[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13992-14001]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2200, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 
                    ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 474 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 474

       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. 2200) to authorize the Transportation Security 
     Administration's programs relating to the provision of 
     transportation security, and for other

[[Page 13993]]

     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
     XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Homeland Security. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Homeland Security now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising 
     under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of 
     rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart). All time yielded is for purposes of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 474.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume. House Resolution 474 provides for consideration of H.R. 2200, 
the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act of 2009. 
This legislation is a much-needed fix to an agency tasked with 
maintaining security in some of our most important facilities. The 
urgency is clear, especially since many programs under TSA have not 
been altered or revised since their original authorization in the 
Aviation and Transportation Security Act passed immediately after the 
attacks on September 11, 2001.
  Since that time, we have seen threats against our transportation 
systems change dramatically. We've seen attacks against rail and mass 
transit systems in London, Madrid and Mombai. As a result, this 
legislation broadens the focus of TSA to address more than just 
aviation security, which, for years, received an overwhelming majority 
of funding and manpower.
  So this bill triples the funding for surface transportation systems. 
I'm pleased to say this increased attention to surface transportation 
is done in consultation with consumer groups to ensure security 
provided at subway stations and other facilities does not turn the 
daily commute into a daily mess.
  In addition, we create a much-needed position of Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Surface Transportation to give a voice to that component 
of TSA.
  Another significant advance in this bill is its risk assessment 
allocation method. According to the FAA, there are 561 certified 
airports in the United States, including commercial and general 
aviation. Moreover, there is an untold number of bus terminals, subway 
stations, and rail facilities in the United States. The security of the 
American people demands TSA's limited resources be directed toward the 
modes and facilities which face the greatest risk.
  This bill directs the TSA administrator to adopt a policy whereby 
funding is allocated based upon risk, not merely based on population or 
some other criteria.
  Regarding aviation security, the bill provides for a strengthened 
perimeter security program at our Nation's airports. It also provides a 
pilot program for biometric identification access systems at seven 
airports for airport employees. And in many cases, security experts 
have found canines can provide unparalleled detection of narcotics and 
explosive materials. So this bill provides for 250 canine detection 
teams, and an amendment by Representative Doc Hastings of Washington 
will provide for even more.
  There are plenty of other positive steps this legislation makes. But 
what I believe is most important about this bill is the way it has made 
its way through the House. The bill has been developed over several 
months with a great amount of input from majority and minority Members, 
labor and business and independent analysis. The bill passed out of the 
Homeland Security Committee without any dissenting votes, and as it 
comes to the floor, 14 substantive amendments will be debated. Of those 
14, eight are Republican amendments and six, obviously, are from the 
Democratic side.
  I had the privilege to serve on Homeland Security, Mr. Speaker, and 
it is with pride that I say I found that committee to be among the most 
bipartisan committees in the House of Representatives. The efforts by 
Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King to work for the protection of 
the United States work well within the committee and allow for 
bipartisan effort from both sides.
  The rule will provide for ample debate on this important bill and 
allow Members to vote on many proposals to improve it. This bill is a 
great example of bipartisan cooperation to address a problem our Nation 
wishes us to address. The security of our Nation's passengers require 
sensible solutions, and this bill provides them just that.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first I'd like to 
thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) for the 
time. And I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, Mr. Speaker, if I may, I'd like to remember and ask the House 
to recall that today is June 4. Twenty years ago a massacre occurred in 
Beijing. Thousands of students and other pro-democracy activists were 
murdered. Subsequently, they were rounded up, those who had not been 
murdered, who had been in the square, and thrown in dungeons and 
tortured. And so it's been 20 years, but we cannot forget.
  The regime is still in power there. They haven't had much reason to 
regret their murders and their systematic oppression of the people. But 
over you, in something that distinguishes this Congress, we read the 
words ``In God We Trust.'' And I do. I trust that justice will be done, 
and that those who committed the murders at Tiananmen Square in June of 
1989 will be brought to justice. We can never forget, Mr. Speaker.
  With regard to the rule being brought forth today, bringing forth 
important legislation to the floor today, in order to protect our 
transportation systems after the cowardly attacks of September 11, 
2001, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law on November 
19, 2001, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. That 
legislation created the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, 
improving aviation security and restoring public confidence in air 
travel.
  The underlying legislation that's being brought forth today for 
consideration by the Congress, by this rule, authorizes $7.6 billion in 
appropriations for the TSA during the fiscal year 2010, and provides a 
6 percent across-the-board increase for fiscal year 2011.

[[Page 13994]]



