[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 21330-21334]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4954, SAFE 
                                PORT ACT

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
at any time for the chairman of the Committee on Rules or his designee, 
without intervention of any point of order, to call up House Resolution 
1064; that the resolution be considered as read; and that the 
resolution be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled 
by the proponent and an opponent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the 
House and as the designee of the chairman of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1064 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1064

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 4954) to improve maritime and cargo security 
     through enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes. 
     All points of order against the conference report and against 
     its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this consent 
agreement providing for the consideration of a conference report for 
the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act. This port security 
bill, which has been agreed to now by the conference committee, came as 
a result of House action that was made on May 4 that passed this House 
421-2.
  Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that there are four major provisions 
within this SAFE Act: number one, enhancing security at U.S. ports; 
number two, preventing threats from reaching the United States of 
America; number three, tracking and protecting containers en route to 
the United States; and, number four, establishing the Domestic Nuclear 
Detection Office.
  Mr. Speaker, we have spent a lot of time in this House of 
Representatives speaking about and working with our counterparts in the 
United States Senate as well as the administration on better ways that 
we can enhance port security. This conference report which we bring 
tonight, the last night before we go to recess, is an important victory 
for the American people. It stands to continue the safeguard position 
that this great Nation expects not only of

[[Page 21331]]

its government but expects from the House of Representatives. I am 
proud that we are able to bring this bill forward tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, as has already been pointed out, today, at least 
tonight, we consider the conference report for the major security 
legislation for this year. I voted for this bill in May, and I likely 
will vote for this conference report.
  I point out, however, that this bill could have and should have been 
much better. If the majority really cared about safety and security and 
if they cared more than they do about naked partisanship and political 
advantage, this would be a bill that we could all be proud to pass.
  For example, Mr. Speaker, when the bill was considered this spring 
and again now, we were prohibited from considering a Democratic 
amendment offered by Representatives Nadler, Oberstar, Markey, and 
others which requires that every shipping container be scanned and 
sealed before being loaded onto a ship destined for the United States. 
The scary fact remains that less than 5 percent of all containers 
coming into the United States through our ports are scanned.
  Mr. Speaker, as someone who represents a district which depends 
greatly upon three major international ports for economic activity, I 
took considerable umbrage with the majority's not allowing this 
amendment to be considered. I take issue with your conscious decision 
to block the House from considering proposals which would have, without 
a doubt, made my constituents and the American people safer.
  Moreover, the rule this past spring prohibited the ranking Democratic 
member of the Homeland Security Committee, an expert in this field, 
Bennie Thompson, from making constructive changes to the bill. Ranking 
Member Thompson's changes address the fact that we cannot continue 
asking Customs officials to do more with less. His amendment authorized 
funding for U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to hire 1,600 more officers 
at seaports.
  Mr. Speaker, as I previously mentioned, I am proud to represent a 
region in our country which is home to some of our largest 
international seaports. Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale, Port of 
Palm Beach in Riviera Beach, and the Port of Miami, each within or just 
minutes from the district I am privileged to represent, have led the 
way in security improvements in America. The three, Port Everglades in 
particular, have all enjoyed national and international best practices 
recognition.
  So when I come to the floor today and consider the underlying 
legislation, I have to ask does this legislation get our ports to where 
they need to be regarding security. The answer is it gets us closer, 
but we can and must do better.
  Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity in May to do something about a 
