[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 12, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6319-H6327]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H6319]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                        House of Representatives

  DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--Continued

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, the Democrats campaigned on transparency, and 
I will give you a quote again from Speaker of the House. ``We will 
bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of 
earmarks, and we will give the American people the leadership they 
deserve.''
  Majority leader: ``We are going to adopt rules that make the system 
of legislation transparent so that we don't legislate in the dark of 
the night.'' And I think we're in the dark of the night right now.
  We need to have earmarks subject to more debate. That's what debate 
and public awareness is all about. Democracy works if people know 
what's going on.
  Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman David Price, 
the bill we're debating tonight: ``This bill mandates that all grant 
and contract funds be awarded through full and open competitive 
processes, except when other funding distribution mechanisms are 
required by statute.''

                              {time}  0000

  ``This approach creates a level playing field and also ensures that 
there are no congressional or administration earmarks in the bill.''
  Again, we don't know what is here.
  The Rules Committee chairwoman: ``Our rules package requires full 
disclosure of earmarks in all bills and conference reports before 
Members are asked to vote on them,'' House floor remarks, January 4, 
2007.
  Folks, there is some hypocrisy going on here, and that is what we are 
calling you on. You promised a different process.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will direct her remarks to the Chair.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, the majority party promised a new process. We 
are not getting that new process.
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman may not offer that motion on another 
Member's time.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. 
Chairman, it is----
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentlewoman from Oklahoma did not complete her 5 minutes and no 
one yielded back. The Chair then recognized the gentleman from New 
York.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. A precedent motion was offered after the 
gentleman moved to strike the last word. The motion was that the 
Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman had been recognized. The motion is 
renewable, but the motion cannot interrupt someone who has been 
recognized.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GOHMERT. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas will state his point of order.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, the point of order is that this woman is 
the one who had the time. She did not yield it back. It was not 
appropriate to go to someone else until she had yielded back her time. 
That is the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. No one had made a motion who was able to make a motion.
  The Chair will not try to explain the rules in the midst of an 
uproar.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, this point of order did not ask for an 
explanation. It asked that the rules be followed, not explained.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is following the rules.
  The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, it is gratifying to hear so many of my 
colleagues express their understanding of what happened in the campaign 
of 2006 and why a majority party on that side turned into a minority 
party. They are right. Some of it was because of the abject abuse of 
the earmark process. Some of it was about the abject abuse that 
resulted in people being indicted and people going to jail.
  But that was only part of it. We on this side of the aisle got that 
message. That is why we have a transparent process that is going to 
open up all the earmarks to scrutiny. But that was only part of it.
  The fact that some commentators have referred to the previous 
leadership of the party of this House as the most ethically bankrupt in 
our Nation's history, that was only part of the reason that the 
American people rejected the Republican mission.
  They also rejected it because they ran up the largest deficits in 
recent memory. They rejected the Republican rule because there was a 
war that was being prosecuted without any oversight on that side of the 
aisle. The fact that wages were stagnant and the minimum wage hadn't 
been raised; that it was more and more difficult for the middle class 
and those struggling to get into the middle class to send their kids to 
college.
  Well, on the Democratic side, we said we are going to work late into 
the night past the dilatory efforts of our colleagues because we are 
here to fight for the American people.

[[Page H6320]]

