[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 76 (Wednesday, May 9, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H4646-H4655]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1684, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
            SECURITY AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 382 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows

                              H. Res. 382

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for

[[Page H4647]]

     consideration of the bill (H.R. 1684) to authorize 
     appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for 
     fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived except those 
     arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Homeland Security now printed 
     in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
     XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to 
     the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
     be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 
     At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment 
     the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
     with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 1684 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule 
is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 382 provides for consideration of H.R. 
1684, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2008, under a structured rule.
  The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Homeland Security.
  The rule waives all points of order against the bill's consideration, 
except those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes 
in order and provides appropriate waivers for 21 amendments.
  I am pleased to stand before you today with a rule to permit the 
Homeland Security authorization bill to come to the House floor.
  First and foremost, I want to thank Chairman Thompson for his 
continued leadership on an issue of utmost importance for the safety 
and prosperity of this country and for working so closely with Ranking 
Member King on this bill.
  This bipartisan bill authorizes $39.8 billion to the Homeland 
Security to carry out its many functions, from securing our borders to 
providing our local law enforcement with resources to prepare for and 
prevent terrorist attacks.
  The Department of Homeland Security has a wide range of 
responsibilities. In recognition of this critical mission, I am pleased 
that the Homeland Security Committee has authorized $2.1 billion more 
than the President requested in his budget. This authorization bill 
does far more than simply authorize appropriations for the Department 
of Homeland Security.

                              {time}  1145

  This bill gets at the heart of the management problems within the 
Department. As we all know, the Department was created by combining the 
work of 22 separate agencies. This process of integration has had many, 
many challenges, poor communication between agencies, a lack of 
qualified management, unusually high turnover of senior personnel.
  Congress has not made these challenges any easier, however. We could 
have addressed some of these problems through the legislative process 
by passing an authorization bill last year, but the prior majority 
failed to do so, and so the Department's management problems went 
uncorrected.
  Without addressing the underlying management and operational issues, 
the Department cannot perform its important functions. In such an 
environment, how can the American people feel safe?
  Thankfully, H.R. 1684 addresses these challenges. It mandates a 
comprehensive review of the Department at the beginning of each new 
administration in order to ensure that DHS is structured to meet the 
security needs of the American people. It sets qualifications for 
senior managers, increases coordination between agencies, and boosts 
funds for the Inspector General. And, agency by agency, it puts in 
place thoughtful personnel policies to attract, train and keep only the 
most qualified personnel.
  These reforms are important, and I'm glad that the committee and the 
Democratic leadership have moved forward with a well-focused bill to 
improve the Department's management.
  This bill continues the majority's strong record on homeland 
security. In a few short months, this Congress has passed bills to 
implement the 9/11 recommendations and to strengthen rail and public 
transportation security, each with strong bipartisan majorities. Each 
is a component of a comprehensive approach to protecting our 
constituents from potential threats.
  I applaud the committee and the leadership for their consistent focus 
on homeland security. I understand that some Members have concerns that 
this bill does not address every issue, but part of the legislative 
process is working through these issues through the committees of 
jurisdiction.
  It is important to keep in mind that Chairman Thompson and Ranking 
Member King put forth a bipartisan bill during markup, and Chairman 
Thompson continues to work with other committees of jurisdiction in 
order to make sure that every aspect of our Nation's security is 
supported by Congress.
  In particular, I applaud the chairman's record of shepherding 2 major 
homeland security bills through the House already. I think we should 
all agree that today's effort, the third homeland security bill in 4 
months, makes substantial improvements to long-standing management 
issues within DHS. The rule and underlying bill shows a commitment of 
this Congress to working for a safe and secure America.
  So I urge all Members to support both the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my 
good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), for the 
time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The security of the American people, Mr. Speaker, is the primary 
function of the government of the United States. Since September 11, 
2001, we have been working to rebuild our Nation, not only our 
buildings but also our sense of security. The creation of the 
Department of Homeland Security to coordinate all domestic security 
activities on behalf of the American people was an important first step 
and has served as the foundation of our continuing efforts to protect 
our citizens.
  Today, we consider the third authorization for the Department of 
Homeland Security. During consideration of this underlying legislation, 
Members from both sides of the aisle worked together to craft a 
bipartisan bill. The

[[Page H4648]]

