote, and we have done this several 
times, but a vote on the intelligence bill where the Democrat Party 
wanted and had a vote on the floor that would require law enforcement 
and intelligence to release every single name of every single person 
under investigation by the FBI and intelligence agencies to the 
Congress, to nonlaw enforcement officials. These are the kinds of ideas 
that Ms. Pelosi and the Democrats have about how we go about protecting 
this country. We politely disagree.
  The resolution here today is not about policy as it relates to what 
we are trying to pass today. It is about how this act that happened on 
9/11 we will not forget. We will thank the men and women who protected 
us that day. We will stand behind the men and women of our military and 
intelligence organizations. We give thanks to the families who are here 
in this country whose loved ones serve on the front lines. And, lastly, 
we will let our allies know and the terrorists know that we will stay 
to the end. That is what this resolution is about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of 
the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. And I want 
to congratulate the gentleman from Dallas for his very hard work and 
superb management of this important resolution that we are considering 
here.
  Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago this week, an act of war pierced the 
security and peace of our Nation. The murder of nearly 3,000 by 
terrorist fanatics shook our country to its core and stirred within 
each and every one of us the determination to defend our freedom and 
our liberty with all of our might.
  The global war on terror, a war that we did not start, has delivered 
many successes. Most of the top leadership of al Qaeda have been 
captured or killed. In Iraq and Afghanistan, where terror was once 
cultivated and exported, 50 million people now have democratically 
elected governments. Some of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq, such 
as Osama bin Laden's deputy Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, are no longer free to 
wantonly murder.
  There have been quiet successes that fall beyond the scope of the 
military and away from the field of battle, Mr. Speaker. Following 
passage of the PATRIOT Act, we have seen terrorist cells that have been 
broken up here in the United States, five in particular, domestic 
terrorist cells that have been broken up because of the existence of 
the PATRIOT Act.