  You say, one way or another you are going to get your way by doing 
motion after motion after motion.
  I have got to tell you something. It is worth it. It is worth it. 
This fight is important enough that we are prepared to stand here and 
try to get a Homeland Security bill to protect the American people. We 
are prepared to do it. We are prepared to stay here all night for a 
transparent process that allows us to assess some of these thousands of 
earmarks submitted by both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, do you know how I know with certitude that we are going 
to pass this bill to protect the American people by having a Homeland 
Security bill that is sound? Because we said we were going to make it 
easier for parents to send their kids to college, and we did it. We 
said we were going to raise the minimum wage, and we did it. We said we 
were going to crack down on these oil companies getting tax breaks for 
doing nothing more than gouging the American people, and we did it. We 
have done the things the American people have sent us here to do.
  The only way that my colleagues on the other side can think from 
stopping us to achieve the agenda of the American people is every 
couple of minutes saying, We want to go home. We have worked hard 
enough. We want to rise.
  We are not going anywhere. You can do it again and again and again. 
And we will wait you out.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will address his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, tell them this. We will wait. We will wait 
because this is too important, if you want to trivialize the process.
  I don't blame you for not wanting to debate this bill because the 
leadership of the previous Congress was shameful. There was no 
oversight. There was no questioning. There was no sense of what the 
responsibility is of this Congress. And your vision, or absence 
thereof, was rejected by the American people.
  Now, my colleagues on the other side, the colleagues that my back is 
facing, are destined to be in the permanent minority because the 
American people want us to achieve things. We are committed on this 
side of the aisle to doing it. And if you think that you have problems 
with this bill, make an amendment to it. Make 10 amendments. Make 30 
amendments.
  We are going to be here because we believe in something else: Having 
an open rule to allow you to do this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will address his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, we think that more and more it is becoming 
clear that we have a good portion of this institution that wants to 
solve these problems in a bipartisan way if we can, and as Democrats 
alone if we must. But one way or another, if you think, as one of the 
previous speakers said, ``You are going to do it our way or we are 
going to keep making motions to rise,'' keep doing it. We are not going 
anywhere. We are here to fight for the American people for 2 years, and 
we are not giving up.
  There are people making much bigger sacrifices than we are. What we 
are here to do is to try to honor their sacrifice, honor the things the 
American people are going through. And that is why the American people 
turned to a Democratic House; a Democratic Senate; and in a matter of 
months, a Democratic President of the United States.
  Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Granted, I cannot bring you the histrionics and gesticulations 
because I am not from a big city like New York. I'm just a simple 
country lawyer from Detroit.
  But I am reminded of a phrase that Ralph Waldo Emerson used in one of 
Robert Kennedy's favorite poems. It's called ``Fame.'' And he used the 
phrase ``Being for Seeming bravely barter.'' And that is what this has 
become an exercise in.
  The reason that we are here is not because we want to rush this bill. 
I think you would be quite pleased if we were in a hurry to leave. I 
think, Mr. Chairman, that the majority would be very happy with us if 
we were willing simply to take whatever was offered and move on, as 
much of what happened during the first grand and glorious 6,000 minutes 
where if they had the votes, the minority services were not required.
  The reason that we are here today is so that we can seem to be doing 
our work. If you pass an appropriation bill, your constituents are 
going to come back to you and say, Okay, tiger, what was in the 
appropriation bill? And we will then say, What? Well, I don't really 
know, but I did my work.
  It is akin to being on an operating table where the doctor opens you 
up and knows he has to put something inside of you, and then shoves you 
off to outpatient therapy saying, Well, don't worry. We will figure 
that out later and don't think about it because we still haven't 
decided what is going to go back in you.
  We are trying to bring transparency to a system that does not have it 
because it wants to put perception over policy. That is what we are 
fighting for. It is not our way. It is the American way. We are trying 
to make sure that we do our work in the sunlight, not in the dark of 
night, so that America knows we are appropriators, not vampires.
  As a country lawyer from Detroit, I am reminded that this 
appropriation process is much like closing the barn door after the 
horse has left, and when you watch that fine steed leave, you know the 
rear view is not all that it is cracked up to be.
  We have learned a painful lesson as a former majority. We did not 
realize, I think, the historic opportunity we had to lead this Nation 
to transformational times, but at least we tried to be honest about the 
process, certainly more honest than the new majority has portrayed 
themselves to the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, ``Those who do not learn the lessons of history are 
condemned to repeat them.'' I sincerely hope so, because you are 
repeating so many of the mistakes we made, I can hardly get to sleep at 
night, I am so happy to see it. Except for one thing: The American 
people deserve better. Give them the process that allows them to weigh 
their determinations that we make here in a fair, full, and honest 
manner. Give them the government they need so that you do not become an 
empty majority as this new minority once was.
  And I wish to close with this. Prove me wrong. Because as of today, 
as of tonight, I know two things: My party stalled moving America 
forward, but right now you have stalled moving America backward.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                 Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. McCotter

  Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 216, not voting 33, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 462]

                               AYES--188

     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
     Cole (OK)
     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)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     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

[[Page H6321]]


     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     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
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--216

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     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 (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
     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
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--33

     Bordallo
     Boucher
     Carson
     Clay
     Coble
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Davis (AL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastert
     Holden
     Hunter
     Myrick
     Norton
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Rangel
     Sessions
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stark
     Van Hollen
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain 
in this vote.

