[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15467-15475]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2638, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
                   SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 473 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 473

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2638) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2008, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General

[[Page 15468]]

     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and 
     reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that 
     the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2638 in the House 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 
the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during 
consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 473 provides an open rule for the consideration 
of H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act 
for 2008. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order 
against consideration of the bill except for those arising under 
clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The resolution also waives points of order 
against the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI 
regarding legislating in an appropriations bill and appropriating for 
unauthorized programs.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may provide priority in recognition based on 
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
the Congressional Record. The rule also provides one motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
  I am pleased to bring to the floor the first appropriations bill of 
the 110th Congress under a traditional open rule process. The security 
of our Nation concerns every American in every State, and it is a 
priority of every Member of this body. But while the effort to secure 
our homeland is a bipartisan one, there are clear differences between 
how the two parties approach it, and the bill demonstrates them.
  We have before us legislation that provides more than $36 billion in 
critical funding needed to address security vulnerabilities identified 
by the Homeland Security experts. It is a fulfillment of commitments 
made by Democrats in implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations 
Act of 2007, which passed the House with a bipartisan majority.
  With this bill Democrats are increasing funding for homeland security 
by 7 percent, or $2.5 billion, over the amount appropriated for it last 
year. In fact, we are providing close to $2 billion more than what the 
President asked for in his request to Congress. These increases aren't 
excessive. They are, instead, the result of the Democrats' commitment 
to adequately fund security programs which in past years have been 
talked about, but not sufficiently supported.
  These funding increases stand in stark contrast to past Republican 
decisions to cut money for vital security efforts and to impose 
unfunded mandates on State governments. My fellow Democrats and I have 
rejected the Republican proposals for across-the-board cuts in these 
areas. We feel that they would indiscriminately and unnecessarily 
sacrifice billions in needed funding for rail, transit, and port 
security, as well as for first responder grants. And, indeed, the sad 
truth is that these grant programs have suffered funding cuts every 
year since 2004. Compare that to the fact that this bill provides over 
$4.5 billion, nearly double the requested amount, for these critical 
areas.
  More specifically, we have provided $400 million for port security, 
doubling the requested amount. Similarly, $400 million will go towards 
rail and transit security grants, more than the administration 
requested. And we will increase spending for firefighter grants by $138 
million. The administration had wanted to cut these funds 
significantly, but we are increasing them.
  At a time of heightened concern about our border security, the 
legislation will help to secure our borders by paying the salaries of 
3,000 new Border Patrol agents, and it also improves the benefits 
package for Customs and Border Patrol officers to ensure higher 
recruitment and retention rates. After years of a lack of 
accountability and questionable government contracts, this bill 
promotes both accountability and oversight through reforms of the 
contracting process, and this is amazingly important.
  I mentioned our borders a moment ago and I want to return to that 
subject very briefly. As a representative from western New York, the 
security of our borders is an issue of great concern to me.

                              {time}  1330

  Both our northern and southern borders face unique and separate 
challenges, and the bill addresses each in turn.
  The 3,000 new agents funded by the bill will mean over 17,800 brave 
men and women will patrol our borders by the end of 2008. And at the 
same time, we will increase northern border funding by 33 percent, and 
500 new agents will be placed there. As important as this is, border 
security efforts must never blind us to the deep connection we share 
with our neighbor to the north. Ours is a 200-year-old relationship 
that has benefited both of our nations immensely. In fact, I often say 
that people of northern border communities don't see Canadian towns and 
cities as being in another country; instead, we see it as one nation 
with a river running through it.
  The travel and trade which cross the northern border every single day 
between America and Canada are critical to our economy and to the 
northern economic security. We must never sacrifice our relationship 
with Canada in a misguided attempt to increase border security.
  I have long said that economic security and physical security are not 
mutually exclusive; we can and we must have both. Unfortunately, the 
approach to northern border security currently advocated by the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State is flawed. 
The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, of WHTI, will choke off 
legitimate travel and trade and sacrifice local economies unnecessarily 
by imposing onerous border-crossing requirements. WHTI, while well-
intentioned, is simply unacceptable in its current form.
  For 2 years, I have been working with fellow border members and 
concerned local groups and Canada and their government to fix WHTI, and 
I am proud to say today represents a major step forward in that battle. 
With Chairman Price's help, I inserted language into this bill that 
will withhold $100 million from the funds required to implement WHTI 
until a series of our demands have been met, demands that will push 
both DHS and State in the direction that they need to go, that is, away 
from requiring expensive crossing documents and towards commonsense, 
low-cost alternatives, and will keep our