                              {time}  1130

  And we have also seen the breakup around the world of these cells 
because of legislative initiatives that we have taken since September 
11, 2001. The Justice Department has won 253 convictions in terror-
related cases across the United States.
  Intelligence gathering and cooperation between allies resulted in 
foiling a plot to blow up commercial airliners flying from London to 
the United States just weeks ago. It is absolutely essential that those 
in charge of keeping us safe have every tool necessary to do so.
  The results of these diplomatic, intelligence, and military efforts 
are encouraging. Five years after September 11, 2001, our homeland has 
not been attacked again, and that seems to be so often forgotten, Mr. 
Speaker. Every day we thank God that, because of what we have done and 
because of the initiative of our courageous men and women, the United 
States of America has not seen an attack in 5 years, when many 
predicted that we would see them follow immediately following September 
11, 2001. Yet, as the years prior to 9/11 proved, periods of security 
at home can lead to a false security. An enemy that has no regard for 
human life and no tolerance for freedom is an especially fierce foe. 
They act and operate according to the belief that, in the words of 
Osama bin Laden, and I quote, ``death is better than living on this 
earth with the unbelievers amongst us.'' Those are the words of bin 
Laden.
  Mr. Speaker, like the Cold War, the global struggle will be measured 
in decades, not years or months. While it is important and appropriate 
to question the tactics used in the global war on terror, there can be 
no doubt that it is critical to stay vigilant, stay committed, and stay 
on the offense. There have been many trying and somber days in the 
prosecution of this war, and there will be many more to come. We are 
especially thankful, as the gentleman from Dallas just said, to our men 
and women in uniform, from local law enforcement to those in the 
military. We offer our deepest appreciation for the opportunity they 
have given our Nation to know safety and freedom.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, as we proceed with this legislation, I am convinced 
that, contrary to what was said by my friend from Massachusetts, this 
resolution will enjoy strong bipartisan support just as resolution 
after resolution that we have passed since September of 2001 have 
enjoyed.
  Now, I have gone through and looked at past resolutions that have 
enjoyed great support from Democrats and Republicans in this House, and 
they have gone through many of the things that we have done to 
recognize what it has taken to be successful. And I believe that 
focusing on our border security is critical for that, and that is why 
the House-passed version of the border security measure was important. 
And I am pleased that we have the chairman of the Homeland Security 
committee, Mr. King. He has worked very hard on this and testified 
yesterday on behalf of the nexus between our security and the fact that 
border security is national security.
  Similarly, we have found that by breaking up the financial network 
through legislation like the SWIFT program, which has enjoyed great 
success, and unfortunately was disclosed in the media, we have had 
success in breaking up the financial aspect of those who would do us in 
because of the initiatives that we and this administration have taken. 
Mr. Speaker, I would argue that had we not taken the initiatives that 
we have over the past 5 years, things like the PATRIOT Act, we would 
not be here today without having suffered another attack on our soil.
  Today, we express our condolences, our thoughts and prayers with the 
families and the loved ones of those what paid the ultimate price on 
September 11, 2001, and the single best thing that we can do for every 
single one of them and their families is to ensure that we put into 
place the tools necessary so that it will never, ever happen again.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from both my 
friend from Texas and my chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, 
the gentleman from California, and I would just say that that was a 
really good campaign speech as he went through a litany of issues. But 
this is not a day for campaign speeches.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Once I finish my sentence.
  Mr. DREIER. I was just accused of making a campaign speech when I am 
talking about the reverence of September 11.
  Mr. McGOVERN. And I would say to the gentleman that on Monday, those 
Members who were in town, Republicans and Democrats, gathered on the 
East Front of the Capitol in solidarity. There were no campaign 
speeches, there was no politics. People gathered in solidarity together 
to commemorate those who lost their lives and to honor those who gave 
such tremendous sacrifice on September 11th.
  The United States Senate on Monday night had a resolution that every 
single Member of the United States Senate, Republican and Democrat, 
both, all co-sponsored and passed unanimously. There was unity. There 
was a desire not to debate the PATRIOT Act, not to debate the House 
version of the Border Security bill which the Republican-controlled 
Senate doesn't like and even the President doesn't like. It was about 
putting all those issues aside where there are differences, not just 
between Democrats and Republicans, I would say to the gentleman from 
Texas, but on issues like the PATRIOT Act there were a number of 
Republicans who had concerns about it.
  So this is not about one party versus the other. But on an issue like 
this involving commemorating the terrible tragedy of September 11 and 
honoring those who sacrificed their lives, I

[[Page H6442]]

