the chair: on this vote the yeas are 110, the nays are 322, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in

part c of house report 111-183 offered by the amendment from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part c amendment number 5 printed in part report number 111-183 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic ballot. this will be -- device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 282, the nays are 348, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in part c of house report 111-183 offered by the amendment -- or the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part c amendment number 2 printed in house report 111-183 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and reare be counted.

a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 114, the nays are 317, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part c -- c of report 111-183 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part c, amendment number 1, printed in house

report 111-183 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 110, the nays are 318. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a roared vote on amendment number 1 printed in part d of house report 111-183

offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendme. the clerk: part d, amendment number 1, printed in house report 111-183 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a the request for a vorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the chair: the nays are 320. the amendment is not adopted. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 93, line 13, this act may be cited as the department of homeland security appropriations act of 2010. the chair: there being no further amendments, the

the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 2892, and pursuant to house resolution 573, reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. pursuant to house resolution 573, the question on adoption of the amendments will be put engross. the question is on adoption of the amendments. those in favor please say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.

the amendments are adopted. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: madam speaker, i move that the vote on the amendments be divided. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will respond to the gentleman's inquiry by reading the rule. the house will be in order. the house will not proceed until the house is in order. members will take their seats. members will take their seats. the chair is reading from page 3, line 11. in case of sundry amendments reported from the committee, the question of their adoption should be be put to the house engross without intervening demand for division of the question. mr. price: i move that the amendments be be divided. the speaker pro tempore: the

chair has just red the rule says that amendments may not be divided. mr. price: parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his plirmente inquiry. mr. price: isn't it true that rules routinely provide for a separate vote to be allowed when the committee rises on amendments being offered in the committee of the whole? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will not compare this rule to other rules. mr. price: further parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. price: if a member voted no on one amendment and yes on another amendment and wanted the opportunity to have a separate vote on those two amendments, my understanding that the ruling of the chair and the rule prohibits a separate vote on those two amendments, is that correct? the speaker pro tempore: the chair does not respond to hypotheticals. the question is on engrossment and third reading. mr. price: madam speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: so many as are in favor say aye, mr. price: madam speaker, the parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. price: if i desired a vote

on two separate amendments, is there a way under the rule for that to be accomplished? the speaker pro tempore: as the chair has stated, i will read the rule again. i will read the rule again. line 11, page 3, in case of sundry amendments reported from the committee the question of their adoption shall be put to the house engross and without intervening demand for division of the question. the question is on adoption of the amendment -- mr. price: further inquiry, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: third reading. mr. price: it's nigh miunderstanding this type of rule has never been utilized before. is the speaker aware of that? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will not serve as historian. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for

other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. rogers: madam speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. rogers: in its present form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. rogers of kentucky moves to recommit the bill to the committee on appropriations with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. on page 2, line 18, after the dollar amount insert, reduce by $50 billion. on page 52, line 19, after the first dollar amount, insert increase by $50 million. on page 52, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert increase by $50 million. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members and staff will take their seats. members in conversations will remove them from the floor. members in the center aisle will sit down.

the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for five minutes. mr. rogers: madam speaker, since the majority has shut out nearly all of the minority from offering legitimate and well reasoned amendments, i offer this motion to recommit. the motion is straightforward. it simply would add $50 million to the e-verify program. this program allows an employer to call and verify that an applicant for a job is not an illegal immigrant. for months the administration and this majority have delayed, diminished, and all but dismissed the government-run employee verification system under the guise that the system is inaccurate, costly, and susceptible to error and identity theft.

however e-verify is accurate 99 -plus percent of the time. in my book 99% accuracy especially when we are talking about jobs and security is a pretty good statistic. having said that this motion would ensure beyond the shadow of a doubt complete and total accuracy of e-verify. no longer can opponents of e-verify hide behind concerns about incorrect readings or system errors. this motion simply directs $50 million in this bill to improve on a system that the current secretary of homeland security had the good sense to adopt in r home state when she was governor two years ago. e-verify ensures that a legitimate worker has a legitimate shot at a job.

