[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 12, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6260-H6267]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2638, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 473 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 473
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 consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2638) making appropriations for the Department
of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30,
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 Appropriations. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the
bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are
waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to
the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, 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 of H.R. 2638 in the House
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 New York (Ms.
Slaughter) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to
the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during
consideration of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 473 provides an open rule for the consideration
of H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act
for 2008. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order
against consideration of the bill except for those arising under
clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The resolution also waives points of order
against the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI
regarding legislating in an appropriations bill and appropriating for
unauthorized programs.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may provide priority in recognition based on
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in
the Congressional Record. The rule also provides one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
I am pleased to bring to the floor the first appropriations bill of
the 110th Congress under a traditional open rule process. The security
of our Nation concerns every American in every State, and it is a
priority of every Member of this body. But while the effort to secure
our homeland is a bipartisan one, there are clear differences between
how the two parties approach it, and the bill demonstrates them.
We have before us legislation that provides more than $36 billion in
critical funding needed to address security vulnerabilities identified
by the Homeland Security experts. It is a fulfillment of commitments
made by Democrats in implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations
Act of 2007, which passed the House with a bipartisan majority.
With this bill Democrats are increasing funding for homeland security
by 7 percent, or $2.5 billion, over the amount appropriated for it last
year. In fact, we are providing close to $2 billion more than what the
President asked for in his request to Congress. These increases aren't
excessive. They are, instead, the result of the Democrats' commitment
to adequately fund security programs which in past years have been
talked about, but not sufficiently supported.
These funding increases stand in stark contrast to past Republican
decisions to cut money for vital security efforts and to impose
unfunded mandates on State governments. My fellow Democrats and I have
rejected the Republican proposals for across-the-board cuts in these
areas. We feel that they would indiscriminately and unnecessarily
sacrifice billions in needed funding for rail, transit, and port
security, as well as for first responder grants. And, indeed, the sad
truth is that these grant programs have suffered funding cuts every
year since 2004. Compare that to the fact that this bill provides over
$4.5 billion, nearly double the requested amount, for these critical
areas.
More specifically, we have provided $400 million for port security,
doubling the requested amount. Similarly, $400 million will go towards
rail and transit security grants, more than the administration
requested. And we will increase spending for firefighter grants by $138
million. The administration had wanted to cut these funds
significantly, but we are increasing them.
At a time of heightened concern about our border security, the
legislation will help to secure our borders by paying the salaries of
3,000 new Border Patrol agents, and it also improves the benefits
package for Customs and Border Patrol officers to ensure higher
recruitment and retention rates. After years of a lack of
accountability and questionable government contracts, this bill
promotes both accountability and oversight through reforms of the
contracting process, and this is amazingly important.
I mentioned our borders a moment ago and I want to return to that
subject very briefly. As a representative from western New York, the
security of our borders is an issue of great concern to me.
{time} 1330
Both our northern and southern borders face unique and separate
challenges, and the bill addresses each in turn.
The 3,000 new agents funded by the bill will mean over 17,800 brave
men and women will patrol our borders by the end of 2008. And at the
same time, we will increase northern border funding by 33 percent, and
500 new agents will be placed there. As important as this is, border
security efforts must never blind us to the deep connection we share
with our neighbor to the north. Ours is a 200-year-old relationship
that has benefited both of our nations immensely. In fact, I often say
[[Page H6261]]
that people of northern border communities don't see Canadian towns and
cities as being in another country; instead, we see it as one nation
with a river running through it.
The travel and trade which cross the northern border every single day
between America and Canada are critical to our economy and to the
northern economic security. We must never sacrifice our relationship
with Canada in a misguided attempt to increase border security.
I have long said that economic security and physical security are not
mutually exclusive; we can and we must have both. Unfortunately, the
approach to northern border security currently advocated by the
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State is flawed.
The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, of WHTI, will choke off
legitimate travel and trade and sacrifice local economies unnecessarily
by imposing onerous border-crossing requirements. WHTI, while well-
intentioned, is simply unacceptable in its current form.
For 2 years, I have been working with fellow border members and
concerned local groups and Canada and their government to fix WHTI, and
I am proud to say today represents a major step forward in that battle.