would like to think in the spirit here of what happened Monday night 
and using the example of what went on in the United States Senate, that 
we could rise to the occasion
  Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying it was within our 
leadership that I first mentioned the idea of our once again singing 
God Bless America on the East Front of the Capitol, and I believe that 
that was a very important moment to once again let the American people 
know that we stand together, and it was my hope that we would be able 
to see strong bipartisanship as we proceed in these coming weeks 
following the fifth anniversary of September 11.
  I also would like to say that as we look at this resolution, and a 
strong attempt was made by our leadership team to work with Members of 
the minority to fashion a resolution that would enjoy bipartisan 
support. And I believe that it is essential for us to recognize the 
tools that have allowed us to ensure that we have not suffered another 
September 11. And I deeply resent being accused of making a campaign 
speech as we revere the lives that were lost on September 11.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his comments and reclaim my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me state for the record that in 2002, when we had a 
resolution on this issue, it passed unanimously. In 2004 and 2005, the 
resolutions that were brought to this floor were jointly sponsored by 
Representatives Hyde and Lantos both times. There was an effort at 
bipartisanship then, and I think that is the model. That is the model 
we should be following here. The bottom line is this is not a 
resolution that has been produced as a result of bipartisan 
consultation.
  But let me go back to the point I was trying to make in the 
beginning, and that is, this is a very solemn week, and we should not 
be doing anything but trying to bring this House together like they did 
in the United States Senate so that we speak with one voice and that we 
make it clear that we are together when it comes to commemorating those 
who lost their lives and those who have sacrificed so much and those 
who continue to put their lives on the line for the protection of all 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that I think the gentleman 
from Massachusetts makes a very important point. We have seen 
resolutions since September 11, 2001 pass unanimously and enjoy strong 
bipartisan support. I would recommend that my colleagues look at the 
resolutions that were passed year after year since September 11, 2001, 
and recognize that in those resolutions we talked about the different 
tools and the things that have been utilized to ensure that we win the 
global war on terror. We want this to be bipartisan. Mr. Speaker, I 
will predict that when this resolution is voted on, that it will enjoy 
strong bipartisan support
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to the 
gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, 4 minutes.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule 
and the underlying resolution. As we just marked the fifth anniversary 
of the September 11 terrorist attack launched against the United 
States, it is more important than ever that we stand united in 
condemning terrorism as we engage in this epic battle for the future of 
civilization.
  In this war on terror, Mr. Speaker, we are not in a battle of 
civilizations, we are in a battle for civilization, and our enemies are 
actively and aggressively adjusting their tactics while waging their 
terrorist war of religious intolerance against the free nations of the 
world.
  Our government has achieved many successes in this war and we have 
made substantial progress. We have enacted strong legislation, 
including the PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which 
created the Department of Homeland Security. We have strengthened our 
borders and ports through the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry 
Reform Act of 2002 and the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 
2002. We have funded our first responders in the amount of $41.5 
billion. Our intelligence agencies are working together like never 
before, thanks in large part to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
Prevention Act of 2004.
  While many of our political opponents have disagreed with our 
efforts, these changes are directly responsible for preventing another 
attack against our Nation since 9/11.
  Thanks to our counterterrorism techniques, the United States and our 
allies have foiled several terrorist plots, disrupted terrorist cells, 
including several in our own country, and brought many high-profile 
terrorists to justice.
  Just one month ago, Mr. Speaker, British authorities in London foiled 
a plot to blow up as many as 10 United States bound commercial 
airliners. The cooperation of British and American intelligence and 
counterterrorism authorities that led to the foiling of this plot is 
proof of two indisputable facts: First, we cannot let our guard down in 
the fight against terrorism; and, second, the steps Congress has taken 
since the tragic events of 9/11 are indeed working.
  It is therefore critically important, Mr. Speaker, that we continue 
giving America the tools it needs to fight the global war on terror.
  As stated by the 9/11 Commission, we must continue making strides and 
using terrorism finance as an intelligence tool. It is absolutely 
appalling that, in the light of this, 174 of my Democratic colleagues 
still voted against H. Res. 895, legislation supporting intelligence 
and law enforcement programs that track terrorists and condemning the 
publication of any classified information that could potentially impair 
the fight against terrorism. Not only did House Democrats vote against 
making the Committee on Homeland Security permanent at the beginning of 
this Congress, 120 of them opposed the creation of Homeland Security in 
the first place.
  Mr. Speaker, no matter how much we have at times disagreed on how to 
prosecute the war on terror, none of us will ever forget the attacks of 
September 11. Let me be clear. By supporting this resolution, we are 
standing strong and sending a message that we will continue fighting 
the terrorists. We will prevail no matter how long it takes. We are 
telling the terrorists that they will never again catch us off guard, 
and that an enemy committed to the death and destruction of the 
American way of life will not prevail. I know the strength of America, 
I know the strength of her people, and I know that we will be 
victorious in this fight for freedom. We must continue honoring the 
memory of those heroes who died on 9/11 by standing strong against 
terrorism and taking the fight to the enemy.
  This resolution simply reaffirms our commitment, and it deserves, as 
our chairman and Mr. Sessions said, the full support of this fight. I 
hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this rule and the 
underlying resolution.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind some of the 
previous speakers here that the title of this bill, H. Res. 994, is 
expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on the fifth 
anniversary of the terrorist attacks launched against the United States 
on September 11, 2001. And I do that because we have heard a lot of 
speeches here and we have talked about a lot of different issues that 
are separate from commemorating those who lost their lives, those who 
sacrificed on September 11, those who continue to protect our country.

                              {time}  1145

  We have talked about the PATRIOT Act and border security. We have 
talked about a whole litany of things, and those are all certainly 
important issues and legitimate issues for us to discuss, how best to 
protect this country. Those are things we should be debating here on a 
regular basis on the House floor, but they are controversial, some of 
these initiatives. They are controversial with a lot of Members of your 
own party.

