[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H7907-H7916]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 5441,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF S. 3930, MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006; PROVIDING
FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4772, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IMPLEMENTATION
ACT OF 2006
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1054 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1054
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 5441) making appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2007, and for other purposes. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The conference report shall be considered as read.
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 (S. 3930) to authorize trial by
military commission for violations of the law of war, and for
other purposes. 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, with 40 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Armed Services and 20 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to commit.
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. 4772) to simplify and expedite
access to the Federal courts for injured parties whose rights
and privileges under the United States Constitution have been
deprived by final actions of Federal agencies or other
government officials or entities acting under color of State
law, and for other purposes. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now
printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill,
as amended, shall be considered as read. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, 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 with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today will provide for consideration
of three measures of vital importance to our Nation: The conference
report for Fiscal Year 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, the
Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006 and the Military
Commissions Act of 2006. This rule will enable the House to consider
these bills and complete this important work on behalf of the American
people.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the
underlying legislation. These three bills address some of our Nation's
most pressing priorities. First, the Homeland Security Appropriations
Conference Report funds our most important Federal programs aimed at
securing the Nation against terrorist attacks. It provides $34.8
billion for the operations and activities of the Department of Homeland
Security in fiscal year 2007, an increase of $2.3 billion over fiscal
year 2006 and $2.7 billion above the President's request.
The conference agreement aggressively addresses our most critical
homeland security needs, including border and immigration security;
nuclear detection; port, cargo and container security; transportation
security; natural disaster preparedness and response; and support to
State and local first responders.
This legislation secures our homeland first and foremost by
protecting our borders and revitalizing immigration enforcement,
because border security is homeland security. It provides over $21
billion for border protection, immigration enforcement and related
activities. It includes an increase of $2.1 billion over funding in
2006. This includes $5.2 billion for the Secure Border Initiative and
additional funding to support technology, personnel and infrastructure
to prevent terrorists and other criminals from exploiting our borders
and immigration system.
Among other security-enhancing measures, this funding includes $2.77
billion for Border Patrol, adding 1,500 new Border Patrol agents, for a
total of 14,800. It includes $1.2 billion for border fencing, vehicle
barriers, technology and infrastructure; $4.2 billion for immigration
and customs enforcement; $1.38 billion for Immigration and Custody
Enforcement custody operations, adding 6,700 detention beds, for a
total of 27,500; and $28.2 million to assist State and local efforts to
enforce immigration laws.
This conference report also recognizes the need to enhance port,
container and cargo security by providing the funds necessary to secure
our ports and inbound cargo in order to prevent terrorists and
criminals from exploiting the international commerce system.
It supports our first responders by paying attention to the needs of
high-threat areas, firefighters and emergency management. It supports
ongoing efforts to enhance the current inventory of our Nation's
critical infrastructures, develop secure communication systems with
Federal, State and local entities, and it continues to work with the
private sector to implement protective measures around the Nation's
infrastructure.
This agreement continues ongoing efforts to enhance security for all
modes of transportation, including ports, rails and aviation with a
focus on developing and installing next-generation technology to
inspect cargo, baggage and passengers. And it supports traditional
missions, such as drug interdiction, law enforcement, maritime safety
and Presidential protection.
[[Page H7908]]
Finally, this conference report provides for the necessary and
appropriate oversight of the Department of Homeland Security. It fences
off $1.6 billion from being spent until DHS meets certain planning and
management requirements. Under these requirements, DHS must develop a
comprehensive strategy and plan for port, cargo, container security,
and for the Secure Border Initiative. Department of Homeland Security
must also provide expenditure plans for the border security system,
U.S.-VISIT, Federal Protective Service, business transformation for
CIS, explosive detection systems in airports, Customs information
technology systems, and overall better financial data throughout the
department, and in particular, science and technology.
Finally, the agreement directs the preparedness Directorate and FEMA
to improve its capacities in communications, training and other
capacity assessments, including management logistics, emergency
housing, debris removal and victim registration.
Second, this rule provides for consideration of the Military
Commissions Act of 2006 as modified by the other body. The House
version of this legislation passed the House on Wednesday by a vote of
253-168 and was sent to the other body. Today's legislation again
provides congressional authorization for military commissions to try
alien unlawful enemy combatants for war crimes committed before, on or
after
9/11/2001. It amends the War Crimes Act to criminalize grave breaches
of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, while fully satisfying
U.S. treaty obligations. It also authorizes the establishment of
military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants, which is
the legal term used to define international terrorists and those who
aid and support them, for war crimes. While this new chapter is based
upon the Code of Military Justice, it also creates an entirely new
structure for these trials.
These commissions will only be used to try alien terrorists for war
crimes. Any U.S. citizen will be tried within the Federal United States
judiciary. These alien terrorists acquitted of a war crime will still
be detained as enemy combatants according to the principle in
international law that there exists an undisputable right to keep the
enemy from returning to the battlefield. Thus, an acquittal at a war
crime trial will not result in terrorists being released. This
legislation also provides for an independent certified military judge
to preside over all proceedings.
This agreement creates the process necessary to prosecute terrorists
effectively and fairly, while also protecting American troops and
intelligence agents fighting the global war on terror.
I would like to thank Chairman Duncan Hunter and Chairman
Sensenbrenner for all of their hard work in reaching an agreement with
the other body that keeps Americans safe while observing the rule of
law.
Third, this rule provides for the consideration of legislation to
give private property owners the ability to litigate cases in Federal
court when local and State regulations deprive owners the use of their
own land.