bill sought to build a core capacity at the Department and bring about 
targeted personnel, contracting and policy changes. That bill passed 
the Homeland Security Committee unanimously.
  But even though the bill passed out of the committee with unanimous 
support, the majority party is attempting to undo the bipartisan bill 
by coming forth with a manager's amendment that significantly alters 
the makeup of that bill. The manager's amendment strikes key provisions 
which address high-priority homeland security issues. Out of a total of 
86 substantive bill provisions, 26, or almost a third, are amended by 
the manager's amendment and 16, 20 percent almost, are entirely struck.
  Most of the provisions stricken by the manager's amendment had become 
part of the bill through Republican amendments in the committee 
process. For example, the manager's amendment strikes provisions on the 
Student and Exchange Visitor Program and eligible uses of 
interoperability grants, among others.
  There are two provisions that the manager's amendment deletes that I 
think should be highlighted, Mr. Speaker. The first would strike post-
employment lobbying restrictions. This provision being eliminated from 
the bill by the manager's amendment would codify the existing ban on 
senior Department of Homeland Security employees from one part of the 
Department lobbying other parts of the Department within 1 year of 
leaving the Department. That reform is stricken from the bill by the 
manager's amendment.
  The second part of the bill being stricken is a sense of the Congress 
calling for implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendation to 
establish a single point of oversight of homeland security in the House 
of Representatives and in the Senate.
  Now, that is one of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, 
and precisely it is one that our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle ran on in the elections, the promise to enact the 9/11 Commission 
recommendations.
  Yet here they have an opportunity to follow through on their campaign 
promise, but, instead, they strike the provision from the bill through 
the manager's amendment. And they don't even allow for the provision to 
be debated in the form of an amendment on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I was pleased that the Castor amendment, which helps 
address concerns with the dual implementation of the Florida Uniform 
Port Access Credential and the Transportation Workers Identification 
Card, was made in order. But there was another glaring missed 
opportunity here by the majority on the Rules Committee.
  The Rules Committee had the opportunity to allow an open rule on this 
bill, but the suggestion that we do so, that we come forth with an open 
rule, was voted down by the majority on the Rules Committee. Instead, 
they decided to report out a restrictive rule, thereby shutting out 
Members who had worked diligently to prepare their amendments. They 
also blocked out any Member who may be watching the debate now or in 
the process of the developing, unfolding debate and has an idea to 
improve the bill. No, no, they're blocked out as well. They're shut 
out.
  It's unfortunate that the Rules Committee missed another opportunity 
to open the debate on this important legislation, as they promised 
during the campaign that they would; and because of that and the 
reasons that I have brought out, Mr. Speaker, this rule should be 
defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Mississippi, chairman of the Committee on Homeland 
Security, Mr. Thompson.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for 
her gracious 5 minutes to talk on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. The Committee on 
Homeland Security is the only committee explicitly charged with 
overseeing the Department's organization and administration.
  We don't take this responsibility lightly. This Congress, we have 
held dozens of oversight hearings. The topics of each hearing may have 
been different, but the basic message from the Department was pretty 
much the same:
  Don't blame us for not having our House in order. We have high 
turnover. We don't have a headquarters. We don't have the authorities 
we need to be a leader on issues such as bio-preparedness and 
cybersecurity. We don't have the authorities we need to integrate 22 
agencies into one competent unit.
  H.R. 1684 takes away all the excuses. Under this bill, the Department 
is provided the resources, accountability and authority needed to 
finally become the Federal agency that Congress envisioned and the 
American people deserve.
  Every day, we get another reminder of the urgent nature of the 
homeland security mission. Just yesterday, we learned that six 
individuals are in custody on charges of plotting to attack the U.S. 
Army base at Fort Dix. We don't need to have the luxury of giving DHS 
time to step up to the challenges of becoming a functional 
organization.
  I introduced, Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan bill with Ranking Member 
King. The full committee, by recorded vote of 26-0, voted to order it 
favorably to the House.
  I am pleased that the Rules Committee is allowing so many amendments 
to be considered today. I look forward to an active debate and the 
opportunity to present my manager's amendment. The manager's amendment 
is a product of discussion with other Members of the House and other 
House committees who have jurisdictional interest in aspects of this 
legislation.
  I'm very pleased to bring this bill to the floor for consideration by 
the full House. Today, Members of the House of Representatives will 
have an opportunity to do something they have not been able to do in 2 
years. They will get to cast a vote in favor of authorizing the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  What's more, Mr. Speaker, they will get to vote to restore funding to 
critical first-responder programs that the President's budget would 
eliminate or severely cut.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I 
yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on 
Homeland Security, Mr. King.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) for yielding. I thank the gentlelady from 
California (Ms. Matsui) for her kind remarks. And particularly I want 
to thank Ranking Member Thompson, excuse me, former Ranking Member, 
current Chairman Thompson for the outstanding job I believe he is doing 
as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and certainly for the 
level of bipartisanship which he has demonstrated.
  Having said that, I have to reluctantly but strongly urge defeat of 
the rule today. The reason I say that, Mr. Speaker, is that the bill 
which did pass through the Homeland Security Committee under Chairman 
Thompson's leadership, passed by a vote of 26-0, was a truly bipartisan 
effort. There was cooperation from all sides, and we came together to 
fashion what I believe was a very constructive and significant piece of 
legislation in an area which obviously is of vital importance to our 
Nation.
  The Department of Homeland Security has been in existence now only 
several years. It is in its fourth year. We are talking about 22 
different Departments and agencies, 180,000 employees. And it is making 
progress, but much more has to be done. And to address it, we have to 
do it in a bipartisan way.
  Unfortunately, the bill that comes to the floor today has been either 
stripped or dramatically modified up to 50 percent of the original 
provisions. And some of these are very significant provisions, probably 
none more significant than just the sense of Congress, which was so 
strongly recommended by the 
9/11 Commission, saying that the Committee on Homeland Security should 
be the focal point of legislative activity regarding the Department of 
Homeland Security, rather than having offices and officials of the 
Department having to testify before 84 or 86 or 88 various committees 
and subcommittees of the House.

