[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24973-24988]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2892, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 829, I call up the conference report on 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, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 829, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 13, 2009, at page 24619.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Price) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) each will control 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and 
extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 2892.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present the conference report for the 
Department of Homeland Security appropriations for fiscal year 2010. 
This agreement provides $42.78 billion for the Department, $2.64 
billion, or 7 percent, above the fiscal year 2009 level.
  I want to thank the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Rogers, for his 
advice and counsel and help in making this a better bill, and also his 
staff for working so closely and constructively with us. I want to 
highlight the work of all staff on both sides of the aisle who have 
helped us present such a strong legislative product to the Congress.
  This is a critical year for the Department of Homeland Security, as 
it has weathered its first leadership transition with the new 
administration, in the midst of a global economic recession. I commend 
the Department's new leadership on its strong efforts to enhance our 
Nation's security posture and its willingness to reach out to Congress 
to make adjustments and to promote change when needed.
  This conference report, carrying the seventh annual appropriation for 
the Department since its inception, addresses the needs and challenges 
that this still-young Department faces. It also represents a considered 
approach to funding critical domestic security requirements and other 
core departmental missions within a bipartisan consensus on fiscal 
responsibility.
  Madam Speaker, one can make an argument for increasing funding for 
many of the programs contained in this report. When discussing homeland 
security, worst-case scenarios often abound, as do advocates for 
fixating on one threat while downplaying others.
  Our obligation, by contrast, is to take a balanced, realistic 
approach, to weigh risks carefully, and to set priorities and make 
prudent investments in smart, effective security. I believe this 
conference agreement supports the Department's efforts to focus on the 
highest priorities for protecting our country and to prevent, prepare 
for, and respond to legitimate threats, whether natural or man-made.
  To conserve time, Madam Speaker, I will highlight just a few items in 
the proposed agreement, items I believe are of interest to all Members.
  First, the conference agreement provides the resources to support the 
readiness of our State and local partners, our first responders out on 
the front lines. This includes $810 million for firefighters, $887 
million for the Urban Areas Security Initiatives grants and $340 
million for emergency managers. It also includes over $900 million to 
strengthen FEMA's operational response capabilities and to enhance the 
agency's emergency management mission.
  The conference agreement includes $1.5 billion for more effective 
efforts by U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to identify and 
remove illegal aliens who have committed crimes, a priority we share 
with the President and Secretary Napolitano. Of this total, $200 
million furthers development of the Secure Communities Program, which 
offers a productive approach for Federal immigration agents to work 
closely with State and local law enforcement, while maintaining the 
distinction between the traditional Federal role of enforcing 
immigration law and the local role of prosecuting criminal violations.
  The conference agreement includes $800 million for infrastructure and 
technology to secure the border, with an emphasis on developing 
technological surveillance and improving tactical communications so our 
Border Patrol can make smart use of its resources to police an 
expansive border. It includes $40 million to minimize adverse 
environmental impacts of border infrastructure and operations, and 
maintains strong oversight requirements to ensure the Secure Border 
Initiative delivers as promised.
  The conference agreement provides a total of $7.66 billion for the 
Transportation Security Administration to improve aviation security and 
efficiency. Two areas of note are over $1 billion available to deploy 
explosives detection systems at airports throughout the country that 
have less capable and slower screening systems, and $122 million for 
air cargo security so TSA can meet the August 2010 deadline for 
screening 100 percent of cargo in the hold of passenger planes.
  This conference agreement continues to take steps to increase the 
Coast Guard's contribution to national security, including protection 
of our waterways and those who use them and stemming the flow of 
illegal drugs into this country. Overall, this bill includes $10.14 
billion for the Coast Guard, $170 million more than the administration 
requested. Most of this increase is to purchase materials for a new 
national security cutter and to complete the refurbishment of a heavy 
icebreaker that will help secure America's interests in the Arctic. It 
also boosts support for the existing fleet, making investments above 
the administration's request for backlogged vessel maintenance.
  The conference agreement includes nearly $400 million for DHS 
cybersecurity programs, 26 percent above fiscal year 2009, to ramp up 
our protections for governmental computer networks and to bring on more 
professionals with cybersecurity expertise. In addition, DHS will be 
able to initiate new efforts to help those responsible for critical 
infrastructure and other private networks, reducing their vulnerability 
to cyberattacks.
  Also, the conference agreement includes $11 million to promote legal 
paths to U.S. citizenship by expanding the successful immigration 
integration program of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
  The conference agreement includes $1.1 billion for departmental 
operations, up $90 million or 17 percent above fiscal year 2009, to 
improve DHS management and make it more cost-effective, to secure 
sensitive information, and to ensure that contractors are overseen by 
trained government professionals, not by other contractors.
  The agreement provides $221 million to continue efforts to safeguard 
international commerce and to prevent the use of cargo containers to 
carry or deliver weapons. This includes an increase of $12.5 million, 
or 8 percent, above fiscal 2009 to build on the Secure Freight 
Initiative and Container Security Initiative, as well as funding to 
sustain programs targeting high-risk cargo and shippers. DHS is also 
required to submit a realistic strategy for achieving effective cargo 
and supply chain security.

[[Page 24974]]

  To ensure that DHS can adequately protect public safety in its 
efforts to identify and prepare for biological or agricultural threats, 
the conference agreement requires DHS to conduct a thorough risk 
assessment to determine requirements for safe operation of the National 
Bio and Agro Defense Facility scheduled for Manhattan, Kansas.

                              {time}  1200

  It calls for the National Academy of Sciences to provide an 
independent evaluation of the Department's safety, planning, and 
mitigation efforts in connection with this project.
  In addition, the conference report extends authorizations for the E-
Verify program and for visas for physicians serving in rural areas, 
religious workers, and investors, each of these by 3 years. These are 
all short-term solutions until comprehensive immigration reform can be 
considered by the authorizing committees and by the Congress.
  Finally, I want to discuss two items that have been raised 
repeatedly, the release of photographs and videos of individuals 
detained by U.S. Armed Forces since 9/11, and restrictions on the 
administration's ability to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay 
Naval Station to the United States or elsewhere in the world.
  On the first topic, the conference report codifies the President's 
decision to allow the Secretary of Defense to bar the release of 
detainee photos for a period of 3 years.
  On the second topic, the conference report establishes strict 
safeguards on the movement of Guantanamo's detainees, and if the 
administration chooses to address their cases in U.S. courts, this 
legislation ensures that that will be done with due consideration, 
planning, and forethought.
  It prohibits current detainees from being released into the United 
States or any U.S. territory. It allows the transfer of a detainee to 
custody inside the United States only for the purpose of prosecuting 
that individual and only after Congress receives a plan detailing the 
risks involved and a plan for mitigating such risks, the cost of the 
transfer, the legal rationale and court demands, and a copy of the 
notification provided to the governor of the receiving State 14 days 
before a transfer, with a certification by the Attorney General that 
the individual poses little or no security risk.
  Our bill also prevents current detainees from being transferred or 
released to another country, including freely associated states, unless 
the President submits to the Congress 15 days prior to such transfer 
the name of the individual and the country the individual will be 
transferred to, an assessment of risks posed and actions taken to 
mitigate such risks, and the terms of the transfer agreement with the 
other country, including any financial assistance.
  It requires the President to submit a report to Congress describing 
the disposition of each current detainee before the facility in 
Guantanamo Bay can be closed. It bars the use of funds to provide any 
immigration benefits to Guantanamo detainees, other than to allow them 
to be brought to the U.S. for prosecution, and it mandates the 
inclusion of all detainees on the TSA No Fly List. These are provisions 
that have been supported on a bipartisan basis in Appropriations 
Committee markups and on the floor of this House.
  Madam Speaker, the conference report before us today represents hard 
work in a cooperative and bipartisan spirit. It invests in critical 
government efforts designed to keep the American people safe. I 
strongly support the proposed agreement, and urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Madam Speaker, I include the following for the Record:

