[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 54 (Thursday, May 4, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H2567-H2572]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO SAME
DAY CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON
RULES
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 488 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 488
Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII
for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee
on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is
waived with respect to any resolution reported on the
legislative day of May 4, 2000, providing for consideration
or disposition of a conference report to accompany the bill
(H.R. 434) to authorize a new trade and investment policy for
sub-Sahara Africa, or any amendment reported in disagreement
from a conference thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, this rule waives the provisions of clause 6(a) of rule
13, requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it
is reported from the Committee on Rules, against resolutions reported
from the Committee on Rules.
Additionally, the rule applies the waiver of a special rule reported
on or before May 4, 2000, providing for consideration or disposition of
a conference report to accompany the bill, H.R. 434, to authorize a new
trade and investment policy for sub-Sahara Africa, or any amendment
reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.
Mr. Speaker, this is a straightforward rule to allow the House to
move forward with consideration of the conference report on H.R. 434.
This measure contains no surprises and was crafted with full
consultation with the minority and the appropriate chairman and ranking
members of the committees involved. This procedure actually provided
the committees more of an opportunity to complete important provisions
in the underlying legislation by allowing them to finish their work
this morning.
Mr. Speaker, both sides of the aisle would like to complete this
legislation today, and we have worked closely with all parties involved
to do just that.
By passing this rule today, we will allow the House to complete this
very
[[Page H2568]]
important legislation. I hope we can move expeditiously to pass this
rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Reynolds), my dear friend, for yielding me the customary half hour.
Mr. Speaker, the way the Africa/Caribbean trade bill is being brought
to the floor has been far from perfect, and this martial law rule only
makes it worse.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, was put together so quickly my colleagues
would think it was relatively unimportant. But the bill for which this
rule provides martial law is a very important piece of legislation.
That bill will affect 54 countries in Africa, 24 countries in the
Caribbean, not to mention hundreds of thousands of American workers. It
should be examined very closely, Mr. Speaker, before it is considered
for a vote.
But it will not be examined, Mr. Speaker. It is barely off the
printer.
Some of my Republican colleagues all but admitted that they are
worried that once people see how badly this bill is put together, they
will run the other way.
Meanwhile, the rule will enable my Republican colleagues to bring up
immediately a bill that is so hastily written, if it is exposed to the
light of day for too long, it will shrivel up and die.
Mr. Speaker, no one has had time to read this bill, including the
conferees. So I am basing my assumption on rumors which are all I have
to go by.
As I understand it, this bill will hurt American workers, it will
hurt African workers, as well as the African environment. And like so
many Republican bills that have come before, it benefits the very rich,
the very powerful to the exclusion of just about everyone else.
The last Caribbean-Basin-NAFTA bill lost by a two-thirds margin. The
Africa bill is being called a conference report, but it did not come
from a conference.
Nonetheless, today, in the wee hours of the morning, these two bills
were lumped together and, with this rule, will soon be rammed down the
Congress' throat.
Even the AIDS prevention provisions of the House-passed bill were
dropped out of this bill.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose this martial law rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), I would point out that, first of all, I
believe that the conference report was made available on the Web at 10
o'clock on sunshine this morning.
Number two, he and I both know that there are many times that this
rule would be completed after the negotiations were done by the
conference committees at some 4:30 in the morning, a little longer
drive for me coming in from Arlington as my colleague coming from the
city.
But the fact is that, in an orderly fashion, our colleagues on the
Committee on Rules came together, as being summoned by the chairman, at
10 o'clock to say they are actively in negotiations, Republicans and
Democrats, both houses, to bring about a solution that will come back
to the Committee on Rules and that we could convene at 10:30 in the
morning upon the agreement being brought to the light of day and ample
time for us to review it. And certainly my staff has brought it to me.
The Committee on Rules staff brought it to us as Rules members.
We also, in completing the rule to expedite this piece of legislation
today, we have taken an opportunity to give our colleagues the ability
to get our work done by late today and have Friday to go back to our
districts if we so desire.
And so, this is in the light of day. We have had it. It is in
sunshine. And we also got a nice sleep on the Committee on Rules, which
is an unusual feat here.
As the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman, sits to
my right, I know that he will address again the procedure which we were
under as we postponed the consideration while the negotiations went
through until about 4:30 this morning.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) the ranking member of the Committee on the
Budget.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, before voting today on the two rules for this so-called
conference agreement, I urge my colleagues to think carefully about the
way this legislation has been brought to the floor.