[[Page H6443]]

  I wish we would get back to the point that this resolution here 
today, and what some of us are troubled by, is that this should be 
about unity and this should be about honoring those who sacrificed, 
those who lost their lives, those who have served our country so well. 
That is what this should be about and not a litany of controversial 
items that you want to promote during a campaign year.
  If you want to do that, do it in a separate resolution, take up a 
separate bill, but we should all be together when it comes to a 
resolution on September 11.
  The United States Senate got it right. They got it right over in the 
United States Senate. We should do the same here in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we think we got it right. We think we did the PATRIOT 
Act right. We think we did intelligence authorization right. We think 
we do a lot of things right around here. We are going to stand up for 
this country, Mr. Speaker. We are going to stand up for the men and 
women who protect our country. We are going to stand up and give the 
men and women of the intelligence community the things that they need.
  Today, it is right and fitting to say thank you; we will not forget 
and we will be vigilant to protect this country. That is what this 
resolution is about
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
King), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I in particular appreciate the opportunity to be able to 
speak on this issue, an issue which I believe is vital to the history 
of our Nation and indeed to the future of our Nation.
  As the sponsor of the legislation and chairman of the Homeland 
Security Committee, I took a special interest in doing all that I could 
to ensure that this resolution would reflect the thinking of the 
Congress and would not be at all provocative.
  But the fact is, September 11 was the darkest day in our Nation's 
history. It was also a day of exceptional bravery and courage, and year 
after year since September 11, 2001, we have expressed this sense of 
the Congress, we have expressed the sense of the House. We have pointed 
to the tremendous bravery that occurred that day, the actions of the 
police and the fire and the emergency workers. We have certainly 
referred to the terrible suffering that occurred that day.
  But also, it is essential we not just lament what happened that day, 
not just acknowledge the suffering of that day, but I believe we owe it 
to history to show what Congress has done. It is not enough just to say 
we feel sorry for what happened. It is important we show what we are 
doing, what we are doing as Members of Congress, to respond to the 
horrors of that day.
  In putting together this resolution, the leadership on our side of 
the aisle reached out to the other leaders certainly. On my committee, 
we reached out to Democratic members of our committee trying to put 
together a resolution, and the fact is the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, who is a good friend of mine, he acts as if this 
resolution this year is so markedly different than what was passed in 
previous years.
  Well, if you go back to 2004, the resolution referred to introduced 
by Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos, H. Res. 757, it goes through a long listing 
of what has been done since September 11, 2001. It refers to the war in 
Iraq as being part of the war against terrorism. It refers to port 
security and border security, to the Terrorism Threat Immigration 
Center. It talks about taking away the financial assets of terrorists. 
It goes on and on, listing a number of issues which apparently today 
would be considered extremely controversial.
  We make no reference at all to Iraq in today's resolution, other than 
to mention the men and women of our Armed Forces who are in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. We make no mention of the NSA electronic surveillance 
program which enjoys the support of the overwhelming majority of 
American citizens. We make no reference to the SWIFT program, which is 
going after the terrorist finances, which was to me in violation of the 