                              {time}  0030

  So the motion to rise was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to address this distinguished House and yield to 
the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who has done a 
terrific job tonight in hoping to bring comity and understanding to 
this great, august body.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like, if I could, in a calm 
atmosphere to simply walk Members of the House through some of the 
facts so that they understand exactly what it takes for the staff to 
prepare earmarks for consideration by the Congress.
  Yesterday, we were told in the Appropriations Committee by our 
Republican friends, at least by some of them, they would ask me, what 
is the hurry? Why can't you slow down these bills until you can attach 
the earmarks? Today, our colleague from Georgia, Mr. Price, said on the 
floor, these bills are already 1 month late, implying that the 
Republicans last year were able to move the bills to the floor faster.
  That is right. They did.
  I want Members to understand why if we started tonight it would take 
a good 3 to 4 weeks to prepare all of the earmarks that Members are 
requesting. Let me explain why.
  Our staff doesn't just have to wade through these requests. Some of 
these requests that we receive propose to place earmarks on programs 
such as the National Institutes of Health, for instance, which have 
never before been earmarked, earmarks which the Members on both side of 
the aisle strongly oppose. So we have to work with those Members to 
reshape those earmarks.
  Some requests come in, but they are duplicative. You may have four or 
five Members propose the same earmark, but they describe it 
differently, and the staff has to wade through and reconcile them so 
they understand it is really the same item.
  Some earmarks that are requested fail to make clear which programs 
the requested funds are supposed to come from, so we have to plug in 
with Members to get answers to that.
  Some requests ask that funds that are earmarked within a specific 
program be used for purposes which are not authorized by the underlying 
authorization, so again we have to go back to those Members and review 
those projects and rework them so that they are eligible.
  That is why it is an immense job for the staff to review, especially 
when we have 32,000 requests.
  There is another reason why we have lagged on earmarks, and that is 
because we chose to do substance over worrying about pork. What we did, 
after almost 5 years of virtually no oversight by this Congress, we 
chose to intensify oversight and devote our staff time and Member time 
to that, rather than people's boodle. As a result, we held 224 
hearings, as opposed to 117 last year under the Republican regime.
  That is why we have come to the House with the proposition to make 
certain that we do have transparency, that we will have names attached 
to every earmark whenever they appear in the process, and we are 
following a process which has been engaged in by the majority party on 
the major domestic appropriation bills of each year, and the majority 
party engaged in this same process for 7 out of the last 12 years. The 
only difference is, they didn't provide 30 days' notice before those 
bills went to conference with those earmarks, and our process would.
  I know it is late in the evening and I know that Members like to 
score partisan points, but the fact is, Members, especially those who 
are not on the Appropriations Committee, are owed the courtesy of at 
least understanding what it is that the staff has to go through in 
order to prepare earmarks for everybody.
  Now, I don't have a Republican list of earmarks.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Boehner, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply say, I don't have any idea what earmarks 
our Republican friends would want to see included in, for instance, the 
Labor-Health-Education bill.
  But the fact is, there is one other protection that we want to have 
in our process: Unlike the past, when some Appropriation subcommittees 
simply said Democrats, you look at yours, Republicans look at yours, 
and then do whatever you want, what we are going to try to do is to 
make certain that you get to see ours and we get to see yours so that 
we have that safety valve built into the system. That will protect the 
taxpayer and that will protect the reputation of this institution, and 
I think Members know it.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members to remember that our job tonight, 
after all, is to try to pass a Homeland Security bill, which has 
traditionally been virtually without earmarks.

[[Page H6322]]

  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time and I thank the 
gentleman for his courtesy.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues probably are wondering why at 20 
minutes to 1 we are still in the House Chamber debating this issue. I 
think all of us understand that there is a difference over the amount 
of money being appropriated in this bill and what is being allocated to 
all of the appropriation bills.
  If we go back and review the bidding on the spending levels over the 
course of this year, we spent an additional $6 billion in the CR back 
in February. We spent an additional $17 billion over and above the 
President's request for the supplemental spending bill for Iraq, 
Katrina, and a whole host of other issues that many Members did not 
support.
  When we look at the appropriation bills for the fiscal year 2008 
beginning in October, we see that we are going to spend an additional 
$20 billion. So if you add those numbers up, you can see that we are 
spending tens of billions of dollars, well above what the President 
requested for not only this current fiscal year, but the next fiscal 
year.
  If that isn't bad enough, let's also remember that this Congress in 
this first 5 months has already authorized some $105 billion of new 
spending in their proposals that have been brought to this floor and 
passed. So for many of us, at some point we have to say, enough is 
enough when it comes to spending.
  The second issue involves the transparency and accountability with 
regard to earmarks. Last year I went through hell and high water to put 
into effect an earmark reform proposal that dealt with appropriation 
bills, that dealt with authorization bills and dealt with tax bills. It 
required full disclosure, it required names to be attached, and it 
allowed Members of this House, both on the floor of this House with an 
appropriation bill or authorization bill or tax bill, or a conference 
report with regard to an appropriation bill, tax bill or authorization 
bill, to move under a point of order or to strike that amount of money.
  There are 435 of us in this Chamber who are well-equipped to deal 
with bringing the accountability into this process that all of us want. 
The Democrat majority in January, when they adopted their rules, gutted 
the earmark reform proposal that we put into effect last year, while at 
the same time saying that they were making it stronger.
  The fact is, Members do not have access to these earmarks in these 
bills. We have all heard the stories tonight about what the chairman 
expects to do after we pass the appropriation bills, with these slush 
funds included in them, secret slush funds, which will later be 
allocated based on the decision of one person, one of the 535 of us. It 
is not right, and the gentleman from Wisconsin knows it is not right.
  Now, the gentleman from Wisconsin says we haven't had time to do 
this. I can tell the gentleman from Wisconsin over the last 3\1/2\ 
months we have, as he has often said, posed for holy pictures over the 
fight over funding our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the 
world. We had plenty of time to look at those earmarks, but we didn't 
do it because we were busy posing for holy pictures.
  I can tell the gentleman that to bring a bill forward with no 
earmarks in it with a promise that we will all see them later is not 
good enough. I think the Members on our side of the aisle want real 
disclosure, want real transparency, and I think what the American 
people want most is real accountability.
  Now, let me get to the last issue. For 6 years the gentleman from 
Wisconsin had the 10 o'clock rule. When we were doing appropriation 
bills, the majority on our side was not allowed to work after 10 
o'clock.
  Now, I happen to agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin, because I 
think working after 10 o'clock is not in the best interests of our 
Nation. For the nine out of 10 times that we have tried to work after 
10 o'clock at night, my colleague from Wisconsin refused to operate 
after 10 o'clock and threatened all of us that if we worked after 10 
o'clock, we would have all of these procedural motions, motions to 
rise, and we would not be here.
  Now, I told the gentleman, I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin. 
I go to bed at 10 o'clock. I don't think good work happens after 10 
o'clock at night. So what I told the majority earlier today is that we 
weren't going to work after 10 o'clock at night because we were going 
to impose the Obey rule on the institution.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHNER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Let me point out there is one critical difference between last year 
and tonight: Last year, you agreed that we would shut down at 10 
o'clock because we agreed to put time limits on all of the amendments 
so we could finish the bills.
  I cooperated procedurally so that you could move every single bill 
through the House, even though I disagreed with some of them.
  The key was that we each got something. You got to finish the bills, 
and we agreed that because we were setting time limits on amendments, 
that, therefore, there would be no need to work in the evening. You 
haven't been willing to agree to time limits.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, Mr. Obey, I will say 
this: I will be happy to abide by the 10 o'clock rule if you will give 
real transparency and real accountability to the American people on 
earmark reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                 Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Boehner