Although this legislation already passed the House this week with the
support of the majority of its Members, it did not achieve the support
of the super majority needed to pass under the suspension of the rules.
So, today, the House will once again have the opportunity to support
this commonsense bill to ensure that property owners have the same
access to Federal courts as other plaintiffs claiming a violation of
their constitutional rights.
It removes the judicial detour of forcing claimants raising solely
Federal claims to first pursue their litigation in State court on the
very same case and dramatically reduces the amount of time that
property owners must spend in negotiation and litigation before takings
claims that can be heard on their merits.
I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for all of his
hard work in constructing and perfecting this legislation, and I look
forward to supporting his efforts on the floor later this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this work product that the majority has
brought to the floor today. I encourage all of my colleagues to support
this rule and the underlying legislation that will keep Americans
safer, uphold the rule of law and protect the private property rights
of citizens. I encourage each of my colleagues to join me in supporting
this rule and the three underlying bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, these are not the circumstances under which we should be
considering this legislation. The bills before us deal with nothing
less than the security of our homeland and the fundamental nature of
our Nation. Our citizens deserve better than to have their elected
representatives rush to pass all of these bills in one day, bills that
say a great deal about who we are as a society and where we are headed
as a country.
The Homeland Security Appropriations Conference Report and the
Military Commissions Act before us are manifestations of how this
country has chosen to respond to the challenges that confront us,
challenges to our safety and our peace of mind.
{time} 0930
Will we respond with flawed acts that undermine our economic vitality
and sacrifice the very liberties we are theoretically fighting to
protect? Or will we be measured in our response and do what is
necessary to preserve our liberty from both threats abroad and the
consequences of fear and mistrust here at home?
Mr. Speaker, this homeland security legislation means a great deal to
my constituents in western New York and to the tens of millions of
Americans who live in northern border communities throughout our
country.
Our relationship with Canada is truly a unique one. Ours is the
longest unguarded border in the world, a demonstration of the spirit of
trust and openness shared by our two great nations. That spirit has
produced and sustained a thriving cross-border tourism industry and
hundreds of billions of dollars in trade between our two countries
every year.
Border economies on both sides of the divide depend on that trade and
tourism. So it would be shortsighted and self-destructive to permit a
flawed border security plan to cut off such a lifeline. Unfortunately,
the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, put forth with so much
fanfare by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of
State, threatens to do just that. In the name of heightened security,
this plan, if implemented in its current form, will mean that millions
of tourists from both countries will stay home and businesses will stop
shipping their goods across the border. In its current form, this plan
is a disaster waiting to happen. And considering that Canada is our
largest trading partner, we have no choice but to fix it before it is
too late. And what we need first is an extension of the WHTI
implementation deadline, which I am relieved to see is still in this
bill. Backing up the implementation until June or at least January of
2009 will give us the time we need to fix this program where it is
broken.
My colleague and good friend from New York Representative McHugh and
I have fashioned a bipartisan, commonsense bill that will correct the
most egregious failings of WHTI and make it work for our constituents
instead of against them. The Protecting American Commerce and Travel
Act, or PACT Act, has gained the support of a wide range of
Representatives in this body. It will ensure border security while at
the same time keeping it open to travel and trade. I urge all of my
colleagues to consider and pass the PACT Act in the months ahead. We
don't have to choose between economic security and physical security.
We can and we must have both.
Mr. Speaker, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative was a flawed
reaction to a perceived threat and today threatens the liberty and
prosperity of our country more than those it supposedly protects us
from.
In the same way, the Military Commissions Act before us represents a
shocking assault on the fundamental
[[Page H7909]]
freedoms and liberties that we have been told we are fighting to
defend. This bill will dramatically increase the President's right to
detain men and women the world over and to hold them indefinitely
without charge. What is more, it will serve as a backdoor legalization
of all but the most brutal of interrogation methods, taking our Nation
down a path that we have chastised so many other countries for
following.
Yesterday in the Senate, my friend and New York delegation colleague,
Senator Hillary Clinton, told a story about our country's first great
military leader, a man who went on to become our first great political
leader.
On Christmas Day in 1776, in the midst of the Revolutionary War,
General George Washington launched a daring raid that culminated in the
capture of numerous Hessian soldiers. They were foreign mercenaries
known for their brutality and who were fighting for the British.
Despite what they had done to American soldiers, he ordered his men to
treat them humanely. He said, ``Let them have not reason to complain of
our copying the brutal example of the British Army.''
George Washington, the man who so influenced our national
consciousness, who was so deeply responsible for who we are as a
people, wanted the world to know that the new American Army did not
abuse its prisoners of war. He also wanted to do whatever he could to
win the hearts and minds of the Hessians. If even one came to see the
virtue of America and lay down his arms, that would be a victory in the
fight for our Nation's freedom and independence.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have heard some of the best arguments against
this bill from General Washington's successors: the men and women who
have held top positions of responsibility in our Armed Forces. They
have told us over and over again that if we ignore our country's
longstanding commitment to the rules of war and international treaties
like the Geneva Conventions, we will be putting our own soldiers and
our own Nation at risk. Opening the door to detainee abuse and
indefinite detention will make our soldiers more likely to be tortured
and dehumanized so that they fall into enemy hands, and that means our
own country will be less safe.
A world based on the rule of law is more safe, not less safe, than a
world based on power alone. To argue that those who oppose this
detainee bill want to let terrorists roam free is both wrong and
illogical. Suspected terrorists who have evidence against them will be
convicted by courts of law. They will stay behind bars. At the same
time, a steadfast commitment to due process will both defend our most
cherished freedoms and free the innocent from unwarranted punishment.