[[Page 24975]]





[[Page 24976]]



[[Page 24977]]



[[Page 24978]]



[[Page 24979]]



[[Page 24980]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let me begin by sincerely thanking Chairman Price for his partnership 
during this 2010 appropriations cycle. Through the transition in 
administrations, the very late submission of the 2010 budget request 
and the truncated appropriations process, he has been fair and 
respectful and has been willing to listen to our concerns and 
accommodate the minority's interests where possible. So I want to thank 
the chairman for his friendship and his ability to work with everyone 
to write the best possible bill.
  This subcommittee, Madam Speaker, since its inception in 1993, has a 
longstanding tradition of bipartisanship, a tradition that stands in 
stark contrast, I might add parenthetically, to the exclusionary 
tactics of the House's Democrat leadership that trounced the rights of 
the minority and stifled debate during floor consideration of the House 
bill.
  But in spite of some of that partisan mischief, I am truly grateful 
for Chairman Price's efforts to maintain the long-standing comity that 
has defined this Chamber's appropriation process, as well as Chairman 
Obey's work to move this vital spending bill towards completion.
  So I am thankful that we were able to hammer out an agreement in 
conference, for the most part. After all, the safety and security of 
our Nation's citizens should be the number one priority of the 
Congress. This urgency is underscored by the recent terrorism cases 
being investigated in Colorado, New York, Texas, Illinois and North 
Carolina, as well as the persistent acts of terrorism and violence by 
radical extremists overseas.
  What this terrorist activity tells me is that real security demands 
persistent commitment. Eight years after 9/11 and 6 years after the 
Department was created, we must remain vigilant in addressing every 
threat and every vulnerability. I am pleased to see the conference 
report is willing to honor that commitment by properly resourcing our 
homeland security needs.
  While I can't say that I agree with everything in the conference 
report, I think it represents a fairly reasonable compromise on most of 
our homeland security priorities. However, there is a notable provision 
that I must respectfully take issue with that the chairman has referred 
to.
  Section 552 of this conference report permits the terrorists detained 
at Guantanamo Bay to be brought to the U.S. for purposes of 
prosecution. Since the President announced the decision to close 
Guantanamo some 9 months ago, we have seen nothing, Madam Speaker, no 
plan, in spite of the requests of this Congress, this subcommittee, 
this committee, no plan, no idea of how to dispose of the detainees 
remaining there, and no legal rationale for the prosecution, sentencing 
and incarceration of these terrorists wherever.
  Instead, those detainees who pose a minimal security threat have been 
shuttled off to other foreign countries by way of backroom deals, 
leaving hundreds of suspected terrorists potentially bound for American 
soil because no one else in the world will let them be brought to their 
soil. Apparently we have tried, to no avail.
  So I for one see no reason why we should afford enemy combatants who 
have been caught on the battlefield battling American soldiers, to 
allow them the same constitutional rights as American citizens or the 
same due process even as criminal defendants in the civilian courts of 
the U.S., and I see no reason why these terrorists can't be brought to 
justice right where they are in Cuba before military tribunals, as we 
have in the past there. In fact, we know military tribunals work. We 
have completed three tribunals and convicted and sentenced terrorists 
right there in Gitmo.
  It is clear that the majority of Members in this Chamber and in the 
Senate agree with this point of view, given the clear passage of the 
motion to instruct two weeks ago in this body, and the Senate's near 
unanimous adoption of a total prohibition of detainee transfers to this 
country with the passage of their Defense appropriations bill just last 
week. Both bodies have spoken by huge majorities: Keep these detainees 
off sacred American soil.
  This is a critical issue that I think we must get right, so I am 
disappointed that the conferees did not follow the convincing and 
bipartisan votes that both Chambers have taken over the past few weeks 
and deny these terrorists access to the United States.
  Now, having said all that, and in spite of my opposition to the 
section on the Gitmo detainees, I believe the base of this conference 
agreement will go indeed a long way towards the protection of our great 
country.
  I once again thank Chairman Price for his consideration of our 
concerns and all of his good work throughout the year on this very 
important bill.
  I reserve my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our 
valued colleague from New York (Mrs. Lowey), a member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report, and I want to thank our chairman, Chairman Price, for his 
strong leadership on this bill.
  Assistance for our first responders is one of the most effective 
tools to protect our homeland, as evidenced by the Federal Government 
and the New York Police Department's discovery of the plot to bomb the 
city's subways last month. The bill provides $4.17 billion to invest in 
that partnership, including the Urban Area Security Initiative, the 
only grant program for high-risk cities. The conference report 
increases funding for it by $50 million.
  All too often our brave first responders have to rely on 
communications methods that resemble the time of Paul Revere. The 
conference report provides $50 million for new technology through the 
Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant, which I fought very hard 
with the chairman to create.
  To help prevent illicit radiological material from entering New York, 
the bill provides $20 million for securing the cities, the same level 
for equipment procurement as in FY 2009, and I look forward to working 
with the chairman and the subcommittee to ensure that the program is 
fully implemented.
  In addition to aiding our first responders, the bill tackles a number 
of pressing issues, including providing $1.5 billion to identify and 
remove dangerous criminal aliens, bolstering border security with more 
than 20,000 Border Patrol agents, and securing our airports and transit 
system by providing $678 million more than in FY 2009 for the 
Transportation Security Administration.
  So I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work on this 
bill, and I urge my colleagues' support.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very 
distinguished ranking member of the Homeland Security authorization 
committee in the House, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member for yielding, and at the outset I want to commend 
Ranking Member Rogers and Chairman Price for the outstanding job they 
have done on this bill. I certainly intend to vote for it. I will vote 
for it. I must say, however, there are three specific problems, three 
areas where I do have questions.
  Number one is on the Secure the Cities program, which is essential to 
protect New York City from radiation, dirty bomb attacks. This House by 
an overwhelming margin approved an amendment by Congresswoman Clarke 
and me which would have put $40 million in the bill for that. Instead, 
in conference that was reduced to $20 million. This is a shortfall 
which I believe can have damaging impact.
  Secondly, on the issue of Guantanamo, I concur in everything that 
Ranking Member Rogers has said. To me, it is wrong to bring terrorists, 
enemy battlefield combatants, to our shores for any purpose, even to 
stand trial, especially to stand trial, because