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 213, not voting 37, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 463]

                               AYES--187

     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
     Castle
     Chabot
     Cole (OK)
     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)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     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
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     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
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--213

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)

[[Page H6323]]


     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     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
     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
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     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)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     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
     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
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--37

     Bordallo
     Boucher
     Capuano
     Carson
     Carter
     Clay
     Coble
     Conaway
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastert
     Holden
     Hunter
     Lantos
     Lowey
     Murphy, Patrick
     Myrick
     Norton
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Rangel
     Schakowsky
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (TX)
     Stark
     Taylor
     Towns
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Larson of Connecticut) (during the vote). 
Members are advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  0100

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to rise was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The minority leader brought up two essential points which were 
basically, at that point, why we were here at a quarter to 1 in the 
morning. The first point dealt with the issues of fiscal responsibility 
and spending, and the second issue dealt with earmarks and the 
procedure or transparency and the questions that the minority had.
  On the first issue of fiscal responsibility, he said that they were 
tired of the amount of spending that was going on and how basically 
flagrant spending had happened under Democrats.
  After 6 years and $4 trillion of new debt run by a Republican 
President and Republican Congress and Republican Senate, I do 
appreciate your conversion on the road to Damascus as it relates to 
fiscal responsibility and spending. And I do believe that after we've 
seen the highest increase in the Nation's debt in the shortest period 
of time under a Republican Congress and a Republican President, adding 
$4 trillion to the Nation's debt, that you have decided enough is 
enough when it comes to a piece of legislation on homeland security, 5 
years after the strike on 9/11. I think it's ironic that it's on this 
bill that you have decided the spending issue you want to debate.
  Now, the minority leader did offer, and he has said as recently as a 
couple weeks ago, when we have certain debates on the war in Iraq, 
protecting America, to always be conscious that people from around the 
world are watching this debate. So I do believe as it relates to 
homeland security, as we try to protect our borders, as we try to 
protect our ports, and as we try to protect our cargo, I'm sure the 
terrorists around the world are quaking in their boots on the motions 
to rise. You've given them nothing but fear as that issue emerges. That 
is your right.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will address his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, and since it's often noted on the politics 
of what has happened in the last election, which is the issue of 
earmarks, as it relates to the motion to rise, you are long on process 
and short on policy.
  What does this bill actually do? And it's ironic that it's the 
Republican Congress that basically has enacted, for lack of a better 
term, a filibuster in name that prevents us from considering 3,000 new 
border agents.
  It's ironic that it is the Republicans in the minority who have dealt 
with, for the first time we're dealing with adding funding for nuclear 
material detection, you're preventing that to be voted on.
  It's the Republican minority who is dealing with, as it relates to 
our port security, adding 100 percent new equipment and radiation 
detection to deal with radiation coming into the port which we know 
from all the intelligence is an attempt by those who are trying to hurt 
and harm America, and there's also an increase in our cargo protection.
  We've increased funding for our police and fire equipment and fire 
departments; grants to study and make sure urban areas know how to deal 
with an emergency; transit grants in case terrorists try to strike our 
areas in major urban areas; fire grants; communications equipment for 
police and firefighters; port security funding; explosive detection 
system; air cargo explosive screening; customs and border agents, 
adding, as I said, 3,000 new agents for the border, 250 additional 
customs agents; law enforcement efforts for customs officers; fence 
requirements all for our border, all this to make sure that our 
borders, our cargo system, and our ports are secured.
  Anytime you want to have that discussion, as long as you want to have 
that discussion, we are ready to have that discussion of what it takes 
to secure America, but after 5 years of the strike on America, I find 
it somewhat poetic that this would be the bill that on procedural 
grounds you would decide to bring the Congress to a halt.
  And I do appreciate since there are no earmarks in this legislation, 
you seem to be making an argument about earmarks on this issue that 
fully funds our efforts to secure America.
  To the minority leader's second point on earmarks, the question is, 
and it's a legitimate question for us to debate, have we lived up to 
our rhetoric?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. EMANUEL. I request an additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  Mr. McHENRY. I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  With regard to the remarks just made, Mr. Chairman, I think what is 
happening here from the Republican side is not an objection to funds 
for national security; it's the secret funds for Democratic security 
we're concerned about.
  So we've also heard discussion from the chairman of the committee 
about a circus. We heard the term ``circus'' numerous times, and that's 
what got my attention. It got me to thinking about a circus. Most of us 
have been to circuses. Let me tell you about a circus.
  A circus, it's not the most expensive circus, but it's one where you 
have some trained dogs, maybe they're yellow, maybe they're blue, but 
you have some trained dogs who get in a line and run in a circle, jump 
through hoops when the ringmaster tells them; they sit when the 
ringmaster tells them. These blue, yellow dogs, whatever color dogs, 
they stand on their hind legs and dance when the ringmaster tells them. 
They do what the ringmaster says, and it's against their instincts for 
their own security, it's against their instincts for their own well-
being and