Doing so will protect our liberty and deprive our enemies of one of the
main tools that they are using to recruit their new followers.
We will show the world that the United States practices what it
preaches about freedom and democracy and human dignity. We will bring
others over to our side and make them less likely to take up arms
against us.
There is a reason why Colin Powell recently warned us that the world
is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight on terrorism. He
said it because it is true and because such a reality is a truly
dangerous one. What is more, humane interrogation methods will prevent
us from chasing after ghosts, from following the fleeting leads of
false confessions born not from knowledge but from desperation.
General Washington saw the value of a world based on law and
principle over 200 years ago, and he saw it at a time when his
fledgling Nation was truly in a fight for its very survival. And for us
to pass a bill today that abandons some of the most fundamental
principles of the civilization that we have sworn to defend would be an
insult to all those who came before us, to all those who fought and
struggled so that we could live free.
Mr. Speaker, it is such a respect for law and eternal principles that
this administration and far too many in this Republican leadership
lack. The proof lies in a provision of this bill which has received so
little notice it is shameful but that is profoundly revealing about its
true nature.
Ten years ago Congress passed a law called the War Crimes Act. Under
that bill violating the Geneva Conventions is a crime in the United
States. The administration argued that the Convention does not apply to
enemy combatants, a term of its own invention. But the Supreme Court
disagreed. In other words, the administration officials who have spent
the last 5 years creating and directing our torture policy, as well as
the government employees who have carried it out, could be liable for
criminal prosecution for violating the War Crimes Act.
And so they have decided in this bill to go back in time to 1997 and
to rewrite the War Crimes Act to make their actions legal. And that is
exactly what this bill does. To call this strategy cynical and self-
serving, Mr. Speaker, is an understatement. When President Bush signs
this bill, he will be signing away any responsibility for the
potentially criminal policies that he and those in his administration
have enacted during the past 5 years. When he signs this bill, he will
be signing a pardon for himself and for all other architects of these
disastrous, self-defeating, and immoral policies.
But we have a choice here today. We can take a principled stand on
behalf of the principles that make us great. We can choose to reject a
future in which America can no longer honestly claim that it respects
human rights, a future in which our own shortsighted, selfish, and
immoral retreat into fear and suspicion has left us less safe and more
isolated than ever before. We can choose to embrace our true nature
and, in so doing, take a great step toward the creation of a world led
by law and free from fear.
It is our choice, Mr. Speaker. And I implore all of my friends in
this body, please, let us today make the right one.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, during the last few years, Members of
Congress have spoken very plainly and openly to this administration
about our thoughts and ideas and hopes and dreams, about how we can
better protect not only this country and our borders but the rule of
law, and this administration has been very open to hearing from Members
of Congress about these thoughts and concerns.
Our next speaker is a gentleman who has engaged the administration,
has talked about how important border initiatives are, to make sure
that not only are we secure on our border but to make sure that we deal
effectively and carefully with people who have come to this country, to
make sure that they are safe, to make sure that they are not harmed in
that process. If they have broken the law, they will take the full
measure of law as it is given, but that we do so in a compassionate
way.
Our next speaker is the chairman of the Rules Committee, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and I yield to him such time as
he may consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his very kind words,
but we do want to adjourn by this evening; so I appreciate the fact
that he kept it relatively brief. And I want to thank him for his
typical superb management of this very important rule and to say that I
am very pleased that we have been able to work in a bipartisan way.
At least two of the three provisions in this rule deal with the
single most important issue that we face: the security of the American
people. Our Homeland Security appropriations bill and I believe this
tribunal bill, which will be made in order under this rule, is critical
to the security of the United States of America, and that is our top
priority.
I guess I should begin, since he is looking so relaxed there, by
saying time and time again in the Rules Committee, my colleague Ms.
Slaughter and others said that it was Martin Sabo's last appearance
before the Rules Committee. Well, I had every confidence, when people
joked about the prospect of bringing a conference agreement back on the
Homeland Security appropriations bill, that it would happen. And many
people rolled their eyes. But thanks to the leadership of Martin Sabo
and Harold Rogers and, of course, David Obey and Jerry Lewis, we have
been able to come together with a very important
[[Page H7910]]
Homeland Security appropriations conference report.
So I would like to join in extending great appreciation to Martin
Sabo for his stellar service to this body over the years and for his
commitment to dealing with transportation issues and now homeland
security and to say that we will miss him greatly.
This measure, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to consider, the
appropriations bill itself, is absolutely essential if we are going to
focus on the security of our borders and deal with it in a responsible
way. And I am happy that Ms. Slaughter was able to work on her
compromise. Again, it is a bipartisan compromise, as she just said in
her statement, that we have been able to deal with.
And similarly, I am proud of another item that is included in this
bill that is once again a bipartisan measure, and that is legislation
that was introduced in the Senate by my California colleague, Dianne
Feinstein, and I was privileged to introduce it here in the House. We
had an actual unanimous recorded vote on this measure, and it was to
recognize that we have a problem at our border; that being since
September 11, 2001, the discovery of 38 tunnels, one of which came from
Canada into the United States, 37 from Mexico into the United States.
And what we discovered is that there is actually no criminal penalty
for people who are tunneling or the utilization of property here in the
United States for tunnels to come up. And what has happened? Through
those tunnels we have seen tremendous problems with both human and
narcotrafficking.
So in this measure that we pass, we will be actually implementing
criminalization of that kind of action, once again demonstrating our
commitment to securing our Nation's border.
