[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 119 (Thursday, September 21, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6850-H6861]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4830, BORDER TUNNEL PREVENTION ACT 
 OF 2006; FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6094, COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT OF 
 2006; AND FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6095, IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                              ACT OF 2006

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1018 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1018

       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 bill (H.R. 4830) to amend 
     chapter 27 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the 
     unauthorized construction, financing, or reckless permitting 
     (on one's land) the construction or use of a tunnel or 
     subterranean passageway between the United States and another 
     country. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the bill (H.R. 6094) to restore the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security's authority to detain dangerous aliens, to 
     ensure the removal of deportable criminal aliens, and combat 
     alien gang crime. The bill shall be considered as read. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     to final passage

[[Page H6851]]

     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the bill (H.R. 6095) to affirm the inherent 
     authority of State and local law enforcement to assist in the 
     enforcement of immigration laws, to provide for effective 
     prosecution of alien smugglers, and to reform immigration 
     litigation procedures. The bill shall be considered as read. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 
     one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.

                              {time}  1015

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1018 provides for consideration of H.R. 4830 
under a closed rule. It allows 1 hour of debate in the House, equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary, it waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill, and provides one motion to recommit H.R. 
4830.
  In addition, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6094 under a 
closed rule. It allows 1 hour of debate in the House, again equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary, it waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill, and provides one motion to recommit H.R. 
6094.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of 
H.R. 6095 under a closed rule. It allows 1 hour of debate in the House, 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary, waives all points of order 
against consideration of the bill, and provides one motion to recommit 
H.R. 6095.
  Madam Speaker, last December the House of Representatives debated and 
passed H.R. 4437, the Border Protection Antiterrorism and Illegal 
Immigration Control Act with a 57-vote margin. However, despite phone 
calls and letters from constituents, our hard work in December met 
difficulty because some of our colleagues in the other body opted to 
support an amnesty program that simply cannot be substituted for border 
security.
  The need for immigration reform is critical and long overdue. I 
remind my colleagues that we need to secure our borders before we 
consider any other immigration proposal, of which amnesty should never 
be a part.
  Just about every congressional district in this country is affected 
by illegal immigration, not just border States. Securing our borders is 
not a Democratic versus Republican issue, and it is not about the 
election in 7 weeks. It is an issue of protecting our Nation and 
restoring integrity to our system of immigration.
  If immigration were a Republican issue, 64 Democrats would not have 
voted last week for the Secure Fence Act. Indeed, we are a Nation of 
immigrants, but we are also a Nation of laws based on the principles 
found in the United States Constitution.
  In 1986, President Reagan pushed for reforms to address the problem 
of illegal immigration. In 1996, the 104th Congress pushed for more 
reforms. And now, 10 years later, this Congress once again has an 
opportunity to debate how to best secure our borders and remove 
incentives for illegal immigration by enacting these meaningful 
changes.
  Today this Congress continues an ongoing and difficult debate, and I 
want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Dreier for the bills 
being considered under this rule, H.R. 6094, the Community Protection 
Act of 2006, H.R. 6095, the Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006, 
finally H.R. 4830, the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2006.
  Together, these three bills, along with the Secure Fence Act we 
passed last week, reaffirm some of the highlights from the House-passed 
legislation in December, almost a year ago.
  By addressing these issues separately, we have a better chance of 
achieving at least some degree of immigration reform in 2006. 
Procrastinating or ignoring this problem will simply not make it go 
away. Every day we put off debating and passing immigration reform 
creates more and more opportunities for illegal immigrants to break our 
laws and violate our borders. Each and every one of these offenses has 
social, economic and, indeed, security repercussions.
  For instance, according to the United States Census Bureau release 
last month, there are an estimated 795,419 illegal immigrants who live 
in my home State of Georgia, almost double the same estimate from 2 
years ago.
  During the August district work period, I had an opportunity to visit 
some of the more porous areas on our southern border with my colleague 
Mr. Sodrel from Indiana and Mr. Price from Georgia. After meeting with 
Border Patrol and Immigration and Custom Enforcement agents, inspecting 
the infrastructure, checking out places for improvement, the most 
important lesson that we learned was that with the right tools and with 
the right manpower, securing our border can be a reality, and it is not 
a lost cause, as some would suggest.
  The morale of these dedicated men and women who are protecting our 
southern border is at an all-time high, because, as they said to us, 
Congress is finally paying attention.
  Some of the improvements needed include more Border Patrol agents, 
more fencing and uniform penalties for smugglers, it is unbelievable 
that we don't already have that, and removing the question of 
jurisdiction for local law enforcement, an issue that my colleague from 
Georgia, Dr. Norwood, in his CLEAR Act has just emphasized over and 
over again and, thank goodness, was part of our original bill in 
December. We also need more on-site immigration judges, we are woefully 
inadequate in that manpower, border tunnel detection and criminal 
detention and removal.
  The three bills we are considering under this bill address many of 
the problems that Customs and Border Patrol and ICE agents brought to 
our attention during that August trip to the three sectors of our 
border with Mexico.
  The Community Protection Act of 2006 includes language from the 
Dangerous Alien Detention Act, the Criminal Alien Removal Act, and the 
Alien Gang Removal Act.
  One of the most eye-opening moments on my tour of the border was 
seeing the transport of prisoners at an airport in El Paso, Texas. An 
airplane landed with prisoners for Mexico and so-called OTMs, other 
countries south of the border. These individuals were not being held 
and deported just simply because they had illegally crossed the border 
seeking jobs. No, these individuals were being sent back to their home 
countries after serving out sentences in this country for rape, murder, 
child molestation, and grand larceny.
  The scenario addressed in H.R. 6094 would involve detaining 
individuals with similar offenses and also, also, Madam Speaker, in 
cases of highly contagious diseases and mental illnesses, detaining 
them longer than current law allows, a 6-month limit which begins when 
they are ordered removed. This legislation would make sure that these 
criminals are not released back into our society because of that 6-
month rule to cause serious safety problems in our local communities.
  Also included in H.R. 6095 is the Alien Gang Removal Act to deport 
alien gang members such as MS-13 and prevent them from being protected 
under this out-dated asylum law that we are burdened with. It is 
important to stop these gang members from entering and staying in the 
United States so that we can make progress toward not only deterring 
violent crime, but also the spread of the methamphetamine plague.
  The Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006 would reaffirm, indeed, 
codify, the authority of local law enforcement officers to have 
jurisdiction in Federal immigration laws, Charlie Norwood's CLEAR Act. 
Many officers

[[Page H6852]]

want to enforce immigration law, but they fear repercussions at the 
Federal level. This language would allow local officers to assist 
Immigration and Custom Enforcement agents apprehending and removing 
illegal aliens from our cities and local communities, in essence, Madam 
Speaker, to deputize them and codify it.