                              {time}  1045

  In their report to Congress, the 9/11 Commission criticized the 
existing process for allocation of Federal homeland security grants. 
The report recommended that, ``Homeland security assistance should be 
based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities,'' and 
that the distribution of the grants ``should not remain a program for 
general revenue sharing.'' I have long worked to make certain that 
homeland security assistance follows the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission and that funds are distributed through risk-based 
assessments. As such, I am pleased that this legislation requires TSA 
to update Congress on its implementation of a risk-based system for 
allocating security resources.
  The underlying legislation would establish an Aviation Security 
Advisory Committee to assist and make recommendations to the Secretary 
with issues pertaining to aviation security. It also establishes an Air 
Cargo Working Group to provide recommendations for the implementation 
of the cargo screening initiatives proposed by the TSA to meet the 100 
percent air cargo screening mandates set forth in the ``Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act.''
  I am pleased there is a provision that provides for the reimbursement 
of airports that took the initiative and used their own funding to 
install explosive detection systems after the September 11 terrorist 
attacks. Those airports installed the systems after receiving 
assurances from the Federal Government that they would be reimbursed 
for these expensive yet very important protection systems. 
Unfortunately, after all these years, we're still waiting for the 
Federal Government to provide the promised reimbursement. I 
congratulate our colleague, Mr. Bilirakis, for having this important 
provision included in the legislation.
  While I plan to support the underlying legislation, Mr. Speaker, I 
must express concerns that the legislation was really rushed to the 
floor by the majority. On such an important issue as the safety of our 
transportation systems, one would think the majority would want the 
input of the very agency affected by the legislation. And yet it 
decided it was more important to move forward than to wait until the 
administration, the new administration, had selected a TSA 
administrator who could provide Congress the necessary input and new 
ideas on how Congress can improve the agency. So the majority, it can 
be said, used excessive haste to rush the bill to the floor.
  On Thursday, May 14, the majority announced that the House would 
consider the Transportation Security Administration reauthorization 
bill the week of May 18. However, at the time of the announcement, the 
legislative language of the bill was nowhere to be found.
  The majority kept the text, as you know upon which amendments are 
based or can be based, hidden under lock and key until late on Monday, 
May 18. And just as they released the text, they set a hard and fast 
deadline of 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 20, for Members to submit their 
amendments. What this did was give Members, in effect, one business day 
to read the legislation that reauthorizes the TSA and draft and submit 
amendments. The majority justified their short amendment deadline by 
saying that the Rules Committee was going to meet the next day, 
Thursday, to report a rule for amendments, with the idea that the bill 
would be on the floor on Friday, May 22.
  But the House decided to leave for the Memorial Day district work 
period on Thursday evening, without considering the TSA bill, and 
rather than allowing Members more time to review the bill, the majority 
pushed ahead, eliminating the opportunity for Members to further review 
the legislation and propose amendments to improve it.
  I bring this up, Mr. Speaker, because it is not an anomaly on the 
majority's part, but it's business as usual. Since the majority took 
power in Congress in January 2007, Members have been given an average 
of one business day or less to submit amendments than we did when we 
were in the majority.
  And that's important because it's important for people here 
representing their constituents to have time to read legislation before 
having to introduce amendments to try to improve the legislation.
  I am pleased that the majority agreed to allow an amendment that I 
introduced in the Rules Committee for consideration. However, there 
were other amendments from Members on both sides of the aisle that were 
blocked.
  For example, the majority blocked an amendment by Representative 
Souder that would require the TSA to place all of the detainees held at 
the Guantanamo Bay detention facility on the no-fly list, an amendment 
that I'm sure would have overwhelming support on the floor.
  So I would simply urge the majority to allow an open process, as it 
promised in its campaign, and not just on noncontroversial legislation 
such as this one. This is legislation, in terms of the merits of the 
legislation, it was brought forth in a bipartisan manner within the 
committee. The chairman, Mr. Thompson, is known to work in a very 
respectful and bipartisan manner with all of the members of his 
committee, and I think all of us are grateful for that and commend him 
for it.
  So I would urge, though, that not only on noncontroversial 
legislation but also on upcoming, for example, health care and climate 
change legislation, that openness be allowed in the House. It's 
important. It's, I think, required by the spirit of the democratic 
process. So both of these upcoming pieces of legislation, energy, 
health care, they will obviously have far-reaching consequences for our 
constituents and for the economy, and so I would hope that on such 
important issues the majority does not block the opportunity for 
Members of the House to bring forth their amendments seeking to improve 
the legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my friend 
from Florida. I think they would have more weight on maybe another bill 
than this one, where clearly there has been bipartisan effort from the 
very beginning. The bill has been in the works for a long time, and it 
passed out of the committee without objection.
  So with that, I would yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Homeland 
Security Committee, Mr. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule 
for the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act, H.R. 
2200. I would also like to thank my colleague, Mr. Perlmutter from 
Colorado, who until this session was a member of that committee and is 
eminently qualified to talk about homeland security issues.
  As I stated, this rule reflects a bipartisan rule process in which 
more than half of the proposed amendments were made in order. And more 
than half of the amendments, Mr. Speaker, that we are considering today 
are sponsored by my Republican colleagues.
  H.R. 2200 is the first authorization bill for all of the 
Transportation Security Administration since TSA was established in 
2001. It authorizes over $15.6 billion in appropriations to the 
Transportation Security Administration for fiscal year 2010 and 2011.
  The product of months of bipartisan negotiations, H.R. 2200 was 
drafted with significant contributions from both Democratic and 
Republican members of the committee, industry stakeholders, labor 
representatives, the Government Accountability Office, and the 
Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's office.
  With the change in administration, TSA is at a crossroads. It has to 
decide how to allocate its resources going forward and who it wants to 
be.
  For the first 8 years, TSA acted like the Aviation Security 
Administration more than a Transportation Security Administration. This 
bill takes important steps to bring greater resources and support for 
the much-neglected surface transportation security mission.
  On the aviation side, this bill greatly improves aviation security, 
and not only commercial aviation but also general aviation. 
Specifically, the bill establishes an Aviation Security Advisory 
Committee, an Air Cargo Working

[[Page 13995]]

