[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H7168-H7175]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2892, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
                   SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  For purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my 
friend from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  I yield myself as much time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 573.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, today the House will debate and vote 
on the Homeland Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010.
  My friend Chairman David Price and Ranking Member Harold Rogers have 
crafted a strong bill which invests in robust border security, 
attentive and agile emergency management capabilities, helpful to State 
and local partners, and secures our transportation system. This bill 
reflects Congress' commitment to protect our Nation from the threats it 
faces with a bottom line $2.6 billion increase in Department of 
Homeland Security funding over last year.
  In the area of border security and immigration enforcement, this bill 
increases funding for Customs and Border Protection by more than $146 
million. This increase will allow the Border Patrol to better address 
violence and drug smuggling along our southern border, which has become 
a very serious concern in recent years. For emergency preparedness and 
response, this bill fully funds the versatile State Homeland Security 
Grant program, a program for which I have long advocated. This critical 
program allows for States to address the security threats most pressing 
to them. After all, the biggest threats to Colorado may not be the same 
as the biggest threats to New York or California.
  This bill also restores funding to the Assistance for Firefighters 
Grant program to $800 million. I have presented dozens of Federal grant 
checks to fire departments across my district during my tenure in 
Congress; and I can say from experience, FIRE and SAFER Grants mean 
better training for our firefighters, better equipment and more 
firefighters on our streets, and safety for our citizens.
  On another topic, I have said for years now that our computer 
networks are essential parts of our Nation's infrastructure; and as 
such, they need more focus for security. So I am pleased to see this 
bill increases funding for DHS's National Cybersecurity Division by $68 
million over last year.
  In the field of transportation security, this bill takes a large step 
forward. We increased funding for aviation security by $511 million 
over last year, investing a great deal in screening and detection 
technology for explosives. More important, in my opinion, we more than 
doubled funding for surface transportation security. This commitment is 
an essential step to preventing attacks on our rail and mass transit 
systems which have been the target of attacks in places such as London, 
Madrid and Mumbai.
  Although we increase funding for many activities under DHS, this bill 
also tightens the belt. The bill terminates 16 programs, many of which 
have been unsuccessful in meeting their mission. In addition, the bill 
cuts nearly $800 million from various programs. In short, this bill 
puts the taxpayer dollars in the components of DHS which provide real 
results and real security.
  Looking beyond the funding levels of this bill, we must also 
recognize that DHS is a department which relies heavily on a well-
trained workforce. This bill provides the resources the Department of 
Homeland Security personnel, as well as our State and local partners, 
need to meet their objectives. I urge my colleagues to support this 
rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my 
appreciation to my very good friend, a new member of the Rules 
Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) for yielding me 
the customary 30 minutes.
  I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am going to begin by doing something 
that I don't believe I have ever done when managing a rule here in the 
House. Traditionally when Mr. Boehner, our Republican leader, gets up 
or my Rules Committee colleagues, Messrs. Diaz-Balart and Sessions or 
Ms. Foxx, would stand up here, we rise to basically make the case for 
Members of the minority. We're Republicans. We make the Republican case 
about how important it is for us to ensure the rights of the minority, 
something that James Madison talked about very eloquently 220 years 
ago.
  Today I rise on behalf of all of my colleagues; and I rise, 
especially today, for Democrats because it's unprecedented that we 
would be in the circumstance that we are today. Now I've seen an awful 
lot in this institution in the years that I've been privileged to serve 
here. I've observed the way this House is run. In most instances, under 
both Democrats and Republicans, I have been very proud of the work 
product that has emerged. But in many of those instances, I have been 
less than proud of the way the greatest deliberative body known to 
man--or what has been described as such by people like the 
distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Obey, is no 
longer the greatest deliberative body known to man, or at least we're 
slipping away from that--because we're undermining the deliberative 
process.
  Usually when we get off-track, which has happened under both 
Republicans