With Chairman Price's help, I inserted language into this bill that
will withhold $100 million from the funds required to implement WHTI
until a series of our demands have been met, demands that will push
both DHS and State in the direction that they need to go, that is, away
from requiring expensive crossing documents and towards commonsense,
low-cost alternatives, and will keep our border closed to criminals,
but open to the families and the businesses which make it so vibrant.
Additionally, the language will require the completion of a pilot
project, which DHS is paying for and has not yet started, involving the
State of Washington and British Columbia before WHTI can go forward. We
see no point in paying for a project only to ignore it. The project
will reveal the feasibility of the passport requirements in WHTI. With
the 2008 winter Olympics being held in Vancouver, there will soon be an
even greater number of Americans traveling across the border there. And
this is a perfect way for us to test the requirements of WHTI before it
is put in place nationwide, and we are going to make sure the results
of that test are known.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this bill. It demonstrates the
Democratic commitment to smart security, as well as to ensuring that
the money spent by this government goes where it is needed most and is
spent wisely, efficiently, and effectively. These are our priorities.
Our constituents deserve no less, and our security can afford no less.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from New York, the
chairman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for the time. And I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Several years ago, Mr. Speaker, I had the distinct privilege to bring
forth the first rule for a Department of Homeland Security
appropriations bill. Since then, the Department of Homeland Security
has grown and begun to mature under the bipartisan oversight of the
Appropriations Committee and of the Committee on Homeland Security. In
fact, Ms. Slaughter and I worked together, when I was the chairman and
she the ranking member of the select Committee on Homeland Security's
Subcommittee on Rules, to make certain that the committee became the
permanent standing committee that it is today.
As we know, the Department of Homeland Security was created in the
wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, to help mobilize and to
organize the Federal Government to the best of our ability to secure
the homeland from further terrorist attacks.
Thanks to our new concerted approach to security, and I think it is
important to recognize, to the 180,000 hardworking employees of the
Department of Homeland Security, we have not suffered further attacks.
But we must not let our guard down. Within the last month alone, Mr.
Speaker, we have seen several plans thwarted to attack both Fort Dix
and a major airport in New York City. We must not lose our focus. We
must continue our efforts to protect the United States from yet another
deadly attack.
There is an item in this legislation that helps fulfill a
recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and that will provide additional
security to districts that many of us represent throughout the country,
including the one that I am honored to represent, districts with large
airports. In its report, the 9/11 Commission recommended that the
Transportation Security Agency expedite the installation of advanced
in-line baggage screening equipment.
Miami International Airport, which is in the district that I am
honored to represent, is a high-security, category 10 airport on the
front line of homeland security defense. Miami International Airport
has approximately 1,160 international flights each week, more than any
other airport in the United States. Miami International Airport has
over 900 flights a week from Latin America, more than all other U.S.
airports combined. Miami International ranks third in overall
international passenger traffic.
The Miami-Dade Aviation Department, which operates Miami
International Airport, is currently building two new terminals at MIA
and is incurring over $100 million in in-line Explosive Detection
System, EDS, terminal modification costs. In 2005, TSA committed $20
million in Other Transaction Agreement funds which will almost cover
the 75 percent Federal share for the south terminal project.
As Miami International Airport begins the installation process of EDS
in its north terminal, the airport still requires an additional funding
agreement to cover the Federal share of the $79 million modification
project. For fiscal years 2007 and 2008, the Miami-Dade Aviation
Department is projected to spend $28.8 million on the north terminal
modifications, $21.6 million of which falls under the Federal
Government's cost share.
I wish to commend the Appropriations Committee for allocating $560
million for Explosive Detection System, EDS, procurement and
installations. These funds will help reimburse Miami International
Airport in its efforts to complete its EDS installations.
Mr. Speaker, there are still some concerns with this bill, as Ranking
Member Rogers has stated publicly. There is concern about the rapid
growth of funding represented by the bill, for example. And although
the Appropriations Committee worked in a bipartisan manner to produce
this bill, there is concern from many Members of this House about the
process. As we know, the Appropriations Committee has announced that
earmarks were not included in this bill and will only be added during
the conference process with the Senate. It is not until that point that
Members and the public will be able to see the earmarks. By adding
earmarking during the conference process, Members will not have the
opportunity to make amendments to remove or adjust earmarks approved by
the majority on the Appropriations Committee.