Group, and a General Aviation Security Working Group to ensure robust 
and meaningful stakeholder input.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, in the area of general aviation, the bill 
authorizes $10 million for a new grant program to enhance perimeter 
security, airfield security, and terminal security at general aviation 
facilities. And I fully support and believe this provision will be 
strengthened even more with the passage of an amendment that the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is expected to offer. It will 
require the issuance of these grants to be competitive and risk-based. 
The allocation of scarce Federal funds, specifically those from TSA, 
should be based on risk. Section 102 of the bill actually requires TSA 
to report to Congress on the extent to which it is allocating 
transportation security resources on the basis of risk.
  The bill, Mr. Speaker, also is forward-looking and makes great 
strides, most notably with respect to biometrics. During the recess, I 
had the opportunity to observe how other countries are using biometric 
technology to increase security. I strongly believe that greater 
deployment of biometric equipment can help to address some of our most 
vexing security challenges. This is why I am pleased to include a 
provision authorizing the development of a biometric system for law 
enforcement officers who fly armed.
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, also includes provisions on the Registered 
Traveler and Transportation Worker Identification Credential programs, 
TSA's two main biometric programs.
  Another amendment that the rule makes in order is sponsored by my 
good friend from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield. The amendment would 
enhance the underlying bill by adding facial and iris recognition to 
TSA's biometric toolbox.
  On the surface transportation side, this bill enhances surface 
transportation security by authorizing a tripling of funding over 
fiscal year 2009. These new resources would help support a newly 
created Surface Transportation Security Inspection Office. This office 
would be responsible for training and managing inspectors that work in 
the field and assist surface transportation operators with security 
inspections.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes 300 more surface 
transportation security inspectors over the next 2 years and Visible 
Intermodal Prevention and Response Teams, called VIPER teams, to do 
security operations in mass transit and other surface systems.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield the gentleman 2 more minutes.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter.
  H.R. 2200 also authorizes the creation of a Transit Security Advisory 
Committee, or TSAC, a Passenger Carrier Security Working Group, and a 
Freight Rail Security Working Group to provide robust stakeholder input 
to TSA on security policies that impact this sector. Given TSA's 
limited experience in this sector, I would expect it to be relying 
heavily on these groups.
  Another major provision that I was particularly pleased to include 
would streamline the security licensing for truckers. Ms. Jackson-Lee, 
lead sponsor of this bill, and I have been working with our committee 
colleague, Mr. Lungren, for years on this issue, and finally we have a 
vehicle to move key provisions in the SAFE Trucker Act. These 
provisions address redundant background security checks which we have 
learned are draining of financial resources on transportation workers.
  I'm committed to marking up H.R. 1881, the Transportation Security 
Workforce Enhancement Act of 2009, later this summer, which will 
provide collective bargaining rights for the TSA workforce. To me, the 
unfinished business of the 9/11 Act was the granting of these rights to 
the men and women who are the backbone of TSA. I'm hopeful that these 
changes in the White House and at the front office at DHS will ensure 
that we are successful this time around.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the rule and 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to 
yield 5 minutes to a distinguished colleague who works ceaselessly for 
the security of the American people. Unfortunately, a very important 
amendment that he came to the Rules Committee on to be made in order, 
was denied on a party line vote by the majority, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman and my friend from Florida for 
yielding time. I speak in opposition to the rule. I want to thank 
Chairman Thompson, Subcommittee Chair Sheila Jackson-Lee for their 
bipartisan effort. In fact, this is a bipartisan bill and one that 
there's really no fundamental reason to vote against.
  In fact, some of the amendments we're voting on today, such as people 
being able to retrieve their cell phones, are very nice. The one on 
people with hip replacements is very important to me. I have three of 
the four biggest orthopedic companies in the United States--in fact, in 
the world--in my district. And Chairman Oberstar and others who go 
through the machinery with hip replacements have concern on how we do 
that.
  But, you know, it doesn't matter very much if you can find your cell 
phone or get through security easier if you die. And one of the 
problems here is I had offered an amendment before the Rules Committee 
that would have had added an important layer of security for the U.S. 
commercial aviation to the TSA Authorization Act. Unfortunately, on a 
party line vote my amendment was not made in order.
  My amendment was very simple. In fact, I was shocked. I thought the 
debate in committee was going to be whether we were going to ask for 
just a voice vote or a recorded vote to make sure everybody was 
recorded. Instead, it was challenged. So I brought it to the committee.
  It's very simple. It requires TSA to place any detainees held at 
Guantanamo Bay on the No Fly List. Now I think they ought to stay at 
Guantanamo, but it looks like I have lost that debate.
  They may be coming in the United States. We have released some around 
the world. Many of them have already committed terrorist acts since 
then or reaffiliated.
  But whether you agree with it or not, it seems so simple and 
fundamental that, if they're released in America, they ought to go on a 
No Fly List. For crying out loud, we have all kinds of people on the No 
Fly List. Why would we not automatically place somebody who is released 
in the United States on the No Fly List?
  It is essential that we guarantee the security of the American 
people. The TSA Authorization bill is one of the first opportunities we 
have to take meaningful steps to ensure that any Gitmo detainee 
released in the United States is a threat to the American public and 
doesn't get on an airplane.
  My amendment closes a potential terrorist loophole. Actually, it's 
not a loophole. It's a fly hole. It is so huge that it puts all of us 
at risk.
  I offered this amendment during committee markup. Unfortunately, it 
was gutted by a second degree amendment. It wasn't compromised, it 
wasn't changed. Basically, it went right back to the current policy we 
have. It was totally gutted.
  The Gitmo prisoners released in the United States may or may not be 
added to the No Fly List under this bill. It's an interesting thing. 
There's an option that they could be added to the No Fly List, but 
there's no guarantee under this bill. It was not a compromise 
amendment. It was a gutting amendment.
  So the committee never had a choice of whether to vote. They voted 
unanimously on the majority side to not allow my amendment to be voted 
on and gutted it, saying it would be up in the air.
  The transfer or release of any of these detainees is a matter of 
homeland security. We need to have a serious debate about whether it's 
appropriate to bring them on U.S. soil, where they will be kept, what 
will happen if they're released in the United