[[Page H7169]]

and Democrats, and put our short-term goals ahead of the long-term 
interest of the institution, it is not a good thing. It is, we often 
believe, noble for us to put our short-term goals there because we have 
an important priority. When my friends in the majority asked the Nation 
to give them control of this House, they correctly criticized me 
personally and others within the Republican leadership because we said 
that we limited their voices in amendment and debate. It didn't happen 
often, but it did happen. And I will say that without the ability to 
offer improvements to legislation and ideas, Members of this body could 
not do the job that they are charged with doing; and that is, pursuing 
the hopes, dreams and aspirations of their constituents. We all 
represent a little less than three-quarters of a million people; and we 
have a responsibility, Democrats and Republicans alike, to do just 
that. That's why I say again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the 
effort to ensure that my Democratic colleagues are not shut out of this 
process.
  Now as you know very well, Madam Speaker, when our California 
colleague, Speaker Pelosi, took the gavel, she promised that they would 
do better than I did as chairman of the Rules Committee, and better 
than our Republican leadership had done in the past. Unfortunately this 
rule before us really illustrates just how far we have fallen from 
those great words that were put forward by Speaker Pelosi.
  With this rule, it's very difficult for me to know exactly where to 
begin with criticism; but let's start with the very nature of the rule 
itself. We all know that the House has allowed less debate and fewer 
amendments in its consideration of bills over the last few years. The 
one great exception to that has been the appropriations process. Why? 
Because we all know article I, section 9 of the Constitution places the 
responsibility to spend the people's money in our hands as Members of 
Congress. We've always taken this responsibility very seriously in a 
bipartisan way. And we've always--under both Democrats and 
Republicans--allowed Democrats and Republicans to engage in a free-
flowing and rigorous debate.
  Everyone is very, very concerned about what happened last week. My 
Democratic colleagues are concerned with the number of votes that were 
held and the outrage that we demonstrated. We Republicans are horrified 
that we began down that route. Unfortunately, last week's act was just 
the warm-up to what we're seeing today. Today we are beginning what can 
only be described as the main event. This is because today's rule will 
become the model for every appropriations bill that we consider in the 
future. It is very likely that this rule, Madam Speaker, will become 
the model for every bill that we consider in this Congress.
  Rather than any Member, Republican or Democrat, being able to offer 
any germane amendment on behalf of their constituents and the Nation, 
this resolution from the Rules Committee, under the direction of 
Chairman Obey and Speaker Pelosi, limits what ideas can be debated on 
this floor; and as I said, it limits the ideas proposed by my 
Democratic colleagues. So anyone who wants to say that I'm standing 
here, Madam Speaker, just whining on behalf of the minority, it is 
preposterous. Democrats sat in line before the Rules Committee until 
nearly 11 o'clock last night; and Democrats have been shut out of this 
process. So unfortunately I, representing the minority, am the only one 
who can stand here on behalf of our Democratic colleagues. It means, 
unfortunately, that our constituents--and I say this to my colleagues--
our constituents in Democratic districts and Republican districts alike 
are unfortunately being held hostage by the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee. If he's having a bad day, the American people 
will have no recourse. That means that our constituents' concerns about 
spending will go unheeded, and we all know that that's what this is 
about. If you doubt it, look no further than last week's funding bill 
for this institution alone. We fought for several amendments that could 
bring about a reduction in the 16.2 percent increase in spending for 
the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. We had some large cuts, but 
we had the most modest cut imaginable. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Broun) offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to allow for a one-
half of 1 percent reduction in the 16.2 percent increase that we put 
into place. While the American people are struggling to make ends meet, 
while people are trying to keep their jobs, their homes, we in this 
institution allowed for a 16.2 percent increase; and we simply said in 
the appropriations process that maybe we should debate on the floor 
whether or not we would have a one-half of 1 percent cut. Unfortunately 
that was completely denied.
  I also want to take a moment to discuss some of the more creative 
aspects of this rule, as were read by the Reading Clerk. For the first 
time ever, the rule allows the Chair to impose 2-minute voting. Now 
previously 2-minute voting was something that was done with a 
bipartisan agreement. Democrats and Republicans came together and said, 
We have got so many votes here, rather than having Members sit around 
with 5-minute voting, we would agree to 2-minute voting. Now I will say 
that ignoring this process that has existed in the past, including the 
provision that allows the Chair to actually impose 2-minute voting, we 
ignore the stress that 2-minute voting places on the nonpartisan 
professionals who tally our votes. It increases the opportunity for 
error.
  I would commend to my colleagues the report of the Select Committee 
to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of August 2, 2007; and on page 
10 under The Events Surrounding Roll Call Number 814, it makes very 
clear that one of the factors involved in this was the fact that there 
were 11 2-minute votes held leading up to that. I know full well, as I 
look at the wonderfully dedicated and hardworking rostrum staff, what a 
litany of 2-minute votes is imposed on them.