[[Page 24981]]

I believe they should be tried in military tribunals.
  Again, I bring up the issue of New York City, where I am certain a 
number of these will be brought. Those who were involved in the 9/11 
attacks will be brought to the Southern District of New York. To me, 
this is a timebomb waiting to happen, to have those terrorists in New 
York City for a protracted period of time before, during and after 
their trial.
  Thirdly, on the issue of the firefighter grants, the President cut 
them by 70 percent. I know the committee put money back in, but the 
level was still lower than it was last year. This, I believe, is going 
to impact negatively on fire departments throughout our country.
  Having said that, Madam Speaker, this is a fine bill. I look forward 
to supporting it. I thank the committee for the way they approached it 
in a bipartisan way. As Congresswoman Lowey said, our Nation is under 
threat. There are threats every day. They have targeted various cities 
throughout our country. This bill goes a long way towards resolving 
that.
  But, again, on the issues of Secure the Cities, Guantanamo and the 
firefighter grants, I do have real issues, real concerns. Having said 
that, I support the bill.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
another fine member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Rothman).
  Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey. I thank the chairman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference agreement on 
the 2010 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. I want to 
thank our distinguished chairman, Chairman Price, and our distinguished 
ranking member, Mr. Rogers, for their outstanding leadership on this 
bill, and my colleagues on the subcommittee for their outstanding work.
  First, I would like to remind my colleagues that I come from one of 
the most densely populated regions in the most densely populated State 
in the United States, northern New Jersey. This area contains many 
high-risk terrorist targets. So I understand, as do my constituents, 
how vitally important this funding is to our region's and our Nation's 
security.
  The bill provides, for example, our first responders with excellent 
resources for the training, equipment and personnel we need to keep our 
communities safe.

                              {time}  1215

  It includes $60 million for emergency operations centers, $810 
million for local fire departments, and $950 million to protect high-
risk urban areas from terrorist attacks. It provides $300 million for 
port security grants to stop the flow of illegal drugs from coming into 
this country. It also increases resources for our Customs and Border 
Protection by over $10 billion to combat drugs and weapons smuggling.
  In closing, Madam Speaker, this bill, the Fiscal Year 2010 Department 
of Homeland Security Appropriations bill, honors the commitment we made 
to provide our first responders with the best training and equipment 
available to keep our ports safe and our borders safe and all of our 
citizens safe from the terror that lurks out there by individuals still 
seeking to do us harm.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to one of 
the hardest working members of this body and a valued member of our 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. I want to thank Chairman Price.
  The members of our subcommittee have a good personal working 
relationship. One of the things I enjoy most about this wonderful 
committee on appropriations is that there are no real partisan 
differences between us. We always work together for the good of the 
country. We have always worked together without regard to our party 
label. And this subcommittee, in particular, is one that has worked 
well together to protect the country from a very severe terrorist 
threat that we know we all face since 9/11.
  I want to thank the chairman and our ranking member for the support 
that this committee has given to our Border Patrol; for Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement funding; for Operation Stone Garden, a very 
successful program that allows cooperation between local law 
enforcement agencies on the border and our border patrol. That program 
has been a great success.
  My good friends Ciro Rodriguez and Henry Cuellar, we've worked 
together very successfully in Texas in implementing Stone Garden, as 
well as a program called Operation Streamline that the country needs to 
know is working very well. If you cross the Texas border between Lake 
Amistad and Zapata County, you will be arrested, you will be 
prosecuted, you will be deported. And as a result, the crime rate has 
dropped by over 70 percent in Del Rio. We've seen a 60 percent drop in 
the crime rate in the Laredo sector. The local community, which is 96 
percent Hispanic, loves this program. What mom or dad wouldn't like 
their streets safer? As a result of simply using existing law and a 
little additional resources and using the good judgment, the good sense 
and the good hearts of uniformed law enforcement officers on the 
border, we have secured the border in Texas, and with the help of the 
chairman and the committee members, we're working to expand that up and 
down the border.
  There are many great, good things about this bill, but one very 
serious concern that I have that Mr. Rogers has already expressed is 
that this bill puts into law a policy that has never, in the history of 
this country, been followed, and that is that as soon as the President 
issues a plan to Congress for the disposition of the prisoners in 
Guantanamo, 45 days after the President submits that plan, this bill 
explicitly authorizes the prosecution of enemy soldiers in U.S. courts. 
Now, that's unprecedented.
  And my good friend Mr. Ruppersberger, whom I've worked with before on 
so many good causes, we all in this House voted to make sure that we 
would not bring enemy soldiers to the U.S. for prosecution, giving them 
all the constitutional rights as if they were captured on the streets 
of New York or Los Angeles. We voted not to bring these prisoners from 
Guantanamo to be incarcerated in U.S. jails.
  The security question is one thing, but the one that really concerns 
me is the fact that this bill gives explicit authorization. For the 
first time in American history, we will, if we pass this legislation as 
it is, be authorizing what we now know is going to be the policy of 
this President for U.S. soldiers, for the first time in history, to be 
police officers. Our soldiers in the field, in addition to trying to 
protect themselves and their friends, are going to have----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Never before in our history have American soldiers had 
to worry about protecting the chain of evidence. Never before in 
history have American soldiers had to worry about whether or not they 
were reading the Miranda rights to enemy soldiers captured on foreign 
battlefields. Now, this bill makes that explicit. In fact, Chairman 
Obey's fact sheet that he has issued on his Web site says this bill 
prohibits the transfer of Guantanamo detainees except for legal 
proceedings.
  Now, anyone standing in a U.S. court in front of a U.S. judge is 
given all the protections of the U.S. Constitution. Now, that is what 
concerns me more than anything else is that we are explicitly 
changing--this is a monumental change in American policy. We cannot and 
should not burden our soldiers in the field with having to worry about 
the U.S. constitutional rights of enemy soldiers.
  Do you think Sergeant York read Miranda warnings or was worried about 
the constitutional rights of the Germans that he captured during World 
War I? Do you think that the brave men who landed on Omaha Beach were 
worried about the constitutional rights of the Nazis at Omaha Beach or 
Normandy? I mean, this is an extremely important point that we have to 
raise, and we need to make sure that all the Members of the House are 
aware of it.