[[Page H4649]]

  Also, a number of significant provisions in addition to that that 
were taken out, for instance, an increase in funding for the Secret 
Service; prohibiting grants to universities that bar Coast Guard 
recruiters; and, as Mr. Diaz-Balart pointed out, a very significant 
legislation which, by the way, came from Congressman DeFazio, which 
would codify the existing lobbying ban on Department of Homeland 
Security officials to ensure accountability. And we can go down the 
list of so many, I believe, significant provisions that were taken out.
  Now, the reason for this, I understand where Chairman Thompson is 
coming from. There was resistance from other committees. But I believe 
we should have withstood that resistance.
  For instance, in the prior Congress when we did pass port security 
legislation, when we did pass legislation restructuring FEMA, when we 
did pass legislation involving chemical plant security, we met that 
same resistance from other committees.

                              {time}  1200

  But we stood up to it, and we were largely successful. And we did it 
by working through the leadership to not just back away from these 
confrontations, but I believe that when we do it so quickly and we do 
back away, we really weaken the status of the committee. Not that we 
are looking to build turf, not that it is a power grab, but, again, 
following the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, if there is one 
committee which should have primary jurisdiction on homeland security 
matters, it is the Committee on Homeland Security.
  Also, there were amendments proposed that were rejected by the Rules 
Committee: Congressman Dent's amendment on the Automated Targeting 
System, which was strongly supported by the 9/11 Commission; 
Congressman Shays' proposed amendment involving cooperation with 
Interpol, very important, that was also disallowed; Congressman Dave 
Davis, his amendment to expand the 287(g) program, which would provide 
funding for local law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws; and 
Congressman Poe's amendment regarding appropriate procedures for 
Customs and Border Protection agents.
  So these are a number of very solid amendments that were disallowed. 
We come here today with a bill which is really barely half of what it 
was when it left the committee. So I am strongly urging a ``no'' vote 
on the rule.
  In no way is this a reflection on my good friend Chairman Thompson. 
And after we go through today and maybe even tomorrow, I pledge to him 
we will continue to work in a bipartisan way. But I really hope that 
the leadership of the other side would realize the significance of the 
Committee on Homeland Security and not just give in to various barons 
throughout the House who are trying to just hold on to their own turf 
and their own power.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the committee. I commend this 
committee for the hard work in crafting bipartisan legislation because 
as we continue to face the challenge of identifying new threats and 
providing new strategies for securing our Nation, it is absolutely 
essential that the Homeland Security Department operate to its full 
potential.
  The Homeland Security authorization will ensure that taxpayers' 
dollars are not wasted by mismanagement and will encourage the best and 
the brightest minds of our time to contribute to our national homeland 
security strategy.
  Harnessing these resources is absolutely key to protecting our 
Nation's vital infrastructure, infrastructure like the Golden Gate 
Bridge in my district. And it is vital to quickly respond in providing 
aid and support in the event of a disaster, unlike the way in which the 
Department responded to Hurricane Katrina. These new authorizations 
will make a huge difference. These reforms must be made to keep the 
people safe. So by restoring accountability to the Department and 
strengthening the protections for its employees, we can and we will 
improve our ability to effectively safeguard our Nation.
  I encourage all Members to vote for the Homeland Security 
authorization.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is 
my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
rule for H.R. 1684. This bill in its current form would eliminate the 
critical Federal 287(g) program, which serves as a force multiplier for 
immigration enforcement across our Nation.
  The 287(g) program is a highly effective, voluntary partnership that 
provides the legal authority and training for States and local 
enforcement to investigate, detain and arrest illegal aliens on civil 
and criminal charges and grounds in the course of their regular duties.
  Unfortunately, an amendment offered in the Rules Committee to 
reauthorize this important program was not made in order, jeopardizing 
the future of this popular program with local and State law enforcement 
agencies across our Nation and in my district.
  Illegal immigration is a serious problem in eastern Oklahoma, and 
securing a 287(g) designation is a top priority of mine. I am working 
diligently to see that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
Officials and the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office partner in this 
program; 287(g) would provide them with the resources they need to deal 
with the ever-growing criminal alien population in Tulsa. I am pleased 
with the progress we have made and recently learned from ICE officials 
that we are in the final stages of making 287(g) a reality in 
northeastern Oklahoma.
  The 287(g) program is working to stop the catch-and-release practice 
that allows dangerous criminal illegal aliens to remain free in 
communities across our Nation. It would be foolish for the House not to 
reauthorize this critical program.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-considered rule.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me emphasize to all Members that this bill is working its way 
through the legislative process. It is true that as a fair and 
responsible chairman, Mr. Thompson worked with several other committees 
of jurisdiction on this measure. As the manager's amendment clarifies, 
in some cases, the Homeland Security Committee proceeded with its 
language, and in others, it permitted other committees to lend their 
expertise to the issue in the coming months. This is the process of 
governing.
  It is also true that the prior majority chose not to engage in this 
most basic of functions last year. They didn't bring an authorization 
bill to the floor, and by not engaging in this hard work, the prior 
majority let known problems go unresolved.
  This bill brings overdue reform and accountability to the Department 
in its earliest Homeland Security authorization bill ever. That is 
responsible. That is governing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished leader from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule.
  In the manager's amendment adopted by the rule, the majority stripped 
out a number of commonsense amendments, mostly offered by Republicans, 
which would enhance homeland security. I think it is a regrettable turn 
of events which could cost the majority the support of many minority 
Members.
  I guess the good news here is that we know this bill may pass the 
House, but it is not going anywhere in the Senate, and in this form, it 
is unsignable by the President.
  But the rule also disallowed a critical amendment to help ensure that 
the Washington area would receive the necessary senior-level attention 
from the Department of Homeland Security so that Federal, State, and 
local governments are properly coordinating their homeland security 
activities.
  In 2002, when we established the Department of Homeland Security in a 
bipartisan manner, it created an Office of National Capital Region 
Coordination. To demonstrate the importance of this, we put it in the 
Office of the Secretary.

