[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 109 (Thursday, July 29, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H6648-H6652]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1545
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2606, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT 
        FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 263 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 263

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2606) making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. Before consideration of 
     any other amendment it shall be in order to consider the 
     amendments printed in part A of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each amendment printed 
     in part A of the report may be considered only in the order 
     printed in the report. The amendment printed in part B of the 
     report may be offered only at the appropriate point in the 
     reading of the bill. Each amendment printed in the report may 
     be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
     be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
     specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to 
     amendment. All points of order against the amendments printed 
     in the report are waived. During consideration of the bill 
     for further amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during 
     further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
     for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 263 is an open rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 2606, the foreign operations appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 2000. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, 
equally divided between the chairman and the ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  In addition, the rule provides the bill be open to amendment by 
paragraph. The rule also waives points of order against provisions in 
the bill for failing to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule 
provides that before consideration of any other amendment it shall be 
in order to consider the amendments printed in part A of the Committee 
on Rules report only in the order printed in the report.

[[Page H6649]]

  These amendments relate to limitations on the use of international 
population funds. Further, the rule provides the amendment printed in 
part B of the report may be offered only at the appropriate point in 
the reading of the bill. The amendment concerns child survival funding.
  In addition, the rule provides for consideration of the amendments 
printed in the Committee on Rules report to be offered only by a Member 
designated in the report. The amendments shall be considered as read, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not 
be subject to amendment.
  The rule waives points of order against the amendments which were 
printed in the Committee on Rules report, but also grants the chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole authority to postpone votes and reduce 
voting time to 5 minutes provided that the first vote in a series is 
not less than 15 minutes.
  In addition, the rule provides that Members who have pre-printed 
their amendments in the Record prior to their consideration will be 
given priority in recognition to offer their amendments if otherwise 
consistent with House rules. And finally the rule provides for one 
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill provides a fair, a very fair, approach for the 
consideration of the foreign aid appropriations bill. One controversial 
area which always lends itself to important debate on the floor 
involves family planning funds and their potential use for performing 
or promoting abortions and the so-called Mexico City policy which 
prohibits U.S. assistance to foreign organizations that perform 
abortions, violate abortion laws, or engage in lobbying activities to 
change such laws.
  While I personally am a strong advocate for the rights of the unborn, 
our committee is providing for amendments which cover both the pro-life 
and the pro-choice sides of the issue. I commend my colleague the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) who is chairman, Subcommittee on 
International Operations and Human Rights for his tireless work to 
protect the rights of the unborn. I certainly will support his 
amendment on this important issue.
  To clarify that two amendments referred to in part A of the Committee 
on Rules report, one to be offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Smith) and the other to be offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) let me explain that each of these 
amendments has been made in order as a freestanding amendment. Although 
they represent different aspects of the use of population assistance 
funds they are not necessarily inconsistent. Should they both prevail, 
any inconsistencies can and will be worked out in conference.
