[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24966-24972]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1030
    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2892, 
        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 829 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 829

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2892) making appropriations for the Department of 
     Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2010, and for other purposes. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     conference report to its adoption without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit if applicable.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), and all time yielded during 
consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 829.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 829 provides for consideration of the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 2892, the Department of Homeland 
Security Appropriations Act of 2010. The rule waives all points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration. The 
rule provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. 
And finally, the rule provides that the previous question shall be 
considered as ordered without intervention of any motion, except 1 hour 
of debate and one motion to recommit, if applicable.
  This conference report appropriates over $42 billion in funds 
necessary to protect the American people and enhance our national 
security. Through terrorist threat mitigation, natural disaster 
response, and immigration enforcement, this appropriations bill 
provides the funding to fulfill the many essential responsibilities of 
a range of important governmental agencies, from the Coast Guard to 
FEMA to Customs and Border Protection to the Transportation Security 
Administration.
  Particularly critical in this legislation are the partnerships 
established with State and local communities to prepare for and protect 
against a range of emergency situations, including natural disasters 
and acts of terrorism and violence. The funding provided for emergency 
response resources demonstrates the need for collaboration among 
Federal, State, and local governments in providing for effective 
security. It's worth noting a few of the major initiatives contained in 
this conference report.
  This legislation helps secure our borders by providing over $10 
billion for Customs and Border Protection, including funding for over 
20,000 Border Patrol agents, which represents an increase of 6,000 
agents since 2006. In addition, this report extends authorization of 
the E-Verify program for 3 years, under which employers are able to 
check the legal status of their workers. This legislation provides the 
funding to operate and improve the existing E-Verify program.
  Ensuring the safety and security of our Nation's infrastructure is a 
critical part of this legislation. This conference report provides the 
necessary funding to the Transportation Security Administration and the 
Coast Guard to protect our Nation's vast transportation network, 
including airports, seaports, subways, trains, and buses. With this 
funding, the TSA will be able to improve explosive detection equipment 
at airports, and the Coast Guard will be able to replace aging ships 
and aircraft, which is much needed, modernizing a force that is 
essential to our national security.
  Madam Speaker, I have always praised the Federal Emergency Management 
program for the fine work they do in helping distressed communities. In 
my home State of Florida, we are frequently plagued with natural 
disasters, including hurricanes and flooding. These disasters 
profoundly impact Florida's residents, particularly when so many 
individuals and families experience severe damage to their homes and 
communities.
  I'm pleased with the funding levels indicated in this report for the 
firefighter grants, flood map modernization, predisaster mitigation, 
and emergency food and shelter programs. I know that the men and women 
at FEMA work hard and are dedicated to relieving the plight of 
Americans faced with the hardships of natural disasters.
  At the same time, I've never been shy about making my voice heard on 
matters important to my constituents and all residents of Florida and 
our Nation that experience disasters. I have been outspoken on the need 
for FEMA to improve temporary housing.
  I'm also pleased to have included language in this bill requiring the 
Florida Long Term Recovery Office, located in Orlando, to remain open. 
And a footnote there, Representatives Alan Grayson and Suzanne Kosmas 
are deserving of a lot of consideration from us for that action that I, 
along with Robert Wexler and others, began quite some time before they 
came to Congress. In order to enhance communication and relief 
operations, this is necessary in the event of a natural disaster.

[[Page 24967]]