real problem which we all know exists at America's seaports. We will 
accomplish some with the passage of this bill, but we must return to 
this topic when the new Congress convenes next January after a new 
direction. We can do better and we will do better for the American 
people. When we come next year, Democrats will give our Customs and 
Border Patrol officers the necessary tools and directives to do 
everything that they can possibly do to stop attacks from happening 
here in the United States. Until this time we have this bill, which is 
a first step, and that is all it is, a first step.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Florida has pointed up 
not only the hard work that we have been doing on this bill, bipartisan 
work for a number of years, but also really about the effort or the 
direction, the direction that we are aiming at. And, in fact, under 
this SAFE Port Act of 2006, we are setting a timeline by which 100 
percent of all containers will be scanned for radiation, by requiring 
the Department of Homeland Security to set the timeline for deploying 
these radiation detectors.
  Mr. Speaker, we are also making sure that we are adding the number of 
people to the Customs and Border Patrol who will conduct these 
validations. We are going to make sure that we continue to add, as 
necessary, the numbers of people pointed at the right direction.
  The gentleman from Florida is correct: we are not exactly where we 
want to be. But for us to think that 100 percent of everything can just 
be done overnight is not the reality of where the threat is at this 
country. I believe this President, I believe this administration, I 
believe this Congress have been aware of the frailties of our systems. 
We are trying to match our dollars, the resolve of this great Nation, 
with the ability on all of our borders to be able to make sure that we 
are looking at the threats of the 21st century that come to us as a 
result of terrorist organizations. We want to make sure that by doing 
this bill tonight that we allow and put into motion the opportunity for 
the Department of Homeland Security to be better prepared to face those 
threats that come against the United States.
  This passed 421-2. It is an indication, it was in May, that we are 
headed in the right direction. I am confident tonight that the final 
answer that comes from the negotiation with the Senate can be on the 
President's desk as early as tomorrow, ready and waiting to protect 
this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I heard that the conference was a farce. My 
colleague from Texas said we are headed in a new direction.
  People don't need no new direction. What people need is an absolute 
destination. And the fact of the matter is there were people who could 
have made this bill better and we are shut out of the process the same 
as we have been all the way down the line.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my very good 
friend, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my very dear friend, the 
outstanding congressman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me 
this time.
  On Wednesday morning I came to the floor of the House to protest the 
fact that the Republican leadership was holding up the Department of 
Defense bill because they wanted to attach a ban on Internet gaming. It 
was more important to the Republican leadership to keep people from 
playing poker on their computers in their homes than passing a defense 
bill that would help protect our troops serving this Nation in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and the rest of the world. So the last bill that we pass 
before we adjourn on the vital and important issue of port security 
contains the ban on Internet gaming.
  What does a ban on Internet gaming have to do with port security? 
Absolutely nothing.
  This section was added to the bill in an attempt to fire up the far-
right anti-gaming element of the Republican Party in time for this 
year's election. They could not sneak it into the defense bill, so they 
put it into the port security bill.
  What does banning Internet gaming have to do with port security? I 
cannot think of a single thing.
  To ensure that this provision stayed in, they actually prevented the 
conferees from meeting and offering amendments. That is taking 
partisanship to a new low even in this Congress where partisanship is 
the rule rather than the exception.
  If we must resign ourselves to adding extraneous provisions to 
conference reports, why don't we add something meaningful that could 
actually help people? How about stopping the cut in Medicare 
physicians' reimbursement so that the doctors can continue to treat 
older Americans? How about something like that that can do millions of 
Americans some good? But that wouldn't please the far-right 
ultraconservative anti-gaming types in the Republican Party as much as 
preventing individuals from wagering on the Internet in the comfort of 
their own homes.
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill because it addresses important 
national security issues. But I hope that