  I support the rule. I also support the underlying bill. There are 
many important programs which are being funded. And because there are 
no country earmarks, the President and the Secretary of State are 
afforded maximum flexibility to conduct foreign policy. I am pleased to 
see that this is the tenth appropriations bill to come before the 
House. It is within, it is even below, the committee's budget 
allocation. I thank and commend not only the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) but also the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for their hard work on this 
important bill, and I urge adoption of both the rule and the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for 
yielding me the time.
  This is an open rule. It will allow consideration of H.R. 2606 which 
is a bill that makes appropriations for foreign aid and export 
assistance in fiscal year 2000.
  As my colleague has described, this rule provides for 1 hour of 
general debate to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman, 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, and all 
Members on both sides of the aisle will have the opportunity to offer 
germane amendments.
  In addition, the rule waives points of order against three amendments 
to be offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts). Unfortunately, the rule does not honor the 
requests made by the Subcommittee on Foreign Operation's ranking 
minority member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) who asked 
for regular order in the amendment process. I am also disappointed that 
the rule denied Ms. Pelosi the opportunity to offer an amendment. 
Instead that amendment was made in order only if offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  I want to commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), and the ranking 
minority member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for their 
work in bringing this bill to the floor. I commend them both for 
maintaining the spirit of bipartisanship and compromise, at least 
during the subcommittee process.
  And I appreciate the committee urging AID to provide 1.52 million for 
microenterprise, 1.52 million for microenterprise which represents 
about a 10 percent increase over last year's level. The committee 
expects half of these funds to go to the poorest people. 
Microenterprise development is a cost-effective way to reduce poverty.
  The bill provides $680 million for the child survival and disease 
programs fund which is more than the administration's request. This 
includes $110 million for the United Nations children's fund, better 
known as UNICEF, which is also an increase above the administration's 
request.
  And I am pleased that the bill removes restrictions on humanitarian 
assistance to Cambodia including assistance for basic education 
activities. I was in Cambodia in April, and I witnessed the enormous 
poverty that is the ongoing legacy of the Pol Pot regime, and removing 
this restriction will help raise the low level of education that is in 
Cambodia and improve the lives of the people there.
  And finally, I thank the committee for including language in its 
report stating the committee's intention to increase funding for the 
Peace Corps if funding becomes available. I believe that the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) crafted about the best bill that they could given the low 
allocation for the subcommittee.
  However, I must express my deep disappointment that the House chose 
to provide so little funds for foreign assistance. Since 1985, 
inflation-adjusted spending on foreign aid has decreased more than 50 
percent. Assistance now represents less than 1 percent of the total 
federal budget. And as the richest Nation on earth, the United States 
has a moral obligation to help reduce the misery among the poorest 
people in the world.
  However, as a recent editorial in the New York Times pointed out, 
foreign aid is also in our best interests. The New York Times article 
said that assistance that helps prevent foreign political conflicts or 
economic calamities can reduce the need for far more costly future 
American involvement. The editorial went on to criticize Congressional 
efforts to cut foreign aid as a shortsighted national shame.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we all should be very proud of the work the 
Committee on Appropriations has done this year, and a great measure, to 
a great degree the responsibility for the marvelous work that the 
committee has been doing and is doing lies at the office and in the 
office of the chairman, and I want to commend the chairman for his 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
the time, and I rise to make just this announcement, and I would hope 
that we can expedite consideration of this rule and get to the bill and 
get the bill finished tonight.
  As my colleagues know, the House is scheduled to leave Washington on 
next