Similarly, we obviously are very concerned about the fact that in
heavy urban areas and in five particular areas, we have seen just
across the border, above ground, large problems of human and
narcotrafficking, and for those areas we are going to see the
construction of border fences.
I do not like the idea of fences. I really do not like the idea of
fences at all. But our empirical evidence, Mr. Speaker, has shown that
for the 14 miles along the border between Tijuana, Mexico, and San
Diego, California, we have seen a great improvement in the standard of
living and quality of life because of this border fence which has been
established.
{time} 0945
In fact, there has been a 50 percent reduction in the crime rate in
San Diego, in large part attributed to the fact that we have this fence
here.
I look forward to the day when we will be able to take down all of
these fences. But, frankly, as long as we have human trafficking and
narcotrafficking the way it is today, I do not believe that we as a
Nation have a choice. And so in those areas where we have heavy urban
populations on both sides the border, I think it is essential that we
do this.
There are other areas where utilization of 21st century technology,
using motion detectors, using unmanned aerial vehicles and other things
will be very beneficial in our quest to ensure that we secure our
Nation's borders.
Now, as we look at our items in this bill, I believe that the funding
that is provided is going to help us deal with the overall global war
on terror. Again, if you think about the preamble of the U.S.
Constitution, I always argue that, in that preamble, the five most
important words of the preamble are: Provide for the common defense.
And those five words, I believe, are addressed very successfully with
this Homeland Security Appropriations Conference Report. So, Mr.
Speaker, I am very proud of the work that has been done in a bipartisan
way, Democrats and Republicans coming together, to do the right thing.
I hope it can be used as a model for many of the things that we
proceed with in the future.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
Thank you for your great service on Rules Committee.
And to the chairman, I thank him for his kind remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of the base bill on homeland
security funding. But there is one part of that bill which I think we
could significantly improve. So I would ask Members today to vote
against the previous question so that we can offer a separate
concurrent resolution to the conference report which would delete from
the bill four provisions as it relates to the regulation of chemical
plants that, in my judgment, significantly weaken the legislation.
As background, the whole question of setting security standards for
chemical plants is an issue that has concerned me for a long time. We
have had a void in the ability of the Secretary to act to adopt any
regulation as it impacts most chemical plants in this country.
This year, while we were considering the appropriations bill, we
offered and adopted in committee an amendment that gave authority to
the Secretary to adopt regulations relating to the security of chemical
plants.
We envisioned that as being a temporary solution, while the
authorizers had time at some point to pass regular authorizing
legislation. That was stricken by a point of view on the House floor.
In the Senate, fortunately, in an amendment by Bob Byrd, adopted that
same amendment. And that is what we had in conference.
There then proceeded negotiations between the authorizers. And it
ended up being a partisan negotiation between majority Members in the
House and Senate which produced the recommended plan for the regulation
of chemical plants, which the conference committee substituted for the
Byrd amendment.
That more detailed recommendation has not been subject to debate in
either the House or the Senate or considered in that form by any of our
committees. And it has four provisions which I think significantly
weakens the authority of the Secretary to adopt regulations. I think we
should strike them.
The first one is a provision that states that: The Secretary may not
disapprove a site security plan submitted under this section based on
the presence or absence of a particular security measure.
What that means, I frankly do not know. The reality is that any
security measure is going to deal with a whole series of particular
security measures. Some are going to be more important than the other.
Why we limit the authority of the Secretary in this fashion is beyond
me. I do not know what it means. There must be some relevance to it.
But it clearly would seem to limit the ability of the Secretary to
adopt a comprehensive security measure.
Then we have another provision which is rather strange. And it says
that if we proceed in court and any information is provided on plants
to that court, then that unclassified information becomes classified
when it reaches the courtroom. I know of no other instance in our
government where unclassified information becomes classified because it
goes to court.
I have no idea what the precedent for any such action is. It is
unique. It is new. And we should not have it in this bill. I do not
know, as I read this bill, whether the States have the ability to adopt
security standards which are stricter than the Federal law. Some read
this language to say it prohibits the States from having stricter
standards.
I read it as being unclear, and where we turn that issue over is not
to our judgment but to the courts. As I read the language, if a State
adopts stricter standards and the Secretary approves them, I expect it
will be challenged in court. If they adopt stricter standards and the
Secretary rejects them, that will be challenged in court.
In my judgment, the States should have that ability. But whether we
think they should or should not have it, it is a decision we should
make and not simply leave it to the vagaries of what a particular court
might decide.
Another provision in this bill simply says that it prohibits the
public from filing any suit to enforce the provisions of this law.
Again, that makes no sense to me and goes contrary to what we normally
do in this country.
I am glad we are finally moving forward with chemical plant security.
However, the negotiations, not by the conferees on the appropriation
bill but by the negotiators from the two authorizing committees, have
produced a
[[Page H7911]]
version of chemical security regulation that in my judgment is much
weaker than it need be, and we should clarify it and strike those
provisions. Not add anything new, but simply make sure that the
Secretary has greater authority and to make sure that States have the
right to adopt stricter regulation if they so desire.
So I urge the rejection of the previous question so that we can offer
such an amendment.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in the month of August, I had an opportunity with
several other Members to go to Laredo, Texas, to visit our border to
see the border operations and to see the things that were happening
there. I had a chance to run across Texas Army National Guard personnel
who were attempting to not only work but work successfully with Border
Patrol and other Customs and Immigration enforcement personnel.
I wanted to draw attention to how important our National Guard has
been from each of our States in protecting our borders, working on
border security and doing those things that are necessary. This came as
a result of a plan that happened with input from Congress, that
happened through the great work that was done not only with the
President but also with local Governors and people who are interested
in doing this.