[[Page 15469]]

border closed to criminals, but open to the families and the businesses 
which make it so vibrant.
  Additionally, the language will require the completion of a pilot 
project, which DHS is paying for and has not yet started, involving the 
State of Washington and British Columbia before WHTI can go forward. We 
see no point in paying for a project only to ignore it. The project 
will reveal the feasibility of the passport requirements in WHTI. With 
the 2008 winter Olympics being held in Vancouver, there will soon be an 
even greater number of Americans traveling across the border there. And 
this is a perfect way for us to test the requirements of WHTI before it 
is put in place nationwide, and we are going to make sure the results 
of that test are known.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this bill. It demonstrates the 
Democratic commitment to smart security, as well as to ensuring that 
the money spent by this government goes where it is needed most and is 
spent wisely, efficiently, and effectively. These are our priorities. 
Our constituents deserve no less, and our security can afford no less.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
thank my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from New York, the 
chairman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for the time. And I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Several years ago, Mr. Speaker, I had the distinct privilege to bring 
forth the first rule for a Department of Homeland Security 
appropriations bill. Since then, the Department of Homeland Security 
has grown and begun to mature under the bipartisan oversight of the 
Appropriations Committee and of the Committee on Homeland Security. In 
fact, Ms. Slaughter and I worked together, when I was the chairman and 
she the ranking member of the select Committee on Homeland Security's 
Subcommittee on Rules, to make certain that the committee became the 
permanent standing committee that it is today.
  As we know, the Department of Homeland Security was created in the 
wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, to help mobilize and to 
organize the Federal Government to the best of our ability to secure 
the homeland from further terrorist attacks.
  Thanks to our new concerted approach to security, and I think it is 
important to recognize, to the 180,000 hardworking employees of the 
Department of Homeland Security, we have not suffered further attacks. 
But we must not let our guard down. Within the last month alone, Mr. 
Speaker, we have seen several plans thwarted to attack both Fort Dix 
and a major airport in New York City. We must not lose our focus. We 
must continue our efforts to protect the United States from yet another 
deadly attack.
  There is an item in this legislation that helps fulfill a 
recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and that will provide additional 
security to districts that many of us represent throughout the country, 
including the one that I am honored to represent, districts with large 
airports. In its report, the 9/11 Commission recommended that the 
Transportation Security Agency expedite the installation of advanced 
in-line baggage screening equipment.
  Miami International Airport, which is in the district that I am 
honored to represent, is a high-security, category 10 airport on the 
front line of homeland security defense. Miami International Airport 
has approximately 1,160 international flights each week, more than any 
other airport in the United States. Miami International Airport has 
over 900 flights a week from Latin America, more than all other U.S. 
airports combined. Miami International ranks third in overall 
international passenger traffic.
  The Miami-Dade Aviation Department, which operates Miami 
International Airport, is currently building two new terminals at MIA 
and is incurring over $100 million in in-line Explosive Detection 
System, EDS, terminal modification costs. In 2005, TSA committed $20 
million in Other Transaction Agreement funds which will almost cover 
the 75 percent Federal share for the south terminal project.
  As Miami International Airport begins the installation process of EDS 
in its north terminal, the airport still requires an additional funding 
agreement to cover the Federal share of the $79 million modification 
project. For fiscal years 2007 and 2008, the Miami-Dade Aviation 
Department is projected to spend $28.8 million on the north terminal 
modifications, $21.6 million of which falls under the Federal 
Government's cost share.
  I wish to commend the Appropriations Committee for allocating $560 
million for Explosive Detection System, EDS, procurement and 
installations. These funds will help reimburse Miami International 
Airport in its efforts to complete its EDS installations.
  Mr. Speaker, there are still some concerns with this bill, as Ranking 
Member Rogers has stated publicly. There is concern about the rapid 
growth of funding represented by the bill, for example. And although 
the Appropriations Committee worked in a bipartisan manner to produce 
this bill, there is concern from many Members of this House about the 
process. As we know, the Appropriations Committee has announced that 
earmarks were not included in this bill and will only be added during 
the conference process with the Senate. It is not until that point that 
Members and the public will be able to see the earmarks. By adding 
earmarking during the conference process, Members will not have the 
opportunity to make amendments to remove or adjust earmarks approved by 
the majority on the Appropriations Committee.
  The announced procedure protects earmarks from what during the 
opening of the 110th Congress some refer to as the ``disinfectant of 
sunshine.'' This procedure for earmarks is in effect reversing a 
traditionally more open appropriations process. I urge our colleagues 
in the majority to reconsider this procedure and allow for an open 
appropriations process.
  I would like to commend the majority for bringing this important 
appropriations bill to the floor under an open rule. The House, as Ms. 
Slaughter mentioned, has historically considered appropriations bills 
under open rules in order to allow each Member the ability to offer 
germane amendments without having to preprint their amendments or 
receive approval from the Rules Committee.
  I hope that the majority will live up to their campaign promise of 
running a transparent House and continue our tradition of open rules 
with the rest of the appropriations bills this year.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1340

