[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H8021-H8024]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4954, SAFE
PORT ACT
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
at any time for the chairman of the Committee on Rules or his designee,
without intervention of any point of order, to call up House Resolution
1064; that the resolution be considered as read; and that the
resolution be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and an opponent.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the
House and as the designee of the chairman of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1064 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1064
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 4954) to improve maritime and cargo security
through enhanced layered defenses, 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this consent
agreement providing for the consideration of a conference report for
the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act. This port security
bill, which has been agreed to now by the conference committee, came as
a result of House action that was made on May 4 that passed this House
421-2.
Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that there are four major provisions
within this SAFE Act: number one, enhancing security at U.S. ports;
number two, preventing threats from reaching the United States of
America; number three, tracking and protecting containers en route to
the United States; and, number four, establishing the Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office.
Mr. Speaker, we have spent a lot of time in this House of
Representatives speaking about and working with our counterparts in the
United States Senate as well as the administration on better ways that
we can enhance port security. This conference report which we bring
tonight, the last night before we go to recess, is an important victory
for the American people. It stands to continue the safeguard position
that this great Nation expects not only of its government but expects
from the House of Representatives. I am proud that we are able to bring
this bill forward tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, as has already been pointed out, today, at least
tonight, we consider the conference report for the major security
legislation for this year. I voted for this bill in May, and I likely
will vote for this conference report.
I point out, however, that this bill could have and should have been
much better. If the majority really cared about safety and security and
if they cared more than they do about naked partisanship and political
advantage, this would be a bill that we could all be proud to pass.
For example, Mr. Speaker, when the bill was considered this spring
and again now, we were prohibited from considering a Democratic
amendment offered by Representatives Nadler, Oberstar, Markey, and
others which requires that every shipping container be scanned and
sealed before being loaded onto a ship destined for the United States.
The scary fact remains that less than 5 percent of all containers
coming into the United States through our ports are scanned.
Mr. Speaker, as someone who represents a district which depends
greatly upon three major international ports for economic activity, I
took considerable umbrage with the majority's not allowing this
amendment to be considered. I take issue with your conscious decision
to block the House from considering proposals which would have, without
a doubt, made my constituents and the American people safer.
Moreover, the rule this past spring prohibited the ranking Democratic
member of the Homeland Security Committee, an expert in this field,
Bennie Thompson, from making constructive changes to the bill. Ranking
Member Thompson's changes address the fact that we cannot continue
asking Customs officials to do more with less. His amendment authorized
funding for U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to hire 1,600 more officers
at seaports.
Mr. Speaker, as I previously mentioned, I am proud to represent a
region in our country which is home to some of our largest
international seaports. Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale, Port of
Palm Beach in Riviera Beach, and the Port of Miami, each within or just
minutes from the district I am privileged to represent, have led the
way in security improvements in America. The three, Port Everglades in
particular, have all enjoyed national and international best practices
recognition.
So when I come to the floor today and consider the underlying
legislation, I have to ask does this legislation get our ports to where
they need to be regarding security. The answer is it gets us closer,
but we can and must do better.
Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity in May to do something about a
real problem which we all know exists at America's seaports. We will
accomplish some with the passage of this bill, but we must return to
this topic when the new Congress convenes next January after a new
direction. We can do better and we will do better for the American
people. When we come next year, Democrats will give our Customs and
Border Patrol officers the necessary tools and directives to do
everything that they can possibly do to stop attacks from happening
here in the United States. Until this time we have this bill, which is
a first step, and that is all it is, a first step.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Florida has pointed up
not only the hard work that we have been doing on this bill, bipartisan
work for a number of years, but also really about the effort or the
direction, the direction that we are aiming at. And, in fact, under
this SAFE Port Act of 2006, we are setting a timeline by which 100
percent of all containers will be scanned for radiation, by requiring
the Department of Homeland Security to set the timeline for deploying
these radiation detectors.
Mr. Speaker, we are also making sure that we are adding the number of
people to the Customs and Border Patrol who will conduct these
validations. We are going to make sure that we continue to add, as
necessary, the numbers of people pointed at the right direction.
The gentleman from Florida is correct: we are not exactly where we
want to be. But for us to think that 100 percent of everything can just
be done overnight is not the reality of where the threat is at this
country. I believe this President, I believe this administration, I
believe this Congress have been aware of the frailties of our systems.