I had a chance to go with the Honorable Jo Bonner from Alabama down
to Laredo. And both he and I together had a chance to see firsthand how
the Army National Guard worked with Border Patrol. We went out that
night to see firsthand their needs.
Mr. Speaker, that is what is in this bill, the ability that we have
to protect our border, to provide the necessary resources, to make sure
that our men and women who are with official law enforcement and also
those who are with the Guard are able to make sure that this country is
protected.
That is what is in this bill. I am proud of it. I am going to ask for
everyone's vote for not only the rule but also the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule
because the legislation would seriously undermine efforts to secure
chemical facilities across the country. I want to join in the comments
made by the ranking member, Mr. Sabo.
Back in July, the Homeland Security Committee passed by voice vote a
bill that would go a long way towards fixing the chemical security
problem in the aftermath of 9/11. This is one of the most glaring
problems in our post-9/11 security efforts that has been neglected here
in Washington by the Congress and by the administration.
Yet rather than moving forward with this bill out of the Homeland
Security Committee, bringing to it the floor and having an open debate;
Republicans have decided to craft an industry-friendly proposal behind
closed doors and stick it in the Homeland Security Appropriations
Conference Report.
Now, this is no way to deal with such a serious security issue. EPA
data indicates that there are more than 100 chemical plants across the
country that could put over 1 million people at risk in the event of a
serious accident or terrorist attack. More than 7,000 chemical plants
could put 1,000 people or more at risk.
Yet under the cover of a conference report, the Republican leadership
has seriously undermined our efforts to secure these chemical
facilities. The language here exempts thousands of chemical plants not
deemed ``high risk'' by the Department of Homeland Security, along with
3,000 drinking water and wastewater facilities that use large
quantities of chlorine.
It also prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from doing
anything to move towards the use of inherently safer technologies or
substances. And it fails to protect the rights of States like my own,
New Jersey, to implement stronger security requirements at chemical
plants.
Mr. Speaker, the consequences of an incident at a chemical facility
could be dire for residents of my State of New Jersey. We saw this last
Tuesday when an accidental release of sulfur dioxide sent 59 people to
the hospital. If that is what happens from one simple mistake, I
shudder to think of the consequences of an attack by determined
terrorists.
We need to reject this rule. Strip this weak chemical security
language from the conference report and move ahead with strong
legislation like what the Homeland Security Committee already passed
here in the House.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, here we are talking about the rule for
Homeland Security, and yesterday, the Rules Committee had an
opportunity to speak very plainly with the appropriators who were
responsible for this Homeland Security appropriations bill. We spoke
with them about several matters. One of them was about the air marine
operation under the CBP, Customs and Border Protection.
I would like for my colleagues to know, who have joined me and others
in the effort to talk about the air interdiction program that we have
about drugs that come into this country, that this bill provides $600
million for their border and air space protection.
Secondly, we had an opportunity to talk about the fugitive operation
teams that nationwide are gathered together under Customs and Border
Protection to make sure that the apprehension of those people who are
illegal aliens that are in our country here who are fugitives and who
are dangerous are picked up and dealt with by our judicial system in
this country.
Over and over and over, the things that we have talked about that
were necessary and needed throughout the years are contained with
funding in this bill. I am very happy to say that I am proud of what
this administration has done by listening to us, and perhaps more
importantly, our appropriators, like Hal Rogers who brought this bill,
who listened and who have done something about it.
{time} 1000
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my Rules Committee colleague for
yielding the time.
I rise in support today for this rule and, of course, the underlying
conference report, H.R. 5441, the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007. I would like to commend
Chairmen Lewis and Rogers and, of course, our dear friend Martin Sabo
for their tireless effort in keeping our homeland safe.
H.R. 5441 is one more piece of pro-security legislation advanced by
this Congress, and its passage prior to our adjournment, Mr. Speaker,
is critical to ensuring funding for homeland security programs that do
keep our Nation safe.
This is a comprehensive bill. It addresses several aspects of our
porous border problem. It provides increased technologies for use in
explosion detection. It beefs up maritime and chemical security and,
most importantly, overhauls FEMA.
As we know a big part of keeping our homeland safe is protecting
these borders. The bill includes $1.8 billion in emergency funding for
border and maritime security. It includes $1.2 billion for the
construction of a border fence, and it provides for the hiring of an
additional 1,500 border patrol agents and includes a commonsense
provision brought forth by our chairman of the Rules Committee
criminalizing the construction of border tunnels.
However, Mr. Speaker, despite the great things in this legislation, I
realize that it is not a perfect bill. One of the most notable problems
is securing our ports of entry with better background check technology.
As you remember, we passed language in the 9/11 bill and in the REAL ID
Act last year to require biometric passports by a certain deadline,
along with the proper equipment to read the high-tech identification.
The deadline was extended 6 months, and with this appropriation bill,
unfortunately, it is extended another 17 months because someone in the
other Chamber from a northern border State put language in there to
further delay this crucial, crucial program. We cannot afford to keep
extending the deadline when our security is at stake.
Mr. Speaker, shoe bomber Richard Reed, we all remember him, entered
our country on an unsecured visa waiver. This visa waiver program
allows 28 countries, their folks, to come into this
[[Page H7912]]
country with nothing, really, to prove their identification. He came in
with a visa waiver. We have to know who is coming into our country to
prevent terrorists from having a free pass.
Despite all the improvements made in this appropriations bill, they
are meaningless without securing our ports of entry.