The announced procedure protects earmarks from what during the
opening of the 110th Congress some refer to as the ``disinfectant of
sunshine.'' This procedure for earmarks is in effect reversing a
traditionally more open appropriations process. I urge our colleagues
in the majority to reconsider this procedure and allow for an open
appropriations process.
I would like to commend the majority for bringing this important
appropriations bill to the floor under an open rule. The House, as Ms.
Slaughter mentioned, has historically considered appropriations bills
under open rules in order to allow each Member the ability to offer
germane amendments without having to preprint their amendments or
receive approval from the Rules Committee.
I hope that the majority will live up to their campaign promise of
running a transparent House and continue our tradition of open rules
with the rest of the appropriations bills this year.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1340
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
[[Page H6262]]
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 2638, which makes appropriations for the
Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2008.
Mr. Speaker, in November the American people asked for a change. They
wanted us to do two things: one, change priorities; two, restore
accountability to this government.
We began with a down payment by raising the minimum wage; ending the
big subsidies for oil companies, instead putting money into renewable
energy; requiring pharmaceutical price negotiation instead of
giveaways; making college more affordable by lowering interest rates;
and we supported small businesses. These were the beginning.
Today, we take up the first of 12 appropriation bills, and in each of
these bills we must do what we promised the American people we would
do; change priorities and restore accountability.
This bill on homeland security, brought before us on a bipartisan
basis, does both. It funds the Department of Homeland Security. It was
created largely in response to the tragedy of 9/11. Since its
inception, the Department has been given a crucial mission, and that is
protecting American soil and American lives, enhancing our overall
security. They have a big job, and it is no small undertaking.
This Homeland Security bill addresses priorities and reflects our
change, and it reflects accountability, our responsibility to
taxpayers.
The priorities that I would like to speak to that are embedded in
this homeland security bill are among the following:
One, it establishes as a key priority funding our first responders
with the training and the equipment that they need. Each one of us
knows that the first responders are the ones who are going to be there,
and in each of our districts they need the training, they need the
funding. This Homeland Security bill has rejected a $1 billion cut that
was proposed by the administration and restores Homeland Security
grants in Firefighter Assistance grants.
Second, it implements a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission by
providing improved aviation security. This bill substantially increases
efforts to purchase and install the latest explosive detection systems
for checked baggage and other things that have been mentioned by the
speakers.
Also, Mr. Price and Mr. Rogers both spoke about the need for
accountability. The good intentions of protecting the homeland does not
give this bill a pass when it comes to accountability. The bill
mandates that all grants and contact funds be awarded through full
competitive processes.
Finally, I want to thank Chairwoman Slaughter for leading to a
sensible approach on the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. Thank
you, Chairwoman Slaughter.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to
yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier).
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this rule. As has been
pointed out by our distinguished Chair, Ms. Slaughter, and the
gentleman from Miami, Mr. Diaz-Balart, in their thoughtful remarks on
this issue, this is an open rule. The problem is, we are still dealing
with this problem of the lack of reform in the earmark process. It is
for that reason that having voted upstairs, yes, the fact that we
haven't brought about the very important reform that is necessary to
this horrendous earmark process, that I am going to join with Mr. Diaz-
Balart when he calls for defeat of the previous question and an
opportunity that would be allowed by defeating the previous question
for us to offer an amendment that would take on this earmark issue.
Mr. Diaz-Balart very correctly pointed to the fact that in the 109th
Congress we were able to implement very important, sweeping reforms for
the earmark process. We know that there was understandable, bipartisan
outrage that was reflecting the concern of the American people over the
abuse of earmarks. There are people who are in prison today because of
this, among other reasons. That is why last fall, we stepped up to the
plate, and under our Republican leadership, we put together a
bipartisan support for earmark reform.
At that time, unfortunately, our colleagues who were in the minority
and today in the majority described those reforms as a sham and
meaningless. But those reforms, Mr. Speaker, guaranteed accountability,
transparency, enforcement, disclosure, things that have been completely
thrown out the window unfortunately in the 110th Congress.
So while they described the very important, tough reforms that we had
in the 109th Congress as a sham, they have gone right down into the
drain and really created potential for little more than abuse of the
issue of earmarks.