[[Page 21332]]

the American people, those that are listening to us debate tonight, are 
aware of the partisan games that are being played with this bill by the 
Republican leadership in this Congress.
  I support all of the strenuous objections you have, Mr. Hastings, to 
this piece of legislation that is important, could have been good, 
should have been better, and isn't.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I came down to speak about the bill, the 
SAFE Port Act of 2006, and to move this bill forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If 
the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule that instructs the enrolling Clerk to modify the conference report 
and add important provisions from the Senate version of this bill. 
These provisions are virtually identical to those in the motion to 
instruct that the House overwhelmingly adopted just 24 hours ago by a 
vote of 281-140.

                              {time}  2145

  Any Member who supported that motion last night should support my 
amendment today.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, when the House passed this bill 
in May, it passed by a wide bipartisan margin and focused exclusively 
on port security issues. When the Senate took up this bill, however, it 
broadened the scope of this legislation to address the gaping security 
holes in our country's rail, subway, bus and trucking system.
  Secretary Chertoff and the House Republicans called these new 
sections ``goulash.'' I think they are good policy, and I think they 
should be part of the bill we send to the President today. If we can 
stick unrelated gambling legislation into this conference report, Mr. 
Speaker, why cannot we include legislation that will improve our mass 
transit and rail security?
  Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission noted in its final report that our 
surface transportation systems such as railroads and mass transit 
remain hard to protect because they are so accessible and extensive. We 
all know that Congress has not done enough to address this problem. So 
let's take this final opportunity to make some progress by including 
the Senate language.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to stress that a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question will not stop consideration of the port security conference 
report, but a ``no'' vote will allow the House to include in the 
conference report the critical Senate provisions that were contained in 
yesterday's motion to instruct that passed this House by a bipartisan 
and overwhelming vote.
  Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Florida, my friend, who has engaged this entire year in attempting to 
work with us the best as possible, despite some objections, on getting 
these bills to the floor.
  The Rules Committee does have a job to do. That is our job tonight. 
Our job is to make sure that this rule is brought forward. I am asking 
all Members to vote ``aye'' on the previous question, to vote ``aye'' 
and then to get this bill on the floor with an overwhelming bipartisan 
vote, 421-2 the last time we voted on this bill.
  It is the right thing. It makes sure that we provide the tools that 
are necessary to the President of the United States effective 
immediately. I think we are going to get it done, Mr. Speaker. I am 
very proud of the work that is happening in the U.S. House of 
Representatives.
  I am proud to know that tonight we will be through, we will be home, 
we will be with our families, but we should not leave until we get our 
work done, and that we are doing.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
rule on H.R. 4954, the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act 
of 2006.
  This rule is furtherance of a process that can be summed up in two 
words--a joke.
  After weeks of negotiations, Republicans refused to share the final 
conference report on legislation that was supposed to be bipartisan.
  Indeed, this is legislation that builds on what my colleague Loretta 
Sanchez did last Congress and that Jane Harman took up this Congress.
  Last night at 7:30, a conference report meeting was called and it was 
missing the key ingredient--a conference report.
  After opening statements, Chairman Peter King closed the meeting, 
telling us it was his intention ``that amendments would be offered.''
  And, at 11:30 last night, we finally received the report with a very 
clear P.S. from Mr. King--there would be no amendments offered.
  His actions contradicted the will of this House, which voted 
yesterday 281-140 to instruct conferees to consider specific issues 
that the amendments to be offered would have covered.
  Now, the Committee on Homeland Security has been a bipartisan 
committee to date. These questionable processes undermine our homeland 
security efforts--all in the name of politics.
  I know the elections are important to my colleagues across the aisle 
but they should not take precedent over America's homeland security 
efforts.
  Adding even more insult to the process, the Republicans have attached 
internet gambling to the port security bill.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask someone to explain to me how prohibiting 
internet gambling is more important to our homeland security than 
making our trains, subways, and buses safe?
  You will hear excuses about why we can't do mass transit and rail 
security and that we will ``take it up soon.''
  When?
  Madrid happened in 2004. London happened in 2005. Mumbai happened 
only a few months ago.
  Are we waiting for New York City's Long Island Railroad to be 
attacked to pass sensible security for trains?
  If so, at least we'll have comfort in knowing that Americans can't 
bet on the Superbowl online.
  Now, I have signed on to the conference report because there are good 
things, but they aren't enough.
  Frankly, this body can and should do better. We need to put America's 
security first and foremost before politics.
  I urge all Members to oppose the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

Previous Question for Rule on Conference Report for H.R. 4954--``SAFE'' 
                                Port Act

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       ``That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill 
     (H.R. 4954) To improve maritime and cargo security through 
     enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read.
       Sec. 2. (a) A concurrent resolution specified in subsection 
     (b) is hereby adopted.
       (b) The concurrent resolution referred to in subsection (a) 
     is a concurrent resolution
       (1) which has no preamble;
       (2) the title of which is as follows: ``Providing for 
     Corrections to the Enrollment of the Conference Report on the 
     bill H.R. 4954''; and
       (3) the text of which is as follows:
       ``That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 4954 entitled'' 
     An Act to improve maritime and cargo security through 
     enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes', the Clerk 
     of the House of Representatives is hereby authorized and 
     directed to make the following corrections:
       ``(1) Insert title V of the Senate amendment to the bill 
     (relating to the Rail Security Act of 2006).
       ``(2) Insert title VII of the Senate amendment to the bill 
     (relating to mass transit security).
       ``(3) Insert title IX of the Senate amendment to the bill 
     (relating to improved motor carrier, bus, and hazardous 
     material security).
       ``(4) Insert the following sections of title XI of the 
     Senate amendment to the bill:
       ``(A) Section 1101 (relating to certain TSA personnel 
     limitations not to apply).
       ``(B) Section 1102 (relating to the Rural Policing 
     Institute).

[[Page 21333]]

       ``(C) Section 1103 (relating to evacuation in emergencies).
                                  ____


        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 Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     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 Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       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 Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1064 will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 1064, if 
ordered; and suspending the rules and passing S. 3661.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 189, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 512]

                               YEAS--220

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--189

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Case
     Castle
     Dicks
     Evans
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gutierrez
     Hyde
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Lewis (GA)
     Marshall
     Meehan
     Moran (VA)
     Ney
     Nussle

[[Page 21334]]


     Sabo
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tancredo
     Waxman
     Wilson (SC)

                              {time}  2219

  Mr. SPRATT changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. WALSH and Mr. BOOZMAN changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on September 29, 2006, I was 
away from my official duties due to a family matter, and subsequently 
missed a recorded vote on rollcall No. 512, on ordering the Previous 
Question on H. Res. 1064, waiving points of order against the 
conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4954) to improve maritime 
and cargo security through enhanced layered defenses, and for other 
purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________