Mr. Speaker, all week long we have witnessed this Congress passing
legislation to fund critical Department of Defense programs, to try
terrorist detainees in military courts and to listen in on the
communications of terrorist operatives plotting our destruction.
Heather Wilson from New Mexico explained that so well yesterday on this
floor.
It is unfortunate that throughout this week we have witnessed
obstructionism on just about every front and some on the other side
advocating for a cautious approach to fighting terrorism out of concern
of treating the terrorists fairly. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this is
the wrong approach, and we must remain aggressive in our efforts to
keep America safe.
I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to keep
this in mind, to ensure we give our government the tools it needs to
protect our homeland.
I urge support of this rule and the underlying legislation.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy
and her leadership.
This is sort of a bizarre rule that is limiting debate on three very
critical areas, but I would like to just focus on one because under the
guise of protecting property rights, H.R. 4772 is back before us, and
it will undermine the quality of life for most Americans.
I find no small amount of irony that our friends on the Republican
side of the aisle who say that they support local control are now going
to gut some of the most basic protections for neighborhoods,
businesses, and the environment to make sure that they are decided at
the State and local level. Remember, these are our same friends who
have come to us with provisions to strip away from these same Federal
courts being able to rule on the Pledge of Allegiance or on marriage.
Those are too important to be given to the Federal courts, but you are
going to take away opportunities for people to be able to deal with the
most fundamental of issues in terms of neighborhood quality and throw
that into the Federal courts without having an opportunity to work it
through at the State and local level.
The Supreme Court itself has recognized that State and local courts
are the best way to deal with things that are inherently local in
nature. I spent 10 years as a commissioner of public works in the city
of Portland. I watched development proposal after development proposal
come over the transom. If your rules were in place, it would not help
the little developer because they would not have the firepower to be
able to go through the Federal process, but it would have been an
amazing club for big developers to have their way for proposals that
were incomplete, inadequate, or not carefully thought through. In some
cases, there were things that were making mistakes. In others, they
were trying to do something that would have threatened adjacent
businesses, adjacent homeowners. What we did was work with them, going
through the process, and as a result, time after time, we had better
results.
This would undercut that effort. That is why 36 attorney generals,
including Mr. Chabot's attorney general, says that this is an
unnecessary Federal intrusion and it ought to be resisted.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Our previous speaker has just hit on probably one of the most
important aspects of freedom in America, and that is the right of a
person to be able to own property, the ability that we have to have our
house to be our castle. Yet as we talk about the issue, I would like to
add my dimension to it.
The bottom line is that we are engaged in this on behalf of people
who own property, people who own property who have grown weary of
having local government take their property without due compensation
for the benefit of local government, and we are going to protect the
private property owner. We believe private property rights are very
important, and that is why we are getting engaged, because we have seen
local communities do for their own best interest those things that they
wanted to do by taking private property from a person.
We believe it is a simple part of what the Constitution is about. We
believe that private property rights are important. I do understand the
argument, and it is related to a person who cannot fight government
even in their own local community when that is what government wants to
do.
We are going to give a level playing field to those individuals
because we believe that the individualist who owns his own property
should have equal rights also, not just to be taken advantage of by
local communities.
Mr. Speaker, that is also in this rule. We support the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much, and this
rule is just another appalling case of Republican leadership siding
with special interests over the security interests of our country.
In July, the Homeland Security Committee reported a bipartisan
chemical security bill. We know that al Qaeda wants to hit huge
chemical facilities in our country that could cause between 10,000 and
hundreds of thousands of injuries. That was a good bill. It was
bipartisan.
It required that there be mandatory enforceable security provisions
that apply to all chemical facilities in America. It required the
company shift to safer chemicals and methods to reduce the consequences
of a terrorist attack. The bill ensured that the States could set
higher security standards. The bill contained red teaming exercises to
test whether or not security around these chemical facilities was, in
fact, adequate. It contained worker training provisions to upgrade
workers' ability to protect against an al Qaeda attack. It contained
civil and criminal provisions, and it contained whistle-blower
protections for chemical industry workers if any Paul Revere-like
figure would rise up to warn that there was a danger at a chemical
facility.
Democrats and Republicans alike praised the committee's work, and
Republicans promised to protect the language as it came out on to the
House floor.
But instead, the House Republican leaders refused to allow it to be
considered for a vote on the House floor. Instead, the Republicans on
the Homeland Security Committee and on the Energy and Commerce
Committee acquiesced to the wishes of the chemical industry behind
closed doors to negotiate the weak, inadequate language contained in
the conference report.
In public, the Republicans profess their support for strong chemical
security legislation, but in private, they provided their chemical
industry allies with an early Christmas present, the weak legislation
the industry had been pursuing all along, and that is what we are now
going to debate on this House floor; not the bipartisan secure chemical
bill, but the chemical industry-written bill that the Republicans are
now bringing out here in a closed rule that will not have any debate at
all.
And by the way, if back home you have a Governor, you have a mayor
that is very concerned about the ability of their hometown or their
State to put stronger security measures around a chemical facility,
well, after today you can just tell your Governor, your mayor, it is up
to the Department of Homeland Security. They are not going to be able
to increase it back at home. This bill is going to make it possible for
the chemical industry to keep the local governments and the State
governments wrapped up in red tape forever as those local communities,
those local heroes, and by the way, if there is an al Qaeda attack,
people are not going to call the Department of Homeland Security. They
are going to call the local police, the local fire, the local emergency
medical personnel. They are going to be the ones that have to respond,
and when this bill is passed their hands are going to be tied behind
[[Page H7913]]
their back in terms of their ability to put stronger, tougher
protections around these chemical facilities, especially in urban
areas.