We have already seen examples of that. Of course, the problem that
took place in the clash between the distinguished chairman of the
Defense Appropriation Subcommittee, Mr. Murtha, and our colleague from
Michigan, Mr. Rogers, when it came to the issue of earmarks.
Unfortunately, there was no chance whatsoever for us, because of the
lack of enforcement that exists now under the Democratic leadership,
for us to get at that.
Then when we heard just last week the words that came from the
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman
from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, that we will not see earmarks provided in the
appropriations process itself, but instead, what we are going to see is
this secret slush fund put into place that allows, in a very secretive
process, to ``air drop'' these earmarks into a conference report that
could come out at some later point.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not what the American people wanted when
they called for reform of this earmark process. That is not what they
expected. It is not what they got with the reforms that we put into
place in the 109th Congress. But unfortunately, well, we had these
great reforms, but they have been thrown out the window in the attempt
to continue to, in a surreptitious manner, seek these things in there.
We just marked the 20th anniversary of the very famous speech that
was delivered by Ronald Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate where President
Reagan said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' I have been
reminded, I mentioned here last week when we had two votes on different
rules to try and bring about reform of the earmark process another
famous speech Ronald Reagan gave in the negotiating process with the
Soviet Union. He said, and I have now been working on my Russian on
this, ``Doveryai no Proveryai,'' which meant ``trust but verify.''
The fact of the matter is, we want to be able to trust our
colleagues, fellow elected representatives, to do the right thing when
it comes to earmarks. But we feel very strongly that the American
people should have the right and the opportunity to verify whether or
not those dollars that are being spent can, in fact, stand up to the
light of day.
So while I am pleased that we are going to have a truly open rule if,
in fact, this thing passes, I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat
the previous question. And if we don't succeed, Mr. Speaker, in
defeating the previous question, I am going to urge all my colleagues,
Democrats and Republicans alike, to vote ``no'' on this rule because of
the fact that it does not step up to the plate and allow us to have the
kind of reform of earmark abuse that the American people desperately
want.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), chair of the subcommittee.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman of
the Rules Committee for yielding, and for her good work along with the
ranking member and members on both sides of the aisle in granting this
open rule, an open rule for debating of this fiscal 2008 Homeland
Security appropriations bill. We requested an open rule, with some
necessary waivers. The Rules Committee has granted that, and for that
we are grateful, and in just a few moments we will be on our way,
debating this bill.
This is a critical bill. It is the first of the 12 appropriations
bills that we will
[[Page H6263]]
be debating this session. So we will lead the pack. We will be telling
our colleagues about what we have done, a hardworking subcommittee that
has produced, I think, 20 days of hearings and has written a
comprehensive bill.
It is going to provide funding to address our country's most pressing
security vulnerabilities, with a new emphasis on ports and transit
systems. It is going to provide critically needed funding, as the
gentleman from Vermont has stressed, to our States and communities to
confront terrorist activity threats, but also natural disaster threats.
{time} 1350
Thirdly, it is going to help ensure that taxpayer dollars are well
spent by requiring management reforms and by withholding funds until
some expenditure reports and other accountability measures are in
place.
And fourth, we're taking a long-term approach by requiring outside
reviews of several major programs and activities to ensure that our
long-term investments are being wisely spent.
I appreciate the chairwoman of the Rules Committee's interest in this
bill. In particular, she has stressed, as she did again in her
statement today, the challenges of protecting the northern border and
also the concerns that she and many others have about the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative. We are directing the Department in this
bill to increase by over 40 percent the number of border patrol agents
at the northern border. That will comply with the levels called for in
the Intelligence Reform Act.
She also expressed particular concerns about the Western Hemisphere
Travel Initiative. The bill makes $100 million for implementation of
that program unavailable for obligation until Customs and Border
Protection reports on its experience with pilot programs, provides
detailed information on infrastructure and staffing required, confirms
the use of radiofrequency identification technology that has been
adequately tested under operational conditions, and describes how it
will ensure privacy protection. We worked with the chairwoman in
putting those protections in place, and we appreciate the consistent
interest she has shown in them and in this bill in general.
