[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 57 (Wednesday, May 8, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2171-H2179]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR DISPOSITION OF H.J. Res. 84, DISAPPROVING THE ACTION
TAKEN BY THE PRESIDENT UNDER SECTION 203 OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974
TRANSMITTED TO THE CONGRESS ON MARCH 5, 2002
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 414 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 414
Resolved, That the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 84)
disapproving the action taken by the President under section
203 of the Trade Act of 1974 transmitted to the Congress on
March 5, 2002, is hereby laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), 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. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, while I am waiting for some of my remarks,
first, I would like to welcome our new colleague on the Committee on
Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who will be
managing the rule for the minority.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 414 is a unique rule providing for the
disposition of House Joint Resolution 84, a resolution of disapproval.
Under the rule, the House Joint Resolution 84 would be automatically
tabled. House Joint Resolution 84 disapproves the action taken by
President Bush to impose temporary tariffs on some types of steel
products. Under the Trade Act, Congress has the authority to disapprove
of such actions within 90 days. Such approval resolution is highly
privileged, not amendable, and floor debate is limited to 20 hours.
To put it simply, a vote in favor of this rule will lay on the table
the disapproval resolution and conclude further deliberations.
Responding to concerns within the steel industry, President Bush
instructed the International Trade Commission on June 2001 to begin an
investigation under section 201 of the U.S. Trade Law. This
investigation would study the effects of steel imports on the U.S.
steel industry. The ITC released their findings in October of 2001,
making an affirmative determination of injury on the American steel
industry caused by steel imports.
The ITC further relayed recommendations to the President for relief
that would prevent or remedy such injuries.
On March 5 of this year, the President put in place trade remedies
based on the ITC findings. President Bush announced trade remedies for
all products on which the ITC had found substantial injuries except two
specialty categories.
Under present law, the President, not the ITC, makes the final
decision whether to provide relief to the U.S. industry, as well as to
the type and amounts of relief.
Passing the disapproval resolution as written would not undo the
remedies imposed by President Bush. Rather, it would merely put in
place the tariff levels suggested by the International Trade
Commission.
{time} 1030
While congressional disapproval is certainly allowed under this
statute, this rule recognizes that the circumstances in this case
simply do not warrant such action. Even the measure's sponsor noted in
committee markup that the resolution was not the best solution.
Laying this resolution on the table does not hurt the steel industry.
In fact, it will keep intact the President's remedy that the industry
favors. The disapproval resolution could potentially be even more
harmful to the industry, nor would the resolution not eliminate tariffs
on steel imports. It merely replaces one set of tariffs with another.
Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that a vote in support of this rule
will table the disapproval resolution, keep intact the President's
current enacted remedy, and conclude debate on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me
the customary 30 minutes, and I thank him for his kind words.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a moment to thank the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt), and the rest of my colleagues for my appointment to the
Rules Committee.
I am honored to take the seat held for over 25 years by my friend and
mentor, Joe Moakley; and before him the seat was held by the late
Speaker, Tip O'Neill. I feel so privileged to be part of that legacy,
and I will try to do everything possible to live up to their examples
of hard work, collegiality and dedication to this House.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first rule that I have managed on the floor;
and if I did not know better, I would think that my friends on the
other side of the aisle were trying to make it as difficult as possible
because this rule, Mr. Speaker, is a complex and convoluted contrivance
designed to protect some Members from an unambiguous vote on an issue
of vital importance to America's steel industry and its workers.
This rule is self-executing, which means that a vote in favor of the
rule will table the resolution, thereby killing it without a clear up
or down vote. While I strongly oppose the resolution proposed by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), I see no reason why the
committee does not simply allow this body to vote on it.
This is an issue with real consequences for hard-working Americans
and their families. Quite simply, Mr.
[[Page H2172]]
Speaker, the American steel industry is in trouble. Foreign steel
imports are causing domestic prices to plunge to record lows, and the
result to date is 31 steel company bankruptcies, the loss of almost
47,000 steelworker jobs, including 2,100 in the Nation's iron ore
mines, and the shutdown of nearly 20 percent of the Nation's
steelmaking capacity.
We cannot continue to sacrifice American jobs. We cannot continue to
stand idly by as one of the oldest and most important industries in
America just disappears.
In response to the ongoing crisis in American steel, the President
implemented a 30 percent tariff on steel imports, an action that will
help save thousands of Americans' steelmaking jobs. This tariff is a
necessary response to the unfair practices of some of our trading
partners and I support it.
I believe we in Congress should be doing a great deal more for
America's steelworkers and their families; but until we act, the
President's decision is a welcome one.
I will vote in favor of this rule which automatically tables the
resolution and, therefore, allows the President's action to stand; but
I believe it is extremely unfortunate that the majority has chosen to
circumvent the regular order and has refused to allow a vote on the
gentleman from Louisiana's (Mr. Jefferson) resolution, a resolution, by
the way, that I oppose.
This body deserves a fair debate and an up or down vote on this
issue. The Ways and Means Committee adversely reported the resolution,
yet this rule denies the members on the committee and the Members of
this body a genuine opportunity to debate the merits of this issue.
The American people deserve to know who supports the President's
actions to protect the American steel industry and who does not. They
deserve to know who supports the effort to help the working men and
women in our steel-producing communities and who does not.
There is no need for procedural smokescreens that rob the Members of
this House from debating and voting on this important trade issue.
Having said that, let me attempt to clarify to Members what their
choice is. If my colleagues disagree with the President's decision to
impose tariffs on imported steel, then they should vote against this
rule. On the other hand, if my colleagues support the President's
tariff decision, then they should vote for the rule.