[[Page H4650]]

Unfortunately, the administration decided in their reorganization to 
put this deep inside of FEMA. My amendment, which was not allowed, was 
pretty straightforward. It was to restore the office to its original 
and rightful place in the Office of the Secretary. This amendment would 
have passed with a large bipartisan majority, but it was not allowed by 
the other side.
  Now, why is this important? The events of 9/11 made it all too 
important that better coordination of first responders is needed in the 
D.C. region, with two States and the District of Columbia, 12 local 
jurisdictions, three branches of the Federal Government, 2,100 
nonprofit organizations, thousands of businesses and nonprofit 
organizations, 4 million Americans. They want to put that 
responsibility into FEMA. It belongs in the Office of the Secretary. We 
have been through ``tractor man.'' We have been through disruptions at 
the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. We have been through the snipers. This needs 
the highest Federal attention for coordination among all these 
different organizations in the region. And they wouldn't allow this 
amendment.
  We are going to introduce this as a commonsense stand-alone bill. I 
hope it will receive the attention of this House. But in disallowing 
this amendment, now the other side takes ownership of this provision by 
putting their confidence in FEMA instead of the Office of the 
Secretary.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 
3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. 
Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I come to this 
floor reluctantly to oppose this rule. Why? Because it does everything 
that we ought not to do with respect to the committee process here.
  Now, if some people outside this Chamber wonder why the committee 
process is important or if it is important at all, well, if you look at 
the 9/11 Commission recommendations, one of the important 
recommendations they made was to have a single point of responsibility, 
a single point of oversight in this House for the Homeland Security 
Department. The very reason we created the Homeland Security Department 
from about 22 other agencies and Departments was for the purpose of 
consolidating and giving direction to our response to a new threat to 
this country. In like manner, here in the House of Representatives, the 
recommendation by the 9/11 Commission was that we have a primary 
committee to do that. And that is the Committee on Homeland Security.
  We have endeavored to work on a bipartisan basis. When we were in 
control 2 years ago, we did that. And now when the Democrats are in 
control, they are doing that. We had vigorous and open debate. We had a 
number of amendments adopted on the Republican side so that we pass 
this bill out of committee unanimously, not a dissenting vote. And we 
recognized that we were putting aside partisan differences to work for 
the best interest of this country.
  So now we come to the floor, and 50 percent of that bill has been 
ripped out by the manager's amendment. It just happens to be that 50 
percent is virtually all the product of Republican amendments that were 
adopted in committee on a bipartisan basis. And then they make in order 
about 22 amendments but not amendments that go to putting back into the 
bill what we put in there on a bipartisan basis. And virtually, not 
all, but most of the amendments in order are from Members who are not 
members of this committee.
  So you say, why is this being done? And we understand we are 
genuflecting to the jurisdictional disputes argued by already existing 
committees. So what we have done is, rather than following what the 9/
11 Commission has said, we have made a worse situation. We not only 
have the already existing committees that the Homeland Security 
Department has to report to. They now report to us as well.
  Now, is this the efficient way? Is this the way you act when you are 
dealing with a serious problem? This ought to rise above all 
partisanship and all kinds of nonsense about jurisdiction of 
committees. I don't know how we can go home to our constituents and 
say, oh, yes, we got rid of that stuff that was really good that gave 
us an advantage in this war on terror because we were concerned about 
another committee that used to have jurisdiction.
  Last year one of the things we heard was just do the right thing and 
adopt all the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Adopting this rule flies 
in the face of that. We ought to understand that.
  We ought to vote down this rule, bring back the bill as it came out 
of the committee on a bipartisan basis, and then go forward on a 
bipartisan basis for the best for the American people.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I that consume.
  Let me emphasize to Members the history on this issue. Unlike the 
prior majority, this majority is committed to passing a Homeland 
Security authorization into law.
  In 2005, 2 years ago, the House passed an authorization after the 
appropriations bill passed. Last year, 2006, the House did not bother 
to bring a bill to the floor. That is irresponsible in light of the 
Department's many problems.
  Democrats are committed to governing responsibly, and this is one 
step along that path.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
rule and the manager's amendment that was made in order under this 
rule. This manager's amendment will significantly weaken legislation 
that gained bipartisan support in Committee on Homeland Security and 
passed 26-0.
  As the chairman of the Emergency Preparedness Subcommittee last 
Congress, we were able to pass into law comprehensive interoperability 
legislation. This legislation, titled the 21st Century Communications 
Act, created the Office of Cybersecurity and Communications and 
elevated the importance of emergency communications within the 
Department of Homeland Security. In addition, this legislation 
accelerated the development of national standards for emergency 
communication equipment.
  Unfortunately, the Rules Committee has approved an amendment that 
would remove many key provisions and severely weaken this legislation. 
This amendment removes language that allows interoperability funds to 
be used by State and local agencies to develop standard operating 
procedures, training, and exercises.