[[Page H6324]]

their family's well-being, but it's all to please the ringmaster. Now, 
that is a circus.
  Now, regarding earmarks, we did have earmark reform last year, and 
when I heard all of the promises from the other side about there was 
going to be even greater earmark reform, I thought, you know, that 
really could be a good thing. But the old saying around Washington is 
that no matter how cynical you get, it's never enough to catch up, and 
I'm beginning to see there's something to that because all those 
promises about taking our earmark reform and going much further went 
out the window.
  As the minority leader said, we had earmark reform. We went directly 
after the airdropped earmarks so there could be no airdropped earmarks 
that would not be out of the shadows. Out of the shadows, we're told 
illegal immigrants need to be brought out of the shadows; they're out 
on the street marching. The only thing that seems to be in the shadows 
is these secret earmarks, and that is what we're about.
  Now, it would have been a great improvement if we could have moved 
further, but the truth is there were dozens of us in the Republican 
side last year that went to our leadership and said, we're not voting 
for appropriations unless you give us some earmark reform, and what we 
got was reform on airdrop. I wasn't leader of that, but I was sure 
proud to be part of it. We had Mike Pence, Jeb Hensarling, we had Jeff 
Flake leading the charge on those things, and because a few dozen, and 
I tell this, Mr. Chairman, through the chairman and hope that people 
across the aisle, whatever color dogs they may present themselves to 
the public to be, will understand that a few dozen people talking to 
their leadership that they're not voting for a bill until there's some 
earmark reform gets the leadership's attention. We got it on this side, 
and the Democrats can get it on their side once they get on their own 
hind legs when they're not instructed by the ringmaster.
  Now, there is a cloud of corruption that has been over this body. We 
dealt with it early on when we thought there was going to be minimum 
wage reform, and then we found out there was a secret exception, and 
then some said that it actually benefited someone or a business in the 
Speaker's own district, and we never heard the Speaker address that.
  Some said, well, there's a problem in the carbon footprint we're 
creating. Then we find out, well, some are saying there's an 
excessively large jet, and these kinds of questions arose.
  We find that a Democrat's indicted, and only then, even though months 
and months ago we see an 80-page search warrant affidavit with all 
kinds of information, it's only after indictment that the majority 
moves forward.
  We also know that there's an investigation ongoing, and the question 
has been raised is it appropriate for someone under investigation by 
the Justice Department to actually control the Justice Department's 
budget. There are all these kinds of things.
  We have had a chairman of a committee who had an earmark question, 
and then it's never been a denial that he threatened somebody that 
raised an issue. Did we bring that earmark into the sunlight? No. We 
not only didn't bring it into the sunlight, the person that tried to do 
that was threatened. And when he brought up the threat and the 
violation of ethics rules, then that was tabled.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise as a member of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee. I 
want to give you a little bit of background of how this whole thing 
started.
  Homeland Security was an agency created after 9/11, and as admitted 
by many Members on the other side of the aisle, the agency itself was 
the biggest bureaucracy created. As you remember, it just took 
employees from all different agencies, including Department of 
Agriculture, and put it into one agency called Homeland Security. And 
we created an appropriations committee and essentially just funded it 
with what it asked, without all the first instance.
  And I remember Mr. Rogers, who was the first chairman of that 
committee, bringing to the Appropriations Committee the bill last year 
and indicating this is a huge bureaucracy. It has almost 200,000 people 
in it, very hard to wrap your hands around it, just sort of hold your 
nose and vote for it. There were no earmarks in the bill, as there 
aren't any earmarks here tonight, and we adopted it.
  What happened with the new chairmanship with Mr. Price is that first 
thing he did was ask, we better look at what this is all about. 
Homeland security for what? Security, what are we fighting? So we 
invited in all these experts to sort of give us an overview of what is 
risk, what is fear, what should we be looking at, and it was very 
sensible.
  What they suggested is that you're talking about people that are 
going to respond to incidents, and in an incident like Katrina, an 
incident like a disaster, like a terrorist act, you're going to need to 
prepare responders, people in the Intelligence Community, people on the 
ground in local communities. And in essence what they said is that 
homeland security is really hometown security, and you need to have 
your towns prepared for this, and you need to do it on a risk 
management basis; just don't throw money at everything.
  And Chairman Price went on CODELs seeing what disasters were like, 
going to Katrina, going to New Orleans and later along the border, 
where we put a lot of money, and what we learned in the committee, 
ironically, was that the only terrorist that was ever apprehended or 
found evidence of was not on the border that we've all been looking at, 
which is the Mexican-U.S. border, but, in fact, on the Canadian border 
where we were doing very little, if anything, on homeland security. The 
committee found that very interesting and put a lot of money and assets 
and said let's start securing the northern border as well as the 
southern border.
  The chairman took a bipartisan CODEL along the whole border from 
Tucson to San Diego, every inch of it, flew it, saw all the assets we 
have. My God, you'd think that we had the entire war in Iraq being 
fought on the Mexican border. We have everything from aircraft of all 
kinds, helicopters, we have ATVs, we have dogs, we have horses, people 
on horseback. We are covering that border like you can't believe.