  Madam Speaker, I do want to address the provisions in this report 
relating to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I know that this body has 
been very focused on this matter, as rightly we should be, as President 
Obama has committed his administration to close the detention facility 
at Guantanamo by January of 2010. This conference report prohibits 
current detainees from being transferred to the United States, except 
to be prosecuted, and then only after Congress receives a detailed plan 
on the risks involved, the legal rationale for their transfer, and a 
notification from the Governor of the affected State.
  This is all well and good, but the language in this bill, while a 
good step forward, is not going to solve the problem of what to do with 
the hundreds of individuals we have detained, and those in the future 
that we may have to detain, whether they are detained at Guantanamo or 
Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan or any other facility where they may be 
detained by the United States.
  The debate over Guantanamo, in my opinion, is missing the larger 
picture, and that is a need to reform our entire detainment policy. As 
I have maintained, the problem is policy, not the place. Without a 
system of justice to deal with suspected terrorists, wherever they are 
held, we are left with a broken system that has been a significant 
recruiting tool for al Qaeda and other groups which threaten our 
Nation's security. We need to deny them that image of America.
  We need a judicial process that accomplishes at least three things: 
Number 1, protects our national security by holding and prosecuting 
those who have committed crimes or who pose an imperative threat to our 
country; number 2, upholds international standards of human rights; and 
3, strengthens our Nation's image as a country that upholds the rule of 
law and does not resort to arbitrary justice, even while under threat.
  This appropriations season has, so far, brought forth a number of 
bills, almost all with language relating to Guantanamo and a whole lot 
of that ``not in my backyard'' stuff. At some point soon, we're going 
to need to move beyond trying to legislate this matter into 
appropriations bills and, instead, deal with what is necessary, and 
that is, new policies and guidelines to bring our national security 
needs in line with our historic national values.
  I'm pleased to have introduced H.R. 3728, the Detainment Reform Act, 
which will move us forward on this matter, and I urge my colleagues and 
the President and his administration to give some vent to supporting 
this effort, revising it, or doing what is necessary in order for this 
bill or others to establish the policy that's needed for detaining 
individuals who would be imperative threats or conduct themselves in a 
criminal manner against this Nation.
  Madam Speaker, ultimately, the conference report before us today 
provides the necessary funding for the Federal, State, and local 
agencies, programs and efforts that will protect our Nation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank 
my good friend and fellow cochairman of the Florida Congressional 
Delegation, Mr. Hastings, for the time. I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, several years ago I had the distinct privilege to 
bring to this floor, first, the rule bringing the legislation to the 
floor that created the Department of Homeland Security, and then the 
first rule for a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. 
Since then, the Department of Homeland Security has begun to mature. It 
has improved the process for which it was created, the oversight of and 
coordination of many departments related to the safety of the Nation.
  As we know, the department was created in the wake of the attacks of 
September 11, 2001, to help mobilize and to organize the government to 
the best of its ability to secure the homeland from further terrorist 
attacks, to protect the Nation's borders, and to prepare for natural 
disasters. And thanks to our new concerted approach, I think we've made 
key investments to secure the United States from further terrorist 
attacks.

                              {time}  1045

  But clearly we must not let our guard down.
  Just a few weeks ago, we heard about a disrupted terrorist attack in 
New York City. The Attorney General of the United States has called the 
plot, ``one of the most serious in the United States since September 
11, 2001.'' That is why I am pleased that the underlying legislation 
provides the Department with the tools and resources that it needs in 
order to continue to help to protect the Nation from other terrorist 
attacks. We must not lose our focus. We must continue our efforts to 
protect the United States from deadly attacks.
  This legislation will provide much-needed funding to help secure our 
borders, with $800 million for Southwest border investments, over $3 
billion for the Border Patrol, including over 20,000 Border agents, an 
increase of more than 50 percent since 2006.
  The State that I am honored to represent, Florida, has seen, as my 
dear friend has pointed out, its share of natural disasters, from 
Hurricane Andrew in 1992 to the series of very disastrous back-to-back 
hurricanes in the middle of this decade. That is why having a prepared 
and professional staff at FEMA, ready to coordinate disaster 
preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation efforts, is of vital 
importance to Florida.
  I am pleased the conference report will provide FEMA and the new FEMA 
administrator--we Floridians are very proud of him, Craig Fugate--the 
resources needed to help in the aftermath of any natural disaster, 
whether it's a hurricane in Florida, an earthquake in California, or 
the flooding in the Midwest.
  The terrorist attacks of September 11 heightened concerns regarding 
aviation security. In response, Congress passed the Aviation and 
Transportation Security Act of 2001. That legislation established a 
Federal screener workforce and required the screening of all checked 
baggage using explosive detection systems, EDS. EDS machines can 
quickly determine if a baggage contains a potential threat. If a weapon 
or explosive is detected, the machines alert security officers so they 
can manage the baggage appropriately.
  Funding and reimbursement for EDS installation, however, continues to 
be a serious concern. Miami International Airport, which is in my 
congressional district, has incurred over $78 million in in-line EDS 
terminal modification costs and continues to seek reimbursement for the 
Federal share of those costs. I am pleased that this conference report 
provides $778 million in discretionary funding to purchase and install 
EDS at airports. Those funds will help reimburse Miami International 
Airport and other airports in their efforts to complete EDS 
installations.
  Our Nation's maritime industry contributes approximately $750 billion 
to the gross domestic product each year. Florida has some of the 
largest ports in the country. The Port of Miami serves as the primary 
maritime gateway to Latin America and the Caribbean. It is a strategic 
hub for international commerce throughout the hemisphere, and obviously 
it is the cruise ship capital of the word.
  Since 9/11, the Port of Miami has faced unprecedented security costs 
due to the expense of complying with Federal security mandates. While 
ports across the Nation are facing similar challenges, the problem at 
the Port of Miami is particularly serious. Annual operating security 
costs at the Port of Miami have increased from just over $4 million in 
2001 to over $20 million today.
  The legislation we are bringing to the floor provides $300 million in 
grants to assist ports in enhancing their security measures to prevent, 
detect, and respond to possible terrorist attacks.
  So I wish to thank Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers for their 
clearly bipartisan work on this conference report that makes critical 
investments in the priorities facing the