                              {time}  1215

  It is important for our first responders to have this equipment, but 
it is also equally important that they have the training to know how to 
use the equipment. Allowing this amendment on the floor that removes 
this provision will reduce the first responders' effectiveness due to a 
lack of training and planning.
  We saw what happened during Hurricane Katrina when there was a lack 
of training, a lack of planning and a lack of communication. It was 
disastrous. It cost lives.
  Next week is National Police Week. At a time when we are supposed to 
be honoring and supporting our first responders, and especially our law 
enforcement officers, across this Nation, we are limiting their 
abilities to protect themselves and to protect this Nation. I know this 
from firsthand experience. This is a problem that has been in existence 
for over 35 years, the lack of first responders to communicate. I 
responded to a call in 1974, not able to get on my radio, having to run 
across a yard and tackle a kid that had a rifle aimed at three other 
police officers, because I couldn't get through and talk to the 
communications center.
  Today, eliminating this provision will create that same situation 
across this Nation. It's unthinkable. It's unconscionable. It should 
not be happening. This should be a bipartisan bill. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify, this bill eliminates the cuts in 
vital first responders programs, like the 55 percent cuts that the 
administration asked for in firefighter assistance grants. It preserves 
the Local Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program that the 
administration wanted

[[Page H4651]]

to close. And on contracting oversight management and personnel 
policies, it brings overdue reform to a Department in need. This is a 
good bill, and all Members should support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I am proud to be part of the Homeland Security Committee. It has been 
a committee that under Chairman King has functioned in a nonpartisan 
way and I think under Chairman Thompson as well. And so I have deep 
regret that so many parts of this bill were taken out that were parts 
that were put in by Republicans. I understand jurisdictional issues, 
but it seems to me some of these could have been left in.
  I am particularly amazed to think that an amendment that I was 
offering, supported by Interpol, and I would like to submit this letter 
from Ron Noble, the Secretary General, addressed to me from Interpol. 
It is one page.
  In this letter, he says, ``Your initiative would allow DHS and 
Interpol to work together to identify and apprehend terrorists that use 
lost, stolen or fraudulent passports to travel internationally in all 
of Interpol's 186 countries.
  ``In addition, by facilitating the secondment of DHS officers to 
Interpol, you are enabling the United States to play a leadership role 
in shaping Interpol's current and future efforts to enhance travel 
document security and to deploy its connection technology that allows 
border officers to make instant passport searches against Interpol's 
Stolen and Lost Travel Documents database.''
  There was no reason not to allow this amendment to be offered except 
for partisan purposes. I happen to be a Republican, and I happen to be 
targeted by the Democrats, but, other than that, there was no reason 
not to allow this amendment.
  I am strongly against this rule. Unlike my colleagues, I didn't think 
long about it. I couldn't wait to get here to oppose what is now 
becoming a very partisan bill. I just can't express strongly enough we 
are going to endanger Americans by not allowing this debate. There are 
14 million documents Interpol has. The United States doesn't have 
access to hardly any of them because we are not participating. We need 
to participate.
  I would end by just pointing out that Ramzi Yousef had used a stolen 
passport to enter the U.S. He is a terrorist.


                                                     INTERPOL,

                                        Lyon, France, May 7, 2007.
     Congressman Christopher Shays,
     Longworth Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Shays: I would like to take this 
     opportunity to thank you for your strong support to Interpol 
     and our missions and goals. Your amendment to H.R. 1684, the 
     Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2008, shows both your commitment and profound 
     understanding of the international dimension of modern-day 
     policing.
       It is my sincere belief that this amendment, aimed at 
     fostering closer cooperation between Interpol and the 
     Department of Homeland Security (DHS), will significantly 
     contribute to international border security. The cooperative 
     agreement the amendment calls for clearly puts both the 
     Department of Homeland Security and Interpol in the best 
     possible position to further enhance their joint efforts 
     against global terrorism.
       Your initiative will allow DHS and Interpol to work 
     together to identify and apprehend terrorists that use lost, 
     stolen or fraudulent passports to travel internationally in 
     all of Interpol's 186 member countries.
       In addition, by facilitating the secondment of DHS officers 
     to Interpol, you are enabling the United States to play a 
     leadership role in shaping Interpol's current and future 
     efforts to enhance travel document security and to deploy its 
     connection technology that allows border officers to make 
     instant passport searches against Interpol's Stolen and Lost 
     Travel Documents database. Interpol is currently establishing 
     a new office of Border, Port and Maritime Security and, from 
     Interpol's point of view, benefiting from DHS' significant 
     border control and investigative expertise will be a critical 
     factor for its success. Rest assured that I will keep you 
     abreast of our work in this area.
       It would be a pleasure for me to receive you at Interpol's 
     General Secretariat in Lyon, France to provide you with an 
     opportunity to receive briefings from our experts and see our 
     operational police tools first hand.
           Yours sincerely,
                                                  Ronald K. Noble,
                                                Secretary General.