[[Page 24982]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.
  Mr. CULBERSON. In fact, during the subcommittee hearing, during the 
conference committee meeting, my good friend, the chairman, Mr. Price, 
made it clear that this is the policy of the majority that's going to 
bring these--you'll want to bring these enemy soldiers to the United 
States to be prosecuted in U.S. courts.
  That means that these enemy soldiers will be clothed in the 
protection of the U.S. Constitution. That means that enemy soldiers, 
these terrorists, can lawyer up at U.S. taxpayer expense. They're going 
to be given Miranda warnings. U.S. soldiers are going to have to 
protect the chain of evidence, just like a police officer on the 
streets of Los Angeles or New York, and make sure that the chain of 
evidence is protected, that all their rights are protected, and that we 
have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these enemy soldiers 
committed whatever it is crime that they're going to be prosecuted for.
  Let me remind the Congress that in 1942 a number of German terrorists 
landed on the beaches of Long Beach and in Florida. In June of 1942, 
they were prosecuted in military tribunals--the U.S. Supreme Court 
ruled that's the proper way to handle enemy soldiers captured on a 
foreign battlefield--and they were executed by the end of August 1942.
  It is unacceptable to put this burden on U.S. soldiers. It's a 
monumental and unacceptable change in American policy. We cannot let 
enemy soldiers lawyer up at taxpayer expense.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
another valued subcommittee colleague, Mr. Ruppersberger of Maryland.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Madam Speaker, I stand in strong support of the 
Homeland Security Appropriations Conference Report for FY 2010. The 
security of our Nation is clearly our top priority. And this bill 
dedicates more money for homeland security when compared to 2009 
levels.
  Homeland security is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is USA 
first--our community, our families, and our country. I want to thank 
Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers, as well as our friends in the 
Senate, for their bipartisan and bicameral efforts in crafting this 
conference report. And I'd like to speak about two key issues, two key 
components in this bill: the Coast Guard and cybersecurity. But before 
I do that, I have to respond to my friend John Culberson's comments. I 
disagree with his comments.
  Number 1, as far as prisoners are concerned, if, in fact, there are 
prisoners that are so dangerous that would hurt our country, I would 
much rather have us control those prisoners. If we need to bring them 
to the United States of America to try them, I have more confidence in 
our court system and our prison system than some of the countries they 
go back to where they could escape and come back and do harm to our 
citizens. That's step one.
  The second thing I disagree with my friend about is the issue about 
Miranda rights in theater. Now, those of us who have been to Iraq and 
Afghanistan know that that is not the case. It started when a friend of 
mine--I am on the Intelligence Committee--another Mr. Rogers came back 
and said that he got information that soldiers were having to give 
Miranda warnings to people, to the enemy. That is not the case. We've 
had hearings. I've done my own due diligence. That is not what our men 
and women are required to do. So let's get the facts straight. Let's 
get the politics off the table, and let's talk about this Homeland 
Security bill, how it affects and protects our country, our families, 
and that is very important and relevant.
  Now, the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard of the United States of 
America, since 1790, has been a critical part of our Nation's defenses. 
They handle everything from water rescues, as an example, in the 
Baltimore harbor, which I represent, to drug interdictions off our 
Nation's coast. Since 9/11, the Coast Guard has been asked to do even 
more. They have stepped up to the plate and kept watch on our Nation's 
waterways to keep our country safe.
  I support the $8.8 billion for the Coast Guard included in this 
legislation. This is more than $275 million above the 2009 level. I am 
proud to represent the Coast Guard Yard at Curtis Bay in Congress in my 
district. The yard is in my district near the Port of Baltimore. The 
men and women of the yard do an excellent job maintaining and repairing 
the entire Coast Guard fleet.
  Now I want to get to the issue of cyber. The second thing, and one of 
the most important issues that we're dealing with as far as national 
security, is cyberattacks. I would support $283 million to address the 
growing threats to our Nation's networks. Our Nation's networks control 
much of what we do every day. They power our computers and our cell 
phones. They power the electrical grid that allows us to turn the 
lights on and the classified military and intelligence networks that 
keep our country safe. It's all too easy to use basic Internet hacking 
techniques to wreak havoc on our Nation's information infrastructure. 
Imagine if the Bank of America was suddenly cyberattacked.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Fifty-nine million customers in 150 countries 
would suddenly be unable to access their accounts, their debit cards or 
their money, credit cards. It would cripple the economy. Think of what 
an attack would do to our electrical grid system, our security, our 
national security.
  This threat is real. We must shore up our defenses. We must ensure 
that the Federal Government, the private sector, and our citizens beef 
up our cybersecurity efforts. This funding for cybersecurity will be a 
step in the right direction.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield such time as he may consume to the 
very distinguished ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee 
in the House, Mr. Lewis of California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, at the end of the bill, Mr. 
Rogers of Kentucky will be presenting a motion to recommit that 
addresses the issue of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This motion 
to recommit is very much designed to implement that which was the 
motion to instruct that so successfully passed the other day. It passed 
the House by a vote of 258-163, and I presume that the vote will 
reflect that pattern when we go to the motion to recommit. But first 
let me thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Chairman, in many ways, this conference report represents both 
the best and the worst of this Chamber's storied history. On the one 
hand, this conference report typifies the type of work that can result 
from strong bipartisanship. We are most certainly at our best when our 
very capable Members work together in the professional manner that 
we've seen with Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers. So I 
congratulate the two of them for producing what is essentially a very 
well-balanced piece of legislation that will undoubtedly improve the 
safety and security of this great Nation.
  However, this conference report also represents some of the worst in 
terms of partisan maneuvering. The language contained in section 552 
pertaining to Guantanamo Bay detainees is a result of a last-minute 
mystery insert by the majority of language that was not in either the 
House or the Senate bill.