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 2638, which makes appropriations for the 
Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2008.
  Mr. Speaker, in November the American people asked for a change. They 
wanted us to do two things: one, change priorities; two, restore 
accountability to this government.
  We began with a down payment by raising the minimum wage; ending the 
big subsidies for oil companies, instead putting money into renewable 
energy; requiring pharmaceutical price negotiation instead of 
giveaways; making college more affordable by lowering interest rates; 
and we supported small businesses. These were the beginning.
  Today, we take up the first of 12 appropriation bills, and in each of 
these bills we must do what we promised the American people we would 
do; change priorities and restore accountability.
  This bill on homeland security, brought before us on a bipartisan 
basis, does both. It funds the Department of Homeland Security. It was 
created largely in response to the tragedy of   

[[Page 15470]]

9/11. Since its inception, the Department has been given a crucial 
mission, and that is protecting American soil and American lives, 
enhancing our overall security. They have a big job, and it is no small 
undertaking.
  This Homeland Security bill addresses priorities and reflects our 
change, and it reflects accountability, our responsibility to 
taxpayers.
  The priorities that I would like to speak to that are embedded in 
this homeland security bill are among the following:
  One, it establishes as a key priority funding our first responders 
with the training and the equipment that they need. Each one of us 
knows that the first responders are the ones who are going to be there, 
and in each of our districts they need the training, they need the 
funding. This Homeland Security bill has rejected a $1 billion cut that 
was proposed by the administration and restores Homeland Security 
grants in Firefighter Assistance grants.
  Second, it implements a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission by 
providing improved aviation security. This bill substantially increases 
efforts to purchase and install the latest explosive detection systems 
for checked baggage and other things that have been mentioned by the 
speakers.
  Also, Mr. Price and Mr. Rogers both spoke about the need for 
accountability. The good intentions of protecting the homeland does not 
give this bill a pass when it comes to accountability. The bill 
mandates that all grants and contact funds be awarded through full 
competitive processes.
  Finally, I want to thank Chairwoman Slaughter for leading to a 
sensible approach on the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. Thank 
you, Chairwoman Slaughter.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to 
yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this rule. As has been 
pointed out by our distinguished Chair, Ms. Slaughter, and the 
gentleman from Miami, Mr. Diaz-Balart, in their thoughtful remarks on 
this issue, this is an open rule. The problem is, we are still dealing 
with this problem of the lack of reform in the earmark process. It is 
for that reason that having voted upstairs, yes, the fact that we 
haven't brought about the very important reform that is necessary to 
this horrendous earmark process, that I am going to join with Mr. Diaz-
Balart when he calls for defeat of the previous question and an 
opportunity that would be allowed by defeating the previous question 
for us to offer an amendment that would take on this earmark issue.
  Mr. Diaz-Balart very correctly pointed to the fact that in the 109th 
Congress we were able to implement very important, sweeping reforms for 
the earmark process. We know that there was understandable, bipartisan 
outrage that was reflecting the concern of the American people over the 
abuse of earmarks. There are people who are in prison today because of 
this, among other reasons. That is why last fall, we stepped up to the 
plate, and under our Republican leadership, we put together a 
bipartisan support for earmark reform.
  At that time, unfortunately, our colleagues who were in the minority 
and today in the majority described those reforms as a sham and 
meaningless. But those reforms, Mr. Speaker, guaranteed accountability, 
transparency, enforcement, disclosure, things that have been completely 
thrown out the window unfortunately in the 110th Congress.