if we can't help our citizenry in this, what are we doing here? second, it's a tool to prevent illegitimate workers from working in secure areas. airport runways, military bases, federal buildings, train yards, and so forth. continued opposition to this creates a security vulnerability we simply can't afford. we have record level unemployment in this country and we have americans who want to work and yet we continue to drag our feet and delay both an economic tool and a homeland security tool. so let's get past the rhetoric. let's add sufficient funds to ensure even greaterer accuracy, capacity, and oversight to prevent the risk of identity theft. $50 million is just 1/3 of the

raise the departmental headquarters gives itself under this bill. so let's give americans at least a fighting chance at a job and ensure that our government and u.s. businesses are employing legitimate american workers. i yield to my colleague from california, mr. calvert. mr. calvert: madam speaker, as the original author of e-verify i'd like to report tonight we have over 135,000 employers throughout the united states that are using e-verify every day successfully. millions of employees have gone through that system to make sure that the work force they are employing is a legal work force. as a former employer in the restaurant business, i can tell you i wish i had that system available to me. adding this $50 million will assure to make sure that

e-verify is accurate. it's already 99% accurate. we could -- that's pretty good for government work. we could make it even more accurate. we need to make sure jobs in this country goes to people who are here legally. this is an opportunity for this house to vote for this motion to recommit that will make sure, make sure that americans that are looking for jobs will have that opportunity to find one. so i would ask all my colleagues vote yes on this motion to recommit. mr. rogers: i thank the gentleman for those remarks. give americans a job. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: madam speaker, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies and is recognized for five minutes mr. price: i thank the speaker. madam speaker, let me say at the outset that i understand members will make their own decision about this amendment and i'm not going to presume to recommend a yes or no vote.

but i am going to say a few things which need to be said, give a few facts about the appropriations situation and about this program which i hope will help members make this decision. it is ironic given the amount of discussion we have heard tonight about how harmful the deficit is to suddenly be told that this program that's already growing at 12% a year well above inflation needs be to be increased. let me remind members what the figures look like. this e verify program was funded in the 2008 fiscal year at $60 million. it's funded this year at $100 million. it will be funded next year according to our bill at $112 million. yet as of the end of april the program had not obligated 70% of its 2009 budget. even though the fiscal year was more than half over.

a third of the funds from the last year of the bush administration also remain unobligated. so this doesn't look like a situation where throwing money at the problem, money at the program will solve its problems. since the program obviously cannot spend the funds it currently has bank rolled. now, it's true that e-verify system has problems. particularly with falsely telling an unacceptable number of u.s. citizens that they cannot work. we provide ample money in this bill to work on those problems. however the 2010 budget funds the entire $112 million request for the e-verify system. it also, by the way, extends the program's authorization by two years. the additional funding already provided in the bill will allow the d.h.s. managers of e-verify to improve oversight and auditing of the program, to address technical difficulties that hamper its success. there is absolutely no

indication of where taking this $112 million budget figure to $162 million absolutely no indication that that would accomplish anything except, except decimating the top ranks of d.h.s. because this is not a costless offset. with the amendments that have been adopted here today, including this one, we would have taken $120 million below the administration's request for the office of the undersecretary for management. $120 million. a cut like this would fall hardest on important initiatives, initiatives this house has backed in a bipartisan fashion to improve departmental security, to train workers to meet the department's acquisition needs, to tighten oversight of d.h.s.'s major procurementses, and to ensure classified programs aren't wasting taxpayer dollars or accidentally leaking classified

information through the procurement process. it is a massive and devastating cut. not a free ride. not in the least. so members can make their own decision. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. mr. rogers: i ask for recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on recommit will be reduced to five minutes on h.r. 2892, and approving the journal if ordered. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national caption [captioning made possible by