                              {time}  1315

  And we want to make sure that what happened on August 2 of 2007 never 
happens again. And allowing the Chair to impose 2-minute voting does 
create the potential for that.
  I also have to say, Madam Speaker, that I'm very concerned about the 
fact that this rule does create a scenario that puts people in an 
awkward position. I have a number of very, very close friends with whom 
I have been privileged to serve here. One of those is my colleague from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price), who works closely with Mr. Rogers in a 
bipartisan way dealing with the issue of our Nation's homeland 
security.
  I have already said, Madam Speaker, that I am very troubled with 
amendment No. 68 that was put forward, and I don't mean to get too far 
down into the weeds here, but we have another unprecedented action put 
into place here. Amendment No. 68 simply said, page 93, line 13, 
``strike `the.' '' This is the amendment that was submitted to the 
Rules Committee. This amendment was submitted, and a revised version of 
it was submitted; and now, Madam Speaker, the revised version makes in 
order seven amendments, one of which actually required waivers to allow 
it to proceed. Now, this has not been done before and it's unfortunate. 
It was really sort of a bait and switch. We saw this amendment that 
said ``strike `the,' '' and then it's revised all of a sudden with 
seven amendments being made in order. Unfortunately, this is not the 
kind of transparency that we were promised when the new majority came 
to power.
  There are other elements to the rule that I don't want to discuss, 
but suffice it to say that each and every provision of this rule, Madam 
Speaker, is designed to restrict and limit the rights of Democrats and 
Republicans to debate and improve this bill, as has always been done in 
the 220-year history of this great institution.
  Now, why is any of this important? Because, Madam Speaker, process is 
substance. In committee there were many amendments defeated even though 
they would have gone a long way to improving the bill and reducing 
problems like illegal immigration, an issue that Mr. Rogers has worked 
very closely on. One of those is the E-Verify program that my 
California colleague (Mr. Calvert) has worked on. He made an attempt to 
offer that amendment. It was defeated. And Mr. Kingston similarly 
offered an amendment to require government contractors to use E-Verify 
to deal with our Nation's border security. His amendment was also 
defeated. I supported both of those

[[Page H7170]]