  Also included in H.R. 6095 is language to end this catch-and-release 
system that I mentioned earlier and expedite the process of removal of 
illegal immigrants. The legislation includes the Alien Smuggler 
Prosecution Act to create uniform guidelines, let me repeat, to create 
uniform guidelines for the prosecution of smuggling offenses.
  On our trip to the southern border, we had a night tour at the 
Arizona sector. In our group, Congressman Sodrel, the gentleman from 
Indiana, Congressman Price from Georgia and myself, we watched agents 
catch an individual trying to bring close to 400 pounds of marijuana 
into this country. The reason why, we were told by Customs and Border 
Patrol agents, that he chose 400 pounds was because in that particular 
area, in that particular county, there would be no prosecution for 
anything less than 500 pounds. So he was playing it safe, gaming the 
system, if you will. While some areas prosecute for 5 pounds, others 
will not budge for anything under 500. So we are addressing this 
problem of smuggling. We need uniform and stringent guidelines to 
prevent these smugglers from overwhelming certain areas of the border; 
and as I said, they are attempting to use this loophole to game the 
system. That has got to stop, Madam Speaker.
  Finally, Border Tunnel Prevention Act, the Border Tunnel Prevention 
Act of 2006 introduced by Chairman Dreier to address the problem of 
these border tunnels. H.R. 4830 would increase penalties for border 
tunnel construction, with up to 20 years' imprisonment.
  One of the agents I met in Nogales, Arizona, mentioned that they 
really need more tools to combat border tunnel construction, tougher 
penalties and a means to detect tunnels before their completion. Often 
organized crime on both sides of the United States-Mexican border will 
invest substantial resources into the construction of tunnels for drug 
smuggling and human trafficking. The tunnels, if we find them, they are 
filled with cement as soon as they are detected, but we don't know how 
many pounds of drugs or the number of illegal immigrants have made it 
through the tunnel before it was closed for business. Despite the 
aggressive nature of our Border Patrol, it is still difficult for them 
to detect tunnels and discourage their construction. H.R. 4830 takes 
the first step by increasing the penalties for that construction.
  Madam Speaker, once again, I reiterate that border security is 
eminently doable. Our Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border 
Patrol agents are making progress, but they still need help. They know 
that border security is possible, and they work long hours trying to 
achieve that goal.
  Our Border Patrol has not given up on us, and it is important for 
Congress not to give up on them. The three bills we are considering 
today will help them tremendously.
  So I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, please 
support this rule and support the underlying legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, immigration and border security are not new issues. 
These issues have been around for a while. They are serious issues, but 
they have been issues that have been ignored by this Republican 
leadership and this Republican Congress for years.
  Notwithstanding the fact that President Bush has challenged us to 
come up with comprehensive immigration reform, which also includes 
tight border security, and notwithstanding the fact that this Congress 
passed what I believe is an objectionable immigration reform bill and 
the Senate has passed a more acceptable immigration reform bill and we 
are supposed to go to conference and work out the differences and 
produce a comprehensive immigration reform bill, as the President has 
requested, the leaders of this House have chosen to do nothing, not a 
thing.
  So while many of us may disagree on some of the issues, this is a 
high priority for all Members of Congress. But some of us are 
questioning, why not do what we are supposed to do? Why not go to 
conference and work out the differences and come out with a 
comprehensive immigration reform bill that deals with border security 
and that deals with the issue that a lot of people are concerned about, 
what do you do with the 12 million people here in the United States who 
are undocumented?

                              {time}  1030

  Madam Speaker, the rule before us and the bills that will be 
considered if this rule is adopted is not about border security and 
immigration. That is not what we are doing here today. For those who 
are watching, this is not about real legislative progress. No, Madam 
Speaker, this rule and these bills are about politics. It is about a 
press release and trying to convince the voters that we in this 
Congress are actually doing something when, in fact, we are doing 
nothing.
  Now, before my friends on the other side of the aisle roll their eyes 
and say, there he goes again, let me urge them to look at the calendar. 
The Republican leadership cancelled votes for tomorrow and plans to 
adjourn for the elections next Friday, September 29. The Senate is 
following a similar schedule. That gives us 1 week to consider these 
bills in both Chambers, pass and reconcile them before next Friday.
  Now, it is not impossible, but the truth is there are competing 
comprehensive immigration and border security bills that have been 
passed by the House and Senate, as I have mentioned. The House passed 
its bill on December 16, 2005, and the Senate passed its version on May 
25, 2006, but again, this House has refused to go to conference. It is 
puzzling because the Republicans, Madam Speaker, control the White 
House, the Republicans control the House of Representatives, and the 
Republicans control the Senate. One would think that since the 
Republicans control everything, they can get along with each other and 
actually move important legislation forward.
  Madam Speaker, what we see on the issue of immigration reform and 
border security, quite frankly, is a failure of leadership. You have a 
dismal record on protecting our borders, a dismal record on dealing 
with illegal immigration. This is a failure of being able to legislate, 
to be able to do your job.
  Instead, we are here again with another set of immigration and border 
security bills. Let us be honest with the American public. This is not 
a serious effort to legislate. No, Madam Speaker, this is about 
election politics. This is about the Republican leadership in the House 
trying to appeal to the cheap seats and gain some political points 1 
week before we adjourn for the November election.
  The gentleman from Georgia mentioned with great pride this 
legislative accomplishment that we passed last week, the border fence 
security bill which the Senate is now dealing with. It is important to 
point out to the American people that while it sounds nice, there is no 
money in it. There is no money to provide for the construction of such 
a fence. The chairman of the Homeland Security Committee before the 
Rules Committee last week could not even tell me how much it was going 
to cost, but we know it is going to be hundreds of millions of dollars, 
if not billions of dollars. So we pass a bill saying we want to do 
this, but no money. Guess what? Without the money, you cannot build it.
  So what are we really doing here? Are we protecting the borders, or 
are we trying to put on a show for the American people before elections 
that somehow we are doing something meaningful when, in fact, we are 
not? We are wasting time.
  The American people want comprehensive, compassionate immigration 
reform, and they want strict border security plans, not partisan 
legislation and not just a show to imply that somehow we are doing 
something when, in fact, we are not.

[[Page H6853]]