[[Page 24968]]

Department of Homeland Security, including securing our transportation 
systems, strong border security, a well-prepared and able FEMA, and so 
much more.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased and 
privileged at this time to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on 
Rules and my good friend, Ms. Louise Slaughter.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, there are few things that say more about our country 
and our trust in the public's right to know than the Freedom of 
Information Act. It is one of the most powerful statements of openness 
and transparency that we have. It affords ordinary people the ability 
to peer behind the curtains of power and see inside the many 
bureaucracies that define the Federal, State and local governments in 
this country. It is a symbol for all, that despite anything else that 
our government does in the name of the people, there should be no 
secrets.
  Over the years, FOIA laws have been used for a wide range of 
purposes. FOIA helped us to discover the ugly truth about the use of 
Agent Orange in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia during the 1960s. And FOIA 
was also used to uncover data showing that Ford Pintos were built with 
serious dual system defects that made them more prone to fire and 
explosions.
  In some ways, FOIA is simply a reminder to the public that there is 
an avenue to pursue if they believe the government is keeping a secret. 
At the heart of FOIA is the concept that the people's right to know is 
more important than the government's desire to keep things secret.
  The FOIA laws in this country have enabled reporters and citizens 
from all spectrums access to information that otherwise might never see 
the light of day. Signed into law by President Johnson in 1966, the 
FOIA laws allow for the full or partial disclosure of information and 
documents with only a narrow list of important exemptions.
  And so it was with some dismay when I learned recently that the House 
and Senate conferees on the Homeland Security appropriations bill had 
slipped in a provision that gives the government the option of making 
old photos of detainee abuse exempt from the FOIA laws.
  This case has already followed a lengthy path beginning with a 
lawsuit filed by the ACLU against the Pentagon. Last spring, when it 
appeared that the lawsuit might go against the government, the 
administration responded by asking some Members of the House and Senate 
to insert language into the legislation to make sure that the photos 
stay secret.
  Joining the ACLU against the Pentagon was the American Society of 
News Editors, the Associated Press, Cable News Network, Inc., the E.W. 
Scripps Company, Gannett Co., Inc., the Hearst Corporation, Military 
Reporters and Editors, the National Press Club, NBC Universal, Inc., 
The New York Times Company, the Newspaper Association of America, the 
Newspaper Guild--CWA, the Radio-Television News Directors Association, 
the Society of Professional Journalists, The Washington Post, and me.
  Never mind that the photos in question likely have very little value 
given that a similar set of photos showing the abuse were released 
under the Bush administration. Despite some complaints that releasing 
photos would place service men and women in danger, the fact is there 
was absolutely no increase in violence or attacks after the previous 
detainee photos were released. I assume that if we were to release the 
new photos, the result would be the same. Americans were simply able to 
find out what was being done in their name.
  Many observers argue that releasing the photos was actually a clear 
break from the abuses of the past and a signal to our allies and to 
everyone else that the days of this type of detainee mistreatment were 
over and that the United States is willing to come to terms with past 
practices. Indeed, we have said so.
  In June, I and other House leaders prevailed and the FOIA exemption 
was dropped from the legislation. However, the conferees, apparently 
under direct orders, quietly put it back into the bill this month. It's 