[[Page 13996]]

States. But even the President's own administration has noted that any 
Gitmo detainees released in the United States would need additional 
security and monitoring.
  In May, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stated before 
the Committee on Homeland Security that DHS would take efforts ``to 
ensure that Americans are confident in their safety'' and recognized 
that the Department had a role ``to provide information on what 
protections are needed in the homeland should Gitmo detainees be 
released.''
  That same day, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified before Congress 
that bringing Gitmo detainees into the U.S., even to maximum security 
prisons, poses significant security risks, including radicalization of 
other inmates.
  All I'm asking is they be placed on a No Fly List. Why wouldn't we? 
Maybe my amendment should have said at least they get denied an aisle 
seat. I mean, I don't understand this at all.
  Despite earlier confirmation by Defense Secretary Gates that the 
Chinese Uyghurs would be released in the U.S. as soon as the final 
details are complete, the Solicitor General filed a brief with the 
Supreme Court on Friday arguing that these individuals should not be 
brought into the United States since they are associated with a 
terrorist group. They were associated with the East Turkistan Islamic 
Movement and they were funded and trained by al Qaeda in Afghanistan, 
yet they were going to release these 11 in northern Virginia so they 
could get on the airplanes going out of Reagan Airport. What is wrong 
with this? We need a guarantee that that's not going to happen.
  Despite the concerns of the public and the uncertainty within his own 
administration, the President is forging ahead with a plan to bring 
some of these detainees to the United States. Even if they are 
transferred from Gitmo to a U.S. prison, they could fall under 
constitutional protections allowing for their release. And this is a 
very real possibility with existing precedent. Then it will be even 
harder to put them on a No Fly List.
  Based on a Supreme Court ruling, DHS is forced to release illegal 
aliens, including many dangerous ones, after 180 days.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield 3 additional minutes.
  Mr. SOUDER. How can we be assured that Gitmo detainees will be 
treated differently? The simplest way to do this is to say you will 
automatically be placed on a No Fly List. No debate. You're 
automatically on there if you are a detainee.
  The detainees held at Gitmo are not low-risk, innocent people. They 
are they worst of the worst. Most of the Gitmo detainees are violent 
radicals, hardened on the battlefield and willing to die or kill for 
their cause.
  According to DOD, 74 of the 530 transferred from Gitmo are confirmed 
or suspected to have returned to the battlefield since we have released 
them. Some have carried out attacks. This includes Abdallah Saleh al-
Ajimi. Ajimi was arrested along the Pakistan-Afghan border in December 
2001, fighting alongside al Qaeda. He was transferred from Gitmo to 
Kuwait in November 2005. In 2008, he joined several others in a suicide 
bombing in Iraq, killing more than a dozen people.
  This is somebody who was released from Gitmo, one of the early 
releasees. The ones we have now, we would deem not safe enough to 
release. This is somebody who we released.
  According to the Department of Defense, ``He was apparently living a 
productive life in Kuwait. It was unknown what motivated him to conduct 
a suicide attack.''
  In this second poster, this is Said Ali al-Shihri. Shihri was 
captured in Pakistan in December 2001. He was transferred from Gitmo to 
Saudi Arabia in November 2007. He fled to Yemen, declaring himself the 
deputy director of al Qaeda in Yemen, and is a prime suspect in the 
December 2008 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Yemen.
  This is one we released. This is not one of the 530 who we're still 
holding because they were too dangerous to release.
  The security concerns and lack of a clear plan from this 
administration demonstrate an absolutely clear need for proactive 
restrictions on detainee freedom to travel within the U.S. should they 
be transferred here. Congress must play an active role in ensuring that 
any detainees released in U.S. communities do not pose a threat.
  A Gallup Poll released this week found that by a ratio of 3:1, 
respondents oppose moving detainees to the U.S. prisons. I don't think 
we need a poll to find out whether they want them next to them on an 
airplane. In Indiana, we have an expression: You can count them on one 
hand and have enough fingers left to bowl.
  Other than people in Congress, I can't imagine anybody who wants 
these people who are released on planes next to them. They make a 
mockery of ``Fly the Friendly Skies.'' One slogan is ``Fly with 
Friends.'' Another slogan is ``Lower Fares, Fewer Restrictions.''
  I mean, think of the airline slogans with this. My favorite is Delta 
says, ``Delta Gets You There.'' They're going to need to add, 
``Maybe.''
  If we don't have this protection, we are vulnerable. This is a matter 
of national security. As important as this bill is, as important as 
these amendments are, our number one responsibility is guaranteed 
safety.
  I do not understand. I simply do not understand why my friends on the 
majority side don't even want to have a vote to say, not keep them in 
prison, not keep them in Guantanamo. This is about a vote should they 
automatically be placed on the No Fly List.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, how much time on each side remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 18\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you. I'd say to my friend from Indiana, I 
appreciate his concerns, and virtually everything that he is concerned 
about is in the bill. And I think it's important that I read from 
section 405, found on page 87, where it says, ``The Assistant 
Secretary, in coordination with the Terrorist Screening Center, shall 
include on the No Fly List any individual who was a detainee housed at 
the Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on or after January 1, 2009, 
after a final disposition has been issued by the President.
  ``For purposes of this clause, the term `detainee' means an 
individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United 
States as a result of armed conflict.''
  So virtually everything he talked about is in this bill already, and 
that's why the bill came out of Homeland Security without opposition.
  With that, I yield 5 minutes to the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation Security, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the manager of the bill, and I also 
thank him for his knowledge as a very able member formerly of the 
Homeland Security Committee and Subcommittee on Transportation 
Security, Mr. Perlmutter, for his continued interest.
  I also would like to rise to support the rule and, of course, the 
underlying bill and to acknowledge the chairman of the full committee, 
Mr. Thompson, and the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. King, 
and my ranking member, Mr. Dent. This is truly a bipartisan effort.
  The act is a product of months of negotiation, give-and-take, 
including Republican stakeholders, labor organizations, and industry 
groups, the Government Accountability Office, and the Department of 
Homeland Security's Inspector General's office.
  It provides a new look and a new face to surface transportation 
security enhancements and particularly addresses the concerns of 9/11 
from the point of view of having a comprehensive security program for 
the United States of America.
  I am glad that it increases by three times the FY 2009 funding for 
surface transportation security. It authorizes an additional 200 
surface transportation security inspectors for FY 2010, and an 
additional 100 inspectors for FY 2011.