  Madam Speaker, for 5 years the Republican-controlled House, Senate 
and White House have failed to move forward on comprehensive 
immigration and border security. Done nothing. We have a crisis today. 
It is a serious crisis in border security because Republican infighting 
has crippled anyone's ability to enact comprehensive reform.
  Madam Speaker, with 1 week left before we adjourn, we should be 
considering meaningful legislation that will actually affect people's 
lives today. Where is a clean bill increasing the minimum wage? The 
Federal minimum wage is at $5.15 an hour. It has been that way for 9 
years. I mean, how can you live on $5.15 an hour? We need to pass an 
increase in the minimum wage, not a minimum wage increase tied to a tax 
break for millionaires, but let us all agree that $5.15 an hour is not 
enough for somebody to live. They cannot get out of poverty on $5.15 an 
hour. Why can we not pass a clean minimum wage bill today? That would 
be something meaningful. That would impact people's lives today. We had 
time this year to vote ourselves a pay raise here in the Congress. Do 
you not think we could take a few minutes and pass a pay raise for 
those workers who are earning $5.15 an hour?
  Where is legislation implementing the rest of the 9/11 Commission's 
recommendations? The gentleman talks about homeland security and the 
need to protect our border security. The nonpartisan 9/11 Commission 
has given this Congress Ds and Fs on implementing homeland security 
legislation. We should be ashamed of ourselves. We should be ashamed of 
ourselves that we have not enacted all of those recommendations. We 
need to do that. We could do that today. We should stay in session to 
tomorrow and do it.
  Where is the Labor-HHS appropriation bill? Where are some of the 
other important pieces of legislation?
  Madam Speaker, the truth is that this Republican leadership has 
proven that they are incapable of running the House of Representatives. 
Their priorities just do not mesh with those of the American people. 
Bringing divisive bills to the floor to be used as political ammunition 
in the upcoming elections is not leadership, but time and time again it 
is how the Republican leadership in the House operates. Instead of 
doing what is right for the American people, they continue to do what 
they think is necessary to be reelected.
  Madam Speaker, the American people are sick and tired of business as 
usual. It is time for a change in leadership in this House. It is time 
for a new direction.
  One other thing, Madam Speaker, this is a closed rule. It is a closed 
rule, which means you cannot amend it. You have to take it as is. No 
amendments are in order, not one. If these issues are so important, why 
can Members not have the opportunity to deliberate and to legislate, to 
be able to offer amendments? Why can we not amend these bills? Why does 
this have to be brought up under a closed process?
  This is one rule we are debating on which is a closed rule, but 
really it is three closed rules because there are three separate bills 
we are going to be taking up and all of them under a closed process; 
you cannot amend them.
  Now, it is not surprising that it is being brought to the House in 
this manner because democracy is dead in the House of Representatives. 
This place is run poorly and cynically. It has lost the trust of the 
American people. Every public opinion poll out there shows that we are 
held in the lowest esteem possible. People have had it. They know the 
way this place operates. They want this to be the people's House, not 
the House where a few special interests get to call the shots.
  Madam Speaker, over the last several years, the Democrats have tried 
to offer amendments to various bills to improve our border security. 
Over the last 5 years, if these amendments were adopted, there would be 
6,600 more Border Patrol agents, 14,000 more detention beds and 2,700 
more immigration and enforcement agents along the border that now 
exists. That would be a positive thing if those things were adopted, 
but each and every time they have been objected to by the Republican 
majority in this House. They have been against increasing Border Patrol 
agents, against increasing detention beds, against more immigration 
enforcement agents along our border that now exists. Instead, we get a 
fence bill that is not paid for. Instead, we get these bills that are 
before us today that in all likelihood are going nowhere before we 
adjourn for Congress.
  This is not the way we should run the House of Representatives. This 
is not the way to deal with border security issues and immigration 
reform. This is cynical what is going on here today. This is a 
rifleshot approach to a problem that needs a comprehensive approach.
  We need to do so much better. So I am asking my colleagues to defeat 
this rule.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I may 
consume to respond to a couple of the comments that my good friend made 
in regard to the point of the Senate-passed bill that is more 
acceptable, the so-called comprehensive reform bill.
  Well, I will tell you, my colleague said that would be more 
acceptable. That comprehensive reform bill, by the way, is just a 
euphemism for amnesty, and 90 percent of my constituents would beg to 
differ with him, and I think that is true across this country.
  He also made the point about this Congress not doing its work and 
taking off tomorrow. Well, he knows and all of us know that the reason 
we are not going to be in session tomorrow is because the leadership of 
both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, in deference to the 
fact that tomorrow is a high Jewish holiday, that we not be in so that 
people could worship and observe these holidays.
  So it is disingenuous these things that my good friend and colleague 
is mentioning.
  The other thing about going to conference with the Senate. Well, he 
knows that in the Senate bill there is a revenue provision which makes 
their bill unconstitutional. If they want to remove that provision and 
then send that bill back over, we can go to conference. So it is just a 
game that they are playing.
  My colleague also, and he is perfectly within his rights to do this, 
he talks about some issues that are more important to him and maybe to 
his party and his leadership and brings up the issue of the minimum 
wage and a stand-alone minimum wage bill. Madam Speaker, if we solve 
this problem of porous borders and prevent these millions of illegal 
immigrants from flooding into this country, taking jobs away from 
American citizens and legal immigrants and, in the process, driving 
down wages, if we can stop that hemorrhaging, then we will not need to 
increase the minimum wage because it will be increased automatically by 
employers.
  So he wants to take a rifle approach and say we are taking a shotgun 
approach. We are going to get the job done, and we are going to solve 
many of these problems with this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I proudly yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), my good friend who knows of what he speaks in 
regard to immigration and secure borders.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We have used a lot of analogies here to describe what is happening, 
and, of course, I have one, too, and that is that we are looking at a 
patient that is the United States of America, and we are hemorrhaging 
at our borders. When that occurs, you first do something to stop the 
hemorrhaging. You may want to think about how you may treat the patient 
subsequent to that, but you stop the hemorrhaging, and this is what we 
are trying to do on the border. That is the first way of addressing 
this horrible problem that we have got.
  It is important for us to do this and important for us to keep 
reminding the American people that there are things that can be done, 
that should be done by the Federal Government in order to try and 
protect them and do what we should be doing to live up to our 
responsibilities under the Constitution.
  One of the bills today is of particular interest to me. It is the 
State and Local Law Enforcement Cooperation Act, and it talks about 
what we need to do and the authority of the State and local law 
enforcement to voluntarily investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, 
detain, and transfer to Federal

[[Page H6854]]

custody aliens in the U.S. in order to assist in the enforcement of the 
immigration laws.
  Let me tell you how important this. Just yesterday it was reported in 
Colorado, another event of one of hundreds that are around the country 
of a similar nature, where someone who was in the country illegally 
comes in contact with the local police. In this case, he was driving a 
car that had a warrant out for it across the country. He was driving 
without a license. He was driving with a forged identifier, something 
that was observable to the policeman, who said he saw that the picture 
had been cut out. That happened in early April. He was taken in and let 
go. No contact was made with ICE whatsoever.
  Just a few days ago he dragged another person, we are not even sure 
who this other person is because there is not much left of the body, 
but dragged her behind a truck until she was dismembered.
  Now, if the everybody had done their job there, including the Federal 
Government, and the job had been done at the local level, this 
gentleman would have been off of the streets. If it was done at the 
Federal level, he would have never gotten into the country. If the 
local police had been able to do their job, except for their sanctuary 
city provisions that stop them, he would have been off the streets in 
April and would not have been able to commit this horrible crime.
  But all these things are happening. They happen on a daily basis. We 
need to engage the local communities in this effort to help us, and the 
Federal Government must take on the responsibility here to secure our 
borders. It is our true and one single responsibility.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me again point out to everybody in this Chamber 
that the Republicans have controlled this place for a long time, and 
for the last 5 years, they have even controlled the White House. It is 
puzzling to me why they are all lamenting that we need to get things 
done when they have been in charge. Why can they not work with each 
other? Why can you not get things done?
  The gentleman from Georgia talked about this comprehensive 
immigration bill. The one in the House he voted for. The one in the 
Senate he may not like. When the Senate passes a bill, and the House 
passes a bill, in this case Republican control both Houses, you get 
together, work out the differences and come up with a compromise.

                              {time}  1045

  You know, we should have a conferees meeting and work out that 
compromise and do what you are supposed to do, your job. This is not a 
radical or controversial idea. Let's work it out; let's do it right.
  And he has yet to explain why all this has to be brought up under a 
closed process. Why can't we open this to amendments? We proposed last 
night in the Rules Committee, the Democrats, that this be an open rule, 
that Members be able to come down and amend this as they see fit. And 
that was voted down along party lines; all the Democrats voted for an 
open process, the Republicans as usual stuck together and voted to shut 
this process down. That is objectionable. This is so important, we 
should be able to, it should be open to amendments to any Member.
  You know, again, I would say to the gentleman from Georgia, 
Democrats, if you would follow our lead and you had adopted the 
amendments that we proposed over the last 5 years, there would be 6,600 
more Border Patrol agents, there would be 14,000 more detention beds, 
and 2,700 more immigration enforcement agents along our border than now 
exist. That, to me, would have been a positive accomplishment. But you 
rejected all that time and time again.
  So I object to the manner in which you are bringing these bills up. 
This is all about politics. This is about trying to imply that you are 
doing something when you are not. And I object, once again, to a closed 
process. We need a little democracy in the House of Representatives. 
This should be an open process; it should be open to amendments.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, at this time I want to proudly yield as 
much time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules 
Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I first want to extend my congratulations 
to my Rules Committee colleague, Dr. Gingrey, and thank him for his 
fine work on this rule as he does such a great job on so many other 
measures that we bring forward from the Rules Committee.
  You know, this issue of working together which my friend from 
Massachusetts has just talked about is something I am very proud of. 
Included in this measure is a package that was first brought to my 
attention by my Democratic colleague from California who serves in the 
other body, Dianne Feinstein, and she raised concern about the issue of 
tunnels going between Canada and the United States and Mexico and the 
United States. And she and I spoke about this, and we said let's see if 
there would be a way in which we could put into place a commonsense 
reform.
  She was shocked, my Democratic Senator, Dianne Feinstein, as I was 
shocked, when we found that it is not a crime to bore a tunnel from 
Mexico into the United States or to bore a tunnel from Canada into the 
United States. It is not a crime to use property in the United States 
for the tunnel to come out and for drugs, human trafficking, other 
contraband to come through.
  So we sat down, we joined with our colleagues Duncan Hunter from San 
Diego, I know that J.D. Hayworth is strongly in support of this effort; 
and one of the items that we have here is something that I think again 
is a commonsense reform. Anyone can come to the conclusion that the 
idea of boring a tunnel between our two countries is just plain wrong. 
And so I believe that we have done the right thing. We have recognized 
that border security is national security. And while there is no 
evidence whatsoever of a Mexican terrorist, the threat of someone 
utilizing one of those tunnels to pose a terrorist threat to the United 
States is still there, and I believe that we need to do everything that 
we can to make sure that we secure it.
  Madam Speaker, since September 11 of 2001, 38 tunnels have been 
discovered between the United States and Mexico and Canada and Mexico. 
Frankly, 37 of them between Mexico and the United States, one from 
Canada into the United States. And just this past weekend a tunnel was 
discovered from Mexicali to Calexico, in my State of California.
  We have a problem. It needs to be addressed, and it is being 
addressed in a bipartisan way: Democrats and Republicans in the House 
working together, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate working 
together to try and step up to the plate and deal with this issue.
  It is a very clear measure that we have, and I am very proud again to 
have such strong support for it. We criminalize the utilization of 
property, and we criminalize those who would bore under the border and 
come into the United States. And what we also do is we double the 
penalties for the areas where there already is criminalization. If the 
drugs are brought by way of a tunnel, we double the penalty, because it 
is outrageous that this kind of thing is being used.
  We have a wide range of things that we have done. I heard my friend 
talk about the fact that we haven't been able to do a lot of things. 
The Senate just yesterday had a vote on cloture on bringing up the 
issue of building these strategic fences. Now, I don't believe that we 
can fence the entire border. I think that we have got 21st-century 
technology that can be utilized, with motion detectors, unmanned aerial 
vehicles, other things that can be used. But in heavy urban areas and 
in the five areas where we see a large problem with human and drug 
trafficking, building a fence is the right thing to do.
  And I regularly heard my friends in the Rules Committee say, oh, the 
Senate is never going to bring this up. We passed it last week, and 
part of the criticism of it was the Senate wasn't