It also reduces the number of facilities that have to be covered.
Instead of all of the facilities that could cause upwards of 10,000
fatalities or injuries, they eliminate 90 percent of the facilities
from having to be covered by the provisions of the legislation that we
are talking about here today. And by the way, the Department of
Homeland Security is prohibited from disapproving of a facility's
security plan because of the absence of any specific security measure.
So the Department of Homeland Security looks at a chemical facility,
sees that there is a problem, they still cannot disapprove that plan.
How in the world can the Department of Homeland Security be effective
if their hands are tied behind their back? This is an area that we know
is at the top of the al Qaeda terrorist target list, chemical
facilities; and on the last day, professing to care about homeland
security, and by the way, if al Qaeda is going to attack today, all the
wiretapping, everything else that you want to do, if there is a secret
group already in America poised to hit a chemical facility, then you
better have the protection that is built around it.
What you are doing today in this bill is you are making it infinitely
more likely that al Qaeda can make a successful attack against a
chemical facility. You are gagging the Democrats. You are handing it
over to the chemical industry for them to decide on their bottom line
cost-basis analysis of the type of security they want to put in place.
Right now, it is harder to get into some nightclubs in New York City
than it is for al Qaeda to get into a chemical facility in the United
States of America. That is the bottom line on the bill the Republicans
are bringing out here today.
Vote ``no'' on this Republican rule.
{time} 1015
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing
this up as an issue, because I think, once again, it shows clearly the
differences between our parties and the way we think about this.
It is true that the Republican Party would be accused of having a
balanced approach not only to making sure that these chemical companies
have taken care of their responsibility for security but making sure
also that we protect the jobs that come with those and the security of
the towns in which they are located in.
We heard the gentleman use words like stronger, tougher, harder and
making it more difficult. Everything he talked about was to simply make
it harder for these companies to operate in America. Tougher sanctions,
more rules, more regulations and being tough on the chemical companies.
Yes, we get it, run them out of town. Run them out of the country. Take
the jobs and leave.
Mr. Speaker, we are not going to do that in this bill. We are going
to bring a balance, a balance that says that these chemical companies
are a natural asset to the United States of America. As a part of our
ability not only to make sure that we can receive the things that we
need, technology and these things which chemical companies provide,
that make our lives better every day, we are not going to run them out
of town and we are not going to run them out of the country.
They have a responsibility to make sure that their internal elements
are safe and the controls they put in place are doing the right thing.
They want to take care of their responsibilities, and we are going to
make sure that that is balanced. So we are not going to allow the
tougher sanctions, the tougher things that our friends on the other
side of the aisle want to do. We are going to strike a balance, a
balance for safety, a balance for comprehension that what we want is to
make sure that they are good corporate citizens and that they look
closely at where their own frailties exist.
That is why this bill is going to pass today, because we are not
going to run them out of town. We are not going to speak from a
position of weakness; we are going to speak from a position of
strength. That is another one of the differences between the Republican
Party. We are going to balance it out and do the right thing.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I will use my remaining time to close,
but, first, I wish to insert for the Record an editorial from this
morning's New York Times called, ``More Comfort for the Comfortable.''
That is the way they describe the Private Property Rights
Implementation Act. They say it is a deeply misguided giveaway for big
real estate developers.
[From the New York Times, Sept. 29, 2006.]
More Comfort for the Comfortable
Congress, which has done so little this session to address
the nation's real problems, is expected to vote today on a
deeply misguided giveaway for big real estate developers. The
bill would create new property rights that could in many
cases make it difficult, if not impossible, for local
governments to stop property owners from using their land in
socially destructive ways. It should be defeated.
The Private Property Implementation Act would make it
easier for developers challenging zoning decisions to bypass
state courts and go to federal court, even if there was not a
legitimate federal constitutional question. Zoning
regulations are quintessentially local decisions. This bill
would cast this tradition aside, and involve the federal
government in issues like building density and lot sizes.
The bill would also make it easier for developers to sue
when zoning decisions diminished the value of their property.
Most zoning does that. Developers would make more money if
they could cram more houses on small lots, build skyscrapers
200 stories tall, or develop on endangered wetlands. The bill
would help developers claim monetary compensation for run-of-
the-mill zoning decisions on matters like these. It would
also make it easier for them to intimidate local zoning
authorities by threatening to run to federal court.
Zoning is not an attack on property rights. It is an
important government function, and most Americans appreciate
that it helps keep their own neighborhoods from becoming more
crowded, polluted and dangerous. If more people knew the
details of this bill, there would be wide opposition. As it
is, attorneys general from more than 30 states, of both
parties, have joined the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the
National Conference of State Legislatures and leading
environmental groups in opposing it.
The bill does a lot of things its supporters claim to
abhor. House Republicans were elected on a commitment to
states' rights and local autonomy, and opposition to
excessive litigation and meddling federal judges. It is
remarkable how quickly they have pushed these principles
aside to come to the aid of big developers.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to instruct the enrolling clerk to strike from
the conference report several last-minute provisions that may
compromise chemical plant security.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, these provisions were not in either the
House or Senate-passed versions of the Homeland Security bill. They
were drafted in secret and slipped into the conference report without
the input of any Democrats in the conference. Even worse, these
provisions may make chemical facilities more vulnerable to security
problems and not less.
When we talk about balance, I think Homeland Security was supposed to
be about rules and regulations. The new language weakens the Homeland
Security Secretary's ability to enforce chemical facility site security
plans. It takes the authority away. It allows the Secretary to preempt
tougher State laws to ensure chemical facility security, and it
severely restricts the rights of citizens to take any legal action to
enforce chemical facility security requirements. Securing our chemical
plants is far too important to be compromised by a secretive and
inadequate security plan.