amendments up in the Rules Committee.
  Now we won't get the opportunity to debate the kinds of things that 
Mr. Rogers, Mr. Calvert, and Mr. Kingston wanted us to be able to 
address. I personally believe that, while I support E-Verify, I believe 
that the bill that I have worked on, H.R. 98, which would establish a 
smart counterfeit-proof Social Security card, is the best way to end 
the magnet that draws people into the country illegally. But I do think 
that E-Verify is a very important step in the direction of dealing with 
our security.
  Under the traditional process, Madam Speaker, as you know very well, 
we could address all of these issues. All of these issues from both 
Democrats and Republicans could have been considered, but, 
unfortunately, it ain't going to happen.
  One of the most senior Members of this institution once said, ``We 
have gotten so far from the regular order that I fear that the House 
will not have the capacity to return to the precedents and procedures 
of the House that have given true meaning to the term `representative 
democracy.' The reason that we have stuck to regular order as long as 
we have in this institution is to protect the rights of every Member to 
participate. And when we lose those rights, we lose the right to be 
called the greatest deliberative body left in the world.''
  Now, that Member was David Obey. He said that in the fall of 2000. 
While he was concerned about how the House was handling an 
appropriations conference report, those were the words of Chairman Obey 
at that time. His words have never been truer than they are right now. 
The problem is that now the shoe is on the other foot. Today Chairman 
Obey is the one who is circumventing regular order.
  What we have here is, Madam Speaker, what tragically is becoming the 
new normal. And it's all being done in the name of dramatically 
increasing spending because we have seen over the last 2 years an 85 
percent increase in nondefense spending, an 85 percent increase in 
nondefense spending. And now we're denied any opportunity to bring 
about the kinds of reductions that we need to utilize.
  Madam Speaker, I know that we have schedules to keep. That's the 
argument that is regularly propounded by the Chair of the Rules 
Committee and others in the Democratic leadership. We understand the 
exigencies of that schedule. But throwing aside the quaint notion of 
democracy and debate is something that I believe would lead, as 
Republican leader John Boehner said earlier today, Thomas Jefferson to 
be spinning in his grave. It would lead James Madison to be horrified, 
the notion of casting aside democracy and debate because we have to 
maintain our schedules.
  And I will say again on this scheduling notion, Madam Speaker, last 
week, rather than 127 amendments, we would have had, I believe, 30 
amendments, and before we had gotten to consideration of the 
legislative branch bill, I am sure that hours and hours and hours ahead 
of that we would have been completed with the work of the Commerce-
Justice-Science Appropriations bill.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stand up for 
the rights of Democratic Members of this institution who are being 
denied this. Reject this rule. Let's come back with what has been the 
case for 220 years under both political parties, that being an open 
process.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of my friend 
how many speakers he has on his side.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Certainly.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Well, I would first 
inquire of my friend if he has any speakers before I respond.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I do not.
  Mr. DREIER. Let me just say at this juncture we do have several 
speakers, and I would ask my friend if he might want to yield some of 
his time because I know we have several speakers who would gladly 
utilize the time.
  I will say to my friend that it does seem to me rather unfortunate 
that, with the exception of our very brave and courageous friend from 
Colorado, there is no one on the majority side who wants to stand up 
and defend the notion of denying Democrats----
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Reclaiming my time, I thank my friend from California 
for commending me.
  But what I want to talk about, and I will be brief and then reserve 
the balance of my time, is I appreciate some of the comments that the 
gentleman has made about the need for debate and speech and the 
opportunity for each of us to have a say as to the legislation that 
proceeds from this Chamber. But on the other hand, this country, the 
people of this country are demanding that we act, that we not 
completely just shut down and sit on our hands, twiddle our thumbs and 
say, woe is me, but it is time to act both on appropriations bills as 
well as other bills.
  And I'd say to my friend, and I know that it was a way to protest 
what was happening on the floor, but the delay that was exhibited last 
week simply frustrates the will of the electorate to change the 
direction of this Nation. And I would also remind my friend that, Madam 
Speaker, the pressure that is placed on our staff at the rostrum by 
changing votes time and time again simply really is the problem and 
really redoubles the effort that they have to put forward.
  So I appreciate his comments about the pressure that's placed on the 
staff by 2-minute voting. I would remind my friend the same kind of 
pressure, if not a lot more, is placed on the staff by changing votes 
for, in my opinion, only reasons of delay.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will be happy to yield to my friend if he wants to engage on this 
issue at all.
  First, to his last point, as he talked about the challenge that our 
wonderful rostrum staff before us, who are so dedicated and hard 
working, have to deal with with repeated votes. So the answer to that 
is to allow the Chair to impose on this institution 2-minute voting? I 
know this is all inside baseball stuff, but all one needs to do is go 
back and look at that report on the August 2, 2007, vote, which I have 
right here and look at page 10, and the issue of 2-minute votes is 
raised.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. To that point by my friend, on page 10, I have read 
the report since last night; so I thank you for pointing it out to me. 
And what page 10 says, and really what has led to this moment, I'd say 
to my friend, is the fact that at the close of the legislative day of 
Thursday, August 2, the House had been in session for 51 hours that 
week and 65 hours the week before. There really is no causal relation, 
I'd say to my friend, to where it talks about 2-minute votes.
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, let me just say that, 
again, if you look at the middle paragraph on page 10, the issue of 2-
minute voting is raised, and I think common sense would say with the 
argument just put forward by my friend from Colorado about the 
challenge of votes, the notion of going from 5-minute to 2-minute votes 
does not improve the situation that they face.
  To my friend's first point, Madam Speaker, I would like to say the 
following: the American people did send us here to act. They're 
expecting action. They want us to act. The American people are hurting. 
I come from Los Angeles, California. We have a 12\1/2\ percent 
unemployment rate in the City of Los Angeles. I represent suburban Los 
Angeles and part of the Inland Empire, and I will say that we are 
dealing with very serious economic challenges. People are losing their 
businesses, people are losing their homes, and people are obviously 
losing their jobs. They want us to get our economy back on track. And 
one of the things that they were promised was that if we passed the 
economic stimulus bill, the unemployment would not exceed 8 percent. 
Right now we all know that the unemployment rate, as was said by 
President Obama, is now 9.4 percent; and based on reports we have 
received in the last few days, it reportedly is probably going to go 
higher. I hope and pray that that is not the case.