[[Page 13997]]

  It establishes the Surface Transportation Security Inspection Office 
within TSA to train and manage inspectors to conduct and assist for 
security activities in surface transportation systems. And I'm glad 
that it creates a Transit Security Advisory Committee to facilitate 
stakeholder input to TSA on surface transportation policy.
  Every morning, millions of Americans rise and go to work on surface 
transportation facilities, and yet we have not paid the attention 
necessary to ensure that when we talk about a comprehensive security 
for this Nation, we truly mean comprehensive.
  I am glad for the fact that we now have our eye on surface 
transportation. The men and women who use commuter rail, the men and 
women who use subways and undergrounds and elevated rail systems like 
in our older cities can at least experience the idea that we are 
concerned.
  I traveled to Mumbai, India, to see the ravaging, if you will, of the 
terrorist acts that occurred around Thanksgiving of 2008. This is a 
bill overdue.
  I'm delighted, of course, that we have moved on some issues dealing 
with airport security and screening enhancements. I'm delighted that we 
have directed TSA to develop a strategic, risk-based plan to enhance 
security of airport perimeter access controls. I am always so glad that 
we're paying attention to general aviation, and my subcommittee will 
hold a hearing on that as we move forward to extend the security of 
general aviation.
  But also in this bill, in particular, we deal with security of the 
perimeter of airports. We provide flight training, self-defense 
training for our cabin officers, if you will, our flight attendants. 
It's long overdue. It's an issue that I have worked on for a number of 
years, and it is in this bill, where our flight attendants are being 
trained. And we have a wonderful compromise and working relationship 
with our airlines and the flight attendants.
  Also, we have found that we have been slowed in technology. There are 
a multitude of devices that have been created to secure America. But 
the science and technology department or area of the Department of 
Homeland Security has been slow in producing, if you will, the approval 
for these technologies.
  In this bill we now have a process, a roadmap, if you will, for our 
inventiveness so that these particular products, many of them coming 
from small and minority and women-owned businesses, can follow a 
process, get approved, and provide for the security of America.
  We have enhanced the use of canine detection resources. And I, in 
fact, support the Hastings amendment that is in place to provide the 
added utilization of canine detection teams, the Hastings-Rogers-
Jackson-Lee amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield another 30 seconds.