It is a stretch to call this a conference report. Conferees were not
even appointed until yesterday, and their only job was to bless an
agreement that had already been worked out behind closed doors and
dropped on our doorstep this morning. Little information has been
released to Members and staff. The only source of information available
to most of us has been leaks in the press.
Now, after that process, it takes two rules, not one, two rules to
bring this conference report to the floor. Why? Because, under normal
House rules, a two-thirds vote is necessary to consider a rule on the
same day that the Committee on Rules reports it.
To get around this sensible, long-standing, vitally important rule of
the House, the Committee on Rules met late last night again and passed
a rule to waive its own rules. That is the first vote. This chicanery
clears the way for a second rule that allows consideration of the so-
called conference report.
Now, regardless of where my colleagues stand on this bill, and it has
merits and demerits and pluses and minuses, regardless of where they
stand, I do not think anybody, for the sake of this institution, should
vote to condone this abusive process regardless of where they stand on
the bill.
A significant part of this bill is CBI-NAFTA Parity, or CBI Parity
for short. That means duty-free, quota-free access to the U.S. market
for apparel and textiles assembled in 25 countries in Central America
and the Caribbean. They are already the second largest exporter of
textiles to this country, taken as a group.
The last time CBI Parity was on the floor was in 1997. It came to the
floor under suspension of the rules. We argued then that it deserved a
full, fair, and open debate. And we prevailed. It went down 182-234.
And, for the same reason, it ought to go down today. The easiest way to
defeat it is to vote against this rule and make it come up at a later
time when we have had a better chance to look at it.
This CBI Parity was bobtailed onto this conference report even though
there has been no conference on it. As such, there has been no vote on
it in committee not recently, certainly not on the floor, no full and
open debate. And we will not have a full and open debate today because
it is a conference report, we cannot amend it.
The more I learn about this agreement, the more I think there are
some pluses and things in it I can be able to support. But why we are
we being able to vote on major trade legislation without any language
to examine, without even 24 hours to see and expect a conference
report? I cannot believe this is a way we treat any legislation let
alone major trade legislation that is bound to speed up job losses in
the textile and apparel sector where the job losses are severe already.
These industries are suffering under a flood tide of imports, $65
billion in textile and apparel imports last year, yet they still employ
hundreds of thousands of Americans.
I think we owe these folks at least a fair hearing. I think we owe
these employees, these workers, a full examination of this bill that is
going to have far-reaching effects on their livelihood.
Let me just say that there are three things we ought to ask when we
look at this bill.
First of all, will it work? Will it do what it purports to do?
Secondly, whom will it help? And thirdly, whom will it hurt?
I would urge my colleagues to consider the consequences. The
complicated provisions of this bill, such as I have been able to read,
in my opinion, will not be possible to enforce.
[[Page H2569]]
As it is, Customs is hard pressed to track whole goods in the apparel
sector. This agreement will require that Customs track knit apparel
formed in the Caribbean of U.S. yarn subject to a cap on the total
level of square meter equivalent imports.
For Africa the agreement would require verification of the amount of
regional and nonregional fabric used in the production of apparel in
qualifying African countries.
How do we tell the difference?
Does anybody believe that these rules are going to be enforceable? I
do not. And I have worked on textile apparel trade issues for the 18
years that I have been in Congress.
As subcommittee chairman, I have held hearings, I have visited the
major ports of entry, I have talked to the Customs inspectors, I have
drafted legislation dealing with labeling and transhipping. And I can
tell my colleagues, the complex and arcane rules in this bill cannot be
enforced.
The second question, who is it going to hurt? I will tell my
colleagues who it is going to hurt. It is going to hurt about a million
textile and apparel workers. They are already, as I said, suffering on
an onslaught of $65 billion of imports last year. They are going to be
hit even harder by imports coming in duty-free and quota-free from
Africa and the Caribbean.
But these imports will not be made in Africa. They will be made in
Asia, I am convinced, and shipped through Africa. They will be
relabeled maybe in Africa, but they will be made in Asia.
So who gets hurt? Sixty percent of U.S. apparel workers are women.
Thirty-five to 40 percent are minorities, mostly African American. That
is who it will hurt.
And finally, who will it help? It is not going to help anybody. It is
not going to help the Africans because of transhipment.
Read the bill, to the extent that my colleague can. Consider the
process. And vote against this rule.