                              {time}  0115

  In San Diego, we even found a Border Patrol out on the boats in San 
Diego Harbor. It was everything. We saw fences, all kinds of fences, 
vehicle fences, human fences, and areas that it's just unbelievable, as 
far as the eye can see. This border is longer than the distance between 
Washington and San Francisco.
  What we found is that we had better do this thing wisely. Let's 
listen and let's use some smart risk management.
  It all comes down to this bill tonight. What this bill is all about 
is, this is the best Homeland Security bill this country has ever had. 
We are spending all this time just on procedural delays.
  It's ironic that you are going to be hoisted on your own petard, 
because this process that Mr. Obey and the leadership has put in the 
process requires each one of you, when you ask for something that's 
called an earmark, some people call it pork, it's essentially that 
thing that you think is important. You have to disclose why you are 
asking for it.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will address remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, we had to fill out forms that were never, 
never ever in the history of the U.S. Congress asked for more 
disclosure and everything.
  The committee rightfully has stated that this is not the bill to 
attack earmarks, because there haven't been earmarks in this bill. So 
if you want to continue to delay this, rather than getting to the point 
of adopting an appropriations bill to allow the Department of Homeland 
Security to do its job, then let's get on with it.
  I think this has been a night of ridiculous waste of time on 
something that is very, very important on a bill that is very 
important, the first appropriations bill we have had here, one that 
must pass if, indeed, we are going to have homeland, hometown security.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take you back, because I know as you are 
sitting

[[Page H6325]]