  So while they described the very important, tough reforms that we had 
in the 109th Congress as a sham, they have gone right down into the 
drain and really created potential for little more than abuse of the 
issue of earmarks.
  We have already seen examples of that. Of course, the problem that 
took place in the clash between the distinguished chairman of the 
Defense Appropriation Subcommittee, Mr. Murtha, and our colleague from 
Michigan, Mr. Rogers, when it came to the issue of earmarks. 
Unfortunately, there was no chance whatsoever for us, because of the 
lack of enforcement that exists now under the Democratic leadership, 
for us to get at that.
  Then when we heard just last week the words that came from the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, that we will not see earmarks provided in the 
appropriations process itself, but instead, what we are going to see is 
this secret slush fund put into place that allows, in a very secretive 
process, to ``air drop'' these earmarks into a conference report that 
could come out at some later point.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not what the American people wanted when 
they called for reform of this earmark process. That is not what they 
expected. It is not what they got with the reforms that we put into 
place in the 109th Congress. But unfortunately, well, we had these 
great reforms, but they have been thrown out the window in the attempt 
to continue to, in a surreptitious manner, seek these things in there.
  We just marked the 20th anniversary of the very famous speech that 
was delivered by Ronald Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate where President 
Reagan said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' I have been 
reminded, I mentioned here last week when we had two votes on different 
rules to try and bring about reform of the earmark process another 
famous speech Ronald Reagan gave in the negotiating process with the 
Soviet Union. He said, and I have now been working on my Russian on 
this, ``Doveryai no Proveryai,'' which meant ``trust but verify.''
  The fact of the matter is, we want to be able to trust our 
colleagues, fellow elected representatives, to do the right thing when 
it comes to earmarks. But we feel very strongly that the American 
people should have the right and the opportunity to verify whether or 
not those dollars that are being spent can, in fact, stand up to the 
light of day.
  So while I am pleased that we are going to have a truly open rule if, 
in fact, this thing passes, I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat 
the previous question. And if we don't succeed, Mr. Speaker, in 
defeating the previous question, I am going to urge all my colleagues, 
Democrats and Republicans alike, to vote ``no'' on this rule because of 
the fact that it does not step up to the plate and allow us to have the 
kind of reform of earmark abuse that the American people desperately 
want.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), chair of the subcommittee.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman of 
the Rules Committee for yielding, and for her good work along with the 
ranking member and members on both sides of the aisle in granting this 
open rule, an open rule for debating of this fiscal 2008 Homeland 
Security appropriations bill. We requested an open rule, with some 
necessary waivers. The Rules Committee has granted that, and for that 
we are grateful, and in just a few moments we will be on our way, 
debating this bill.
  This is a critical bill. It is the first of the 12 appropriations 
bills that we will be debating this session. So we will lead the pack. 
We will be telling our colleagues about what we have done, a 
hardworking subcommittee that has produced, I think, 20 days of 
hearings and has written a comprehensive bill.
  It is going to provide funding to address our country's most pressing 
security vulnerabilities, with a new emphasis on ports and transit 
systems. It is going to provide critically needed funding, as the 
gentleman from Vermont has stressed, to our States and communities to 
confront terrorist activity threats, but also natural disaster threats.

                              {time}  1350

  Thirdly, it is going to help ensure that taxpayer dollars are well 
spent by requiring management reforms and by withholding funds until 
some expenditure reports and other accountability measures are in 
place.

[[Page 15471]]