So with that, Mr. Speaker, I once again thank our Rules Committee
colleagues for an open rule and for paving the way for what we hope and
believe will be a productive debate as we consider our homeland
security needs for the coming fiscal year.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to
yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN. I do thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me
this time, and I want to say, first of all, that I want to commend the
gentleman from Florida and also the gentlewoman from New York, the
chairwoman of the Rules Committee, two of the Members in this Congress
for whom I have the greatest admiration and respect, and I appreciate
the fact that they are bringing this legislation to the floor under an
open rule.
But as both the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier) just expressed, there are still some concerns
about this bill, number one of which is the fact that this bill is $2.1
billion over the President's request and a 13.6 percent increase over
fiscal year 2007. That is more than four times the rate of inflation.
With an almost $9 trillion national debt and over $50 trillion in
unfunded future pension liabilities, we just can't keep giving every
department and agency that wants one or four or five times increase
over the rate of inflation. As the ranking member, Mr. Rogers, said a
few days ago, even the Department of Homeland Security should be
subject to some fiscal discipline.
A few weeks after 9/11 when we had renamed the farm bill that year by
adding the word ``security'' to the title, the Wall Street Journal
wrote an editorial in October of 2001 and said: ``Any bill with the
word `security' in it should get double the public scrutiny, and maybe
four times the normal wait, lest all kinds of bad legislation become
law.''
And a few months ago, Secretary Chertoff, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, testified before the Senate in a way perhaps no other Cabinet
member ever had. He essentially said we are spending too much on
security and we should not let overexaggerated threats of terrorism,
quote, drive us crazy, into bankruptcy, trying to defend against every
conceivable threat.
He went on to say, quote, we do have limits and we do have choices to
make. We don't want to break the very systems we're trying to protect.
We don't want to destroy our way of life trying to save it. We don't
want to undercut our economy trying to protect our economy, and we
don't want to destroy our civil liberties and our freedoms in order to
make ourselves safer.
That is the Secretary of Homeland Security. I think, Mr. Speaker, we
need to take some of those words into consideration. In a short time,
later today, we are going to have several amendments to the bill that I
think are worthy of consideration by all of our Members and I think
should be passed. We just shouldn't blindly pass a bill and pass
everything that anybody wants because they attach the word ``security''
to it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
Chair of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I think this bill being
brought forth today is an excellent bill. It will strengthen America's
security, and every Member interested in doing that ought to vote for
it.
The four security-related appropriation bills which we will bring to
the floor, Military Construction, Homeland Security, State/Foreign
Operations and Defense, will come in at a level about $2 billion above
the President's request. This is a key bill in doing that.
I do want to make a few comments about what I understand was said
while I was off the floor a few minutes ago with respect to earmarks.
Let us trace what the facts are. The last time the Democrats controlled
the appropriations process, I was chairman of the Appropriations
Committee. In those days, earmarking was focused on about four
subcommittees. There were no earmarks whatsoever in the Labor-Health-
Education bill the year that I was chairman. Two years ago, there were
over 3,000 when the Republicans were running the show.
When we took over the Congress last year, the Republicans had not
passed a single appropriation bill on the domestic side of the ledger.
So we had to complete their work for them. And one of the ways we did
that was to put a moratorium on all earmarks for the year. We promised
at the time that we would try to resurrect the process, provided that
we had a process that was more transparent.
Now, I understand someone from the other side claimed that we were
going to airdrop these earmarks into the conference with no notice. Not
so. What we plan to do is the following. And let me say, we didn't not
preclude earmarks by choice. The simple fact is that because we had to
deal with last year's Republican budget, because we had to deal with
the Iraq controversy which consumed the next 3 months of staff time,
because we were under subpoena by the San Diego U.S. Attorney to turn
over papers related to Republican shenanigans that occurred last year,
we did not have the staff time to focus on the substance of the bills
for this year or earmarks. And we finally decided that we need to keep
the bills moving, even if that meant that we would have to play catchup
later with the earmarks.
So what we are going to do is as soon as the staff can prepare them,
and we estimate it will take at least 4 to 5 weeks to screen all of
those earmarks, we will submit and put in the Congressional Record a
description of virtually every earmark that we intend to try to include
in conference reports. We will then ask every Member to review those
projects. If they have questions, raise questions about them, we will
then ask the sponsor of the earmark to respond in writing, so that the
person responsible for the request is the person who has to explain to
the House what is going on. And then we will use our judgment about
what makes sense. If the House thinks that we have got projects in
there that shouldn't be in there, they can vote against the bill.