{time} 1245
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, we have had an opportunity to hear from a
few speakers on the debate that do not favor this legislation. I would
now like to introduce and yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Rules, so he might comment on both the merits of the
legislation but more importantly the merits of this rule as it comes
before the House today.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Reynolds), for yielding me this time and for ably taking on
what obviously is a challenging situation.
This was not our first choice to be here under what is considered an
expedited procedures rule, but we are here because negotiations were
not going on into the night; it was staff paperwork that was really
being completed well into the night. And while the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) prides himself on working the Committee on
Rules at 1:00, 2:00, 3:00 in the morning, the fact of the matter is
that some of the rest of us like to sleep at that hour, but the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) we let him have that chance
to sleep last night and obviously it ruffled his feathers so he came
down to oppose this expedited procedures rule.
We are doing the right thing. As my friend, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel), knows very well, we have spent years working on this
legislation. My very good friend from California (Mr. Royce), the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, and the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Crane), have worked long and hard on this.
This is a very important piece of legislation. We have 700 million
people in sub-Saharan Africa who are going to be impacted by this. We
have a chance to improve the quality of life for the American people,
and I believe that we have done the right thing in proceeding with this
rule.
The reason is that last night at 10:30 when we found that we were
going to be doing this and we were assured that we could first thing in
the morning make available on the World Wide Web a copy of the
conference report, we did just that. If we had met at 5:00 this
morning, the difference would have been just a few hours, and while the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) would have, of course, after
his morning run been at his desk at 6:00 to carefully scrutinize the
conference report, most of the rest of our colleagues would most likely
have waited until 10:00, which is exactly when it was filed.
So this is really a question of whether or not we are going to
proceed with important legislation that my friend, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and many of the rest of us have
strongly supported for years and years and years, or are we going to
try and block it because, guess what, Mr. Speaker, this is the one
chance that we had to do it. This is our opportunity to do this. Why?
Because we have lots of important legislation that we need to consider
in the coming weeks. We have scheduled it for this week; and
unfortunately, it took a little more staff time than we would have
liked overnight to get the work completed.
We have this procedure so that we can move ahead in an expeditious
manner on very important legislation. So I encourage my colleagues to
support both rules that we have and then to vote in favor of the
conference report so that we can finally lay the groundwork for a win/
win/win issue, which is going to improve the quality of life for the
American people and our friends in Africa, and I believe make great
strides in blazing the trail for an even more important trade vote that
we are going to be having the week of May 22.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and
Means, who is the author of the underlying bill.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley) for giving me this time to speak.
Mr. Speaker, certainly on most occasions if we had an expedited rule
I would be on the side of having as much time for the Members to review
not only the rule but the underlying legislation as possible, but when
there is a situation it is either an expedited rule or no rule at all,
clearly we have to take a closer look at the legislation that we are
about to consider and ask why should it be expedited, if at all?
First of all, when we talk about the Caribbean Basin parity bill, the
word ``parity'' means that we already had an agreement with these
countries in the Caribbean. We already reached out to our neighbors in
the area and said that we are living now in a decade where we do not
want to talk about just aid. We want to talk about commerce. We want to
talk about trade. We want to talk about support for democracies.
So when we went into an agreement with the North American Free Trade
Agreement, what happened was that they got an edge on these little
countries in the Caribbean and the President and the Congress said,
hey, we promised to give them parity. So we are not talking about
something new. We are talking about something we have been waiting for
for years and that is to bring some equity in our relationship and our
trade agreements with these countries in the Caribbean so that they
would not be adversely affected by NAFTA.
Then, of course, when one talks about the historic legislation that
we have where for the first time we are opening up our commercial doors
to 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, this is the first time that we
are really treating countries in this continent the way we treated the
rest of the world. For those people who just want to scream that we are
talking about Chinese goods and Asian goods and transshipment through
the Caribbean, that is so unfair to say and so untrue. There are no
tighter rules that could be written than those that are in the bill to
stop transshipment. In addition to that, it is almost insulting to the
countries that are involved that it is so in need of jobs to believe
that they would give those jobs to Asia and not to the people in their
country.
[[Page H2570]]
I am suggesting as well, and as has been said by the chairman of the
Committee on Rules, we know that the mother of all trade bills will be
coming to the floor, and that is normal trade relations with China. It
would be sad, it would be painful, it would be disgraceful for these
smaller countries, these developing countries, to get caught up into
that type of debate.