  And fourth, we're taking a long-term approach by requiring outside 
reviews of several major programs and activities to ensure that our 
long-term investments are being wisely spent.
  I appreciate the chairwoman of the Rules Committee's interest in this 
bill. In particular, she has stressed, as she did again in her 
statement today, the challenges of protecting the northern border and 
also the concerns that she and many others have about the Western 
Hemisphere Travel Initiative. We are directing the Department in this 
bill to increase by over 40 percent the number of border patrol agents 
at the northern border. That will comply with the levels called for in 
the Intelligence Reform Act.
  She also expressed particular concerns about the Western Hemisphere 
Travel Initiative. The bill makes $100 million for implementation of 
that program unavailable for obligation until Customs and Border 
Protection reports on its experience with pilot programs, provides 
detailed information on infrastructure and staffing required, confirms 
the use of radiofrequency identification technology that has been 
adequately tested under operational conditions, and describes how it 
will ensure privacy protection. We worked with the chairwoman in 
putting those protections in place, and we appreciate the consistent 
interest she has shown in them and in this bill in general.
  So with that, Mr. Speaker, I once again thank our Rules Committee 
colleagues for an open rule and for paving the way for what we hope and 
believe will be a productive debate as we consider our homeland 
security needs for the coming fiscal year.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to 
yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. I do thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me 
this time, and I want to say, first of all, that I want to commend the 
gentleman from Florida and also the gentlewoman from New York, the 
chairwoman of the Rules Committee, two of the Members in this Congress 
for whom I have the greatest admiration and respect, and I appreciate 
the fact that they are bringing this legislation to the floor under an 
open rule.
  But as both the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) just expressed, there are still some concerns 
about this bill, number one of which is the fact that this bill is $2.1 
billion over the President's request and a 13.6 percent increase over 
fiscal year 2007. That is more than four times the rate of inflation. 
With an almost $9 trillion national debt and over $50 trillion in 
unfunded future pension liabilities, we just can't keep giving every 
department and agency that wants one or four or five times increase 
over the rate of inflation. As the ranking member, Mr. Rogers, said a 
few days ago, even the Department of Homeland Security should be 
subject to some fiscal discipline.
  A few weeks after 9/11 when we had renamed the farm bill that year by 
adding the word ``security'' to the title, the Wall Street Journal 
wrote an editorial in October of 2001 and said: ``Any bill with the 
word `security' in it should get double the public scrutiny, and maybe 
four times the normal wait, lest all kinds of bad legislation become 
law.''
  And a few months ago, Secretary Chertoff, the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, testified before the Senate in a way perhaps no other Cabinet 
member ever had. He essentially said we are spending too much on 
security and we should not let overexaggerated threats of terrorism, 
quote, drive us crazy, into bankruptcy, trying to defend against every 
conceivable threat.
  He went on to say, quote, we do have limits and we do have choices to 
make. We don't want to break the very systems we're trying to protect. 
We don't want to destroy our way of life trying to save it. We don't 
want to undercut our economy trying to protect our economy, and we 
don't want to destroy our civil liberties and our freedoms in order to 
make ourselves safer.
  That is the Secretary of Homeland Security. I think, Mr. Speaker, we 
need to take some of those words into consideration. In a short time, 
later today, we are going to have several amendments to the bill that I 
think are worthy of consideration by all of our Members and I think 
should be passed. We just shouldn't blindly pass a bill and pass 
everything that anybody wants because they attach the word ``security'' 
to it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
Chair of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I think this bill being 
brought forth today is an excellent bill. It will strengthen America's 
security, and every Member interested in doing that ought to vote for 
it.
  The four security-related appropriation bills which we will bring to 
the floor, Military Construction, Homeland Security, State/Foreign 
Operations and Defense, will come in at a level about $2 billion above 
the President's request. This is a key bill in doing that.
  I do want to make a few comments about what I understand was said 
while I was off the floor a few minutes ago with respect to earmarks. 
Let us trace what the facts are. The last time the Democrats controlled 
the appropriations process, I was chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee. In those days, earmarking was focused on about four 
subcommittees. There were no earmarks whatsoever in the Labor-Health-
Education bill the year that I was chairman. Two years ago, there were 
over 3,000 when the Republicans were running the show.
  When we took over the Congress last year, the Republicans had not 
passed a single appropriation bill on the domestic side of the ledger. 
So we had to complete their work for them. And one of the ways we did 
that was to put a moratorium on all earmarks for the year. We promised 
at the time that we would try to resurrect the process, provided that 
we had a process that was more transparent.
  Now, I understand someone from the other side claimed that we were 
going to airdrop these earmarks into the conference with no notice. Not 
so. What we plan to do is the following. And let me say, we didn't not 
preclude earmarks by choice. The simple fact is that because we had to 
deal with last year's Republican budget, because we had to deal with 
the Iraq controversy which consumed the next 3 months of staff time, 
because we were under subpoena by the San Diego U.S. Attorney to turn 
over papers related to Republican shenanigans that occurred last year, 
we did not have the staff time to focus on the substance of the bills 
for this year or earmarks. And we finally decided that we need to keep 
the bills moving, even if that meant that we would have to play catchup 
later with the earmarks.
  So what we are going to do is as soon as the staff can prepare them, 
and we estimate it will take at least 4 to 5 weeks to screen all of 
those earmarks, we will submit and put in the Congressional Record a 
description of virtually every earmark that we intend to try to include 
in conference reports. We will then ask every Member to review those 
projects. If they have questions, raise questions about them, we will 
then ask the sponsor of the earmark to respond in writing, so that the 
person responsible for the request is the person who has to explain to 
the House what is going on. And then we will use our judgment about 
what makes sense. If the House thinks that we have got projects in 
there that shouldn't be in there, they can vote against the bill.
  But let me point out there is a big difference between what we are 
doing and the existing Republican process. It took 2 years after the 
fact to find out what Duke Cunningham was asking for. The fact is under 
our process, you will know 30 days ahead of time. It took us more than 
a year to find out about the Florida road that was evidently inserted 
in the highway bill by a Republican Member of this House from another 
State.