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is 
my pleasure to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished colleague from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. I thank my friend, Congressman Diaz-Balart, for yielding 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
  We've all heard the saying that actions speak louder than words; and, 
once again, the rhetoric from the other side has turned out to be just 
that, rhetoric. You've heard all the talk about wanting to do 
everything we can to protect American jobs and keeping our 
manufacturing base. The majority actually had a chance to put their 
money where their mouth is by strengthening our national security and 
our domestic textile manufacturing base.
  My amendment was not allowed to come to the floor for debate today. 
Yes, actions speak louder than words, and the actions from yesterday 
prove that their talk is cheap because it's not backed up by meaningful 
action.
  Current language in the Department of Homeland Security authorization 
bill regarding domestic production would require a new domestic 
requirement for uniforms, protective gear, badges and identification 
cards. While this provision is a good first step, this approach does 
not reflect a stronger proposal contained in the bill that I put 
together with the textile industry which is called the Berry Amendment 
Extension Act.
  The legislation we put together and the amendment I offered yesterday 
would ensure that the sensitive uniforms worn by our agents are made in 
America with American-made components rather than outsourcing to China 
or Mexico. The problem with the bill in front of us today: The vast 
majority of the content of these uniforms can be imported from any 
country in the world, China, Pakistan, Mexico, you name it.
  Mr. Speaker, that's not what the Members of this House want. On 
December 15, 2005, we overwhelmingly supported a measure stating that 
Border Patrol uniforms should be made in the United States. Has anyone 
changed their mind? I sure haven't.
  These provisions are an extension of the Berry Amendment, which is a 
well-established domestic Department of Defense purchasing requirement 
that has been in practice for 70 years. And the amendment would ensure 
that we are complying with WTO. Make no mistake about it, I don't put 
legislation together trying to appease the WTO, but if your legislation 
is blatantly not compliant, which the existing DH bill appears to be, 
the end result will be lawsuits and countervailing duties. Put that all 
together, nothing gets done; and American jobs are lost.
  You all know I've been a strong advocate for strengthening the Berry 
Amendment. The Berry Amendment seeks to guarantee the United States has 
a ready mobilization base of U.S. manufacturers, a critical national 
security requirement. While the Berry Amendment is 70 years old, 
Department of Homeland Security is only 5, and this new Department is 
now home to many functions that are critical to our national security.
  I am extremely disappointed that my Democrat counterparts failed and 
missed a great opportunity to expand the successful requirement to 
include the Department of Homeland Security. It not only protects 
American jobs but provides the assurance that Department of Homeland 
Security officials who work on the front lines of national security are 
the only people wearing these sensitive uniforms. It is outrageous to 
think that our Border Patrol or airport security uniforms can be made 
in factories in China or Mexico where any worker could use these 
uniforms to impersonate U.S. agents.
  Mr. Speaker, my amendment has strong support from the National 
Council of Textile Organizations, American Manufacturing Trade Action 
Coalition and the American Apparel and Footwear Association. Again, 
while the base bill has taken a step to add a new requirement for 
domestic production, I think we could have done and should have done 
much better.
  Let me briefly quote the American Apparel and Footwear Association: 
The

[[Page H4652]]