hard for me to express how disappointed I am with that decision. I am 
sorry because I believed that we had turned a page from the cloud of 
suspicion and secrecy that marked the previous administration. It runs 
so counter to our principles and stated desire to reject abuses of the 
past.
  The FOIA laws in this country form a pillar of our First Amendment 
principles. It is unfortunate, given that this administration promised 
that openness and transparency would be the norm. We should never do 
anything to circumvent FOIA, and I believe our country would gain more 
by coming to terms with the past than we would by covering it up.
  I hope the President will follow judicial rulings and consider 
voluntarily releasing these photos so we can put this chapter in 
history behind us.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I especially appreciate the 
remarks of the distinguished woman, the Rules Chair, Ms. Slaughter, and 
echo her sentiments.
  I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from the Rules 
Committee, a good friend, Jared Polis of Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. I would like to thank my colleague from Florida for the 
time, as well as Chairman Price for his leadership in bringing the 
fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security appropriations bill to the floor. It 
reflects the hard work of Chairman Price over the past year, and I am 
grateful that I have the opportunity to comment on the committee's 
efforts here today.
  I want to reiterate the gratitude that I first expressed towards 
Chairman Price and his staff during our colloquy earlier this year with 
Congresswoman Roybal-Allard regarding alternatives to detention.
  This bill is about security and stability. One of the issues that we 
raised the profile of is alternatives to detention, a less costly way 
of detaining noncriminal immigrants.
  There really is a human rights crisis right in our own midst in this 
Nation. We are holding over 30,000 noncriminal aliens, people like you 
and me. They lack documentation, but they have committed no criminal 
crime. They might have been speeding, been picked up from a speeding 
ticket; they could have been in the wrong place loitering at the wrong 
time.
  And you and I and every other taxpayer are putting them up to the 
tune of $130 a day, average cost $30,000. Many of them remain in 
detention for 6 months, 9 months. I had the opportunity to visit a 
detention facility in Aurora, Colorado. I talked to people who had been 
there a year and a half, a year and a half away from their families, a 
year and a half at taxpayer expense.
  I would like to applaud the Obama administration for supporting 
alternatives to detention. Our bill funds alternatives to detention at 
$70 million, lowers cost using ankle bracelets, more humane, allowing 
people to remain with their families, $30 a day average cost. This 
provides a glimpse of what we can accomplish if we work together.
  It also underlines the critical importance of passing comprehensive 
immigration reform. If we can pass comprehensive immigration reform, I 
know that in future versions of the Homeland Security bill we can save 
money and have a more humane bill and focus the bill on Homeland 
Security where it should be focused, which is keeping our Nation safe, 
not as a back door to dealing with the failures of our broken 
immigration system.
  Thank you, Chairman Price, for your leadership in bringing the FY 
2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill to the floor. It reflects 
your hard work over the past year and I am grateful that I had the 
opportunity to support the committee's efforts to get here today. I 
want to reiterate the gratitude that I first expressed towards you and 
your staff during our colloquy with Congresswoman Roybal-Allard on 
detention alternatives earlier this year.
  This bill is about security and stability. It furthers the need to 
secure our borders by guaranteeing the stability of our immigration 
services' contributions. It provides the funding necessary to continue 
America's leadership in

