[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.
____________________