                              {time}  1400

  That can't happen in our process. Under our process, you will have 30

[[Page 15472]]

days to review what they request. That is a sweeping reform in 
comparison to the absolute, behind-the-scenes operation that existed 
when the Republicans controlled this House.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to 
yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my distinguished colleague 
yielding me this time.
  Sitting here listening, I am puzzled by some of the things being 
said. First of all, we are having folks thank the majority party for 
having them give us an open rule. I find it very unusual that we would 
have to thank somebody for doing what is right. You ought to thank 
somebody when they do something that is above and beyond what is the 
right thing to do.
  I also find it very difficult to understand how the appropriations 
chairman can say that they have had to deal with the Iraq problem for 3 
months; and therefore, they have not had time to do their work.
  Who is in charge here? You all are in charge. You should have been 
able to do your work. You let yourself get bogged down for 3 months on 
something that was totally useless, and here you are blaming the 
minority party. I find it unbelievable that you don't accept the fact 
that you are in charge of things. What is the ``existing Republican 
process''? You all are in charge. You can't blame us.
  I want to quote from the Rules Committee chairman on 1-4-07, ``Our 
rules package requires full disclosure of earmarks in all bills and 
conference reports before Members are asked to vote on them,'' not 30 
days afterwards, but before.
  Where are those earmarks, Madam Chairman? I don't see them in here.
  The American people were promised transparency, truthfulness, 
openness in this process. They were sold a bill of goods. They don't 
want more secrecy, they want less secrecy. The Democrats said, We will 
have a new day. This is much worse than anything we have ever seen 
before. We need to restore the earmark rule like the Republicans had it 
last year.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat puzzled myself over the 
earmark process as the Republicans had it last year.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute more to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, the comments of the previous speaker simply 
indicate how little she understands about the appropriations process.
  The fact is that the Iraqi bill we had to deal with was last year's 
supplemental request. Last year's, not this year's, so we had to clean 
up your mess on the entire domestic budget; and we had to clean up your 
mess on Iraq before we could move on our business.
  The first week we have been able to turn to our agenda is this week. 
We have spent the last 5 months cleaning up your spilled milk.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege 
to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I hope to address several questions more 
deeply in general debates, as well as with some amendments; but as the 
ranking member of the Border, Port Security and Global Antiterrorism 
Subcommittee of Homeland Security, I have been spent much of my 
congressional career working narcotics, immigration and terrorism 
issues on the border, particularly as narcotics coordinator in 
Congress. I worked this even before 9/11.
  In the year 2002, we issued the most comprehensive border report ever 
done by Congress. We had 11 hearings, include many hearings on the 
north and south borders. In addition, I have visited every major border 
crossing, north and south border, multiple times and, in particular, 
the largest southern border crossings many, many times, almost 
annually.
  I have several amendments in this bill related to counternarcotics 
and terrorism with CBP and with the Coast Guard. But I want to talk 
briefly here at this point on the border. Thanks to continued funding 
and the hard work of the people in the Department of Homeland Security, 
we have made some progress, particularly since 9/11. That said, in case 
you haven't heard, our borders are still not secure. Not even close.
  We have three basic interrelated challenges. And if you can't fix 
one, you can't fix any: terrorism, contraband and illegal immigration.
  Last week we had an irresponsible individual who decided that despite 
being told not to travel to Europe, he did. Flying home, he flew to 
Canada and then crossed our border crossing. The screen was absolutely 
clear. It said, ``Refer to INS secondary.'' Even though all our border 
personnel had very clear instructions to place mask on subject, place 
in isolation, well-ventilated room, if possible, subject has multiple 
resistant TB, public health risk, among other things, he was waved on 
through after very brief screening. In spite of this, he was waved on 
through. Now that means we cannot even keep people we have caught.
  Then there was this from yesterday: Homeland Security busted three 
Texas National Guardsmen for smuggling illegals using National Guard 
vehicles. That was just yesterday.
  Last year, when I was subcommittee chairman, we heard horror stories 
on illegals being deported multiple times and coming back in and 
committing additional felonies. Yet the President of our country is 
coming over to lobby the other body about bringing a terrible amnesty 
bill back to life. There is not a Member in this body or the other body 
who doesn't understand that we have to deal with the people that are 
here, with H-1B visas, with the huge challenges we have in this 
country.
  But this bill demonstrates the fraud of the Senate bill because it 
has unrealistic border controls that we are just asking in this bill, 
in clause after clause, for them to report on the costs. We cut the 
money intended for the travel initiative. How in the world can you do a 
380-page amnesty bill if you can't even begin to deliver the basics?
  Fortunately, the bill before us today starts to address those. The 
cost is horrendous. I want to go through, item by item, the challenges, 
the premises behind what the President is arguing.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This has been an interesting discussion with regard to which system 
is better in order to challenge earmarks: one in which you can actually 
come to the floor and challenge specific earmarks in a bill, or in a 
committee report; or have a situation where the conference report comes 
to the floor and you have no ability whatsoever, no ability, to bring 
to a vote any of the earmarks that are in there.
  The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee mentioned 
that it is better to be able to write a letter to the Appropriations 
Committee and question an earmark than actually bring it to the floor 
because he mentioned that Mr. Flake brought 14 amendments to the floor 
last year and failed on every one of them.
  I actually brought 39, and I failed even more miserably; I failed all 
39 times. Nineteen of them called for a rollcall vote. I didn't come 
close on any on them because as the distinguished Member mentioned, 
logrolling works pretty well. People will say, I won't vote against 
your earmark if you don't vote against mine.
  But this year is different, partly thanks to the reforms that the 
Democrats put in place in January of this year following the lead of 
the Republicans in the fall of last year where you actually said, All 
right, if you want an earmark, you have to sign your name and claim 
credit for that earmark.
  Of the 39 times I came to the floor last year, most times when I came 
to the floor I had no clue who had sponsored the earmark I was 
challenging. Many times we had a vote, sometimes a rollcall vote and 
sometimes a voice