                              {time}  1115

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. We are also very supportive of the Hastings 
from Florida amendment that, within 6 months of enactment, requires TSA 
to submit a report to Congress on complaints and claims received by TSA 
for loss of property in baggage screening areas.
  We have to be respectful of the idea of security but also of the 
rights of our particular citizens. We look forward, as we move forward 
with this bill, to make sure that it covers a variety of areas. Those 
areas, again, address the question of a Federal flight deck officer 
program, requiring additional training, and it directs TSA to develop a 
security training program for all air cargo.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have addressed this question 
of both international and domestic air cargo by suggesting that we will 
work with the administration to make sure that we have within a 2-year 
period 100 percent screening for all of our baggage no matter where it 
comes from.
  I ask my colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield again 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), who 
is extremely concerned about this issue, and rightfully so.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with so many important issues 
in this bill, but there are none as important as the issue of whether 
the actual people getting on board with you are terrorists, which is 
the fundamental thing we should be concerned about.
  My amendment said: the Assistant Secretary, in coordination with the 
Terrorist Screening Center, shall include on the No Fly List any 
individual who was a detainee housed at the Naval Station Guantanamo 
Bay, Cuba, on or after January 1, 2009. For purposes of this clause, 
the term ``detainee'' means an individual in the custody or under the 
physical control of the United States as a result of armed conflict.
  That is all in the bill. So what happened in committee? I sat on 
committee. It was not unanimous. I abstained. I supported the bill, but 
I could not support a bill with this kind of terrorist fly-through in 
it.
  The words that were added were ``after a final disposition has been 
issued by the President.''
  These people are all lawyered up. They are fighting every process to 
hold them. Many of them, probably, will win, partly because we don't 
want to go into open court, having to release the information of how we 
got the information of why they're there, because--guess what? People 
are getting beheaded. They're exposing our entire lines of tracking 
information, so some will get out on that basis. Some will get out on 
the basis that their countries won't take them back.
  It also says here: ``the final disposition.'' Well, if they're 
released in the United States, lawyered up and on trial, I don't want 
people here who are involved in blowing us up and who have been 
fighting and killing our soldiers. These people who are still there are 
the ones we haven't already released. I earlier gave examples of people 
who were released, those who have gone back in, meaning, already, 20 or 
30 percent of them have been re-involved.
  Now, a final disposition can take anywhere from 2 years to a decade 
to forever. Then there is a final disposition by the President. Well, 
what if they're just plain released?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman an 
additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. SOUDER. Do you think you're really going to be able to hold them 
if they've been released? The courts may very well rule we can't even 
hold them in the United States.
  This amendment and anybody who goes to the legislative intent will 
hear the debate. The debate was not about whether or not they were all 
going to be placed on the No Fly List. The debate was about whether I 
was prejudging the people who were in Gitmo. Legislative intent will 
show that this amendment was meant to keep some people from being added 
to the No Fly List.
  Any legislative intent will show that, in committee, the intent here 
was to say: Souder was trying to prejudge the people in Gitmo in that 
they shouldn't be on a No Fly List and that some of those people should 
be on a No Fly List. It's indisputable. It's in the Record.
  So, unless we change the bill, this is a gutting amendment that does 
not put people on the No Fly List. It is current law which says that 
the President has the opportunity to put them on a No Fly List.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I will yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. The gentleman is, first of all, correct in 
the severity of the question, but I do want the gentleman to know that 
it's speculation to suggest that they might be released.
  The language says they will be on a No Fly List with the final 
disposition of the President. More importantly, those individuals will 
not be holding visas, and they will not be holding

[[Page 13998]]

passports. We have enhanced our security internationally. It is without 
probability of any kind that they will be coming into the United 
States, and those who are under lawyering, as you say, will be under 
lawyering, handcuffed and moved around the country. We will have this 
ability with your language, which I congratulate the gentleman on, as 
the final disposition of the FBI, of the CIA and of the military 
intelligence. Give us the list, and they will be on a No Fly List.
  Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming my time, I agree with the gentlewoman. If 
there is any logic in the world, not a single person here is not going 
to be on the No Fly List, but we have no assurances. We can't predict 
what the courts are going to do. We can't predict that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman an 
additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. SOUDER. We can't predict what any President or any Attorney 
General is going to do at any given moment. Even if this goes 8 to 10 
years and even if the current President serves two terms, we can't 
predict it. The fact is that my amendment predicted it.
  It says, if you are released in the United States, you are 
automatically on a No Fly List. There was at least enough risk.
  Poor Congressman John Lewis keeps getting on these lists, and we keep 
trying to get him off. You can see what a mess sometimes our lists are. 
It ought to be, if you're in Guantanamo--this is simple. We have their 