[[Page H6650]]

Friday for the August recess so the Members can return to their 
districts and spend time with their constituents. But all the Members 
know that the Speaker has stated that if we have not completed our work 
on the appropriation bills, as scheduled, that that recess will not go 
forward until that work has been completed.
  Now the reason that we need to expedite this rule and to finish this 
bill tonight is that on tomorrow it is necessary for the committee to 
take up the last two bills that it will take up and present to the 
House before the House recesses for the August recess.
  So tomorrow we, the Committee on Appropriations, need all day 
tomorrow to deal with those last two bills. Because of this we cannot 
be on the floor with this bill tomorrow, and if the committee cannot 
report those last two bills tomorrow, there is no way to get them on to 
the floor next week prior to the recess taking effect.
  So it is essential that we expedite and get this business done 
tonight if we want to go on our August recess as has been scheduled.
  So, other than that, Mr. Speaker, I ask support for the rule, that we 
expedite that support, and I ask that we do the very best we can to 
expedite this bill so that we can continue the appropriation process, 
and, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) 
mentioned that we passed now 10 appropriation bills. The fact is, 
counting the supplementals, we have passed 12 of the appropriation 
bills and two conference reports as well. So the Committee on 
Appropriations is on schedule.

                              {time}  1600

  We can keep on schedule if we expedite tonight.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I thank him also for his leadership on many of the issues that 
are in the foreign operations bill relating to child survival and 
honoring the gospel of Matthew. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. I 
thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for his 
participation in bringing the rule to the floor. I have great 
admiration for him and for my distinguished chairman of the full 
committee and I reluctantly rise in opposition to the rule.
  In our subcommittee, Mr. Speaker, we had tried very hard to work with 
our distinguished Chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) 
to move along the legislation, to honor the schedule that our Chairman 
just put forth and to not hold up the works. So we agreed to set some 
difficulties off to a later date. This bill is a work in progress. It 
is seriously underfunded.
  I mention this now because I want to point out that to have the bill 
come in a bipartisan way to the full committee was a result of 
bipartisan cooperation; and cooperation, as my colleagues know, Mr. 
Speaker, is a two-way street. We were disappointed after that in full 
committee that $200 million in this already underfunded bill was taken 
out again. But nonetheless, in the interest of staying on schedule and 
moving the legislation along, I urged my colleagues to support the 
legislation in the hope that down the road there would be additional 
funding in the legislation.
  This bill is nearly $1.5 billion, $1.3 million less than the 
administration's request and more than $700 million, less than last 
year's bill.
  So that is why I was really quite disappointed to learn of the rule, 
when I, as ranking member, who had, with my fellow Democrats on the 
subcommittee, cooperated in bringing this bill forward and not delaying 
it with many of the controversies that we have had in the past. When I 
as ranking member went to the Committee on Rules to request a ranking 
member's prerogative, as I see it, to have an amendment to this bill, 
an amendment that would address the concerns that many of us have with 
the Smith amendment with the Mexico City language, but one that would 
be a substitute for it. I was very precise in my request, although I 
was not insistent that the bill be in my name, I was insistent that the 
amendment be in the form of a substitute. So that when we ask Members 
to make this very important decision, it would make a difference.
  However, this rule, is something for everyone and nothing for anyone 
in terms of advancing the issue. I almost have to use the word cynical 
in describing it. I think it makes the House look silly and belittles 
the importance of the issue.
  The rule limits debate on both amendments to 20 minutes each. This is 
a very important issue, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) 
mentioned. It is an issue of importance and controversy before this 
body, so we have two amendments, 20 minutes each, 10 minutes on each 
side to debate it, eliminating the possibility of a full and serious 
debate on both sides.
  It also allows for the consideration of the Pitts amendment. Now, I 
as ranking member do not get an amendment, but this allows for the 
Pitts amendment as the only other legislative amendment to be made in 
order. I am not sure what criteria the Committee on Rules uses to 
choose this one amendment out of all of the requests that were made for 
legislative amendments. My guess would be that because it once again 
adds additional restrictions to programs designed to help poor women 
and children under the guise of a population-related restriction, that 
somehow it takes precedence on the Republican side than the other 
proposed amendments.
  The truth is, we should not have any of these legislative amendments 
in the bill. They should not be made in order. This is a repeat. We 
have been here before.
  I have a great deal of respect for the makers of these motions. I am 
very pleased with the interest in this foreign operations bill.
  But what I am saying to my colleagues is that if we are asked to 
cooperate every step of the way, in subcommittee and full committee to 
stay on schedule and cooperate with an underfunded bill for which the 
White House has issued a veto threat because of the Smith amendment and 
because of the low funding figure, then one would think at the very 
least that the ranking member would receive her due, which would be an 
amendment to this bill, to trump legislative language which does not 
belong in the appropriations bill in the first place.
  So that is why I come here with a degree of sadness and 
disappointment that once again we have to travel down this road. When 
this happened before, we held up the House with rollcall votes and this 
or that. I am not going to do this now, because this is frankly 
tiresome.
  What I am going to do is urge my colleagues to register their 
disapproval of this by voting ``no'' on the rule, for my colleagues to 
do just that; and again, I wish that we could have had some 
cooperation, but apparently, the cooperation is only supposed to come 
from our side and not from the Republican side on this.
  So with great regret, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to simply say that I am extremely sorry that our distinguished 
colleague from California (Ms. Pelosi) will not be supporting the rule.
  The Committee on Rules made a very strong effort to be fair. We 
believe that we have been fair, that we are fair in this rule. It is an 
open rule. The issue of legislation, not appropriations measures, is 
always a difficult one. We do not like generally in the Committee on 
Rules to see, and we usually do not make in order, legislative 
proposals for debate on appropriations bills. Within this bill, within 
the context of the bill, within the text of the bill that came to us, 
there are 58 provisions that constitute legislating, many of which, 
almost 30, are unauthorized.
  So I am sure the members of the Committee on Appropriations also 
recognize the difficulty of this and they have to deal with it also on 
a daily basis.
  What I would like to stress, Mr. Speaker, is that the rule is fair, 
that it is an open rule, that as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
mentioned, we do need to be expediting this issue, moving it forward, 
and we believe on the Committee on Rules that we are doing so in a very 
fair way.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H6651]]