[[Page H6855]]

going to bring it up. The Senate has brought it up, and they are going 
to pass it. And so what we have done is we have found areas of 
agreement.
  It is true there are aspects of the immigration debate that have 
great disagreement. But when we can find areas of agreement like 
securing our border and we in the House of Representatives can provide 
leadership to do that, it is something that needs to be done. Why? 
Because the American people are expecting us to do this. It is our 
responsibility; it is the Federal Government's responsibility to secure 
our borders.
  Madam Speaker, I am proud of all three pieces of legislation that we 
have here. I am proud of the other things that we have done to make 
sure that we do secure our borders. It is our job to do it, and I am 
very happy that we are stepping up to the plate and doing that.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, first let me say to my colleague, the 
chairman of the Rules Committee, that I am glad he can point to an 
instance where he has worked with a Democrat. My question remains, why 
can't Republicans work with Republicans? The comprehensive Senate 
immigration bill has a fence provision in it. And if the Senate and the 
House can go to conference and start working out these differences, he 
could get his fence and we could also get a lot of other issues solved 
as well.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would simply say to the gentleman that I 
very much want us to be able to complete and address a wide range of 
issues. The fact that we are able to come together now in a bipartisan 
way and address these areas of agreement is something I think that can 
be celebrated, because Republicans are working with Republicans, but 
Republicans are also working with Democrats who are like-minded to try 
and deal with some of these very important security issues. I thank my 
friend for yielding.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Again, it is frustrating that when the President of the 
United States is urging us to approach this issue in a comprehensive 
way, that the Republican leadership of this House can't get together 
with the Republican leadership of the Senate and address a whole range 
of issues.
  I think it is also important to point out so that there is no 
misunderstanding for those who may be observing these proceedings that, 
even if the Senate passes the so-called fence bill, they should be 
under no illusion that all of a sudden a fence is going to be built 
along the southern border of this country. The fact of the matter is 
there is no money for it. This is an authorization, not an 
appropriation; and nobody has been able to identify where the money is 
going to come from.
  The other thing is, again, I go back to what I said before. We need 
more border security agents on the border right now. We need more 
detention beds. We need more immigration enforcement agents along the 
border. We have tried, we have tried over and over and over again to 
get the majority to allow us just the right to offer amendments to be 
able to address some of these issues and have been rejected over and 
over and over again.
  So I would simply restate what I said in the very beginning, and that 
is that what is going on here today is somewhat cynical, because I 
think the other side knows that at least with the three bills that we 
are talking about here today, the chances of them being enacted by the 
Senate are almost zero between now and a week from Friday; and we are 
not going to accomplish anything except a press release. And at the 
same time, we are not addressing the challenge that President Bush has 
put before us, which is comprehensive immigration reform.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished member of the 
Rules Committee, and I thank him for highlighting some of the failures 
in our Achilles heel in this process.
  Certainly as a member of the House Judiciary Committee and the 
ranking member on the Judiciary Committee on Immigration, none of these 
bills have come through the committee. There have been no hearings, no 
fact finding. Certainly the reason might be given by our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle is because we have already passed this 
bill. This bill is a clone of the Sensenbrenner bill passed through the 
House and ready for conference.
  I think it is important to note that even though my friends in the 
other body have come to cloture on the tunnel provision or the fence 
provision, let me make it very clear that Senator Frist, the majority 
leader, has indicated that there is a heavy, heavy agenda for next 
week. When the Senate goes out at the end of the week, the question is 
whether or not this will be an item that will be addressed.
  What really should have happened 2 months ago, 3 months ago when both 
bills had been passed, the Senate passed a bill, the House passed a 
bill, we could have gone to conference. Maybe my colleagues don't 
realize that there was fencing language in the Senate bill. That means 
when you go to conference, you can expand that language if that was the 
desire.
  Now, I know many of my friends on the other side of the aisle will 
talk about the immigration hearings that they attended, and I would 
venture to say that at many of them I met them because I had the 
responsibility and privilege of attending at least one-third to one-
half of them. And those hearings were redundant testimonies by people 
that had already been to Washington. They drove a wedge in whatever 
community we went to with protesters on both sides. There was a lot of 
maligning of innocent individuals who happened to be of Hispanic 
surname, suggesting in one hearing in California that all of the 
jailhouses were filled up with individuals from Mexico and other 
places, the mental facilities were filled up, the hospitals were filled 
up. It was an imbalance.
  So we are simply asking that there be a comprehensive approach. And 
Democrats are not taking a back seat to border security, and that is 
why I am offering the previous question that indicates the hard work of 
Democrats, particularly as it relates to the idea of alien smuggling, 
and that we have offered amendments to enhance immigration enforcement 
resources. And as my good friend from Massachusetts has said, if our 
amendments had passed, we would have 14,000 more detention beds today, 
2,700 more immigration agents along the borders.
  I went to the borders. I saw our Customs and Border Protection agents 
working 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. And when they have to have what 
we call a secondary inspection, when you stop a car and then you say it 
doesn't look right, you must send them to the other building for a 
secondary inspection. Do you know that there is nobody there because we 
don't have enough staff. So it befuddles me when my Republican 
colleagues come forward with these three separate bills that are 
already in the bills we passed and we can just go to conference right 
now. And that is why we are offering this previous question so that we 
can ensure that you know on the record that out of this we will get 250 
more immigration agents; detention officers by 250; U.S. marshal 
officers by 250; 25,000 more detention beds; and by 1,000 the number of 
investigators of fraudulent schemes and documents would increase.