We are trying to match our dollars, the resolve of this great Nation,
with the ability on all of our borders to be able to make sure that we
are looking at the threats of the 21st century that come to us as a
result of terrorist organizations. We want to make sure that by doing
this bill tonight that we allow and put into motion the opportunity for
the Department of Homeland Security to be better prepared to face those
threats that come against the United States.
This passed 421-2. It is an indication, it was in May, that we are
headed in the right direction. I am confident tonight that the final
answer that comes from the negotiation with the Senate can be on the
President's desk as early as tomorrow, ready and waiting to protect
this country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I heard that the conference was a farce. My
colleague from Texas said we are headed in a new direction.
People don't need no new direction. What people need is an absolute
destination. And the fact of the matter is
[[Page H8022]]
there were people who could have made this bill better and we are shut
out of the process the same as we have been all the way down the line.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my very good
friend, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my very dear friend, the
outstanding congressman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me
this time.
On Wednesday morning I came to the floor of the House to protest the
fact that the Republican leadership was holding up the Department of
Defense bill because they wanted to attach a ban on Internet gaming. It
was more important to the Republican leadership to keep people from
playing poker on their computers in their homes than passing a defense
bill that would help protect our troops serving this Nation in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and the rest of the world. So the last bill that we pass
before we adjourn on the vital and important issue of port security
contains the ban on Internet gaming.
What does a ban on Internet gaming have to do with port security?
Absolutely nothing.
This section was added to the bill in an attempt to fire up the far-
right anti-gaming element of the Republican Party in time for this
year's election. They could not sneak it into the defense bill, so they
put it into the port security bill.
What does banning Internet gaming have to do with port security? I
cannot think of a single thing.
To ensure that this provision stayed in, they actually prevented the
conferees from meeting and offering amendments. That is taking
partisanship to a new low even in this Congress where partisanship is
the rule rather than the exception.
If we must resign ourselves to adding extraneous provisions to
conference reports, why don't we add something meaningful that could
actually help people? How about stopping the cut in Medicare
physicians' reimbursement so that the doctors can continue to treat
older Americans? How about something like that that can do millions of
Americans some good? But that wouldn't please the far-right
ultraconservative anti-gaming types in the Republican Party as much as
preventing individuals from wagering on the Internet in the comfort of
their own homes.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill because it addresses important
national security issues. But I hope that the American people, those
that are listening to us debate tonight, are aware of the partisan
games that are being played with this bill by the Republican leadership
in this Congress.
I support all of the strenuous objections you have, Mr. Hastings, to
this piece of legislation that is important, could have been good,
should have been better, and isn't.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I came down to speak about the bill, the
SAFE Port Act of 2006, and to move this bill forward.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
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 that instructs the enrolling Clerk to modify the conference report
and add important provisions from the Senate version of this bill.
These provisions are virtually identical to those in the motion to
instruct that the House overwhelmingly adopted just 24 hours ago by a
vote of 281-140.
{time} 2145
Any Member who supported that motion last night should support my
amendment today.
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
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, when the House passed this bill
in May, it passed by a wide bipartisan margin and focused exclusively
on port security issues. When the Senate took up this bill, however, it
broadened the scope of this legislation to address the gaping security
holes in our country's rail, subway, bus and trucking system.
Secretary Chertoff and the House Republicans called these new
sections ``goulash.'' I think they are good policy, and I think they
should be part of the bill we send to the President today. If we can
stick unrelated gambling legislation into this conference report, Mr.
Speaker, why cannot we include legislation that will improve our mass
transit and rail security?
Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission noted in its final report that our
surface transportation systems such as railroads and mass transit
remain hard to protect because they are so accessible and extensive. We
all know that Congress has not done enough to address this problem. So
let's take this final opportunity to make some progress by including
the Senate language.
Mr. Speaker, I want to stress that a ``no'' vote on the previous
question will not stop consideration of the port security conference
report, but a ``no'' vote will allow the House to include in the
conference report the critical Senate provisions that were contained in
yesterday's motion to instruct that passed this House by a bipartisan
and overwhelming vote.
Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Florida, my friend, who has engaged this entire year in attempting to
work with us the best as possible, despite some objections, on getting
these bills to the floor.
The Rules Committee does have a job to do. That is our job tonight.