Hayes amendment ``would provide more complete coverage for domestic 
sources than what is currently intended by H.R. 1684. By requiring that 
both inputs and manufacture of uniforms originate in the U.S., the 
Berry Amendment works to support the U.S. supply chain that provides 
materials for the production of clothing and individual equipment to 
the military.''
  There are many Members, both Democrats and Republicans, who have been 
very supportive of the Berry Amendment in the past. In fact, I was 
particularly surprised when a member of the Rules Committee, who has 
been a co-sponsor of the bill, voted against allowing the amendment to 
come to the floor today.
  Folks, the U.S. textile and apparel industry is vital to the economic 
security and national security of our Nation. If the majority truly 
cared about preserving this crucial manufacturing sector, an industry 
that provides good-paying jobs to American citizens, then they would 
have supported this amendment in the Rules Committee and allowed it to 
come to the floor for a vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so 
we can allow this amendment to come to the floor for a vote. In my 
opinion, a vote for this rule as it stands is a vote against the U.S. 
textile industry, its workforce, and a vote against making our country 
more secure.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to 
the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  (Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This new majority has once again promised us an open and fair 
process, but again they have failed to live up to the promises now that 
they're out from under the spotlight of their election year. This is 
extremely disappointing considering the remarkable importance of the 
legislation before us today, the Homeland Security Authorization Act.
  Among some of the provisions that were stripped out of the bill 
completely, a pilot program for mobile biometric identification of 
illegal aliens apprehended at sea, denying alien smugglers use of 
maritime routes and enhanced penalties for alien smuggling, and 
requiring immigration checks for employees at high-risk critical 
infrastructures.
  What's so scary about those being in the bill, I would ask? What idea 
or what one amendment was so scary that inspired this restrictive rule? 
I urge my colleagues not to be scared, not to hide behind this rule. 
Vote ``no'' on this rule so that we can have a complete and fair 
debate. The American people deserve no less, and they're watching.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for 
a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that I can amend this 
restrictive rule to make in order the amendment offered by 
Representative Hayes of North Carolina which would strike section 407 
of the bill, the section requiring DHS to buy American textiles and 
apparel, protective gear, badges and ID cards. The amendment would 
instead require that DHS buy items specified in the amendment only when 
those items are connected to national security functions within the 
Department. This amendment also includes language to ensure that these 
provisions comply with the World Trade Organization rules.
  Mr. Speaker, this thoughtful amendment submitted by Mr. Hayes was 
unfortunately denied yesterday at the Rules Committee. If the previous 
question is defeated, the Hayes amendment would be made in order and 
the House would be able to have a full discussion on its merits.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and 
extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to once again thank Chairman Thompson for his 
leadership in drafting a well-focused Homeland Security authorization 
and for working so closely with Ranking Member King on this bill.
  I would note for all Members that Chairman Thompson worked with other 
chairmen and ranking members. The jurisdiction issues were raised by 
both sides, Republican and Democrat. I would also note that the 
manager's amendment which deals with these changes will receive 
separate debate and a vote. This is an open process.
  Unlike the prior majority, we work through these issues. Again, last 
year when these problems were raised, the prior majority chose not to 
act. In contrast, we are acting despite these difficulties. We are 
being responsible.
  H.R. 1684 will help improve the policy-making at the Department of 
Homeland Security, will promote long-term planning and will strengthen 
management. In particular, it sets qualifications for senior managers, 
increases coordination between agencies, and boosts funds for the 
Inspector General. These changes will ensure that the Department of 
Homeland Security can perform its important function of protecting the 
American people.
  I am pleased that the Democratic leadership has moved swiftly and 
brought a Homeland Security authorization bill to the floor. This is 
the first time in 2 years such a bill has come to the floor.
  It is also the earliest that a Department of Homeland Security 
authorization bill has come to the floor and the first time it has 
occurred before appropriators have marked up the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill. This is truly significant, and I thank the 
leadership for their commitment to protecting America.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed in 
today's rule that barred the House from considering a common-sense 
amendment that I brought to the committee.
  The text of my amendment was substantially from H.R. 1544, the Faster 
and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005, which passed the 
House by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority in the 109th Congress.
  One of the 9/11 Commission's primary recommendations was to ensure 
that all federal government grants for homeland security be allotted by 
risk and need. To this day, however, nearly 40 percent of all grants 
are handed out merely by virtue of their location. The House has time 
and time again passed legislation to streamline the grant process and 
reduce the mandatory minimum percentage given to each state.
  While the House did pass such language in H.R. 1, the Senate had yet 
to take up this legislation. Until the President signs into law 
legislation correcting this oversight, we should not pass up an 
opportunity to make our nation more secure. But that is what the 
Democrats are doing today. We must reiterate this critical policy 
change at each and every opportunity.
  The constituents of the fifth district of New Jersey know too well 
the repercussions of failing to provide for strong homeland security. 
Many of them lost loved ones on 9/11 and they expect our country to 
prepare for any such future disaster. As long as grants continue to go 
to low-priority wasteful projects, our most at-risk citizens will be 
vulnerable.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
rule for H.R. 1684. This bill, in its current form would prohibit state 
and local governments from receiving reimbursement for training 
expenses associated with participating in the 287(g) program. 287(g) 
serves as a force multiplier for immigration enforcement across our 
Nation.
  The 287(g) program is a highly effective, voluntary partnership that 
provides the legal authority and training for state and local law 
enforcement officers to investigate, detain, and arrest illegal aliens 
on civil and criminal grounds in the course of their regular duties.
  Unfortunately, an amendment offered in the Rules Committee to enhance 
this important program was not made in order, jeopardizing the ability 
of state and local law enforcement agencies to join the program.
  Illegal immigration is a serious problem in Eastern Oklahoma and 
securing a 287(g) designation is a top priority of mine. I am working 
diligently to see ICE officials and the Tulsa County Sherriff's office 
partnered in this program. 287(g) would provide them with the resources 
they need to deal with the ever growing criminal alien population in 
Tulsa. I am pleased with the progress we have made, and recently 
learned from ICE officials that we are in the final stages of making 
287(g) a reality for Eastern Oklahoma.
  The 287(g) program is working to stop the catch and release practice 
that allows dangerous criminal illegal aliens to remain free in

[[Page H4653]]

communities across our Nation. It would be foolish for the House not to 
allow for reimbursement of 287(g) training related expenses.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-considered rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 4 shall be in 
     order as though printed as the last amendment in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Hayes 
     of North Carolina or a designee. That amendment shall be 
     debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent.
       Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as 
     follows:

       Strike section 407 and insert the following:

     SEC. 407. BUY-AMERICAN REQUIREMENT IMPOSED ON DEPARTMENT OF 
                   HOMELAND SECURITY; EXCEPTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle D of title VIII of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 391 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 839. REQUIREMENT THAT CERTAIN ARTICLES PROCURED BY THE 
                   DEPARTMENT BE GROWN, REPROCESSED, REUSED OR 
                   PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES.