names. We have their fingerprints. We know who they are. We know that 
they are potential risks. Why would you resist? Just put them on a No 
Fly List. Why take the gamble here?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Would you yield for just a moment, Mr. 
Souder?
  Mr. SOUDER. I would yield to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. We are in agreement that these individuals 
are outrageous for the very reasons that you are saying. They will not 
be released willy-nilly into the United States. They will not be 
dispatched out by any court. They are going to be under military 
tribunals. The system is being worked out. As you well know, no one 
voted against this in the committee because we know that we have a 
process that will allow them to be on a No Fly List.
  Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming my time, we do not know anything. The only way 
we know it is to put it into law. We are speculating and are hopeful. 
Logic would suggest that my amendment is not needed. But in watching 
what has happened in America today, guess what? The American people 
look at Congress; they look at the executive branch, and they don't 
often see common sense at times.
  Furthermore, particularly as we head into an era where courts are 
going to go, perhaps, more on feelings rather than on law, this is a 
risky time period. We need to make it clear-cut--absolutely--if you're 
in Guantanamo.
  Now, we've already released a bunch, and a whole bunch of them are 
coming back and are hitting us. At the very least, if we're not going 
to keep them in prison, if we're not going to keep them in Guantanamo, 
at the very least, this Congress needs to guarantee you will 
absolutely, certainly, 100 percent--not hopefully, not maybe, not 
probably--100 percent not get on an airplane out of Reagan Airport, 
sitting next to us, with the ability to blow up this Capitol building 
and the White House.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, again, to my friend from Indiana, I 
don't think the language in the bill could be any clearer about these 
detainees and their being part of the No Fly List.
  I am going to now yield 2 minutes to my friend from New York (Ms. 
Clarke), who is a member of the Homeland Security Committee.
  Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I would like to just 
highlight today section 201 of H.R. 2200, the Transportation Security 
Administration Authorization Act of 2009, which requires the TSA to 
establish a system to verify that all cargo transported on passenger 
aircraft operated by an air carrier or by a foreign air carrier inbound 
to the United States be screened for explosives within 2 years of its 
enactment.
  Notwithstanding the contrary rhetoric we have heard from the 
opponents of H.R. 2200, the committee is taking the responsible, 
necessary steps to implement the cargo screening requirement originally 
authorized in the 9/11 Act by requiring that all cargo transported 
between the United States airports on passenger planes be screened by 
August of 2010, by maintaining the commitment to screen inbound cargo, 
by responding in a timely manner to the needs of the TSA rather than 
taking a wait-and-see approach until 2010, and by dedicating the 
committee to receiving monthly briefings on the program so that the 
necessary oversight is exercised to ensure that TSA will meet the 2010 
deadline and the deadline for inbound cargo created by this provision.
  The previous administration's delay and confusion have disadvantaged 
TSA and have necessitated this action.
  I am committed to achieving 100 percent screening of all cargo 
transported on passenger planes. This is arguably the largest screening 
vulnerability given that all passengers, their carry-ons and checked 
baggage currently get screened.
  I would like to thank Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King for 
their vigilance and leadership, and I would like to thank subcommittee 
Chairwoman Sheila Jackson-Lee and the ranking member for their 
diligence and leadership on this authorization.
  As a member of the New York delegation, as one who serves on this 
committee and as one who holds very vivid memories of the most 
devastating airliner-based attack on U.S. soil, I kindly ask my 
colleagues to support the rule of H.R. 2200 as well as the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the 
balance of our time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the time remaining on 
both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has 11 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would like to yield 2 minutes to another member of 
the committee, to my friend from Texas (Mr. Al Green).
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter.
  I want to thank Chairman Thompson for his leadership. I am reminded, 
friends, that there is a difference between leadership and management. 
A manager wants to do things right, and a leader wants to do the right 
thing.
  Chairman Thompson has not only wanted to get this right procedurally; 
he has wanted to make sure that we do the right thing. He has proceeded 
on the premise that there is safety in the counsel of the multitudes. 
Everybody who wanted to be heard was heard on this bill. Labor was 
heard. Industry was heard. Republicans were heard. Democrats were 
heard. Everybody who wanted to be heard was heard. I know of no one who 
wanted to be heard at the subcommittee level more than the Honorable 
Sheila Jackson-Lee, who was not heard. There was nobody on the 
committee who had an issue that was not embraced and heard. I was 
there. What I'm about to say is not something that I know from 
secondhand, or secondarily. I don't know it tertiarily and I don't know 
it quarternarily. I know this from being there in person.
  This issue about the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay was aired 
adequately, sufficiently, totally, completely, and absolutely. The man 
who spoke, who is my friend and who is a man I respect greatly, had his 
issue heard, and he did not vote against it. He did not vote against 
it. He was the only abstention. My brothers and sisters on the 
Republican side supported this as well. I say ``brothers and sisters'' 
because I believe there is just one race--the human race--and we're all 
related. We're probably cousins if we're not brothers and sisters. But 
my point is this:
  This was totally, completely and absolutely thoroughly aired. 
Everybody