                              {time}  1100

  None of this has happened. But on the other hand, we have three 
border bills that my friends on the other side of the aisle know for 
sure have poison pills. We are okay with the tunnel. Who wants to have 
our Nation exposed? But we want real border security, not forcing local 
jurisdictions to engage in civil enforcement.
  Let me remind you of the Canadian citizen who was mislabeled as a 
terrorist and sent wrongly to Syria. This bill has provisions to detain 
people indefinitely who may be just children, mothers, fathers who have 
come across the border for economic reasons. Of course we want to 
regulate this process and make sure that we address comprehensively the 
immigration concern. We want to ask and answer the questions of 
Americans.
  But Democrats have gone on the record year after year, these bills 
represent a series of poison pills that, if

[[Page H6856]]

you read them, embedded in them is violations of the rule of law. The 
alien gang removal possibly will remove people who live in a house 
where a gang member is.
  So we believe that you vet a bill so that the American people can 
have confidence in this process. And we have these bills already 
passed.
  My friend is going to get up and show horrific pictures. I come from 
Texas. There is a drug war at the border, but I go down to the border. 
I have friends at the border. I interact with the sheriffs and the 
mayors. There is also trade and jobs at the border. So they want a 
comprehensive approach. They want the bad guys arrested, drug dealers 
and smugglers, which we can do. Nobody here is talking about the Drug 
Enforcement Agency. Nobody is telling you that the Colombia cartels 
that were raging in the 1990s have been somewhat stomped out, and they 
moved to Mexico. Mexicans don't want the drug violence going on. Texans 
don't want the drug violence going on.
  But it is not an immigration issue. We need to secure the borders, 
but we don't want to mix apples and oranges. We want to get rid of the 
alien smugglers and the drug smugglers, but these poison pills, and 
these bills are not the way to comprehensive immigration reform. I ask 
my colleagues to defeat the rule so the previous question can go 
forward.
  I rise in opposition to House Rule H. Res. 1018, which provides for a 
closed rule on the Border Tunnel Prevention Act, H.R. 4830; the 
Community Protection Act, H.R. 6094; and the Immigration Law 
Enforcement Act, H.R. 6095. We need an Open Rule for these immigration 
bills so that they may properly be considered debated.
  The Bush Administration has been in office for 6 years, and the 
majority has controlled Congress for more than 10 years, but only now, 
in an election year, have we begun to examine how to address the 
critical need to fix our broken immigration security systems.
  The House and Senate passed their bills on immigration reform and 
border security months ago. Under regular order, we should be 
appointing conferees and engaging the process of reconciling the two 
bills. However, in a substantial deviation from normal practice, the 
House Majority Leadership decided to launch a traveling road-show of 
committee hearings in States across the country. The American people 
saw through this charade and condemned the hearings as a waste of time 
and taxpayer money, when Congress should have been focused on resolving 
the immigration problem in conference.
  Now that it is September, and the nationwide hearings are over, the 
House Leadership continues to skirt its duty to conference with the 
Senate, hiding behind procedural hold-ups and creating busy-work by 
bringing these same provisions that were passed in H.R. 4437 last 
December to the floor again, just before the election.

  Consistently, the majority has sought great fanfare land publicity 
for their supposed border security initiatives. But consistently, they 
have refused to fund these promises and have failed to carry out the 
security measures for which they seek public acclaim. The problem is 
that immigration has become about talk and show, and winning elections.
  The majority has done nothing to pass real, meaningful immigration 
reform that addresses all needs--including the 12 million undocumented 
already in our Nation, the needs for improved family reunification 
policies, and reforms to the non-functional workplace enforcement, in 
addition to the critically needed border security and enforcement 
enhancements.
  We know that 5 years after 9-11, the Bush Administration still does 
not have any control over the borders. If the Bush Administration had 
properly secured the border, we would not be facing the security issue 
of millions of unknown people in our country.
  If the Bush Administration had enforced the workplace laws, we 
wouldn't have more than 7 million undocumented aliens working in the 
United States.
  If Congress had funded the 9-11 Commission's recommendations or 
conducted proper oversight, we would not be voting on these same 
enforcement provisions for the second or third time. We would be in 
conference, hammering out a compromise with the Senate as we were 
elected to do.
  When we bring these bills to the floor, bills which we held no 
hearings on, which did not go through committee, we owe the American 
people a meaningful debate. We must have an Open Rule and an 
opportunity to debate our Amendments in the Nature of a Substitute to 
address the real needs of immigration and border security reform.
  I urge you to vote against House Rule H. Res. 1018.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who, in his capacity as chairman 
of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, 
held hearings in August.
  Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule.
  We do have a philosophical disagreement over open borders. Some of us 
support fencing those borders. We do have a philosophical disagreement 
over a massive amnesty. Some of us believe that massive amnesty in 1986 
made the situation worse. That is why we don't want to go forward with 
another amnesty of that type.
  Let me say I did chair the hearings in San Diego and in Texas. I 
toured that southern border with local law enforcement and immigration 
officials. I heard their arguments in favor of putting up that border 
fence and their arguments about doing something about these tunnels. 
This was a tunnel that was six ballfields long. I went through this 
tunnel. Contraband was trafficked illegally over these cement floors, 
under electric lighting. The tunnel had water pumps, full ventilation, 
and a system of pulleys through it. There have been other tunnels 
discovered since. I don't believe in open borders. We are going to 
criminalize the action of putting up these tunnels.
  We are also, with the Immigration Law Enforcement Act, we are going 
to allow local law enforcement, and there are 700,000 local law 
enforcement. Wouldn't it be nice to allow them to voluntarily assist 
the 2,000 ICE agents in this country so when we have a situation in the 
future like we had on 9/11 where four of those hijackers had been 
stopped by local police for speeding prior to the attacks, they can 
call into that hotline and, if there is suspicious activity, can look 
into the immigration status of those people who are here in this 
country illegally.
  Let me also say that the Community Protection Act is coming up under 
this rule, and criminal gangs today like MS-13 are no longer just the 
neighborhood kids who may be up to no good, the kinds of gangs we 
remember from our youth, because we have transnational criminal gangs 
active around the country that now resemble organized crime syndicates. 
They have highly organized leadership and organizational models, and 
networks that stretch across this Nation. They operate across the 
border. They will bring, in the words of one sheriff, anything or 
anybody across that border for a price.
  I don't believe post-9/11 that we can have an open borders policy. I 
think we have to fence the borders. I think we need these commonsense 
bills to pass without that massive amnesty that our friends would like 
to attach to it. I urge passage of this measure.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think we need to be careful with words. Nobody is advocating 
amnesty. I don't think President Bush is advocating an amnesty. I don't 
think Senators Hagel or Martinez or McCain are advocating amnesty.
  What people want is action. What people are frustrated with is the 
fact that this Republican Congress has done nothing. We passed the 
comprehensive immigration reform bill in the House. They passed one in 
the Senate. We want to go to conference to work out the differences and 
come up with an approach that will work.
  Instead, what have you done? You have gone around the country holding 
hearings at taxpayers' expense, and the reviews have been dismal. The 
headlines from the leading newspapers from across the country are ``All 
Talk No Action on Immigration,'' and ``Immigration Hearings Misfire.'' 
``Field Hearings a Waste of Time and Money.'' ``Immigration Hearing 
Staged to Run Out the Clock'' so we don't do anything meaningful. That 
is not what we want; we want real action.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and on the 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, America needs comprehensive immigration reform. I think 
every American who is paying any attention agrees we need comprehensive 
immigration reform.
  Everybody in this people's House, Democrats, Republicans, and even 
the

[[Page H6857]]