                              {time}  1230

  With this language, Chairman Obey and the Democratic leadership are 
trying to establish Congress' de facto position on Gitmo detainees. And 
that position, in my view, is regrettably weak as well as flawed. To 
permit enemy combatants to come to the United States for the purpose of 
prosecution is a misguided and is potentially a very dangerous 
decision. Terrorists should not be treated like common criminals

[[Page 24983]]

in the Federal court. These detainees are enemies of the State, and 
should be treated as such by being held and brought to justice right 
where they are: in a very well-established judicial facility at 
Guantanamo.
  Both the House and the Senate have cast clear, bipartisan votes over 
the last 2 weeks that made it very clear where Members and the American 
people are on this issue. They do not want these terrorists brought to 
the United States for any reason. It is regrettable that the Democrat 
leadership's flawed position on Guantanamo Bay detainees casts a shadow 
over what is otherwise a bipartisan, well-crafted conference report 
that will provide key resources for our security.
  I appreciate the very, very good work of Chairman Price and Ranking 
Member Rogers on this measure, but take considerable exception to 
Democrat leadership's insertion on Guantanamo Bay detainees.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 
minutes to one of our hardest working subcommittee members, Mr. Farr of 
California.
  Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. I 
appreciate the opportunity to address the House on the DHS 
appropriations bill.
  I want to just first say at the outset, I am really surprised to 
hear, kind of shocked to hear, that they are taking an appropriations 
bill and trying to make it into something that it isn't. We stand here 
year after year passing these appropriation bills, pointing out that 
you cannot legislate on an appropriations bill, you cannot make legal 
policy; it is about spending the money and the ways to spend that 
money, not on inventing new law.
  This bill does not deal with how you treat prisoners in Guantanamo 
Bay. We ought to get over it and know that it doesn't do that. What 
this bill does do, though, is address a lot of other issues, one of 
which is very important to this country. They're talking about how to 
keep those prisoners out of our jails and out of our prisons. Frankly, 
there are some States that would love to have the revenue; they know 
that their court system can handle it. But that's not the emphasis of 
this bill because what we really are trying to address is the biggest 
industry of all in this country, which is tourism.
  Tourism relies on a lot of people from a lot of countries coming into 
this country. Just a few weeks ago, the entire House voted for a travel 
initiative bill to allow the United States to go out and advertise to 
get more tourists in here, and there wasn't one single vote against it. 
So we do want to attract these people to spend money and come to our 
country. And we need the facilities when they come in, the facilities 
to give them visas when they go down to apply for those visas and 
certainly when they enter.
  And one of the great things about this bill is it sets up the Western 
Travel Initiative, which essentially appropriates money into 46 of the 
busiest border ports--these could be airports, harbor ports, the kind 
of ways in which people come into this country from abroad--to 
facilitate getting them through all the security and getting them 
through the customs and so on. That is a very important investment in 
the biggest industry in this country with the biggest payoff to our 
local communities.
  So I want to point out some of the real positive things in here. This 
also allows for a tracking of all these visitors through the status 
indicator technology.
  There are a lot of good things in this bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on 
the appropriations bill and a vote against any motion to recommit.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded not to traffic the well 
while another Member is under recognition.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how 
much time is available on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina has 10\1/
2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Kentucky has 13\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 
minutes at this point to the distinguished chairman of the authorizing 
committee with whom we work very closely, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of 
the conference report on H.R. 2892, the Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act.
  The funding provided in this package would help ensure the Department 
of Homeland Security, under the leadership of Secretary Janet 
Napolitano, will have the resources it needs to execute all its 
missions.
  DHS has a lot to do, from deterring, detecting and responding to 
terrorism to rescuing wayward boaters, to pre-positioning disaster 
resources. H.R. 2892 gives DHS the $42.7 billion it needs to fulfill 
its mission.
  With respect to border security, the bill makes significant new 
investments to enhance border security along the southern and northern 
borders. I am particularly pleased that the bill provides $72.6 million 
to increase personnel and provide new equipment in the Southwest Border 
Counterdrug Initiative, which dedicates resources to target the flow of 
guns and bulk cash that fuel border violence.
  This bill also provides $1.5 billion to support targeted, smarter 
immigration enforcement. These funds will expand critical programs such 
as Securing the Communities, which identifies and removes the most 
dangerous and violent criminal aliens on our border.
  I support the new resources the legislation appropriates to 
transportation security, including funds for air cargo and surface 
transportation security.
  Chemical security is another area of critical infrastructure that 
garnered significant attention in this bill. It provides $100 million 
in funding to DHS to support the coordination and management of 
regulating high-risk chemical facilities and brings the size of the C-
FATS regulatory staff to 250.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, in closing, I urge the 
passage of this important legislation because it makes the necessary 
investment in security and resilience to protect Americans from future 
threats and catastrophic incidents, natural or man-made.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I reserve.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a 
hardworking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his hard 
work and the diligence that went forth in putting this bill together. 
However, Madam Speaker, today I cannot vote for this bill unless the 
motion to recommit passes because of my concern about what is going to 
happen with these prisoners at Guantanamo.
  So I would suggest to all the Members this is a very serious concern 
to our country. It's a very serious concern to this fight on terrorism 
throughout the world. And I believe that we should show our unity and 
vote for the motion to recommit. And if that motion to recommit passes, 
then I will be happy to vote for this bill, which I think for the most 
part is a good bill with that exception.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
the time.
  In closing, I regret that this bipartisan and well-balanced 
conference report contains permission to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees 
onto American soil.
  At the conclusion of today's general debate, I intend to offer a 
motion to recommit that will give this Chamber the opportunity to once 
again voice its will to the conferees just as it did 2 weeks ago by way 
of a clear and convincing bipartisan vote.
  I appreciated your overwhelming vote then, and I ask the Members once

[[Page 24984]]