[[Page 13999]]

had a say. I am going to support the rule because I support the notion 
that there is safety in the counsel of the multitudes and that the 
multitudes were heard.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the 
balance of our time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to 
another member of the committee, the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. 
Kirkpatrick).
  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in 
support of this rule and in support of the underlying bill, which has 
been the product of lengthy, bipartisan negotiations. It contains 
contributions from stakeholders throughout the private sector and 
government.
  Before I continue, I want to take a moment to recognize the hard work 
and dedication of the TSA leadership and of their employees who work 
day in and day out to help keep our country safe. Thank you.
  This bill is important because it allows us to take a look at TSA and 
to address any problems that have arisen over the past 8 years. One of 
the concerns this bill addresses is the matter of whole-body imaging, 
or WBI.

                              {time}  1130

  This technology allows airport screeners to clearly see items 
passengers may be concealing beneath their clothing anywhere on their 
body. However, many folks on both sides of the aisle have expressed 
serious reservations about the privacy implications of creating 
detailed images of people's bodies underneath their clothing. 
Therefore, one of the many amendments offered and accepted during the 
markup of this bill was my amendment that requires TSA to submit a 
report on privacy to Congress upon completion of the WBI pilot program. 
This will give both TSA and Congress the opportunity to reflect on this 
program before we jump into full implementation.
  This bill has been thoroughly considered and approved in both the 
subcommittee and full committee levels. So I hope my colleagues will 
join me in support of this rule and the bill.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my 
friend from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I introduced my first bill to enhance 
screening of aviation in 1987. I saw the extraordinary deficiencies of 
the system back then, fought for two decades with the airline industry, 
and it took a horrible tragedy to transform the system. Even 2 years 
before that bill, Mr. Lipinski and I looked at the workforce--minimum 
wage, high turnover, some of them were illegal aliens--and said we 
ought to Federalize the screening workforce. We need a better system. 
Again, the airlines fought. Again, it took a tragedy.
  Well, now, out of that we have developed the potential for a better 
system. This bill will move it along tremendously, both in aviation and 
surface security that we need to protect our Nation. This bill 
represents tremendous progress, tripling the funding for surface 
transportation and the oversight program that will require that 
airlines give meaningful training to flight crews--something that some 
of the airlines still aren't doing. They say it costs too much.
  We will have new standards for foreign repair stations. We have a 
huge loophole. Most of our planes--or many of them--are getting 
maintenance overseas where there is no security. Just imagine what a 
terrorist operative could do to sabotage one of our planes over there. 
It helps with the last line of defense. Our Federal Flight Deck Officer 
program. And it makes other tremendous improvements.
  I am a bit bemused by the gentleman from Indiana alleging that this 
bill somehow might allow some terrorist to somehow--who is known--not 
be on the No Fly List. We've got a whole bunch of really bad people in 
prison, not just down in Guantanamo but in our super-maximum security 
prisons here; some who attacked the Twin Towers before 9/11. The guy 
called the Unibomber. Guess what? They're not on the No Fly List 
because they aren't going anywhere. And if they did escape, they 
certainly wouldn't be flying under their own name. So we don't 
routinely put people who are in super maximum security prisons on a No 
Fly List.
  But what the bill says if and when any one of those people who was 
detained at Guantanamo is in any way capable of getting out and getting 
on an airplane: If they're sent to a foreign nation for disposition and 
we don't know what that disposition would be, their name must go on the 
No Fly List. So his arguments about somehow we're undermining security 
or threatening the public are particularly puzzling to me. As one who 
has advocated long and hard for enhanced security, I'm a bit insulted 
by that.
  Now, we need better technology for the Federal workforce to use at 
the point where they screen passengers. And one of those things is a 
walk-through device where you'll be able to see any concealed 
contraband on the person. That is a tremendous step forward. They've 
been using it in Heathrow for years now. It's an option at Heathrow.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield the gentleman 1 more minute.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. You can either be very intrusively frisked at Heathrow--
and I have had the experience; it's not great, and it's much more 
intrusive than here--or you can walk through that screening device. 
More than 85 percent of the people choose to walk through the screening 
device. And as we've proposed it here, it has extraordinary privacy 
protections. The person monitoring the dumbed-down image of the 
person's body will be remote from the actual screening area, won't be 
able to see that person. It's dumbed down. It's not very revealing. And 
this is a step forward that will enhance our security.
  There are ways now to smuggle devices onboard, and we've got to deal 
with them. And this is one of them.
  We also have to deal better with liquids and explosives, a major 
threat. We need to get more equipment deployed--and this committee has 
pushed hard and there was money in the stimulus bill--and there will be 
more authorization here to get better equipment to our screeners so 
they can detect threats before they get on our planes.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my 
friend if he has any other speakers.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. We do not.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this point I 
would like to thank everybody who has participated in this debate. I 
think it's been very fruitful, and I think it's been important.
  I mentioned before that when I first spoke on this legislation that 
process is important because it affects fairness, obviously, but it 
also affects legislation. We are dealing today--we are bringing to the 
floor legislation that I am sure will pass by an overwhelming majority 
on a bipartisan basis. It's important legislation. It's been drafted 
through the committee process in a bipartisan fashion, and that's 
commendable.
  I mentioned that on legislation like this--and quite frankly, also, 
on legislation that's coming to the floor soon that's more 
controversial--openness, as much as possible, is advisable. We saw an 
amendment described by Mr. Souder that is important because it 
basically, as it was explained by Mr. Souder, his interventions would 
take out of the hands of the President the ultimate determination of 
whether somebody currently held at the detention center in Guantanamo 
could be placed or not on the No Fly List, and it would say that 
automatically those people would be on the No Fly List. And that's 
important. It's an example of why process is important because being 
denied--Mr. Souder is being denied the opportunity to present the 
amendment. I think that's unfortunate.
  Anyway, as I say, the underlying legislation is one that I'm certain 
will pass with great bipartisan support. And again, I reiterate my 
gratitude to all colleagues who have debated on the rule, and, 
obviously, I look forward to the debate on the underlying legislation.

[[Page 14000]]

  Having said that, I yield back my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida and I 
appreciated today's debate as well.
  I would ask that House Resolution 474 be passed this morning, that 
the rule be passed.
  This is a bill, H.R. 2200, involving transportation security. It's 
been a bill that has been long in the making and long overdue, and it 
is time to move forward with this piece of legislation.
  The bill itself was developed over several months with a great amount 
of input from majority and minority Members, labor and business, and 
independent analysis. We heard from Representative Green about all of 
the input that went in from various perspectives and the fact that 
everyone was heard.
  The bill passed out of the Homeland Security Committee without any 
dissenting votes. We've heard Mr. Souder complain that his amendment 
was modified to include the President of the United States. I mean, 
obvious reflection of separation of powers has to be part of the bill. 
Otherwise, it's exactly what he wanted. And it does not allow detainees 
of Guantanamo to come into the United States. They will become part of 
the No Fly List if they were ever detained at the Naval Station 
Guantanamo Bay. So the language is clear with respect to his concerns.
  The bill, as it comes to the floor, will have 14 substantive 
amendments debated: eight by Republicans; six by Democrats. This rule 
will provide for ample debate on this important bill and allow Members 
to vote on many proposals to improve it. The bill is a great example of 
bipartisan cooperation. It addresses the need for risk-based 
determinations, surface transportation and biometrics.
  I would urge, Mr. Speaker, a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the 
underlying bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members not to 
traffic the well while another Member is under recognition.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. 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 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adopting the resolution will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on a motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 1817; and a motion to 
suspend the rules on House Resolution 196, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243, 
nays 179, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 301]

                               YEAS--243

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

                               NAYS--179

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

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Barton (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Cooper
     Hinojosa
     Kennedy
     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sestak
     Stark
     Sullivan
     Wilson (OH)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1207

  Messrs. COFFMAN of Colorado, KINGSTON, and PLATTS changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. CAPUANO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 301, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''

[[Page 14001]]



                          ____________________