[[Page 24969]]

providing a safe home for both Americans and all future Americans.
  Thus, $122 million above 2009 levels is provided to U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services for its important work. Examples of such 
important work that will be carried on thanks to this bill are many: 
$50 million goes to process refugee applications and asylum claims so 
that our Nation may continue to admit those in greatest need; $11 
million expands immigrant integration and outreach to help with 
pressing need once these immigrants are lawfully admitted; and $5 
million ensures the naturalization of immigrants serving in our armed 
services.
  Funding for detention beds as well as language requiring their 
maintenance ensures that immigrants will be humanely accommodated while 
their cases are adjudicated. And more importantly, $70 million goes to 
Alternatives to Detention--to expand this program nationwide. This 
steers us in the right direction--a direction of commonsense, cost-
saving, and humane measures. It provides a glimpse into what we can 
accomplish if we continue to work together toward comprehensive 
immigration reform.
  This bill only asks our immigrants one thing--to embrace our 
cherished tradition of the rule of law in the pursuit of freedom. As a 
result, this bill provides 3-year authorization extensions for all the 
immigrants that make ours a greater nation. From religious workers who 
strengthen our social fabric, to investors who create much-needed jobs 
while increasing overall credit availability, to rural-serving doctors, 
to refugees, all are covered in the FY 2010 Homeland Security bill.
  While many provisions in this bill greatly improve our detention 
policies, there is still much to be done and I look forward to a 
concrete plan for the closing of our Guantanamo Bay facilities.
  I once again thank Chairman Price and I look forward to working with 
you and your staff in the future.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I very much 
appreciate the contributions during this debate, enlightening our 
colleagues with regard to the merits of the legislation that we are 
bringing to the floor today.
  You know, one of the, I think, most interesting aspects of the 
American representative democracy is that we differ from other 
representative democracies probably because our two parties are, in 
effect, great coalitions. We have a two-party system by virtue of that; 
both parties represent different coalitions of thought on numerous 
issues.

                              {time}  1100

  So it's interesting that today, for example, while my friend and the 
distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee expressed an opinion 
contrary to the position maintained by the President of the United 
States on an important issue--and I think it's appropriate to do so--I 
commend the President of the United States for his position with regard 
to the release of detainee photos.
  The legislation before us codifies the President's decision to allow 
the Secretary of Defense to bar the release of detainee photos. I 
commend the President because, obviously, his leadership and support on 
that aspect has been decisive in the inclusion of that provision in 
this legislation.
  So our system is unique. This constant manifestation of our two great 
coalitions is fascinating to me as a student of comparative politics. 
It is another reason I am so proud of this body--the great sovereign 
Congress of the United States which represents the most sovereign and 
the freest people in the world, the American people.
  Madam Speaker, over the last few months, the American people have 
written and called their Members of Congress or they've made their 
opinions known at meetings throughout the Nation. They've asked their 
Members of Congress whether they will pledge to read bills before they 
vote on them. The reason is, I think, that people were outraged after 
finding out that the majority leadership forced Congress to vote on a 
number of sweeping and expensive bills without giving Members time to 
understand or to really even read the bills.
  I remember a very glaring example of that when we on the Rules 
Committee were faced with an entire new bill on this legislation that 
was known as cap-and-trade, which in effect became a manager's 
amendment to the legislation at 3 o'clock in the morning, and a few 
hours after that, we were here voting on it. We were forced to vote on 
the final so-called ``stimulus'' bill, on the omnibus appropriations 
bill and, as I mentioned, on that cap-and-trade bill with less than 24 
hours to read them--in some instances, as I mentioned before with 
regard to cap-and-trade, much, much less than 24 hours. Many people 
believe that that is no way to run the House, and many constituents are 
rightly upset.
  A recent survey found that over 80 percent of Americans believe that 
legislation should be posted online and in final form and should be 
available for everyone to read before Congress votes on legislation. 
You would think, Madam Speaker, that this would really not be an issue 
as the distinguished Speaker is on record as saying, ``Members should 
have at least 24 hours to examine bills and conference reports before 
floor consideration.'' It's even on her Web site. Yet, often, the 
majority leadership have refused to live up to their pledge.
  That is why a bipartisan group of 182 Members of this House has 
signed a discharge petition to consider a bill that would require that 
all legislation and conference reports be made available to Members of 
Congress and to the general public for 72 hours before they are brought 
to the House floor for a vote.
  So, today, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider 
that legislation--House Resolution 554, a bipartisan bill by my 
colleagues and friends, Representatives Baird and Culberson.
  I know that Members are concerned that this motion may jeopardize the 
Department of Homeland Security's Appropriations conference report, but 
I would like to make clear that the motion I am making provides for the 
separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days so 
that we can pass the conference report today funding the Department of 
Homeland Security. Then, once we are done, we would consider House 
Resolution 554.
  Having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the men and women of the numerous agencies under the 
Homeland Security umbrella are dedicated and hardworking public 
servants who deserve the full support of this body. We have a 
responsibility to provide them with the funds necessary to perform 
activities essential to protecting our country--preparing for 
emergencies, mitigating natural disasters and defending against acts of 
terrorism and violence.
  I commend our colleagues on both sides of the aisle on the 
Appropriations Committee with reference to discharging their functions. 
I especially commend Subcommittee Chair Price and the work that he and 
his committee have done. As well, I commend the distinguished chairman 
of the Homeland Security Committee, Bennie Thompson from Mississippi, 
and the extraordinary Members who serve with him in that capacity.
  As I've discussed before, Madam Speaker, I hope this body will move 
beyond the debate of whether or not to close Guantanamo and, instead, 
will work to develop comprehensive detainment policies that uphold 
Federal law and the United States Constitution, that uphold human 
rights and international law.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