Espionage Act released on the front page of the New York Times. Even 
though it is entirely legal and entirely effective, we make no 
reference to that, but we do talk about the PATRIOT Act because that 
was a response of Congress.
  Now, history may judge that we did the wrong thing. I am absolutely 
convinced we did the right thing in passing the PATRIOT Act, and I 
think we owe it to the American people to let them know what we did. 
Also, maritime security, intelligence reform, port security, 
immigration reform, all of these are tied to the issue of international 
terrorism.
  This is the way Congress responded, and I think it is not enough just 
to say it was a tragedy that happened on September 11. Let us talk 
about what we did.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts says he objects to the language in 
here that we are safer since September 11. Okay. Maybe we can have an 
honest difference of opinion on that. The fact is, even the co-chairmen 
of the 9/11 Commission say we are safer today than we were on September 
11. The junior Senator from my State has said we are safer now than we 
were on September 11. These are certainly not Republican apologists.
  Quite frankly, while I understand the good faith on the other side, I 
as a person who lost almost 150 friends, neighbors and constituents 
resent the fact that by us introducing the resolution this is a 
campaign speech.
  As I was going to commemoration after commemoration on Monday, I did 
not say this as being part of the campaign. To me, this is our way of 
responding. Again, you may be right, and maybe in the future people 
will say it was wrong to break down the wall between the FBI and CIA 
and it may be wrong to be going after terrorist assets and it may be 
wrong to listen in on terrorist conversations. So be it. Let history be 
our judge.
  But let this resolution stand for what Congress has done, is doing 
and wants to do if we are serious about winning the war against 
international terrorism.
  If we want to talk about campaigns, I would wonder where were you in 
2004 when a resolution, if you want some partisan references, by your 
definition would be far more partisan than we are introducing here 
today or is it perhaps that the political party has been changed 
somehow, and now what was more than acceptable in 2004 is not even 
remotely acceptable today?
  So, if we are going to inject politics into it, let us be honest who 
is raising the political issue. I know that our leadership and the 
Speaker of the House went out of his way and their way to try to make 
this a bipartisan resolution. I certainly did. When you compare what we 
are stating today and what we stated in 2004, to me there is no doubt 
over who is being partisan and who is trying to exploit this issue. I 
find that wrong.
  I am saying I am proud to stand with this resolution. I am proud to 
support it. I urge the overwhelming majority of Republicans and 
Democrats to put aside partisanship, you do not have to agree with 
every word of our resolution, to say that Congress has responded and 
has done its best to respond to the attacks of September 11.
  Again, let history be our judge. I am more than willing for history 
to be our judge, and I am proud to stand on the record of the Congress, 
Republicans and Democrats, and I urge the adoption of the rule and urge 
the adoption of the underlying resolution.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just respond to the gentleman by again pointing to what the 
other body, the United States Senate, did where 100 Senators, 
Democrats, Republicans, came together as one, cosponsored a resolution 
and voted unanimously for a resolution.
  That is what we should be doing during this solemn week, not 
introducing legislation that inspires, quite frankly, the kind of 
debate that we have here today about issues that really are not about 
commemorating that day but issues that are highly controversial, 
ranging from everything to immigration to civil liberties to you name 
it. That is not the way we should be doing this
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