But let me point out there is a big difference between what we are
doing
[[Page H6264]]
and the existing Republican process. It took 2 years after the fact to
find out what Duke Cunningham was asking for. The fact is under our
process, you will know 30 days ahead of time. It took us more than a
year to find out about the Florida road that was evidently inserted in
the highway bill by a Republican Member of this House from another
State.
{time} 1400
That can't happen in our process. Under our process, you will have 30
days to review what they request. That is a sweeping reform in
comparison to the absolute, behind-the-scenes operation that existed
when the Republicans controlled this House.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to
yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my distinguished colleague
yielding me this time.
Sitting here listening, I am puzzled by some of the things being
said. First of all, we are having folks thank the majority party for
having them give us an open rule. I find it very unusual that we would
have to thank somebody for doing what is right. You ought to thank
somebody when they do something that is above and beyond what is the
right thing to do.
I also find it very difficult to understand how the appropriations
chairman can say that they have had to deal with the Iraq problem for 3
months; and therefore, they have not had time to do their work.
Who is in charge here? You all are in charge. You should have been
able to do your work. You let yourself get bogged down for 3 months on
something that was totally useless, and here you are blaming the
minority party. I find it unbelievable that you don't accept the fact
that you are in charge of things. What is the ``existing Republican
process''? You all are in charge. You can't blame us.
I want to quote from the Rules Committee chairman on 1-4-07, ``Our
rules package requires full disclosure of earmarks in all bills and
conference reports before Members are asked to vote on them,'' not 30
days afterwards, but before.
Where are those earmarks, Madam Chairman? I don't see them in here.
The American people were promised transparency, truthfulness,
openness in this process. They were sold a bill of goods. They don't
want more secrecy, they want less secrecy. The Democrats said, We will
have a new day. This is much worse than anything we have ever seen
before. We need to restore the earmark rule like the Republicans had it
last year.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat puzzled myself over the
earmark process as the Republicans had it last year.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute more to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, the comments of the previous speaker simply
indicate how little she understands about the appropriations process.
The fact is that the Iraqi bill we had to deal with was last year's
supplemental request. Last year's, not this year's, so we had to clean
up your mess on the entire domestic budget; and we had to clean up your
mess on Iraq before we could move on our business.
The first week we have been able to turn to our agenda is this week.
We have spent the last 5 months cleaning up your spilled milk.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege
to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I hope to address several questions more
deeply in general debates, as well as with some amendments; but as the
ranking member of the Border, Port Security and Global Antiterrorism
Subcommittee of Homeland Security, I have been spent much of my
congressional career working narcotics, immigration and terrorism
issues on the border, particularly as narcotics coordinator in
Congress. I worked this even before 9/11.
In the year 2002, we issued the most comprehensive border report ever
done by Congress. We had 11 hearings, include many hearings on the
north and south borders. In addition, I have visited every major border
crossing, north and south border, multiple times and, in particular,
the largest southern border crossings many, many times, almost
annually.
I have several amendments in this bill related to counternarcotics
and terrorism with CBP and with the Coast Guard. But I want to talk
briefly here at this point on the border. Thanks to continued funding
and the hard work of the people in the Department of Homeland Security,
we have made some progress, particularly since 9/11. That said, in case
you haven't heard, our borders are still not secure. Not even close.
We have three basic interrelated challenges. And if you can't fix
one, you can't fix any: terrorism, contraband and illegal immigration.
Last week we had an irresponsible individual who decided that despite
being told not to travel to Europe, he did. Flying home, he flew to
Canada and then crossed our border crossing. The screen was absolutely
clear. It said, ``Refer to INS secondary.'' Even though all our border
personnel had very clear instructions to place mask on subject, place
in isolation, well-ventilated room, if possible, subject has multiple
resistant TB, public health risk, among other things, he was waved on
through after very brief screening. In spite of this, he was waved on
through. Now that means we cannot even keep people we have caught.
Then there was this from yesterday: Homeland Security busted three
Texas National Guardsmen for smuggling illegals using National Guard
vehicles. That was just yesterday.