       ``(a) Requirement.--Except as provided in subsections (c) 
     and (e), funds appropriated or otherwise available to the 
     Department may not be used for the procurement of an article 
     described in subsection (b) if the item is not grown, 
     reprocessed, reused, produced or manufactured in the United 
     States.
       ``(b) Covered Articles.--An article referred to in 
     subsection (a) is any of the following, if the article is 
     directly related to the national security interests of the 
     United States:
       ``(1)(A) Clothing and the materials and components thereof, 
     other than sensors, electronics, or other items added to, and 
     not normally associated with, clothing (and the materials and 
     components thereof).
       ``(B) Tents, tarpaulins, or covers.
       ``(C) Cotton and other natural fiber products, woven silk 
     or woven silk blends, spun silk yarn for cartridge cloth, 
     synthetic fabric or coated synthetic fabric (including all 
     textile fibers and yarns that are for use in such fabrics), 
     canvas products, or wool (whether in the form of fiber or 
     yarn or contained in fabrics, materials, or manufactured 
     articles).
       ``(D) Any item of individual equipment manufactured from or 
     containing such fibers, yarns, fabrics, or materials..
       ``(2) Protective gear.
       ``(3) Badges or other insignia indicating the rank, office, 
     or position of personnel.
       ``(4) Identification cards.
       ``(c) Availability Exception.--Subsection (a) does not 
     apply to the extent that the Secretary determines that 
     satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity of any such 
     article or item described in subsection (b) grown, 
     reprocessed, reused, produced or manufactured in the United 
     States cannot be procured as and when needed at United States 
     market prices. If such a determination is made with respect 
     to an article, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) notify the Committee on Homeland Security of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate within 7 days 
     after making the determination; and
       ``(2) include in that notification a certification that 
     procuring and manufacturing the article outside the United 
     States does not pose a risk to the national security of the 
     United States, as well as a detailed explanation of the steps 
     any facility outside the United States that is manufacturing 
     the article will be required to take to ensure that the 
     materials, patterns, logos, designs, or any other element 
     used in or for the article are not misappropriated.
       ``(d) Exception for Certain Procurements Outside the United 
     States.--Subsection (a) does not apply to the following:
       ``(1) Procurements by vessels in foreign waters.
       ``(2) Emergency procurements.
       ``(e) Exception for Small Purchases.--Subsection (a) does 
     not apply to purchases for amounts not greater than the 
     simplified acquisition threshold referred to in section 
     2304(g) of title 10, United States Code.
       ``(f) Applicability to Contracts and Subcontracts for 
     Procurement of Commercial Items.--This section is applicable 
     to contracts and subcontracts for the procurement of 
     commercial items notwithstanding section 34 of the Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 430).
       ``(g) Geographic Coverage.--In this section, the term 
     `United States' includes the possessions of the United 
     States.
       ``(h) Notification Required Within 7 Days After Contract 
     Award if Certain Exceptions Applied.--In the case of any 
     contract for the procurement of an article described in 
     subsection (b), if the Secretary of Homeland Security applies 
     an exception set forth in subsection (c) with respect to that 
     contract, the Secretary shall, not later than 7 days after 
     the award of the contract, post a notification that the 
     exception has been applied on the Internet site maintained by 
     the General Services Administration know as FedBizOps.gov (or 
     any successor site).
       ``(i) Training During Fiscal Year 2008.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that each 
     member of the acquisition workforce in the Department who 
     participates personally and substantially in the acquisition 
     of textiles on a regular basis receives training during 
     fiscal year 2008 on the requirements of this section and the 
     regulations implementing this section.
       ``(2) Inclusion of information in new training programs.--
     The Secretary shall ensure that any training program for the 
     acquisition workforce developed or implemented after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act includes comprehensive 
     information on the requirements described in paragraph (1).
       ``(j) Consistency With International Agreements.--
       ``(1) In general.--No provision of this Act shall apply to 
     the extent the Secretary, in consultation with the United 
     States Trade Representative, determines that it is in 
     inconsistent with United States obligations under an 
     international agreement.
       ``(2) Report.--The Secretary shall submit a report each 
     year to Congress containing, with respect to the year covered 
     by the report--
       ``(A) a list of each provision of this section that did not 
     apply during that year pursuant to a determination by the 
     Secretary under paragraph (1); and
       ``(B) a list of each contract awarded by the Department 
     during that year without regard to a provision in this 
     section because that provision was made inapplicable pursuant 
     to such a determination.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 is amended by adding after the 
     item relating to section 838 the following new item:

``Sec. 839. Requirement that certain articles procured by the 
              Department be grown, reprocessed, reused or produced in 
              the United States.''.

       (c) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect 120 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act and apply to any contract entered into on or after that 
     date for the procurement of items to which such amendments 
     apply.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        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 Democratic 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 Democratic 
     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 definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       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 Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.


[[Page H4654]]


  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.

                              {time}  1230

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question on House 
Resolution 382 will be followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House 
Resolution 382, if ordered; on adopting House Resolution 383; and 
suspending the rules and passing H.R. 890.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 199, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 310]

                               YEAS--217

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyda (KS)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--199

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Engel
     Fattah
     Johnson, E. B.
     Larson (CT)
     Lowey
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Moran (KS)
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Smith (NE)
     Souder
     Tiahrt

                              {time}  1255

  Mr. HALL of Texas and Mr. CRAMER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 310 I was absent 
due to a meeting with constituents. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 197, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 311]

                               YEAS--222

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyda (KS)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney

[[Page H4655]]


     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--197

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Engel
     Fattah
     Johnson, E. B.
     Larson (CT)
     McMorris Rodgers
     Moran (KS)
     Rangel
     Souder
     Tiahrt
     Weller


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1304

  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.

                          ____________________