I am asking not to like the rule but to vote for these rules because
it is necessary that not only we expedite the rule but we expedite the
passage of this legislation so that it does not get caught up with the
debate that is going to come on whether or not we should give normal
trade relations to China.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Reynolds) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of the rules for H.R. 434, the
Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.
Last summer, the House understood the importance of doing what we can
to encourage greater trade between the United States and Africa. We
acted by passing this historic bill. We now have a chance to send this
bill to the President's desk for a signature and open a long overdue
era of new relations between the United States and Africa, one that
recognizes the strong economic potential of a continent of some
hundreds of millions of people.
I wanted to address for just a moment the issue of transshipments.
Textile and apparel imports from sub-Saharan Africa do not present
increased transshipment concerns. In fact, Customs estimates its
current enforcement rate as one of the highest.
I should just share that the U.S. Trade Representative tells us there
are no cases, to her knowledge. The Customs publishes a list of foreign
factories involved in transshipment. Its current transshipper list does
not include any African countries. The reason for this substantial
compliance rate on the part of the African continent for textile and
apparel imports from sub-Sarahan Africa are because Africa has a small
number of factories which make it easy for the U.S. Customs to monitor
transshipment, and African countries are starting from a low production
base; and U.S. Customs would be able to immediately detect any sudden
increases in production and determine whether transshipment is
occurring.
Now, this bill provides $5.9 million for additional resources for
Customs enforcement efforts that have proven the most effective, which
is stationing Customs personnel in sub-Sarahan countries, use of jump
teams, informants, collection of production information, monitoring and
analyzing import trends; and in addition the legislation also requires
beneficiary countries to cooperate with U.S. Customs in enforcement
against transshipment and to enact laws to prevent circumvention.
Now, what would happen if a country did not cooperate? The answer to
that is very clear. They lose the benefits under the bill, so they have
a very real incentive to cooperate.
What this bill does is to build a partnership between America and
those African nations which are committed to reforming their economies
in a way that allows for America to sell more goods and services.
In short, this legislation treats trade as a two-way street. Already
the United States exports some $6 billion worth of goods and services
to Africa each year.
Now, in my opinion this is not as powerful a bill as was passed by
the House last July. The U.S. Trade Representative, she argues
otherwise. Rosa Whitaker feels that in some way the bill is
strengthened and is as good as the bill passed.
In conference, the Senate demanded additional restrictions on trade
with Africa, and in my view this is unfortunate. We would have liked
trade with Africa to be regulated more by markets and less by
bureaucrats, especially when we are dealing with the world's poorest
continent; but this conference report clearly is an important step in
the right direction toward greater trade between the United States and
Africa.
Many Members of Congress have worked on this legislation to develop a
new trade relationship with Africa for several years. It is the result
of years of hearings in the Committee on International Relations and in
the Committee on Ways and Means. We have debated this bill on the floor
twice. We have passed this bill twice. This bill is a solid and well-
reasoned, bipartisan effort. We have done this work in our relations
with Africa with, frankly, a sense of urgency, urgency because Africa
could be on the brink of permanent economic marginalization. Unless we
help bring Africa into the world economy and do it now, Africa will
never develop; and Americans are fooling themselves if we think we
could ignore an undeveloped Africa in which war and disease become
commonplace.
Let us do something to help Africa help itself, and let us do
something to help America. This bill is a win/win.
Let me say the Caribbean Basin Initiative Enhancement offers similar
benefits to American businesses while promoting economic development
and political stability in the Caribbean region. These countries are
close neighbors to America, and we have a stake in their well-being.
This Congress has the opportunity to make a firm step towards greater
engagement with these regions, and I look forward to bringing this
conference report to the floor. I appreciate the efforts of the
Committee on Rules and look forward to passage of this important
legislation.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley) for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this particular procedural method to
try and rush this matter to the floor, and I take a bit of issue with
the chairman of the Committee on Rules who stated that there was a need
to bring this matter to the floor today because otherwise we would not
be able to get to it with our absolutely busy schedule here in the
House. For those of us that have languished these last few days as we
were waiting around for any of the business of the House to come
forward, we know that that is a little bit of an overstatement. In
fact, it is a gross overstatement. The majority has set so much time
for Members to be back in their districts. We might as well try to move
the Capitol elsewhere to catch up with where the Members are in
accordance with the schedule.