Independent, understands that we need comprehensive immigration reform, 
and every Member of the other body, every Republican, every Democrat, 
and their Independent, understands that America needs comprehensive 
immigration reform.
  Now every Member of this body, Republican and Democrat and 
Independent, every Member understands that in order to get a reform 
bill passed and signed by the President, that one has to have a single 
piece of legislation that is agreed to by both of the bodies.
  So everyone knows that for immigration reform of a comprehensive form 
to become law, that that must pass both bodies in exactly the same form 
and be signed by the President or passed over with the President's 
veto.
  Now, the process of doing that is not understood by everybody in this 
country, but in general form much of the country understands that. And 
I am not sure whether the majority party here believes that people in 
this country are not knowledgeable, ignorant of those processes, so 
much that they think that this kind of a sham that we are going through 
can be carried out.
  The majority party in the House of Representatives is the Republican 
Party. The majority party in the other body is also the Republican 
Party. This process that we are engaged in today is a sham. It is meant 
to mislead people that something is actually being done about 
immigration before we go home for the elections in November, before we 
recess for those elections, when, in fact, nothing really is being 
accomplished.
  In our people's House on the 16th of December last year, the Border 
Protection Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Act passed by 239-182, 
a margin much larger than is the margin by which the majority party 
holds the majority. So it was a bipartisan bill in part.
  In the other body on the 25th day of May of this year, 4 months ago, 
their Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act was passed by a vote of 62-
36, again by a margin much larger than the margin by which their 
majority party, also the Republican Party, passed the bill. It is again 
a comprehensive and bipartisan bill.
  So this process where we have legislation where two of the bills are 
in large part within the legislation that is being put forward today, 
and also is part of the bill that passed back in December by this body, 
by this people's body, and the other one has been passed in a different 
form by the other body, all one has to do is go to conference. It would 
be possible to go to conference and work out the differences between 
those two pieces of legislation so a single bill could go to the 
President and be signed and provide what everyone in America, everyone 
in this body and everyone in the other body would call comprehensive 
immigration reform.
  That is the way that this ought to be done. The process that we are 
involved in today is a sham, and we should defeat the previous question 
and defeat the rule and go to comprehensive immigration reform by going 
to conference and doing it the way it has to be done in order to have a 
law be passed in this country.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I rise in strong support of 
the rule and the legislation. Let me start with this observation.
  With all due respect to my colleague from Massachusetts, it is never 
a sham when we come to the people's House with legitimately different 
points of view to be articulated. That is the strength of our 
constitutional Republic.
  And to my other friend from Massachusetts managing the rule for the 
other side, let me respectfully suggest that this is not a Republican 
problem or a Democratic problem, it is an American problem.
  Now, with the preceding speaker, I take great exception to the notion 
that somehow this is a masquerade. I appreciate the delineation of 
process, and following that logic, let's make this point. What we do in 
process is prioritize.
  I, for example, have a provision in the underlying legislation that 
deals with outlawing the tunnels, which is not a crime, believe it or 
not. This is a reasonable and necessary action. This is a reasonable 
and necessary action to be taken.
  My friend from Texas got up and spoke about a bill that had passed 
through the Senate dealing with a fence. The problem was that in the 
final bill passed by the Senate, there was a provision to ask for the 
Mexican Government's permission to have such a fence. Clearly that 
doesn't sit well with the American people.
  Although my friends lament taking the hearings to the people out of 
Washington, D.C., it is exactly what we should have done. We have heard 
from the people. Support the rule and the legislation. Let's make these 
tunnels illegal, let's strengthen the border, and we can do it for 
America, not for either political party.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just respond to the gentleman that 
I think he has conceded that this is a sham by virtue of the fact that 
it is being brought up under a closed rule, a closed process.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of the rule for H.R. 4830, the Border Tunnel Prevention Act. 
Our Nation's border security is essential to having effective homeland 
security. However, since September 11, 2001, foreigners have breached 
our borders with no less than 38 tunnels, and these are only the 
tunnels about which we know.
  During July I was at a veterans' post in Florida in my district, and 
a gentleman had this shirt on. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what 
America wants. They want the borders closed. They want to make sure 
that people are not entering into our country illegally, either 
crossing the borders or via the tunnels.
  We all know that coyotes use them to bring illegal aliens into the 
United States, bypassing our legal immigration system.
  Listen up, America. Congress should not ignore these consistent 
breaches of our security.

                              {time}  1115

  And that is what the bill before us is all about. The bill before us 
will do just that. That is one reason why we absolutely need to pass 
this rule, because we need to make it a crime to build or finance an 
unauthorized tunnel into the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I hope that all Members will join me and vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so I can amend the rule and allow the House to consider an 
amendment by Representative Jackson-Lee that would really take on the 
issue of border security rather than just pay it lip service. The 
proposal would amend H.R. 6095 to equip the Department of Homeland 
Security with the resources the 9/11 Commission says we need to secure 
our borders, to shut down the alien smuggling business, and to catch 
and hold illegal immigrants entering our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wamp). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority in this House 
continues to approach border security and immigration control in its 
usual ineffective and piecemeal approach, putting election-year 
politics ahead of real and responsible solutions. Republicans are big 
talkers when it comes to border security and immigration reform, but 
they have never been willing to put their money where their mouth is. 
The bills we will consider on the House floor today are more of the 
same. This debate and these bills are supposed to remind voters that 
Republicans are somehow tough on immigration, but instead they just 
remind all of us that Republicans have not been able to make any 
progress on the urgent issue of border security.

[[Page H6858]]

  So I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so that we can bring up this amendment to actually do 
something about the problems on our Nation's borders instead of just 
talking about it.
  The 9/11 Commission has given this Congress Ds and Fs when it comes 
to homeland security, and we have a particularly low grade when it 
comes to protecting our borders. Let us not only do the right thing. 
Let us do something that is real.
  People are cynical. They are tired of politics as usual in this 
House. They are tired of these last-minute bills that come up before 
elections to somehow imply that we are doing something when we are not. 
We have a serious problem on our borders. We need serious action. This 
is not serious action.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If that 
vote does not prevail, vote ``no'' on a closed rule. If these issues 
are important, we should be able to amend these bills. We need a little 
democracy in this House. Let's get this right.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to once again thank Chairman 
Sensenbrenner, Chairman Dreier, and the House leadership for continuing 
the debate in favor of securing our borders. The pattern in recent 
years has been to address the issue of immigration and border security 
once a decade. In 1986 we had an immigration reform bill. In 1996 we 
had an immigration reform bill. But the results at best were mixed, and 
this year we have yet another opportunity to get it right. Ninety 
percent of the American people are demanding that we secure our borders 
and secure our borders now.
  The legislation offered under this rule will help our current agents 
detain and apprehend criminals, not just those crossing in search of 
work, Mr. Speaker, but truly dangerous individuals as well. Security on 
our borders remains a crisis. Our agents on the border need our help. 
Our constituents are forcefully voicing their support for immigration 
reform, with an emphasis on border security.
  And I ask my colleagues, please support this rule and the underlying 
bills so we can start to solve this problem and solve it now.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, it's often said legislating is 
like making sausage--stuffing various ingredients into one product. But 
sometimes it's more like slicing salami--cutting something into pieces, 
to be swallowed one at a time.
  Today, the Republican leadership clearly has decided that sliced 
salami will be the blue plate special, and that there can be no changes 
or substitutions. They are saying they favor a piecemeal approach to 
immigration reform and are more interested in political posturing than 
in trying to enact legislation that will meet all the challenges 
involved in strengthening our borders, reducing illegal immigration, 
and addressing the status of illegal immigrants now in the United 
States.
  So they have cut three pieces off the immigration bill the House 
passed last year, and are bringing them to the floor under this rule 
which prohibits us from even debating any amendments or offering any 
additions to the menu.
  In other words, it's take it or leave it, and forget about trying to 
make any improvements--just like it was with last week's serving, the 
bill for 730 miles of high-price fencing along the border. I think that 
is wrong, and I cannot support that procedure.
  However, I will vote for the three separate bills covered by this 
rule, because while I have some concerns about some of their 
provisions, on balance I think they would improve current law and 
policies.
  That was why last year I voted for H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, 
Antierrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, the overall 
bill from which today's bills have been sliced.
  Among other ingredients, that bill also included provisions added by 
the amendment by our colleague from California, Mr. Hunter. As I 
mentioned, those provisions were sliced off last week and served up as 
H.R. 6061, the so-called Secure Fence Act.
  I am not opposed to the construction of fencing or other barriers 
along our borders, but I am not convinced Members of Congress should 
attempt to substitute our judgment about technical questions of 
engineering and law enforcement for the expertise of those responsible 
for border security.
  I voted against the Hunter amendment, and against H.R. 6061, because 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities--those with the 
most experience in border security have not requested such a mandated 
expenditure, and in fact, have expressed a preference for different 
resources and tools to do their job. Moreover, I am skeptical that the 
kind of fence-building mandated by the Hunter amendment and H.R. 6061 
is a cost-effective response to the problem of illegal entries into the 
United States.
  According to the Department of Homeland Security, about 730 miles of 
new fencing would be required by H.R. 6061. They say that it costs 
about $4.4 million for a single layer of fencing per mile--but the bill 
calls for double-fencing, which costs more, and also for building all-
weather roads in the middle. So, using a conservative estimate of $9 
million a mile, it would cost nearly $6.6 billion to build the 730 mile 
fence called for in H.R. 6061.