I want to stress that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not
stop consideration of the conference report, but a ``no'' vote will
allow the House to remove these inadequate and dangerous provisions.
Again, please vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in thanking
the
[[Page H7914]]
Honorable Martin Sabo for his service to this House and for his
additions of the things he has brought forth in this legislation, not
only working in a bipartisan basis but also his leadership on behalf of
making sure that the next generation understands things like port
security and other things which the gentleman has specialized in.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank our Speaker, Dennis Hastert,
and majority leader, John Boehner, for their vision and hard work to
bring this bill forward today. They worked very closely with Chairman
Hal Rogers and Chairman Jerry Lewis of the Appropriations Committee,
Duncan Hunter of the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Jim
Sensenbrenner of the Judiciary Committee, and certainly Steve Chabot of
the Judiciary Committee.
This bill we bring forward today is a negotiated product, one where
we have worked hard with not only members of the administration, but we
have taken, as Members of Congress, trips to see our borders wherever
they might be, the northern border or the southern border. We have our
appropriators, who have taken time to understand the intricate details
and the needs of this great Nation. We have engaged with the Department
of Defense to talk about those things that will be necessary to protect
our men and women on the battlefield. We have taken time to make sure
that we have talked to our CIA, Central Intelligence Agency, about the
way that they need to do business and those attributes about who they
engage across the world and how we can treat fairly, yes, but treat
properly those who would engage in killing Americans and bringing down
reigning terror in our cities.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this underlying legislation is very
important to America's learning lessons from the prior years and
bringing those lessons to bear to protect this great Nation. We will
speak from a position of strength, not fear. We will not worry about
the things that we cannot get done but the things that we can get done.
We will learn from our mistakes, and we will learn that, as terrorism
in the 21st century evolves, we will, too. That is what these bills are
all about.
I am proud of our country, and I say God bless America. Mr. Speaker,
I ask for all the Members to support this bill.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 1054--Rule on Conference Report for H.R.
5441 Department of Homeland Security FY07 Appropriations
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
``That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill
(H.R. 5441) making appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2007, and for other purposes. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The conference report shall be considered as read.
Sec. 2. (a) A concurrent resolution specified in subsection
(b) is hereby adopted.
(b) The concurrent resolution referred to in subsection (a)
is a concurrent resolution
(1) which has no preamble;
(2) the title of which is as follows: ``Providing for
Corrections to the Enrollment of the Conference Report on the
bill H.R. 5441''; and
(3) the text of which is as follows:
(1) In subsection (a), strike: ``Provided further, That the
Secretary may not disapprove a site security plan submitted
under this section based on the presence or absence of a
particular security measure, but the Secretary may disapprove
a site security plan if the plan fails to satisfy the risk-
based performance standards established by this section:
Provided further, That the Secretary may approve alternative
security programs established by private section entities,
Federal, State, or local authorities, or other applicable
laws if the Secretary determines that the requirements of
such programs meet the requirements of this section and the
interim regulations:''
(2) In subsection (c), strike: ``: Provided further, That
in any proceeding to enforce this section, vulnerability
assessments, site security plans, and other information
submitted to or obtained by the Secretary under this section,
and related vulnerability or security information, shall be
treated as if the information were classified material''
(3) In subsection (d), strike: ``: Provided, That nothing
in this section confers upon any person except the Secretary
a right of action against an owner or operator of a chemical
facility to enforce any provision of this section''
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule * * * When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 186, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 504]
YEAS--221
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
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
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
[[Page H7915]]
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
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
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
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
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Young (FL)
NAYS--186
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
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Chandler
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
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
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
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--25
Brown (OH)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Case
Castle
Clay
Cubin
Evans
Fattah
Hoyer
Lewis (GA)
Maloney
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Ney
Paul
Strickland
Thompson (MS)
Udall (CO)
Wamp
Waters
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
{time} 1050
Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania and Mr. RANGEL changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
September 29, 2006--On Page H7915 the following appeared:
1050 So the previous question was ordered. The result of the
vote was announced as above recorded. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
Terry). The question is on the resolution. The question was taken;
and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to
have it. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.
The online version should be corrected to read: Insert
1050 Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania and Mr. RANGEL changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' So the previous question was
ordered. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the
resolution. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore
announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr.
Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays
were ordered.
========================= END NOTE =========================
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 188, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 505]
YEAS--218
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
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
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
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
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)
Salazar
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
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Young (FL)
NAYS--188
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
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Chandler
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
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
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)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
[[Page H7916]]
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--26
Brown (OH)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Case
Castle
Clay
Cubin
Doyle
Ehlers
Evans
Fattah
Hoyer
Lewis (GA)
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Ney
Paul
Strickland
Thompson (MS)
Udall (CO)
Wamp
Waters
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that
there are 2 minutes remaining in the vote.
{time} 1100
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.
Stated for:
=========================== NOTE ===========================
September 29, 2006--On Page H7916 the following appeared: The
SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that
there are 2 minutes remaining in the vote.
1100 Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania and Mr. RANGEL changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' 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.
The online version should be corrected to read: Delete above
Text The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in the vote.
1100 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.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 505 I could not vote because
the First Lady, Mrs. Laura Bush, and I were dedicating the new National
Garden at the Botanic Gardens, and I was not able to return to the
House Chamber in time to register my vote. Had I been present, I would
voted ``yea.''
____________________