[[Page H7171]]

  But one of the things that we've found is that over the last couple 
of years, an 85 percent increase in nondefense spending has not 
provided what the American people want, and that is some security when 
it comes to their jobs, getting their jobs back, saving their 
businesses, and saving their homes. That's the action they want us to 
take. And the process we are in the midst of right now denies us any 
opportunity, Democrats or Republicans, the chance to bring about 
meaningful cuts in expenditures.
  At this point, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security 
from the Appropriations Committee, my very, very good friend and 
classmate (Mr. Rogers).

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I am sorely disappointed at the rule that has been 
proposed for the consideration of this Homeland Security Appropriations 
bill, one of the most important of the bills that the Congress will 
face. Our constituents are entitled to have us speak for them. That is 
the reason that they selected us. And yet now we are being denied the 
opportunity to register the thoughts and opinions of the constituents 
that we represent.
  There were some 70 amendments proffered to be offered on the floor on 
this bill. Only 14 will be allowed. Never in my experience, and I have 
been here 28 years, on the Appropriations Committee 26 of those years, 
have I ever seen a rule this restrictive on allowing members of the 
committee, as well as the Members of the body, to express their views.
  This is a muzzle of the minority. You are muzzling the people that we 
represent. You say, well, there are so many amendments, it would take 
us forever, and it would slow down our process of spending. That is 
what this is all about. The majority is attempting to muzzle the 
minority to speed up the process of spending, borrowing, and taxing. I 
regret that. I think it is sad for the institution, not to mention our 
constituents and the Members of this body.
  Well, those 70 amendments we could go through in no time flat. Last 
year, well, for the 2008 appropriations for this department, there were 
178 amendments offered. We didn't shut down the process and deny those 
people the chance to offer their amendment and to say their piece about 
what their constituents thought about the bill. We simply went through 
them, 2 days. After a certain period of time, we were able to work out 
unanimous consent agreements amongst the Members of the body to reduce 
the time allotted to each amendment. Or we substituted a colloquy with 
the other offerer of the amendment instead of offering the amendment, 
and that satisfied them. They had their day in court, so to speak. 
Other amendments were not offered. This is nothing new. This is the 
practice of this honored institution to allow Members to offer their 
thoughts and opinions and amendments.
  If it takes time, that is what democracy is all about. It may not be 
pretty. The making of sausage is not pretty. But that is what we are in 
the process and the business of doing. You are shutting down the 
Members of this body who have legitimate, in-order amendments, almost 
in toto. And I resent that. The ranking member of the subcommittee was 
denied the opportunity to offer his own amendment, a legitimate, in-
order amendment.
  That has never happened, to my knowledge, before. You are making 
history, but in a sad, sad way. Give us the chance to speak for our 
constituents, the people that want to know why you are shutting off 
their voice in this great deliberative body. Give us an open rule, as 
we have always had it. We have never had a restrictive rule like this 
on appropriations bills. Give us a chance to be heard.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute 
to the son of a 20-year veteran of the House Rules Committee, the 
gentleman from Bowling Green, Ohio (Mr. Latta).
  Mr. LATTA. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, last night we brought, in my opinion, a very important 
amendment before the Rules Committee dealing with what I called the 
Homeland Security Administration run amok with their bureaucrats. And 
what this would do is, this amendment would prevent the Homeland 
Security Administration from being able to utilize the dollars under 
the bill to say that over 36 million Americans that have a certain type 
of pocketknife, I don't care if it is from a hunter or a fisherman or a 
farmer or a person that works in a factory or a police officer or a 
firefighter, and make these illegal. And it is sad that we have to do 
it this way, that instead of bringing them here to the floor that we 
have to go through the Rules Committee. But I think that the amendment 
that we offered last night, along with my colleague from Idaho (Mr. 
Minnick), that it is an important thing to save jobs in this country. I 
think he said in his district alone it would be over some 200 hundred 
jobs. Nationally you are looking at over 4,000 individuals in a time 
when we are losing jobs in this country; 4,000 jobs could be affected, 
and ancillary jobs by over 20,000 jobs. So I really stress that this is 
an important amendment. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I continue to reserve.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield 1 minute to my very good friend from Athens, 
Georgia, who had an amendment that he would have been allowed to debate 
if we had an open rule, and unfortunately, he is not (Mr. Broun of 
Georgia).
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today in strong opposition to this rule. I submitted six 
amendments to this bill. And I am outraged that the Democrats have 
denied my rights to debate and receive a vote on any of them today. And 
actually they not only denied my right, but they are denying Americans 
the ability for us to present amendments that will stop this outrageous 
spending.
  One of my amendments would have added funding to the 287(g) program, 
which provides State law enforcement with the training and subsequent 
authorization to identify a process and then, when appropriate, detain 
immigration offenders that they encounter during their regular job as 
law enforcement. I had many amendments. But the Democrats denied my 
constituents, denied the American people, the ability to have my voice 
and others' heard.
  They are stealing our grandchildren's future with this outrageous 
spending. We have got to stop it. The American people need to stand up 
and say ``no'' to this steamroller of socialism that is being brought 
by the Democratic majority and their leadership.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I still reserve my time. I would ask my friend how 
many speakers he has.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me say that there were a number of 
Members who were expected to be joining us, I would say to my friend, 
and the fact is that they were anticipating a debate taking place on 
the rule. And very, very courageously, my friend has been the only 
Member on the Democratic side to stand up, and I am the one standing 
here defending the rights of Democrats I'm happy to say. So the 
gentleman might want to talk for a couple of minutes while I wait for 
some of my colleagues who thought the debate might be taking place 
later if he wants to.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would say my friend from California can speak on 
his own behalf and take up a few minutes if he likes, but I'm going to 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, well, I guess then that I will close the 
debate. I thought we were expecting some other people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, this debate is all about spending. The 
American people are hurting. Jobs are being lost. Businesses are being 
lost. Homes are being lost. And the American people are expecting us to 
put into place policies that will get the economy back on track.
  We were promised by President Obama that if we passed the $787 
billion, really $1 trillion, stimulus bill