again to register your objection to bringing these enemy combatants, 
caught in battle with American soldiers, onto America's sacred soil.
  The conferees ignored our instructions of 2 weeks ago, which 
prohibited detainees from being released, transferred, or detained in 
the United States for any reason, period. My motion today will have the 
same effect as the language Members voted for then and has the same 
effect as what the Senate voted for 93-7.
  This motion will keep these terrorists off American soil, out of our 
Federal civilian courts, and in a place that is far more appropriate, 
given their status as enemy combatants apprehended on a battlefield 
with American soldiers.
  This motion will correct the flaw in the conference report's language 
and aligns the will of Congress with that of the U.S. Senate as 
reflected by the strong bipartisan votes on this issue over the last 2 
weeks in both bodies of the Congress.
  I would hope Members would join me in supporting this motion so that 
we can further improve and strengthen this critical conference report.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the 
remainder of our time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise once again to urge colleagues to support this 
carefully worked out conference report. And since no debate is 
permitted on the motion to recommit, I do wish to say a few words about 
the motion and strongly urge its rejection.
  The motion to recommit would derail $42.8 billion in Homeland 
Security investments, investments in critical efforts to protect the 
American people from the threat of terrorist attacks and natural 
disasters, and to secure our borders, ports and skies.
  The motion to recommit would reopen the compromises made with the 
Senate that allowed us to provide $2.5 billion in additional resources 
for our homeland security efforts.
  My colleagues should make no mistake, this motion to recommit will 
dissolve our conference and kill the bill. Now, that should be reason 
enough for voting against the motion, but let me talk about the 
substance of the motion as well, because I do want to make certain that 
Members understand what we're dealing with.
  The motion to recommit would dismantle the agreement that we on the 
majority side had with the minority in our full committee, which was 
passed by a large bipartisan vote in the House as a whole. In listening 
to our colleagues debate today, you would hardly understand that. But 
as a matter of fact, they readily agreed, eagerly agreed, in the markup 
in the Appropriations Committee that of course there should be an 
exception for bringing detainees to this country for prosecution if 
that was determined to be the best way of dealing with their case. I 
think it's fair to say that no matter what President was in the White 
House, he or she would insist on this flexibility, and we should insist 
on it for them.
  This motion to recommit would guarantee, I'm afraid, no progress in 
resolving the status of detainees for a year. It goes against the basic 
American principles of due process and access to a fair trial. It goes 
against America's basic interests as well, the interest in closing down 
Guantanamo--and that, I remind colleagues, is an objective articulated 
by President Bush as well as by President Obama--our interest in 
closing down Guantanamo and in bringing related cases to an orderly 
conclusion.
  The motion to recommit unreasonably and unwisely exalts these 
detained individuals above the most savage prisoners in the U.S., 
saying we just can't handle them, we just can't handle these dangerous 
people in our court system. This, I would say, emboldens the 
terrorists, perhaps even helps their recruiting efforts. We have tried, 
convicted, and punished people who are the worst of the worst in this 
country repeatedly, and we can do so again.
  Similar provisions, Madam Speaker, were rejected by this body just 
last week in a motion to recommit the Defense authorization bill, and 
they should be rejected today.
  Now, we heard a lot of arguments today about ``Mirandizing'' 
prisoners and reading them their rights on the battlefield. That is a 
red herring, unrelated to this bill. Legal protections are a matter for 
the courts; they are a matter for other committees in this body. Our 
conference report does not reach these matters.

                              {time}  1245

  We have assurances, as a matter of fact, from General Petraeus that 
U.S. military forces are not and will not Mirandize detainees. The 
Department of Justice has said there has been no policy change nor 
blanket instruction issued for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees 
overseas. There have been specific cases in which FBI agents have done 
this at Bagram and in other situations in order to preserve the quality 
of some evidence, but there has been no overall policy change.
  In fact, the whole issue of Mirandizing terrorists on the field of 
battle shows a lack of understanding of what ``Miranda rights'' are. 
Miranda warnings are given prior to interrogation for collecting 
evidence from a suspect in a crime. They are a protection against a 
suspect's making self-incriminating statements. They are not a part of 
arrest or detention procedures. The courts have held that they do not 
prevent questioning about identity and that they do not apply in cases 
where public safety is threatened, such as on the field of battle or at 
the site of a terrorist attack. We don't interrogate on the field of 
battle. It's a red herring.
  By the way, we're also not reaching the question of the future of 
military tribunals, but the ranking member's motion to recommit would 
very definitely shut off access to U.S. courts. We need to ask 
ourselves whether that is something we want to do in cases where that 
may be the most appropriate venue for prosecution.
  My colleague seems to think that three convictions by military 
tribunals in the entire period of their existence is an impressive 
record. One of those was by a guilty plea. It's not an impressive 
record. By contrast, a recent analysis of the 119 terrorism cases 
involving 289 defendants tried over the last 20 years in U.S. courts 
shows a 91 percent conviction rate for the cases that had been resolved 
as of June 2.
  Is that an option that we simply summarily want to close off?
  I've already indicated, Madam Speaker--and I won't repeat--the 
layered protections that our bill contains with respect to the movement 
of detainees, the transparency it requires and the accountability it 
enforces. This bill contains multiple protections, and I stress again 
that they're based on an earlier bipartisan consensus. They reflect not 
just the wording in our bill but the language in several of the 
appropriations bills.
  This move today to recommit this bill makes me wonder just how much 
our colleagues have really meant it when they have urged us to consider 
this bill quickly and to act with dispatch. We heard this through much 
of September.
  The Guantanamo provisions that they asked for were included in the 
bill. We brought the bill with those provisions intact from the 
conference. They've been clamoring for weeks to get this bill to the 
floor, to pass it as a free-standing bill. But all of a sudden as the 
conference proceeded, again they cried, ``Stop.''
  Now they're objecting to provisions that they, themselves, endorsed 
in the Appropriations Committee and on the House floor. They're 
objecting to our good faith safeguards on the movement of detainees to 
other countries and to the transparency requirements. They're simply 
saying, ``Stop.'' Once again, ``Stop.''
  Well, we can't afford to stop, Madam Speaker. We're already into the 
fiscal year. We have no reason to stop, and we cannot afford to stop. 
We will not hold up the $1.5 billion in this conference report to 
identify and to remove illegal aliens who have been convicted of 
crimes. We will not delay $800 million to secure our borders. We will

[[Page 24985]]

