[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.

                          ____________________