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  I also want to reiterate my opposition to the rule for the reasons 
that were articulated both by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and by 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). I do want to point to 
some underlying provisions in the legislation that I support.
  I want to cite several key areas where the legislation has continued 
U.S. support for Armenia's economic development, while helping to jump-
start the peace process in Nagorno Karabagh.
  In this time of fiscal restraint, I am encouraged that the fiscal 
year 2000 legislation at least ensures that the same percentage of aid 
will be made available to the Republic of Armenia as was available in 
fiscal year 1999. It is important for us to maintain our support for 
and partnership with Armenia as this country continues to make major 
strides towards democracy, most recently evidenced by the May 30 
parliamentary elections, as well as market reforms and increasing 
integration with the West. U.S. assistance also serves to offset the 
difficulties imposed on Armenia's people as a result of blockades 
maintained by Azerbaijan and Turkey, as well as helping regions of the 
country to rebuild from the devastating 1988 earthquake.
  The legislation also seeks to ensure the delivery of humanitarian 
assistance to Nagorno Karabagh. In the fiscal year 1998 bill, Congress 
took the historic step of providing, for the first time, U.S. 
humanitarian assistance to Nagorno Karabagh. Unfortunately, the 
administration has not delivered much of this assistance and the 
legislation today includes language reiterating the obligation of $20 
million in U.S. aid to Nagorno Karabagh.
  Mr. Speaker, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill contains 
language addressing the need for a negotiated settlement to the Nagorno 
Karabagh conflict. Noting that the important position of special 
negotiator for Nagorno Karabagh is currently vacant, the committee 
urged the Secretary of State ``to move forthwith to appoint a permanent 
special negotiator to facilitate direct negotiations and any other 
contacts that will bring peace to the long suffering people of the 
south Caucasus.''
  I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that one of the most positive 
developments of late has been the increased and direct contacts between 
the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan. The President of the two 
countries recently met previously in Geneva, and the surprise 
announcement that came out of the meeting was a tentative agreement to 
have Nagorno Karabagh to participate directly in the next session of 
face-to-face talks.
  So at this critical juncture we must get a permanent special 
negotiator in place without delay, and I applaud the members of this 
subcommittee for including this provision in the bill.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to address one or more amendments that 
may be offered under this rule by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton) seeking, in various ways, to limit development assistance to 
India. I would urge my colleagues to oppose these ill-advised 
amendments if they come up.
  Following the imposition of Glenn amendment sanctions against India 
last year, the USAID program has been restructured in conformance with 
the law to provide only humanitarian assistance to India. If this 
amendment were adopted, programs to limit the spread of HIV/AIDS would 
have to be cut as well as basic health services to mothers and 
children. Thus, without achieving any positive policy goals, the 
amendment would only serve to punish some of India's most vulnerable 
people who are currently benefiting from American humanitarian 
assistance.
  Mr. Speaker, this House has consistently rejected similar Burton 
amendments over the past few years. Indeed, 2 years ago a similar 
amendment only gained the support of 82 Members of the House, while 342 
voted against it; and last year, no amendment was offered. Both Houses 
of Congress have been moving on a bipartisan basis to lift the Glenn 
amendment sanctions on India and Pakistan, and an amendment like the 
one proposed by the gentleman from Indiana would be way out of step 
with the progress being made towards greater cooperation and 
confidence-building between the United States and India.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues have heard this before, 
but I am not going to use the full 2 minutes. Hopefully, that will be 
true.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the statement that was made by the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is a very interesting one in that he is 
talking about the provisions in the bill that relate to Armenia and 
Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabagh and how that area of the world has been 
dealt with in the bill. I think it is indicative of the leadership of 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) in resolving some of these 
controversial issues that come up in this bill.
  We have spent hours overnight on this bill in subcommittee, full 
committee, and on the floor, but in the interests of managing those 
issues well, we worked together, made our compromises so that the 
House, the full House, would be spared some of that controversy.
  That is why, again, I was so disappointed when the rights of the 
minority were not respected, and I disagree with my distinguished 
colleague whom I respect enormously in his characterization of the bill 
of the rule as a fair one, because I do not think it is. As I say, if 
we had been coming into this, fighting to the finish, I could 
understand why the majority would want to suppress the minority, but we 
have tried to cooperate every step of the way, and indeed I have said I 
would support the legislation if the Smith amendment does not pass.
  In the interests of trying to support the bill with the Greenwood 
amendment as a substitute for the Smith amendment, that would still 
enable us to support the bill; but instead, not only did they wrench 
the right of the minority ranking member to introduce an amendment, but 
also put it in the form that does not solve any problem except maybe 
one, to help the majority pass the rule on their side.
  So if they are going to have this unfair rule, they are going to have 
to do it largely with Republican votes. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no.''
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that with respect to 
the bill itself, I think the chairman has tried to do as much as he 
could under the circumstances he faces.