[[Page H7172]]

that the unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent. Today the 
unemployment rate is at 9.4 percent, and tragically it appears to be 
getting worse. And what is our answer? Well, it is to continue a 
pattern that has been going on for 2 years now. In nondefense spending, 
we have had an 85 percent increase in Federal spending, an 85 percent 
increase.
  And what is it we have said? We believe, Madam Speaker, that we can 
responsibly put into place spending cuts. We have made attempts. My 
friend, Mr. Broun, whom I mentioned earlier, wanted to offer a one-half 
of 1 percent spending cut in the 16.2 percent increase that was put 
into place for our spending for the legislative branch last week, and 
he was denied his chance to bring about that modest cut.
  As we look at the appropriations process now, bringing about 
reductions in spending is not an option. They are simply increases in 
spending time and time again.
  Now what is being utilized to make sure that we can continue to 
increase spending? Well, unfortunately, Madam Speaker, what is being 
done is we are shutting out the opportunity for both Democrats and 
Republicans to have a right to offer amendments. Now I will say, having 
been here for more than a couple of years, one of the most exhilarating 
experiences that one can have as a Member of Congress is to stand up 
under an open rule, especially during the appropriations process, ask 
that they strike the last word, and be recognized for 5 minutes to 
engage in what can really be a free-flowing debate. We have two members 
of the Rules Committee who have never served in this institution 
before, and they have never experienced the opportunity for that free-
flowing debate on any legislation. And an open rule has not been an 
option so far.
  But Madam Speaker, I never thought that I would see the day when we 
would, on the sacrosanct article 1, section 9 power in the Constitution 
dealing with spending, prevent Democrats and Republicans from having an 
opportunity to engage in that. I think about my colleagues who want to 
regularly engage in debate, Democrats like Dennis Kucinich and Marcy 
Kaptur. I may not agree with them often, but I believe they should be 
able to participate in the process. We have Republicans like Devin 
Nunes, Jeff Flake and others who want to be able to stand up. Mr. 
Broun, who just spoke, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Calvert and others want to have 
a chance to stand up. And guess what, Madam Speaker? They unfortunately 
are denied that in this process.
  Justice Felix Frankfurter in 1943 made the following statement. He 
said, The history of liberty is largely due to the history of 
procedural safeguards.
  Now, Madam Speaker, I believe that the Federal Government is too big 
and spends too much, as our Leader Boehner regularly says. And I 
believe that we should have a right to bring about those reductions so 
that we can get our economy back on track to ensure that Americans 
aren't going to lose their jobs, their businesses and their homes. And 
we are denied that chance today.
  But I want to say to my Democratic colleagues and my Republican 
colleagues, Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity. And it is before us 
right now. All we need to do is vote ``no'' on the previous question, 
and what will happen? We will be continuing the 220-year tradition of 
appropriations under an open amendment process. If we can defeat the 
previous question, I, Madam Speaker, will offer an amendment that will 
allow us to do exactly what Chairwoman Obey in the year 2000 said 
needed to be done. We need to allow for a free-flowing, open debate so 
that deliberative democracy can, in fact, once again flourish. So I 
urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question and allow us 
to have the opportunity to offer an open rule.
  And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I do want to compliment my friend from 
California on his debate, his comments, his remarks and his complaints. 
Some of them are legitimate. But what we are here today to deal with is 
the security of the United States of America. He is complaining about 
an 85 percent increase in spending when my friend knows full well that 
spending came about because of tax cuts, the prosecution of two wars, 
the collapse of a banking system and an emergency in the United States 
of America to get us back on track and to change the direction of this 
Nation.
  Now what we are dealing with in this bill, and the reason we need to 
bring it on the floor and act, not delay, not delay like we saw last 
week, with Members circling the well, changing their votes time and 
time again or presenting amendments where they add $1 million, subtract 
$1 million, just to have an amendment. We are here, Madam Speaker, 
because this is one of our most important responsibilities, and that is 
to protect this country from terrorist attacks, foreign and domestic, 
and to ensure that our borders are secure. That is the purpose of the 
Homeland Security Appropriations bill.
  The bill at $42.6 billion is slightly above last year's level. But it 
helps with Coast Guard, with border violence, with maritime safety, 
environmental protection, and assistance for the TSA as people come and 
go through our airports, as well as cybersecurity.