  I think it would be better from Congress to resist the temptation to 
micro-manage the Department of Homeland Security and instead to allow 
it the discretion to spend those billions of dollars on a variety of 
measures--fences in some places and other kinds of barriers in other 
places, plus other technology and increased border patrol manpower--
that it decides, based on experience and expertise, will do the best 
job of securing the border.
  And if those steps turned out to cost less than 730 miles of double 
fencing, the Department could put the rest of the money to good use.
  For example, $2 billion would pay for the 35,000 detention beds 
called for the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 
(the 9/11 Act) that are need to implement the ending of the so-called 
catch and release of illegal aliens apprehended after they cross the 
border. It would take only $360 million to hire, train and equip 2,000 
border patrol agents, while $400 million, 250 more port-of-entry 
inspectors and 25 percent more canine detection teams could be added to 
the field. Or for $400 million every U.S. port of entry could have a 
radiation portal monitor, so that all incoming cargo can be screened to 
detect nuclear or radiological material.
  The three bills we will consider today are not perfect, but they are 
less problematical and I will vote for them.
  H.R. 4830, the Border Tunnel Prevention Act would establish new 
criminal penalties for people involved with constructing illegal 
tunnels beneath our borders, including those who knowingly finance such 
actions, with particularly severe penalties for using such tunnels to 
smuggle illegal immigrants, drugs, weapons of mass destruction or other 
illegal goods into the United States. I strongly support this 
strengthening of current law.
  H.R. 6094, called the Community Protection Act, like corresponding 
parts of the larger bill I supported last year, would allow for longer 
detentions of illegal aliens prior to deportation if they have refused 
to comply with deportation proceedings, pose a threat to community 
safety or public health, because they have a highly communicable 
disease, or if their release would threaten national security or have 
serious adverse consequences for American foreign policy. It includes 
provisions for periodic review of such detentions and affords these 
detained aliens an opportunity to seek reconsideration of their cases 
and to present evidence in support of their release. In addition, it 
would centralize judicial review of legal challenges to the detention 
of illegal immigrants--something that I think is of dubious value but 
not so bad as to outweigh the rest of the legislation.
  Further, the bill would explicitly bar admission to the United States 
of members of criminal street gangs, allow the deportation of illegal 
aliens who belong to gangs convicted of threatening or attempting 
crimes, and requires that they be held in detention prior to 
deportation and makes criminal street gang members ineligible to 
receive asylum or temporary protected status. I strongly support these 
provisions, because criminal street gangs whose members include illegal 
aliens are a serious and growing problem in too many communities.
  Finally--for today, at least--H.R. 6095, the Immigration Law 
Enforcement Act would establish new procedures to speed resolution of 
lawsuits brought against the Federal Government that are based on the 
implementation of immigration laws and require the Justice Department 
to hire more people to prosecute human smuggling cases.

  It also includes language reaffirming the existing inherent authority 
of the States, their political subdivisions, such as counties or 
cities, and their law-enforce agencies to investigate, identify, 
apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer to Federal custody aliens in the 
United States . . . for the purposes of assisting in the enforcement of 
the immigration laws of the United States in the course of carrying out 
routine duties. I find this acceptable because the bill says ``Nothing 
in this section may be construed to require law enforcement personnel 
of a State or political subdivision of a State to--(1) report the 
identity of a victim of,

[[Page H6859]]