                              {time}  1615

  I honestly believe that before this bill goes to the President, it is 
going to need a significant amount of funding for the Wye Middle East 
peace agreement. I think we need to promote that in every way we can.
  I will vote against the rule on this bill because the rule simply 
does not deal with the Mexico City issue in a fair way.
  What the Committee on Rules has done is to allow a nongermane 
amendment to be offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) on 
the Republican side of the aisle, and then it allows a second amendment 
as an alternative to that to be offered. But instead of being offered 
as a substitute, it allows it to be offered as a simultaneous 
amendment.
  If both amendments were to be adopted, for instance, the adoption of 
the Greenwood amendment would have no meaning whatsoever, because under 
the way we read statutes around here, the most limiting language is the 
only language that governs. So in essence, the Committee on Rules has 
pretended to give the House a choice between alternatives when in fact 
it has given no real opportunity for the Greenwood amendment to have 
any meaning whatsoever.
  To me, that is disingenuous, it is unfair, it is biased, and it means 
that people think they could not win the argument if they had a fair 
rule. I do not think that is the way the greatest parliamentary body in 
the world ought to act. Therefore, I would strongly urge a vote against 
this rule.

[[Page H6652]]

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has gone the extra mile. We bring 
forth this measure not only with a fair rule, but an open rule. Any 
amendment any Member wants to come up with, as long as it is germane, 
can be presented. So we feel really good about our work. We ask for the 
support of the House on both sides of the aisle for the rule.
  Reiterating that, I support this rule, and urge my colleagues to vote 
for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 256, 
nays 172, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 348]

                               YEAS--256

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--172

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Dicks
     Jones (OH)
     Martinez
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Skelton

                              {time}  1638

  Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. HILL of Indiana, Mr. WAXMAN, and Mr. OWENS changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. DEAL of Georgia, KUCINICH, KLINK, CRAMER and KANJORSKI 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________