                              {time}  1345

  There are funds in the bill for FEMA, for flood map modernization, 
and for rebuilding of the gulf coast. This is a sensible investment. 
This is a sensible rule, and I would ask, Madam Speaker, that because 
this bill invests in a stronger domestic security both at our borders, 
throughout our transportation systems and our communities, I urge a 
``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the amendment be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on 
the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:

 Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H. Res. 573 Offered by Mr. 
                          Dreier of California

       Strike the resolved clause and all that follows and insert 
     the following:
       Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker shall, 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. 2892) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2010, 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.
                                  ____

       (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

[[Page H7173]]

     control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information 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.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam 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. DREIER. Madam 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 the adoption of H. Res. 573, if ordered, 
and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 2990.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 174, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 428]

                               YEAS--238

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--174

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Boustany
     Bright
     Campbell
     Himes
     Issa
     Kennedy
     Kissell
     Lewis (GA)
     Markey (CO)
     McHenry
     Miller (NC)
     Schauer
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Snyder
     Souder
     Speier
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Watson
     Wu

                              {time}  1410

  Messrs. FLEMING and TERRY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BLUMENAUER, CARNEY, and MEEKS of New York changed their vote 
from ``nay to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          Motion to Reconsider

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to reconsider.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172, 
noes 238, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 429]

                               AYES--172

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert

[[Page H7174]]


     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (MA)
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--238

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Cao
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Fudge
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Abercrombie
     Berkley
     Bright
     Campbell
     Davis (TN)
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Himes
     Kennedy
     Kissell
     Lewis (GA)
     Markey (CO)
     Matheson
     McHenry
     Mica
     Paul
     Rangel
     Shea-Porter
     Snyder
     Stupak
     Sullivan


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1418

  Mr. HINOJOSA changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to reconsider was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239, 
nays 184, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 430]

                               YEAS--239

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--184

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis

[[Page H7175]]


     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Boswell
     Campbell
     Doyle
     Kennedy
     Lewis (GA)
     McHenry
     Shea-Porter
     Snyder
     Stupak
     Sullivan


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are less than 2 
minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1426

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          Motion to Reconsider

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to reconsider.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 169, 
nays 251, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 431]

                               YEAS--169

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--251

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Cao
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Burgess
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Conyers
     Kennedy
     Lewis (GA)
     Lujan
     McHenry
     Ryan (WI)
     Shea-Porter
     Snyder
     Stupak
     Sullivan


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remaining on 
this vote.

                              {time}  1433

  So the motion to reconsider was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________