Last year, when I was subcommittee chairman, we heard horror stories
on illegals being deported multiple times and coming back in and
committing additional felonies. Yet the President of our country is
coming over to lobby the other body about bringing a terrible amnesty
bill back to life. There is not a Member in this body or the other body
who doesn't understand that we have to deal with the people that are
here, with H-1B visas, with the huge challenges we have in this
country.
But this bill demonstrates the fraud of the Senate bill because it
has unrealistic border controls that we are just asking in this bill,
in clause after clause, for them to report on the costs. We cut the
money intended for the travel initiative. How in the world can you do a
380-page amnesty bill if you can't even begin to deliver the basics?
Fortunately, the bill before us today starts to address those. The
cost is horrendous. I want to go through, item by item, the challenges,
the premises behind what the President is arguing.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This has been an interesting discussion with regard to which system
is better in order to challenge earmarks: one in which you can actually
come to the floor and challenge specific earmarks in a bill, or in a
committee report; or have a situation where the conference report comes
to the floor and you have no ability whatsoever, no ability, to bring
to a vote any of the earmarks that are in there.
The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee mentioned
that it is better to be able to write a letter to the Appropriations
Committee and question an earmark than actually bring it to the floor
because he mentioned that Mr. Flake brought 14 amendments to the floor
last year and failed on every one of them.
I actually brought 39, and I failed even more miserably; I failed all
39 times. Nineteen of them called for a rollcall vote. I didn't come
close on any on them because as the distinguished Member mentioned,
logrolling works pretty well. People will say, I won't vote against
your earmark if you don't vote against mine.
But this year is different, partly thanks to the reforms that the
Democrats put in place in January of this year following the lead of
the Republicans in the fall of last year where you actually said, All
right, if you want an earmark, you have to sign your name and claim
credit for that earmark.
[[Page H6265]]
Of the 39 times I came to the floor last year, most times when I came
to the floor I had no clue who had sponsored the earmark I was
challenging. Many times we had a vote, sometimes a rollcall vote and
sometimes a voice vote, and I still left the floor not knowing whose
earmark that was because we didn't have a requirement that the Members
claim credit for them.
That is no longer the case. The Appropriations Committee right now is
sitting on more than 30,000 request letters where the Members signed
off and said, This is my earmark and it is going to this specific
entity. That is something we haven't had before, and I applaud the
Democrats for putting that reform in place. The problem is, if we go
forward with what has been proposed, it won't mean anything.
But here I can tell you, if I was able to come to the floor with some
of those earmarks, knowing which entity it was going to, knowing which
Member had requested it, and to have the media and others, the blogging
community and other organizations going through and finding out what
that private entity was or had that private entity made campaign
contributions to that Member, if there was a tie that we didn't know
about before, it changes the dynamics incredibly here because them
Members have to weigh, Do I want to do that or not?
The Appropriations Committee chairman pointed out there have been
problems with Members and earmarks. There have been investigations and
Members in jail, and there are other investigations going on.
If you have good information, more information, that gives you power.
When you come to the floor and are able to point specifically at
earmarks, knowing which entity they are going to and knowing which
Member requested them, it changes the dynamics.
I would respectfully disagree with the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee when he says that this process that is being put in place is
superior to being able to challenge earmarks. Again, let me repeat.
Under what has been proposed, we will never have a vote on any earmark;
and that is simply wrong.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to engage Mr.
Flake for a moment.
The chairman of the committee made it really clear that you are going
to have 30 days to look at the earmarks, whose earmarks they are, and
contact them if they are in the bill. The Rules Committee will decide
whether you have the ability to strike them or not.
I yield to Mr. Flake.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, but we will have no
vote. The process of logrolling will work just as it has in the past.
There will be no vote, no ability by anybody to challenge specifically
those earmarks on the floor of the House.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I wouldn't want you to believe this is going to be the
permanent way this is going to run. Given the vast number, the 32,000
that you mentioned, and the fact that we had no budget last year, no
Federal budget last year, there was an extra strain on Mr. Obey; and I
am confident that the next year will be different.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
I would say to my colleagues, here we go again with Orwellian
democracy, which is alive and here on the floor of the House with the
majority party saying one thing and doing another. They promised us a
more transparent process, they promised us a process that had greater
accountability; and in fact, what we are getting is something
completely the opposite.