[[Page 15473]]

vote, and I still left the floor not knowing whose earmark that was 
because we didn't have a requirement that the Members claim credit for 
them.
  That is no longer the case. The Appropriations Committee right now is 
sitting on more than 30,000 request letters where the Members signed 
off and said, This is my earmark and it is going to this specific 
entity. That is something we haven't had before, and I applaud the 
Democrats for putting that reform in place. The problem is, if we go 
forward with what has been proposed, it won't mean anything.
  But here I can tell you, if I was able to come to the floor with some 
of those earmarks, knowing which entity it was going to, knowing which 
Member had requested it, and to have the media and others, the blogging 
community and other organizations going through and finding out what 
that private entity was or had that private entity made campaign 
contributions to that Member, if there was a tie that we didn't know 
about before, it changes the dynamics incredibly here because them 
Members have to weigh, Do I want to do that or not?
  The Appropriations Committee chairman pointed out there have been 
problems with Members and earmarks. There have been investigations and 
Members in jail, and there are other investigations going on.
  If you have good information, more information, that gives you power. 
When you come to the floor and are able to point specifically at 
earmarks, knowing which entity they are going to and knowing which 
Member requested them, it changes the dynamics.
  I would respectfully disagree with the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee when he says that this process that is being put in place is 
superior to being able to challenge earmarks. Again, let me repeat. 
Under what has been proposed, we will never have a vote on any earmark; 
and that is simply wrong.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to engage Mr. 
Flake for a moment.
  The chairman of the committee made it really clear that you are going 
to have 30 days to look at the earmarks, whose earmarks they are, and 
contact them if they are in the bill. The Rules Committee will decide 
whether you have the ability to strike them or not.
  I yield to Mr. Flake.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, but we will have no 
vote. The process of logrolling will work just as it has in the past. 
There will be no vote, no ability by anybody to challenge specifically 
those earmarks on the floor of the House.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I wouldn't want you to believe this is going to be the 
permanent way this is going to run. Given the vast number, the 32,000 
that you mentioned, and the fact that we had no budget last year, no 
Federal budget last year, there was an extra strain on Mr. Obey; and I 
am confident that the next year will be different.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I would say to my colleagues, here we go again with Orwellian 
democracy, which is alive and here on the floor of the House with the 
majority party saying one thing and doing another. They promised us a 
more transparent process, they promised us a process that had greater 
accountability; and in fact, what we are getting is something 
completely the opposite.
  I would note also that we are coming to the floor now with the first 
appropriations bill which is 1 month later than when we brought our 
appropriations bills to the floor last year.
  I am sorry that the Chair of appropriations has left the floor. He 
made the comment that this would be a more responsible earmark process. 
He said he would take all of the requests and would add, quote, 
``virtually every earmark,'' unquote, would be included in the bill. 
Well, that is interesting.
  What that process does is make the Chair of the Appropriations 
Committee the judge and the jury, the sole judge and the sole jury for 
every single special project. I would prefer there would be no special 
projects, but it appears that the Appropriations Chair is going to be 
the one to determine whether or not your project is worthy.
  Those that have already been dropped into bills brought before this 
Congress give us no comfort. There appears to be significant favoritism 
that is being played, significant politics being played. And the 
threats that have been given by a Member on the majority side to a 
Member on the minority side, if he didn't support an earmark, give us 
no comfort.
  We will get 30 days to review. Well, that is a wonderful thing, with 
no opportunity, as the gentleman from Arizona said, to have any vote on 
any earmark.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not greater transparency or greater 
accountability.
  The chairman of the Appropriations Committee said, Well, if you don't 
like an earmark, vote against the bill, with no ability to get to a 
specific egregious program that so angers the American people.
  I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is Orwellian democracy at its 
finest, doing one thing and saying exactly the opposite. This ought to 
be an interesting period of time as we move through the appropriations 
bills. It ought to be a very interesting time as we move through a 
process that has turned into a sham. It ought to be a very interesting 
time; and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the American people are, 
indeed, paying attention.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time, and I thank all of my colleagues who have taken 
part in this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question, so we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a 
change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and 
enforceability to the earmark rule.