not delay $4.2 billion for Homeland Security grants to ensure our 
first-responder community is well-prepared to meet all hazards. We will 
not delay funding for our Coast Guard, for our Secret Service, for 
disaster assistance, or for cybersecurity.
  We will, in fact, pass this bill today. We've worked with our 
colleagues. We've debated the priorities. We've operated in good faith. 
We've accommodated interests by Members throughout this body. Now it is 
time to get on with it, to get past the political games, to get past 
the ``gotcha'' amendments and motions, and to fund Homeland Security. 
This body has a responsibility to legislate. Let's get the job done.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit and to 
vote enthusiastically for this conference report.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I plan to support the conference 
to H.R. 2892; however, I have serious concerns about some of the 
language in the conference report.
  Specifically, the conference report directs the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to ``prioritize the identification and removal of aliens 
convicted of a crime by the severity of that crime.''
  If an individual is in this country illegally, they should be 
deported. We shouldn't wait for them to commit a crime before we remove 
them from the country.
  Unfortunately, across the United States, illegal immigrant criminals 
are being released onto the streets and into our neighborhoods every 
day instead of being deported. In 2006, the DHS Inspector General found 
that most of the foreign-born criminal aliens in state and local jails 
``are being released into the U.S. at the conclusion of their 
respective sentences due to the lack of [DHS] resources.''
  In January 2007, 22-year-old Nashville, Tennessee, resident Joycelyn 
Gardiner was killed by illegal immigrant Victor Benitez who was driving 
drunk, ran a red light and hit Gardiner. Ms. Gardiner was a track star 
at Tennessee State University and planned to go to law school after 
graduation. Benitez had prior convictions for car burglary, public 
intoxication, and resisting arrest.
  Are burglary, public intoxication, and resisting arrest convictions 
considered severe enough to warrant deportation under this conference 
report? Had Benitez been detected by immigration authorities before 
committing even his first few crimes, wouldn't it have been better to 
deport him based solely on his immigration violations then?
  American taxpayers deserve to be protected. They deserve to have 
those of us in Congress do everything possible to prevent them from 
becoming victims. And they deserve to have the laws of the United 
States followed by the enforcement wing of our government.
  This misguided prioritization is not the only concern I have with the 
conference report to H.R. 2892.
  The Senate bill provisions that made E-Verify permanent allowed 
employers to use it to check the work eligibility of current employees, 
required over 700 miles of pedestrian fencing along the southwest 
border and prevented funding from being used to rescind the ``no-
match'' rule should have been retained in the conference report.
  And some of the reports required by the conference report could be 
attempts to slow implementation of REAL ID and the deportation of 
illegal immigrants. Yet another report should have required a 
validation of the success of use of Alternatives to Detention prior to 
nationwide use of such alternatives.
  So I am troubled by several provisions of the bill. However I 
appreciate the inclusion of the 3-year extensions of the E-Verify, 
religious worker visa, EB-5 Investor Visa Regional Center and Conrad J-
1 Physicians' Waiver programs. These are good immigration programs that 
should be extended.
  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Price and 
Ranking Member Rogers, and their staff, for crafting a very thoughtful 
Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. I especially 
appreciate the recognition of the Air and Marine Operations Center, 
also known as AMOC, which is located in my congressional district. AMOC 
has become the foremost aviation-oriented law enforcement operations 
and coordination center in the U.S. It plays an integral role in 
protecting us from attack and from human, drug and gun smuggling across 
our borders.
  However, I was disappointed that the extension of E-Verify was 
reduced from the Senate language which would have provided for a 
permanent reauthorization of E-Verify. The House overwhelmingly passed 
a 5-year reauthorization last year and I think the American people 
would support a permanent reauthorization of E-Verify.
  I would also like to commend Ranking Member Rogers for his work on 
language pertaining to the closing of Guantanamo Bay.
  While the bill prohibits the release of detainees into the U.S., the 
report does not go far enough to prevent prisoners from being 
transferred to or detained on U.S. soil. I maintain that the President 
must provide a disposition plan which includes a risk assessment for 
each of the detainees and the danger they pose to the American people 
as well as to the national security of the United States. The 
requirement to have the administration report to Congress on these 
matters is similar to that of my bill, H.R. 1069, which I introduced on 
February 13 in response to the administration's January announcement 
that it would close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay.
  In closing, I would like to reiterate my support for the conference 
report but with strong reservations about the majority's actions that 
has severely restricted amendments and has shut down a once open 
appropriations process.
  Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, eight years after 9/11, there remains a 
very real, very serious threat of another attack on U.S. soil. The 
recent series of arrests--in Dallas, Chicago, Denver and New York 
City--underscores the need for continued resolve. The safety of the 
American people relies upon multiple layers of security--from 
intelligence to local police to the technologies that help us identify 
potential threats. Our duty as lawmakers is to ensure that all of these 
pieces are properly in place and constantly reevaluated.
  A New York Times report this week highlighted a gaping hole in one of 
these layers--we still have no system in place to verify whether 
foreign visitors have left this country. Congress and DHS have known 
about this hole. In March, Secretary Napolitano joined me for a tour of 
one of the nation's top airport terror targets: Los Angeles 
International Airport, part of which is in my Congressional District. 
We walked through customs to observe the collection of foreign 
visitors' fingerprints upon entry and I pointed out the absence of an 
exit program. Secretary Napolitano committed her Department to 
addressing this issue in a timely fashion.
  Work is already underway. DHS just completed a pilot project to test 
exit systems and will soon release a report on their findings. This 
bill provides $50 million to put an air exit system in place. It is 
imperative that DHS do so.
  By collecting fingerprints when foreign passengers exit, we can match 
them with those collected upon entry and cross-check them with a range 
of databases--from the State Department to the FBI. This isn't just 
data for the sake of data. It builds situational awareness and makes it 
easier for terrorism investigators to connect the ``dots.'' This kind 
of capability is a vital tool in the ongoing struggle to prevent the 
next attack on American soil.
  It's true that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies 
successfully thwarted recent plots, but that's no guarantee that 
they'll detect the next plot. A biometric system will provide them with 
better information that can more quickly identify potential threats. 
Four of the 9/11 hijackers overstayed their visas. It is exactly this 
type of thing that exit data will help us detect.
  I would also like to thank the Conferees for including a 1-year 
waiver of the port security grant matching requirement. Since 2006, the 
SAFE Port Act has provided hundreds of millions of dollars to secure 
U.S. ports. But tough financial times--and a decline in shipping--have 
made it difficult for ports to meet the 25 percent cost-sharing 
requirement. Officials at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have 
repeatedly told me just how burdensome the requirement is. It creates a 
disincentive for ports to apply for grants, without which fund vital 
efforts to mitigate threats cannot be funded.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.
  The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for 2010 
continues to fund a series of important public safety and disaster 
preparedness initiatives. To help us better protect our borders, the 
bill provides $3.587 billion, $86 million above 2009, to fully support 
20,163 Border Patrol agents--which has expanded by 6,000 since 2006. 
The bill also provides $373.7 million, $73.7 million above 2009, for 
the US-VISIT program. US-VISIT uses biometrics to track the entry of 
visitors to the United States. The bill directs that a total of $50 
million be used to implement a biometric air exit capability so that we 
can determine if individuals have overstayed their visas.
  Ensuring that 100 percent of air cargo is screened for explosives is 
essential to our efforts to thwart future terrorist attacks. To that 
end, the bill provides $122.8 million, including

[[Page 24986]]