I would note also that we are coming to the floor now with the first
appropriations bill which is 1 month later than when we brought our
appropriations bills to the floor last year.
I am sorry that the Chair of appropriations has left the floor. He
made the comment that this would be a more responsible earmark process.
He said he would take all of the requests and would add, quote,
``virtually every earmark,'' unquote, would be included in the bill.
Well, that is interesting.
What that process does is make the Chair of the Appropriations
Committee the judge and the jury, the sole judge and the sole jury for
every single special project. I would prefer there would be no special
projects, but it appears that the Appropriations Chair is going to be
the one to determine whether or not your project is worthy.
Those that have already been dropped into bills brought before this
Congress give us no comfort. There appears to be significant favoritism
that is being played, significant politics being played. And the
threats that have been given by a Member on the majority side to a
Member on the minority side, if he didn't support an earmark, give us
no comfort.
We will get 30 days to review. Well, that is a wonderful thing, with
no opportunity, as the gentleman from Arizona said, to have any vote on
any earmark.
Mr. Speaker, that is not greater transparency or greater
accountability.
The chairman of the Appropriations Committee said, Well, if you don't
like an earmark, vote against the bill, with no ability to get to a
specific egregious program that so angers the American people.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is Orwellian democracy at its
finest, doing one thing and saying exactly the opposite. This ought to
be an interesting period of time as we move through the appropriations
bills. It ought to be a very interesting time as we move through a
process that has turned into a sham. It ought to be a very interesting
time; and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the American people are,
indeed, paying attention.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the
balance of my time, and I thank all of my colleagues who have taken
part in this debate.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous
question, so we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a
change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and
enforceability to the earmark rule.
{time} 1415
Under the current rule, so long as the chairman or sponsor of a bill,
joint resolution, conference report or manager's amendment includes
either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or report, or a
statement that there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against
the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress.
However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican
majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not
available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a
question of consideration. But because the Democratic Rules Committee
specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order,
they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks
on the rule. This was most recently discovered on the question of the
Murtha earmark on the Intelligence authorization bill.
This amendment will restore the accountability and enforceability of
the earmark rule to where it was at the end of the 109th Congress to
provide Members with an opportunity to bring the question of earmarks
before the House for a vote. Without these changes, the new earmark
rule, in effect, is nothing more than a fig leaf.
Mr. Speaker, 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
A lot of time has been spent today on the open rule and the open
amendment process, and I'd like to give you and anybody else who may be
watching some idea of what we can expect.
Some 94 Republican amendments were filed, 16 Democrats. One
Republican is responsible for more than 50 percent of that side.
Let me give you a couple of examples of what they are. None of the
funds can be used for supporting yoga classes.
[[Page H6266]]
None can be used to support art classes. None can be used to support
dance classes. None can be used under other programs, any program that
offers to support a dance class. And my personal favorite, none of the
funds can be used for supporting puppet shows.
There isn't anything in the world in any part of this bill having
anything to do with these amendments, but nonetheless here we are.
We'll be debating this into the night, but I would ask everybody to
listen to those amendments and decide which is serious on homeland
security.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the resolution.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 473 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 3. Clause 9(c) of Rule XXI is amended to read as
follows:
``(c) As disposition of a point of order under paragraph
(a), the Chair shall put the question of consideration with
respect to the bill, joint resolution, or conference report,
or amendment described in paragraph (a)(3). The question of
consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member
initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an
opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening
motion except one that the House adjourn.''.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by the
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. Fitzgeral 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 from 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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. 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. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 473, if ordered, and
motion to suspend the rules on H. Res. 474.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 194, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 451]
YEAS--222
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
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
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
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)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
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 (NC)
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
Rangel
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
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--194
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
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, 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
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
[[Page H6267]]
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
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
Arcuri
Barton (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Davis, Jo Ann
Doyle
Edwards
Gutierrez
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Lewis (GA)
McHenry
Radanovich
Sessions
Simpson
Stark
Wasserman Schultz
{time} 1440
Messrs. RENZI, BILIRAKIS, REYNOLDS and CANNON changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 451,
on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 473, my vote did not
register. Only after they closed the vote, was I told of that fact.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________