                              {time}  1415

  Under the current rule, so long as the chairman or sponsor of a bill, 
joint resolution, conference report or manager's amendment includes 
either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or report, or a 
statement that there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against 
the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress.
  However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican 
majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not 
available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a 
question of consideration. But because the Democratic Rules Committee 
specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order, 
they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks 
on the rule. This was most recently discovered on the question of the 
Murtha earmark on the Intelligence authorization bill.
  This amendment will restore the accountability and enforceability of 
the earmark rule to where it was at the end of the 109th Congress to 
provide Members with an opportunity to bring the question of earmarks 
before the House for a vote. Without these changes, the new earmark 
rule, in effect, is nothing more than a fig leaf.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  A lot of time has been spent today on the open rule and the open 
amendment process, and I'd like to give you and anybody else who may be 
watching some idea of what we can expect.
  Some 94 Republican amendments were filed, 16 Democrats. One 
Republican is responsible for more than 50 percent of that side.

[[Page 15474]]

  Let me give you a couple of examples of what they are. None of the 
funds can be used for supporting yoga classes. None can be used to 
support art classes. None can be used to support dance classes. None 
can be used under other programs, any program that offers to support a 
dance class. And my personal favorite, none of the funds can be used 
for supporting puppet shows.
  There isn't anything in the world in any part of this bill having 
anything to do with these amendments, but nonetheless here we are. 
We'll be debating this into the night, but I would ask everybody to 
listen to those amendments and decide which is serious on homeland 
security.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the resolution.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

 Amendment to H. Res. 473 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 3. Clause 9(c) of Rule XXI is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) As disposition of a point of order under paragraph 
     (a), the Chair shall put the question of consideration with 
     respect to the bill, joint resolution, or conference report, 
     or amendment described in paragraph (a)(3). The question of 
     consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member 
     initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an 
     opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening 
     motion except one that the House adjourn.''.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgeral who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the defInition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of H. Res. 473, if ordered, and 
motion to suspend the rules on H. Res. 474.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 194, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 451]

                               YEAS--222

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--194

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)

[[Page 15475]]


     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Arcuri
     Barton (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Gutierrez
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Lewis (GA)
     McHenry
     Radanovich
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Stark
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1440

  Messrs. RENZI, BILIRAKIS, REYNOLDS and CANNON changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 451, 
on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 473, my vote did not 
register. Only after they closed the vote, was I told of that fact.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________