$3.5 million above the budget request for 50 additional inspectors to 
ensure compliance with the 100 percent screening mandate set for August 
2010 in the 9/11 Act. Regarding rail security, the bill builds on my 
previous work by providing $300 million to protect critical transit 
infrastructure, including freight rail, Amtrak and ferry systems in 
high-threat areas. I remain very concerned that Amtrak in particular 
has been extremely slow to make the kind of security upgrades that are 
necessary to make the system less vulnerable to the kinds of attacks 
that killed so many in Madrid, London, and Mubai over the last 5 years, 
and I will continue to press Amtrak officials to quickly implement 
security improvements for the system.
  I am also pleased that some key needs in my district are being met in 
this bill. The Township of Old Bridge will receive $500,000 to upgrade 
its emergency communications system, and the City of Trenton will 
receive $300,000 to help protect its water filtration plant from 
periodic Delaware River floods. Even as we take measures to protect our 
country and communities from potential terrorist attacks, it's 
important to remember that the most common calamities that strike our 
towns come from nature and other sources. We must ensure that our 
communities are prepared to meet the full range of threats they may 
face.
  I am disappointed that this bill allows the Secretary of Defense to 
withhold indefinitely from public release photographs of potential 
detainee abuse by U.S. government personnel. The assumption underlying 
this provision is that the release of the photographs would lead to 
increased violence against U.S. government personnel (civilian and 
military) overseas in the Middle East and southwest Asia. I would 
respectfully submit that our repeated mistargeting of civilians in 
Afghanistan and Pakistan, along with our continuing and expanding 
military presence in Afghanistan, provide our enemies with far better 
recruiting tools than the photographs in question might ever provide.
  I regret that the conferees did not direct the Attorney General to 
review the photos to determine if any do in fact show evidence of 
violations of either domestic or international law with respect to the 
treatment of detainees. Using one law to shield from disclosure 
information that might be prosecutable under another law undermines the 
very foundation of our legal system and sends a clear signal to the 
world that we will cast aside our obligations under international law 
if it is politically expedient for us to do so. The best way we can 
protect our soldiers and civilians working overseas is to show that we 
will not tolerate the abuse of other human beings in our custody and 
that we will not hide our complicity in such acts behind politically 
expedient legal contortionisms.
  Despite this serious flaw in the bill, I will support it and urge my 
colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I stand in support of H.R. 2892, the 
Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2010. This conference report 
represents Congress' commitment to partnering with State and local 
authorities to meet the homeland security challenges of the nation.
  State and local emergency managers and first responders are the 
country's front line defense in times of crisis. Whenever ordinary 
Americans find themselves in harm's way, State and local authorities 
are often first on the scene. Not only does the bill provide almost $4 
billion for grants to assist State and local governments with emergency 
planning and equipment, the bill provides an additional $3.9 billion in 
grants for high-risk urban areas like the National Capital region for 
mass transit security, and fire and rescue programs. This conference 
report recognizes State and local governments as full and equal 
partners in the effort to protect American citizens by helping ensure 
that they have the tools they need to get the job done.
  The bill also provides important support for key elements of the 
domestic and international transportation, maritime and cyber security 
defenses of the country. The bill contains funding to update and 
maintain airport baggage handling and electronic cargo inspection 
systems in the Nation's air and sea ports; the bill helps protect 
Americans and American ships abroad with funding for U.S. Coast Guard 
operations; and the bill includes $397 million in funding for cyber 
security efforts to protect the nation's cyber infrastructure against 
unauthorized access.
  Americans turn to first responders and emergency managers for help in 
a crisis. This bill helps ensure that the resources are there when they 
are needed. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of the 2010 
Homeland Security Appropriations Act.
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Madam Speaker, in 2008, the State of Iowa experienced 
the worst natural disaster in our state's history which left 85 of 99 
total counties presidentially declared disaster areas. This flooding 
particularly devastated the City of Cedar Rapids. In addition to having 
nearly all of their critical government and public facilities damaged, 
the flooding also severely damaged the city's main public library.
  The Cedar Rapids Library was an 83,961 square foot facility, owned by 
the city which also housed city staff. The main Library contained 
150,000 volumes in the Adult Collection and 100,000 volumes in the 
Children's Collections, all of which are currently displaced.
  After two appeals from the city, FEMA continues to state that the 
city's library is not eligible for temporary relocation assistance 
despite the fact that the Stafford Act provides for ``provision of 
temporary facilities for schools and other essential community 
services.'' The Stafford Act also includes libraries in the definition 
of private nonprofit facilities and states that they provide essential 
services of a governmental nature to the general public.
  As a former educator myself, I know the critical role libraries play 
in education. Since the floods of 2008, I have also seen the essential 
public services they provide to nearly all aspects of severely damaged 
communities.
  In fact, FEMA itself directs disaster victims to their local library 
to use the internet to apply for federal disaster assistance. Public 
libraries also allow citizens to look for jobs, or seek other support 
services needed in the aftermath of disasters such as the flooding in 
Iowa. Libraries have certainly evolved to become more than collections 
of books and periodicals.
  In modern-day communities, they are a vital communication hub, 
providing access to computers and the internet for individuals that may 
not be able to afford their own, and in a disaster, to those whose own 
property was damaged or destroyed. Further, the library is a partner 
with our school systems, providing research materials to students and 
supporting class instructional programs.
  Many libraries also become a disaster recovery center for their 
community, and a point of distribution for meals and supplies needed 
during a disaster.
  I urge FEMA to reconsider their internal policies and reexamine how 
libraries are defined in the Stafford Act in order to assist not only 
the Cedar Rapids Library, but other libraries that may be damaged and 
displaced by natural disasters in the future.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this Republican Motion 
to Instruct Conferees on the Fiscal Year 2010 Department of Homeland 
Security Appropriations Act, H.R. 2010.
  This Republican motion is nothing more than a political stunt that 
would delay Congressional action on this important bill that funds the 
Department of Homeland Security. This agency's ability to operate is 
crucial in keeping our borders and waters safe, preventing terrorism, 
and responding to natural disasters.
  Furthermore, this is another example of a Republican proposal that 
blatantly disregards the Constitution. If enacted, it would undermine 
the principles of due process and a fair trial, both of which are 
American ideals we hold dear.
  For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 829, the previous question is ordered on 
the conference report.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I am in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Rogers of Kentucky moves to recommit the conference 
     report accompanying the bill H.R. 2892 to the committee of 
     conference with instructions to the managers on the part of 
     the House to not agree to any language allowing a detainee 
     held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to be brought to the United 
     States for prosecution or incarceration.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.

[[Page 24987]]

  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 the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on adoption of the conference report; and motion to 
suspend the rules on H.R. 2423.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 193, 
nays 224, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 783]

                               YEAS--193

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (NY)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     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
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peters
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     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
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--224

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     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
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     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)
     Paul
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     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
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     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

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Blunt
     Boyd
     Cao
     Carney
     Carter
     Emerson
     Hall (TX)
     McCollum
     Melancon
     Minnick
     Mollohan
     Radanovich
     Ryan (OH)
     Scalise
     Schock


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1314

  Messrs. RUSH, GENE GREEN of Texas, SCOTT of Georgia, WU, COURTNEY, 
HINCHEY, Ms. SUTTON, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin and Ms. CLARKE changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. COFFMAN, TERRY, CAMP, WALDEN, ROSKAM and CANTOR changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. MINNICK. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 783, I was caught in 
traffic returning from a lunch at I and 18th Street, NW. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 307, 
nays 114, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 784]

                               YEAS--307

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     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

[[Page 24988]]


     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--114

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Fallin
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Roe (TN)
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Blunt
     Boyd
     Cao
     Carney
     Emerson
     Hall (TX)
     McCollum
     Melancon
     Mollohan
     Radanovich
     Scalise

                              {time}  1321

  Mr. BOOZMAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________