Our job is to make sure that this rule is brought forward. I am asking
all Members to vote ``aye'' on the previous question, to vote ``aye''
and then to get this bill on the floor with an overwhelming bipartisan
vote, 421-2 the last time we voted on this bill.
It is the right thing. It makes sure that we provide the tools that
are necessary to the President of the United States effective
immediately. I think we are going to get it done, Mr. Speaker. I am
very proud of the work that is happening in the U.S. House of
Representatives.
I am proud to know that tonight we will be through, we will be home,
we will be with our families, but we should not leave until we get our
work done, and that we are doing.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
rule on H.R. 4954, the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act
of 2006.
This rule is furtherance of a process that can be summed up in two
words--a joke.
After weeks of negotiations, Republicans refused to share the final
conference report on legislation that was supposed to be bipartisan.
Indeed, this is legislation that builds on what my colleague Loretta
Sanchez did last Congress and that Jane Harman took up this Congress.
Last night at 7:30, a conference report meeting was called and it was
missing the key ingredient--a conference report.
After opening statements, Chairman Peter King closed the meeting,
telling us it was his intention ``that amendments would be offered.''
And, at 11:30 last night, we finally received the report with a very
clear P.S. from Mr. King--there would be no amendments offered.
His actions contradicted the will of this House, which voted
yesterday 281-140 to instruct conferees to consider specific issues
that the amendments to be offered would have covered.
Now, the Committee on Homeland Security has been a bipartisan
committee to date. These questionable processes undermine our homeland
security efforts--all in the name of politics.
I know the elections are important to my colleagues across the aisle
but they should not take precedent over America's homeland security
efforts.
Adding even more insult to the process, the Republicans have attached
internet gambling to the port security bill.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask someone to explain to me how prohibiting
internet gambling is more important to our homeland security than
making our trains, subways, and buses safe?
You will hear excuses about why we can't do mass transit and rail
security and that we will ``take it up soon.''
When?
Madrid happened in 2004. London happened in 2005. Mumbai happened
only a few months ago.
[[Page H8023]]
Are we waiting for New York City's Long Island Railroad to be
attacked to pass sensible security for trains?
If so, at least we'll have comfort in knowing that Americans can't
bet on the Superbowl online.
Now, I have signed on to the conference report because there are good
things, but they aren't enough.
Frankly, this body can and should do better. We need to put America's
security first and foremost before politics.
I urge all Members to oppose the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
Previous Question for Rule on Conference Report for H.R. 4954--``SAFE''
Port Act
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. 4954) To improve maritime and cargo security through
enhanced layered defenses, 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. 4954''; and
(3) the text of which is as follows:
``That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 4954 entitled''
An Act to improve maritime and cargo security through
enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes', the Clerk
of the House of Representatives is hereby authorized and
directed to make the following corrections:
``(1) Insert title V of the Senate amendment to the bill
(relating to the Rail Security Act of 2006).
``(2) Insert title VII of the Senate amendment to the bill
(relating to mass transit security).
``(3) Insert title IX of the Senate amendment to the bill
(relating to improved motor carrier, bus, and hazardous
material security).
``(4) Insert the following sections of title XI of the
Senate amendment to the bill:
``(A) Section 1101 (relating to certain TSA personnel
limitations not to apply).
``(B) Section 1102 (relating to the Rural Policing
Institute).
``(C) Section 1103 (relating to evacuation in emergencies).
____
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.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1064 will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 1064, if
ordered; and suspending the rules and passing S. 3661.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 189, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 512]
YEAS--220
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
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
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
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
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
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
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--189
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
[[Page H8024]]
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
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
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
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)
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
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--23
Case
Castle
Dicks
Evans
Foley
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gutierrez
Hyde
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Lewis (GA)
Marshall
Meehan
Moran (VA)
Ney
Nussle
Sabo
Stark
Strickland
Tancredo
Waxman
Wilson (SC)
{time} 2219
Mr. SPRATT changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. WALSH and Mr. BOOZMAN changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on September 29, 2006, I was
away from my official duties due to a family matter, and subsequently
missed a recorded vote on rollcall No. 512, on ordering the Previous
Question on H. Res. 1064, waiving points of order against the
conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4954) to improve maritime
and cargo security through enhanced layered defenses, and for other
purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________