there today you have an independent recollection of what it was like to 
come here in your first term. Many of us in this Chamber came just in 
January, took the oath of office, and now what we find is that every 
week is a new week, all new process we are learning.
  So we come in, those of us who are not appropriators, we come into 
our conference, and we hear this is the appropriations week. Wow, sit 
down with our staff, staff gets us up to speed, and we hear about 
earmarks, heard about them a lot in the campaign, and start to get the 
staff briefing on what are the tools that we have in earmarks.
  I heard a lot about them. If you talked to people in Illinois' Sixth 
Congressional District tonight, and they are awake, and you asked them 
about earmarks, you would get their attention. They would focus. It was 
a symbol of an abuse of the process.
  So when you sit down as a freshman and your staff comes in, they say, 
Congressman, this is what you do. You can offer amendments. You can 
argue with these things. You can challenge them on the floor. As iron 
sharpens iron, so one makes another better.
  So that process, that winnowing process, is what this is all about. 
That's what every Member has the right to do, except now, because now 
what ends up happening is our staff tells us, oh, no, but there is this 
new process, Congressman.
  What you get to do is you get to write a letter. Oh, yes, you get to 
write a letter to the chairman of the committee; and the chairman of 
the committee is going to open up that letter, and he's going to make a 
decision about the merits of you, an independent elected Member of 
Congress. That is who you get to talk to.
  You don't get to argue on the House floor. You don't get to light up 
435 people. You don't get to talk to millions of people. You get to 
write one letter. That's where you get to go.
  You know, if you think about that, that's absurd. There are all kinds 
of great things in this bill. No doubt about it. My prior colleague 
from the State of Illinois articulated many good things in this bill. 
It's my hope that we can come together and drive towards those things.
  But to act as if the earmark process is insignificant is really 
patronizing. It's patting people on the head and saying, off with you, 
be lively, you get to write your letter to the chairman, and the 
chairman will make a declaration on whether it's a good idea or a bad 
idea.
  Well, one of our colleagues on the Internet recently said this. He 
said, to his constituents, he said, I will remain no one's Congressman 
but yours. Doesn't that sound great? I mean, that's great stuff, that's 
rich. You know, that is rich in the Chamber of Commerce meetings; 
that's rich in front of the Rotary groups; that's rich in front of the 
coffee groups. And you go door to door, I'm going to be your 
Congressman.
  But you know what? You end up ceding that responsibility. You end up 
ceding that opportunity to one person, and that's only if you are lucky 
enough that he reads your mail.
  Well, I say ``no'' to that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                  Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Roskam

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 214, not voting 34, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 464]

                               AYES--189

     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)
     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)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     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
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     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
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--214

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     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
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     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 (NC)
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     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
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     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

                             NOT VOTING--34

     Baird
     Bordallo
     Boucher
     Carson
     Clay
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastert
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hunter
     Jones (NC)
     Lantos
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Norton
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Rangel
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (TX)
     Stark
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  0138

  So the motion to rise was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H6326]]

  Mr. Chairman, as a freshman, I find myself at somewhat of a 
disadvantage in terms of listening to people speak from both sides of 
the aisle talking about the history of this institution and the way 
that things have been done over the past several Congresses and over 
the past several years. And I find that to be somewhat of a 
disadvantage.
  But I also find it to be somewhat of an advantage. And I find it to 
be an advantage in that you get an ability to look at things from a 
different perspective, from a new perspective, from a perspective not 
jaded by how things were done in the past, but looking at it on how 
things should be done.
  And one of the things that I can't help but notice as a former 
district attorney, when I used to try cases and I would listen to 
opening statements, you can always get a sense of how good your own 
case was by listening to the opening statement of the other side. And 
when they talked about everything, when they talked about the facts, 
you knew they had a good case. But when they talked about everything 
but the facts, you knew they didn't have much of a case.
  That's what we hear happening tonight. We're not hearing anything 
about this bill. We're not hearing discussion of the facts. We're 
hearing everything but what this bill is about.
  Earlier this week we had, in Rules Committee, a very good debate on 
this bill. And one of the points that was brought up on this bill was 
an issue that I think was very important, and that was the requirement 
that this bill would have to require ICE to reach out to local 
institutions, whether it were State, local or Federal, where people 
were being held that could be deported, and that would be on a monthly 
basis, to make a determination whether or not those people should be 
deported.
  And Ranking Member Rogers raised a very good issue during that 
debate, and he and I had some discussion on it. And he said, well, I 
believe that what we should be doing is spending more of our priority 
on the people who are not incarcerated, and I think this bill spends 
too much time worrying about the people who are incarcerated. My 
response to which was, as a former DA, the last thing we want to do is 
let somebody who is right under our nose get away from us. We need to 
stay focused on the people that are incarcerated. They are right there. 
They are under our nose, and we need to stay focused on it.
  That's what this bill does. But the point, the real important point 
of that debate was, it was a substantive debate. It was a debate based 
on the issues. It was a debate based upon the content of the bill 
itself, not about everything else, not about what happened in the past, 
not about how things were done or what is going on. It was based upon 
the substance of the bill. And I think that's what this debate should 
be focused on.
  I think it is a good bill. I think this debate is a good debate when 
it stays focused on the substance of the bill. And that's what I 
believe, as a former DA, this bill is a good bill because it deals with 
important issues that make our communities safer places.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from New 
York, and I do agree with him that it would be best, certainly, if the 
debate could center around the substance of the bill, the legislation.
  That's why we're here tonight; the fact that we will have 12 
appropriation bills coming up, and we can't focus on much of the 
substance of that legislation because it won't be included in that 
legislation. We'll have to wait. We'll have to write to the committee 
and ask for a request or request for a response back.
  You know, a lot of us receive letters from Boy Scouts who are writing 
for their Citizenship in the Nation merit badge. I'm wondering if we'll 
qualify for the same thing by writing to the committee.
  I think we're entitled to a little more than that as Members of 
Congress. I think we're entitled to actually debate this on the floor.
  The other gentleman from New York who talked a bit earlier said that 
we're standing with the American people. I would suggest, you may want 
to go in and log on and see how this is being debated in the 
blogosphere or in the newspapers tomorrow.
  Let me just read a bit of one editorial in tomorrow's Roll Call, for 
example, and see how they're playing it. Roll Call is not exactly a 
bastion of the right.
  It mentions here, it says, ``So, on Monday, he,'' meaning the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, ``announced a new policy: 
Earmarks will be fully disclosed prior to the August recess after House 
voting, but before House-Senate conference, and may be challenged by 
writing a letter to the Appropriations Committee. After considering 
defenses from their sponsors, the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee will decide whether to put earmarks into conference reports. 
There will still be no votes on the issue.''
  The chairman of the Appropriations Committee ``reiterated this system 
was necessitated by time constraints that made it impossible to vet 
32,000 earmark requests before upcoming votes on appropriations bills. 
Asked if he would revert to a policy of full and early disclosure next 
year, he said that he wanted to but couldn't rule out the possibility 
that specific circumstances would arise.''
  This is what they say. ``This simply isn't good enough. The chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee should not only be disclosing all 
earmarks before House voting, but all earmarked requests. Earmarks 
should be open to public vetting, full debate and floor challenge.''
  I have the utmost respect for the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee. He calls himself a reformer, and I believe that. I've had 
the opportunity to debate him over the past several years on these 
earmarks, and I know that he is troubled by them, as well he should be. 
And I know that he struggles with a way to deal with them.
  I simply believe, and I think people across the country feel that 
we're better served with real transparency. And real transparency is 
not keeping these earmarks secret until the point at which you have no 
ability to challenge them on the floor, when you can simply write a 
letter and ask for a response.