The fact of the matter is that what they are asking the Members to do
here is to set aside their right under the rules to have time to
scrutinize the bill so we can deliberate it. It might have gone up on
the Internet at 10:00 this morning; but if all people needed was two
hours before we debated a bill and deliberated it, then that is what
our rules would call for. But our rules call for these matters to sit
for a day so people can have time to look through these bills.
Regardless of what the Members on both sides of the aisle have said,
some agree and some disagree with what they think may be in this bill.
That is exactly the point. People need time to scrutinize the bill to
see what might have been slipped in from time to time.
We understand that there was language on AIDS medical relief in here
that may have been taken out, put back in with some changes, taken out
again. People need to know this and debate this important issue through
its final resolution.
We need to talk about whether or not the child labor language stays
in the bill or is taken out and what the content of it is if, in fact,
it is in.
We need to know so much more. When we are talking essentially of
increasing NAFTA to 65 more countries, we need to know what about labor
protections, what about the environment; and in fact, there are any
number of labor groups and environmental groups who wish that there
were issues to be brought up and debated, and people should have the
time to look at this bill and be able to do just that.
The last speaker mentioned the fact of how favorable this bill was
and the fact that we had debated this bill previous times and voted
upon it and passed it twice.
{time} 1300
That is only part of the bill. In the course of last evening, also
put into
[[Page H2571]]
this bill was the Caribbean Basin Initiative, and that, in fact, was
never passed by this House; that was defeated by this House by almost a
\2/3\ margin, because it was, in fact, an extension of NAFTA without
any protections for labor and environmental concerns, in fact, without
any language even in side agreements that would do that.
Mr. Speaker, I just suggest that these rules that we have here in the
House to allow people 24 hours to look at these matters are there for a
reason, and that there was no countervailing reason why we should set
aside that rule and set aside the opportunity of Members to have the
deliberative time, the time to scrutinize these provisions, so that we
can all be certain that when it finally does come for debate, each and
every important matter and aspect is talked about, is reviewed and has
the sunlight of daytime shining on it, so when people finally come to a
vote, we can talk about all the issues that are important: The number
of jobs that may be lost, the number of special favors being done for
some people who are going to be very wealthy off of this bill, and all
of those points are important, important enough for us not to rush this
through prematurely or unnecessarily.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Tierney) talk about being back in our district on Friday, one of my
great heros of this great House is the former speaker of Massachusetts,
I am reminded every day that all politics is local. I am looking
forward to being back in my community on Friday because we have the
opportunity to debate this today.
I think it is important, as I share with my father, that when we
debate this, it is not a Republican or a Democrat or a majority or a
minority issue; this is you are either a free trader and opening up
those countries, as my colleague from New York (Mr. Rangel) pointed
out, or you are a protectionist, and that is fine, and that debate
should be in this hall and it will be.
And I just want to remind my colleagues how much time today we are
going to have to debate this issue. We are going to debate it for an
hour now on the rules to suspend and waive the rules, so we can have
immediate consideration. Right after this legislation passes or is
defeated, we will have a debate on the rule itself, and that will be
another hour. And then we will have an hour debate on the conference
report as the merits of the legislation by those who negotiated it
through the wee hours of this morning had the opportunity to bring to
the floor for all of our colleagues to participate in that debate, a
rather lengthy debate on the issue.
And when we conclude today, we have actually had more debate on this
issue, no matter where you come down on the issue, than we would have
on any other normal circumstances, and we have done it in the light of
day. And the chairman of the Committee on Rules has given us a night's
sleep, which is an unusual occurrence if you are a Member of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The question is on
the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. 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 301,
nays 114, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 144]
YEAS--301
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeGette
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holt
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kasich
Kelly
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wu
Young (FL)
NAYS--114
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Blumenauer
Bonior
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Capuano
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Filner
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green (TX)
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hill (IN)
Hinchey
Holden
Hooley
Hunter
Jackson (IL)
John
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
Lantos
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lucas (KY)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Shows
Skelton
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--19
Baca
Clay
Coburn
Cook
DeLay
Engel
Goodling
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Lucas (OK)
Millender-McDonald
Serrano
Smith (MI)
Spence
Thomas
Velazquez
Vento
Wise
Young (AK)
[[Page H2572]]
{time} 1325
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Ms. KAPTUR and Mr. RUSH changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. ROTHMAN, Ms. LOFGREN and Mr. FORD 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.
Stated against:
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be here, but had I been here
I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 144.
____________________