or a witness to, a criminal offense to the Secretary of Homeland 
Security for immigration enforcement purposes; or (2) arrest such 
victim or witness for a violation the immigration laws of the United 
States.''
  In other words, this is not a mandate and will not interfere with the 
ability or any state or local government to decide whether and how it 
will undertake to respond to question of immigration law and policy, 
matters which are essentially the responsibility of the federal 
government.
  Mr. Speaker, nobody should think that passing these bills today--
something I support--will come close to completing the work that 
Congress needs to do regarding immigration.
  This plateful of slices is not even the full salami the House passed 
last year--a bill that, by itself, dealt with only part of the full 
menu of issues that must be addressed.
  I voted for that bill because I think improving border security is 
absolutely necessary. But I am convinced it is not sufficient.
  It does not address the most difficult and challenging aspect of 
immigration reform, namely the question of how to deal humanely and 
effectively with the millions of illegal immigrants currently living 
and working in this country or the difficulties that their employers 
including many Colorado companies that have contacted me--during the 
transition to a changed labor market that may follow revisions in 
current immigration laws.
  As we all know, the Senate has passed what its supporters--including 
President Bush--say is intended to be a comprehensive immigration 
reform measure. We should follow their lead.
  Following the Senate's lead does not mean simply accepting their bill 
as it stands. I think that would be a mistake, because I think that 
bill has defects that must be remedied. Instead, it means recognizing 
the full dimensions of the problems that must be addressed and the need 
to address them without unnecessary delay. It means appointing House 
conferees and directing them to meet with their counterparts from the 
other body to resolve differences and shape a final, comprehensive bill 
that addresses those problems in a way that is in the best interests of 
our country and the American people.
  If that effort succeeds--as I think it can and am convinced it must--
the result not only will be better than any of the bills before us 
today, it will be better than either the bill we passed last year or 
the bill that the Senate passed earlier this year and in fact will 
deserve to be sent to the President for signing into law.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, how long will the Republican Majority continue 
to bring to this House Floor piecemeal legislation that purports to fix 
the immigration crisis in our country?
  H.R. 4830, H.R. 6094 and H.R. 6095 are not real reform. In fact, 
these bills are largely a repacking of previously enacted bills dressed 
up to look like the Republicans are serious about immigration reform. 
Higher monetary and sentencing penalties, more enforcement and the 
usurping of du process are all tactics that have been tried throughout 
the years and have brought us to the situation we find ourselves today. 
The American people are being duped into thinking these three 
Republican bills will prevent illegal immigrants from entering our 
country. I cannot in good conscience vote for these three bills not 
because I don't want to stop illegal immigration but because they are 
hollow authorizations without any funding to implement them. What we 
should be voting on and what I would support is the implementation of 
the 9/11 Commission immigration recommendations which I have voted for 
seven times in Committee or on the Floor. Those seven votes would have 
authorized and funded thousands of new immigration agents and detention 
beds. Instead we are voting to impose a HUGE unfunded mandate in our 
local law enforcement by deputizing them to be first line immigration 
officers. If the leadership in the House and Senate want real 
immigration reform, they need to fully fund all the immigration agents, 
detention officers as called for by the 9/11 Commission report.
  I do not support illegal immigration and believe that anyone who 
enters the US in violation of U.S. immigration laws should be 
penalized. But our country is in need of an immigration policy that 
accounts for the fears 
9/11 instilled, in addition to the hope that immigrants bring to our 
nation.
  Immigration reform should include family reunification, asylum and 
refugee admissions, and employment-based immigration. It must be 
compassionate and humanitarian and strike the delicate balance between 
American jobs, border safety and national security interests. H.R. 
4830, H.R. 6094, and H.R. 6095 do none of this.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on these bills.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I stand to explain my votes on the 
immigration bills that this Congress considered today.
  I applaud our decision to pass the Border Tunnel Prevention Act (H.R. 
4830), which would make it illegal for any person to build or finance a 
cross-border tunnel and for any person to use such a tunnel to smuggle 
drugs, weapons, or undocumented immigrants. These tunnels have become 
remarkably sophisticated ways for lawbreakers to enter our country, and 
I strongly support this bill to ban their construction and use. This 
is, at least, a small step to better border patrol.
  But though we took one small step forward today, it is not enough. 
Instead of working on real reform, we passed the so-called ``Community 
Protection Act'' (H.R. 6094). This bill is not about protecting our 
community; it is about election-year scare tactics and fearmongering.
  We need to fight crime and we need to deport criminals. But we can 
already do that. This bill does not deal with people who are in our 
country illegally. We can already deport individuals who are here 
illegally. Nor does this bill relate to non-U.S. citizens who are 
legally in the United States but commit a crime. We can already deport 
gang members and any foreign national who is convicted of a crime 
ranging from murder to shoplifting. This bill gives the Executive 
Branch unprecedented powers to deport legal immigrants who have not 
committed any crime. It gives the Attorney General of the United States 
the unprecedented power to declare any group a gang. And it gives the 
Department of Homeland Security the power to deport any non-citizen who 
is legally residing in the United States if they declare, without any 
due process, that such an individual is a member of those groups. This 
means the Department of Homeland Security can deport a legal immigrant 
who has obeyed all of our laws. This violates our First Amendment right 
of association and our Fifth Amendment right to be treated as 
individuals and not as guilty by association.
  This bill also has an expedited removal process that severely 
curtails due process and could lead to erroneous removal of people who 
should not have been deported. This includes U.S. citizens who cannot 
provide proof of citizenship in the seven-day window, or someone abused 
or eligible for asylum who cannot build their case in time.
  We all want to stop gang violence. It is an insidious problem in my 
district and in the districts of many of my colleagues. But we already 
have laws to deport criminals. We need to stop wasting time passing 
laws we don't need to deport people who aren't committing crimes and 
start working on real solutions to solve gang violence.
  Unfortunately, it seems this Congress consistently passes laws that 
allow us to avoid real reform. The misnamed ``Immigration Law 
Enforcement Act'' (H.R. 6095) also passed today, is one such example. 
This bill should be renamed the ``Pass the Buck for Immigration Law 
Enforcement Act.'' While it claims to simply ``reaffirm'' the authority 
of states to enforce immigration law, it actually distracts local law 
enforcement from their most important job--safeguarding our 
communities--and forces them to do the job that this Congress has 
repeatedly failed to do. We should enact real border security and 
comprehensive immigration reform; instead, we are passing the buck to 
our local communities and, without direction or funding, making them 
carry out complicated immigration enforcement. Enforcement of our 
immigration laws is a federal responsibility. Let's not shirk that 
responsibility. Let's not pretend this is someone else's problem.
  The Montgomery County and Prince George's County Police in my 
district are opposed to this legislation. They do not have the time or 
the resources to handle the increased workload that immigration 
enforcement brings. It is not their job. It is the job of the federal 
government. And we need to do our job. If we abdicate our 
responsibility on vital issues, we are failing the American people. 
Moreover, it is irresponsible to make local police forces handle 
immigration without giving them any additional resources or any 
training in immigration law. Our police are already overburdened. We 
cannot ask them to do our job, too.
  I want to be clear--I believe that we should have tougher enforcement 
of our immigration laws. But we need to do it in a way that makes 
sense. And it does not make sense to pass the buck to local 
communities. This is another unfunded mandate from a Congress that 
repeatedly fails to seriously address the important issues.
  So today this Congress has approved a bill that creates a law we 
don't need to punish those who don't break the law and a bill that 
passes the buck to local law enforcement. When is Congress going to do 
the work we were elected to do? When are we going to pass real 
immigration reform and real security instead of superficial band-aid 
bills? It's time to stop playing politics, and to start protecting our 
borders.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

 Previous question on H. Res. 1018, Rule for: H.R. 4830--Border Tunnel 
    Prevention Act, H.R. 6094--Community Protection Act, H.R. 6095--
                    Immigration Law Enforcement Act

       In the Section 3 of the resolution strike ``and (2)'' and 
     insert the following:

[[Page H6860]]

       ``(2) the amendment printed in Section 4 of this resolution 
     if offered by Representative Jackson Lee or a designee, which 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     or demand for division of the question, shall be considered 
     as read, and shall be separately debatable for 60 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent; and (3)''
       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       ``Sec. 4. The amendment to H.R. 6095 referred to in Section 
     3 is as follows:
       Insert the following in section 201(a):
       ``(2) Alien smuggling is a continuing threat to our 
     nation's security, leaving the United States vulnerable to 
     terrorist attacks.
       (3) Alien smuggling continues to be a threat to the 
     security of the United States because of the record of 
     failure of the Republican House, Senate and Administration, 
     including:
       (A) Seven times over the last four and a half years, 
     Democrats have offered amendments to enhance immigration 
     enforcement resources, which would have enhanced efforts to 
     combat alien smuggling. If these Democratic amendments had 
     been adopted, there would be 14,000 more detention beds, and 
     2,700 more immigration agents along our borders than now 
     exist. Each time, these efforts have been rejected by the 
     Republican majority.
       (B) In the 9/11 Act of 2004, the Republican Congress 
     promised to provide 8,000 additional detention beds and 800 
     additional immigration agents per year from FY 2006 through 
     FY 2010. Over the last two years, the Republican Congress has 
     left our nation short 5,000 detention beds and nearly 500 
     immigration agents short of the promises they made in the 
     Intelligence Reform (or 9/11) Act of 2004, to the detriment 
     of efforts to combat alien smuggling.
       (C) From 1993-2000, the Clinton Administration added, on 
     average, 642 new immigration agents per year. Despite the 
     fact that 9/11 highlighted the heightened need for these 
     resources, in its first five years, the Bush Administration 
     added, on average, only 411 new immigration agents, to the 
     detriment of efforts to combat alien smuggling.
       (4) Alien smuggling continues to be a threat to the 
     security of the United States because of continuing inaction 
     by the Republican congress, including the failure to go to 
     Conference to resolve differences between competing 
     immigration reforms, was valuable resources and time on a 
     series of field hearings during the Congressional recess that 
     excluded the input of local citizens and leaders, and 
     engaging in political showmanship by using the last few days 
     of the Congress to consider new immigration legislation when 
     it has failed to complete work on immigration bills that have 
     already passed the House and Senate.''
       Insert the following after section 201(c):
       ``(d) Additional Resources to Protect Against Alien 
     Smuggling by Implementing the 9/11 Commission Act.--In each 
     of fiscal years 2007-2010, there are authorized such sums as 
     may be necessary to increase by 2000 the number of 
     Immigration agents, by 250 the number of detention officers, 
     by 250 the number of U.S. Marshals, by 25,000 the number of 
     detention beds, by 1000 the number of investigators of 
     fraudulent schemes and documents which violate sections 274a, 
     274c, 274d of Title 2, Chapter 8 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality 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. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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, 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 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1018 will be 
followed by 5-minute votes as ordered on adopting the resolution, and 
suspending the rules and passing S. 418.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 195, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 461]

                               YEAS--225

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     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
     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 Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh

[[Page H6861]]


     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, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     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
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Case
     Cubin
     Gohmert
     Harris
     Kirk
     Meehan
     Moore (KS)
     Ney
     Ryan (OH)
     Strickland

                              {time}  1145

  Messrs. OBEY, HOLDEN, GEORGE MILLER of California, DICKS and HOLT 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 461 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227, 
noes 195, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 462]

                               AYES--227

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     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
     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 Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     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)

                               NOES--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kolbe
     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
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Case
     Cubin
     Harris
     Meehan
     Moore (KS)
     Ney
     Ryan (OH)
     Strickland

                              {time}  1154

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________