[[Page H6444]]

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I am very much opposed to this rule. This 
is an issue that deserves a lot more attention than is allowed under 
this rule. It is a closed rule, has no opportunity for amendments.
  Let me just cite one example of the language in this resolution which 
needs much more attention than is provided under this rule and frankly 
within the resolution itself.
  In the resolution, it says that the United States today is safer than 
it was on September 11, 2001. I disagree with that, and I think a great 
many people disagree with it because all of the evidence points in the 
other direction. We are not safer today than we were.
  Why are we not safer? Primarily because the administration and the 
leadership in this Congress corrupted the attack against the United 
States on September 11, 2001, and behaved in ways that have made the 
Nation less safe.
  Instead of focusing on the perpetrators of the attack of September 
11, 2001, the al Qaeda network and the leader, Osama bin Laden, the 
administration and the Defense Department backed off. They let him 
escape and he is free today.
  The fact of the matter is 19 members of al Qaeda attacked the United 
States on September 11, 2001. There was a handful of them in addition 
to those 19. Now that number has grown enormously. There are far more 
members of al Qaeda and associate terrorist networks spread all over 
the Middle East, and they are engaged in activities which constitute a 
threat to our country and many others.
  Subsequently, the attack against Iraq was a totally corrupt response 
to the attack of September 11, 2001. Iraq had nothing to do with that 
attack, nothing whatsoever.
  The President in his speech to the country the other night said the 
regime of Saddam Hussein represented a great threat. That is not the 
case. All of the intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein represented 
no threat whatsoever to the United States, just as all the intelligence 
now makes it very clear that there was no connection between Saddam 
Hussein or Iraq and the attack of September 11 against the United 
States, and there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in 
Iraq.
  So, instead of attacking the people who attacked us, the 
administration, with the consent of this Congress, attack another 
country that had nothing to do with it. The fact of the matter is the 
world and our country today are far less safe as a result of the way in 
which the administration and the leaders of this Congress behaved.
  We need to live up to our obligations here in the Congress. We need 
to conduct an investigation as to why the administration behaved the 
way it did. Why did it not pursue the people who attacked us, why did 
it let Osama bin Laden go free, why did we attack Iraq which had 
nothing to do with this, why did the President of the United States say 
that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when all of the intelligence 
indicated that there was no evidence that there were weapons of mass 
destruction, no chemical or biological weapons left and no nuclear 
weapons program?
  So the fact of the matter is that this resolution does not focus on 
the issue the way it ought to be focused upon, and this rule does not 
provide us the opportunity to expand the resolution, to offer 
amendments, to engage in the kind of debate that this issue needs so 
that the people of this country can understand exactly what has been 
happening to them.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from New York described his disagreement with the 
administration. I understand that. We had seen the administration 
before this President ignore, completely ignore, the advice from the 
CIA. As a matter of fact, I remember at least one CIA director resigned 
under President Clinton because he could not get President Clinton to 
pay attention to more than 3 hours in a month to the intelligence needs 
of this country.
  We have already talked about how vote after vote after vote by the 
Democrats that they choose to gut our ability, in my opinion, to 
effectively not only have law enforcement but to chase down those that 
may do harm against this country.
  Some choose to characterize that we are not safer today than what we 
were before the attack. I completely disagree with that. I would 
completely disagree with that because I think every single American 
that day learned of the tremendous forces that were aimed at the United 
States that we had really been completely unaware of before.
  So I think that we are better off today. Are we absolutely safe? No. 
Are we safer? Yes, we are, and we have a responsibility to maintain 
that line of defense.
  This resolution has nothing to do with that. It is a resolution, the 
force of this body, to say we respect the men and women who on 9/11 
gave their lives; we are sorry for the men and women who have been 
injured as a result of that; we are going to support our military; we 
are going to support the families and we will never forget; and we are 
going to back up our allies; and we are going to make sure that we get 
it right. That is what this resolution is about.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just take issue with the gentleman 
from Texas. He says this whole question of the Nation being safer than 
it was on September 11, 2001, has nothing to do with this resolution. 
Well, that is what it says in this resolution, if he reads the 
resolution. There are some things contained in this resolution that 
people over here, and that people on both sides legitimately have some 
questions with.
  Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 11 
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will close for our side.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue about whether or not the Nation is safer than 
it was on September 11, 2001, is a legitimate topic for debate, but not 
on this resolution. The issue of the PATRIOT Act, there are differences 
on that. I have a lot of reservations about the PATRIOT Act, as do many 
Republicans. That is a legitimate debate we should continue to have. 
The issue about how best to protect our borders is a serious and 
important and legitimate issue. President Bush and Senator McCain have 
one opinion on how we should do it, which I think makes a heck of a lot 
more sense than the view of the Republican majority in this House, but 
that is certainly a legitimate debate. But it doesn't belong in a 
resolution commemorating the lives and the sacrifices of those 
individuals on September 11, 2001.
  And I guess I wish that just once, just once the leadership on the 
other side of the aisle could bring to this floor a piece of 
legislation, especially on an issue like this, that is not stained with 
politics. Why does everything have to have a political slant to it? I 
think people are sick of it, I really do. I think on issues like this 
people want us to come together, as we have done in the past, as the 
other body has done, and speak with one voice. Let us not make this 
into something it shouldn't be.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am asking Members of this House to vote ``no'' on 
the previous question so that we can consider a much better resolution, 
one that respectfully commemorates this most somber occasion. If the 
previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so that instead of 
voting on the divisive partisan resolution made in order under this 
rule, we will consider the text of the truly bipartisan resolution that 
was adopted in the Senate on the fifth anniversary of September 11.
  Not only was this measure passed by unanimous consent in the Senate 
on September 11, the actual day of the anniversary, it was cosponsored 
by every single Member of the United States Senate: every single 
Democrat, every single Republican.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?