                              {time}  0145

  We are legislators; we are not potted plants here. We are here for a 
purpose. We are here to legislate. And to be relegated to just writing 
a letter and asking for a response is simply not sufficient.
  So I simply would say, Mr. Chairman, if the majority party thinks 
that they are with people across the country, I would beg to differ and 
I would ask them to reconsider that and wonder if people across the 
country really want a process where earmarks are kept secret until 
people in this body whose job it is to legislate don't have an 
opportunity to legislate.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  And I know he is serious on this issue, and I respect his integrity 
on this issue and I also respect his consistency. But let me ask the 
gentleman one question.
  Our job is to try to develop a process. It is not a pro forma process 
of review but one that is actually effective.
  The gentleman has offered a lot of motions in the past 2 years to 
strike earmarks. Could I ask him how many of them have been successful?
  Mr. FLAKE. Not one. I came to the floor 39 times and was beaten like 
a rented mule every time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, that is 
not the gentleman's fault. He has genuinely tried to ferret out what he 
thought to be troublesome earmarks and occasionally some of mine.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arizona has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Flake was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.
  One thing that I didn't have when I came before, I never had the 
ability to know whose earmark I was challenging. Many of those 39 times 
I came

[[Page H6327]]

to the floor, debated, even asked for a vote, and still had no clue, 
after the vote was called and it was lost, whose earmark that was. That 
wouldn't happen today, and I commend the Democrats for doing this, 
because of the rules put in place for disclosure. That is great. That 
is good transparency. But with that transparency, we have to have 
accountability.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. FLAKE. I would.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I agree we need accountability. And I want to 
simply say I don't regard your failure to pass any of your amendments 
as a personal failure on your part.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has done his dead level best. The 
problem is that the system is not conducive to producing real results 
because, as the gentleman himself has said on this House floor, Members 
look at these motions and they say, I am not going to vote for the 
Flake amendment because I have got earmarks hanging out there and I 
don't want to have my endangered. The result has been that nothing has 
happened. That is why we have had some of the problems we have had. We 
could have an honest disagreement about what will be the best system, 
but I would hope that the gentleman would recognize, even though he 
might disagree with it, it is an honest effort to develop a system 
which is far more forthcoming than the one we have had in the past.
  And I would simply point out that while the majority leader indicated 
that he had adopted transparency proposals last year, they conveniently 
arranged them so that they didn't apply to any of the appropriation 
bills that they passed last year. That is not the gentleman's fault. 
But it is the responsibility of the minority leader.
  I thank the gentleman for the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.


                  Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 312, 
noes 82, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 42, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 465]

                               AYES--312

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--82

     Abercrombie
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carney
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Delahunt
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Filner
     Gonzalez
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hastings (FL)
     Holt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jones (OH)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Perlmutter
     Rahall
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Ruppersberger
     Salazar
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Welch (VT)
     Woolsey
     Wu

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Cohen
       

                             NOT VOTING--42

     Baird
     Bordallo
     Boucher
     Carson
     Clay
     Coble
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastert
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kilpatrick
     Lantos
     Meehan
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Norton
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (TX)
     Stark
     Udall (CO)
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  0207

  Ms. SLAUGHTER changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to rise was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Tauscher) having assumed the chair, Mr. Frank, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________