          Amendment to H. Res. 829 Offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 2. On the third legislative day after the adoption of 
     this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention 
     of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the 
     consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives to require that 
     legislation and conference reports be available on the 
     Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and 
     for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as

[[Page 24970]]

     ordered on the resolution and any amendment thereto to final 
     adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of 
     the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided 
     and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the 
     Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative 
     day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order or demand for 
     division of the question, shall be considered as read and 
     shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and 
     (3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain 
     instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of House Resolution 554.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     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. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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 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. Madam Speaker, on that I demand 
the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 829, if 
ordered; and adoption of House Resolution 800, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243, 
nays 173, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 780]

                               YEAS--243

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

                               NAYS--173

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     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
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam

[[Page 24971]]


     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Boyd
     Cao
     Carney
     Emerson
     Hall (TX)
     Honda
     McCollum
     Melancon
     Mollohan
     Platts
     Radanovich
     Rogers (AL)
     Ryan (OH)
     Scalise
     Schock
     Stark

                              {time}  1133

  Messrs. JOHNSON of Illinois, CONAWAY, and Ms. GRANGER changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to speak out of order.)


                          Legislative Program

  Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen, we had hoped to do an additional 
appropriation bill, but the subcommittee has not yet reached agreement. 
As a result, I wanted to let Members know that when we finish the 
business that is scheduled for today, which includes the water bill 
that we will be considering later today after the Homeland Security 
bill, we will then not plan to be here on Friday. I know that 
disappoints all of you.
  It does disappoint me because I'm very focused, and we are working 
very hard with the Senate to try to get the appropriations bills done 
individually. I'm not a fan of omnibuses. I don't think anybody here is 
either. But as a result of being unable to move the Interior 
appropriation bill, my view was that originally we had scheduled the 
water bill for tomorrow, but it is our belief that we can consider both 
of them today which would then not require Members to be here on 
Friday.
  You can lodge your complaints to me later.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will 
continue.
  There was no objection.
  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. Madam Speaker, on that I demand 
the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239, 
nays 174, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 781]

                               YEAS--239

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

                               NAYS--174

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

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Abercrombie
     Boyd
     Cao
     Carney
     Emerson
     Hall (TX)
     Hirono
     McCollum
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mollohan
     Murphy (NY)
     Platts
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Scalise
     Stark
     Towns
     Weiner


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1141

  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:
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 781, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. MURPHY of New York. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 781, had I 
been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS, Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 781, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

[[Page 24972]]



                          ____________________