[[Page H6445]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is the resolution we should be 
considering today, and let me tell you why. It was not written for 
political gain or for 30-second sound bites. It was written with the 
sole intent and purpose of remembering the tragic events of September 
11, 2001, and to honor and mourn the victims of that horrific day.
  I think we owe it to the people of this great Nation to put politics 
aside for this one day and show that we are Americans first and that 
some things are sacred and should never be used for political purposes.
  So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question 
so we can consider the Senate version of the September 11 
commemorative.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and 
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' because it is the honorable and 
the right thing to do, to say thank you to the men and women who gave 
their lives, to say thank you to the men and women who were heroic in 
their efforts to try and save people, and it is the right thing to do 
to say to the men and women of our military and our intelligence 
communities that we believe you have not only done a great job but we 
thank your families also for those sacrifices.
  We believe it is the right thing to do to remember this event 5 years 
later. We believe it is the right thing to do to let the world know 
that the United States Congress, this body, in this House resolution, 
believes that we will stay strong not only in the war on terrorism but 
that we believe that fighting for civilization and peace and 
opportunity in this world is the right thing.
  We have heard from three of this Congress' greatest leaders, Phil 
Gingrey, Pete King, who is the chairman of the committee, and the young 
chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, as they have spoken 
eloquently about not only what this country stands for but about how 
our respectfully saying thank you and remembering this day is a part of 
our job and is the right thing to do.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote on behalf of this resolution
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows

Previous Question for H. Res. 996, the Rule for H. Res. 994 Expressing 
the Sense of the House of Representatives on the 5th Anniversary of the 
 Terrorist Attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 
                                  2001

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       ``Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the resolution printed in section 2 
     expressing the sense of the House of Representatives upon the 
     five-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks against the 
     United States on September 11, 2001. The resolution shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the resolution and preamble to final adoption 
     without intervening motion or demand for division of the 
     question except: (1) four hours of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or 
     their designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.''
       Sec. 2. The following is the text referred to in Section 1:

                               Resolution

       ``A resolution expressing the sense of the House of 
     Representatives upon the five-year anniversary of the 
     terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 
     2001.
       Whereas on September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four 
     civilian aircraft, crashed two of them into the towers of the 
     World Trade Center in New York City, and crashed the third 
     into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C.;
       Whereas the fourth hijacked plane, United Airlines Flight 
     93, crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, near the town 
     of Shanksville, after the passengers and crew of that flight 
     struggled with the terrorist-hijackers to take back control 
     of the plane, ultimately preventing the flight from reaching 
     its likely destination in Washington, D.C.;
       Whereas the heroic actions of the rescue workers, 
     volunteers, and State and local officials who responded to 
     the attacks with courage, determination, and skill are to be 
     commended;
       Whereas thousands of innocent Americans, and civilians from 
     many other countries, were killed and injured as a result of 
     these attacks;
       Whereas Congress declared, in the aftermath of the attacks, 
     September 12, 2001, to be a National Day of Unity and 
     Mourning; and
       Whereas there has not been a terrorist attack on the United 
     States homeland since the terrorist attacks five years ago, 
     but al Qaeda has perpetrated terrorist attacks throughout the 
     world against United States persons, facilities, and 
     interests, as well as United States allies during that time:
       Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) commemorates the life of each individual who died as a 
     result of the attacks of September 11, 2001;
       (2) extends its deepest condolences to the victims of these 
     attacks, as well as to their families, friends, and loved 
     ones;
       (3) once again condemns in the strongest possible terms the 
     attacks, the terrorists who perpetrated them, and their 
     sponsors;
       (4) commits to support the necessary steps to interdict and 
     defeat terrorists who plot to do harm to the American people;
       (5) recommits itself and the Nation to bringing to justice 
     the perpetrators of the attacks, along with their sponsors;
       (6) honors and expresses its gratitude to members of the 
     United States Armed Forces, law enforcement personnel, first 
     responders, and others who have bravely and faithfully 
     participated in the War on Terrorism since September 11, 
     2001; and
       (7) declares September 11, 2006, to be a National Day of 
     Remembrance, in commemoration of the terrorist attacks 
     against the United States on September 11, 2001.''
                                  ____


        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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wamp). 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

[[Page H6446]]



                          ____________________