Mr. Speaker, there are many times when the Members of this body of
both parties will disagree with the President. The Republican majority
should not run away when that happens. They should allow their
Republican colleagues the opportunity to vote and express their support
or disapproval of the President's decision.
I regret they will not be able to vote ``no'' on the resolution
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana. I regret this deceptive rule,
but I will not oppose it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all say to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), I am pleased to be able to speak on
his first opportunity to have debate on a rule. As neighbors in our
first term, I find that a great privilege; and I would rather be lucky
than good. So it is lucky.
For my friend from Louisiana, who we agree with and work hard, it is
not personal, it is just public policy; and I look forward to working
with him more in opportunities in the future.
Not supporting this rule would mean letting the steel workers of our
country down when they need us most. Furthermore, it would be a step
backward from the progress made to help industries thus far. Free and
fair trade, the proponents of trade talk about free and fair trade, and
the opponents of trade talk about free and fair trade; and it was this
administration that finally took action against unfair trade. That is
kind of hard to believe when we had a lot of this steel crisis within
the past administration, also; but it was a Republican administration
that said there is illegal dumping of steel and we are going to take
action against it.
So that is why this resolution, I know well-intentioned, is very
detrimental to getting our steel mills and our workers back into the
mills and creating jobs. We have already seen some benefits from the 30
percent trade.
Granite City Steel in Madison County, which I represent half the
county, it is my home county, entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection
in early March. Their latest report is that they have more orders than
they can fill. A promising future from an industry that just months ago
was on the cusp of not only destroying the tax base of a small
community but also people not being able to be employed and take care
of their families.
Continuing the current tariffs will mean job security for 2,700
workers of this plant, as well as many plants across the Nation that
have filed or were near bankruptcy.
Another company that is moving aggressively to reopen a closed steel
mill in Illinois is Alton Steel, and they have a short window of
opportunity to move even rapidly now because of the tariffs, and we are
working very diligently with them; and the imposition of this tariff is
of great help to them and the working men and women of another part of
Madison County which is Alton, Illinois.
Furthermore, the 30 percent tariffs increase the likelihood of
consolidation in the industry so that those who have lost their jobs
may regain employment.
Mr. Speaker, it is proven: the administration's decision for a 30
percent tariff is helping. The steel industry is and will continue to
benefit. So why hold it back? On behalf of the steel workers of
southern Illinois, I urge my colleagues to join with me in voting for
this rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I am saddened and disappointed by the action of the
Committee on Rules and by the response of many of my Republican
colleagues to the resolution that I have filed. Just a few months ago,
I joined with many of them in open discussions about the benefits of
free trade to our country and to a global economy.
Yet today, they turn their back on all those arguments that they so
embraced just 2 months ago during the trade promotion authority
discussion; and no matter how they cast the action on this rule today,
if they vote for the rule and table the resolution and prevent us from
having a debate on it, what they are doing nonetheless, no matter how
they cover it up, is they are voting a protectionist line when they
have taken quite the opposite position just a few months ago as I said,
and routinely, throughout this Congress.
What is happening here is what has been described here by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I have a resolution which
is quite clear. It purports to ratchet down the President's tariff
decision to protect the steel industry from 30 percent tariffs,
generally speaking, to 20 percent tariffs under the ITC recommendation.
It lowers the tariffs in almost every case; and while one can argue
that it still maintains a 201 result, and it does, for those who want
to see 201 action, it permits that; but it simply does it at a lower
level.
What I said in committee is there is no way to undo the President's
decision by action on this floor. The only thing that can be done is
what is being attempted here, that is, to reduce it down to what the
ITC recommended. That is the only legal course that is available. One
cannot go to court or to an administrative action. This is it. So when
I say in committee that what we are doing here is not fixing the
problem, but making a bad situation less bad, that is precisely what is
available to us. That is all that we can do. That is not the ultimate
outcome I would desire, but that is all that is available to us.
This decision, Mr. Speaker, in just a few short months has rankled
the ire of all of our trading partners in the European community, in
Australia, in Japan, in Korea and China, in Brazil. Almost every corner
of the world, they are threatened and are now imposing sanctions
against our products. The European Union has estimated it will
[[Page H2173]]
cost $2.4 billion in losses to them just based on what we have done
here. Added to our fish problem that is already $4.5 billion, how on
God's earth can we respond to these extreme and very high costs that
are being imposed by this action the President has taken?
The President is talking out of both sides of his mouth on this
question. He says that he is for free trade, and yet he wants to
restrict free trade when it is convenient for, as some have said,
political purposes. The columnist that generally favors President Bush
on all these matters, George Will, writes quite candidly it is the
worst protection action taken by a President in decades. He cannot even
think of one that is worse.
He also said that it is a billion dollar tax increase on those folks
who buy automobiles alone and estimates an $8 billion tax increase on
consumers across the country because what happens is we are raising
prices on steel products across the board, whether they are cars or
toasters or vacuum cleaners. Whatever is made of steel, the prices are
going to rise. They are already rising.
Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, this whole issue of free trade is supposed
to be about consumers in this country, and we are going to saddle them
with $8 billion in new costs that they are going to have to pay; and in
the end it is going to end up with a result that is worse than we ever
imagined because we are now just getting out of, what some people say,
getting out of a recession. We are going to drive this country right
back into a deeper one because every one steel job we purport to save
here, the estimates are we lose 10 in other industries.
So with the stevedores we will lose jobs up and down the line of
those folks who make steel products. We will have layoffs because the
business cannot afford to carry on with the price for steel so high,
and so it is not a good trade-off for this country to save one steel
job for every 10 jobs we lose in some other industry. It is a very bad
trade-off.
I would like to urge this body to vote ``no'' on this resolution on
this rule today for the simple reason we deserve a debate, as the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has said. Whether my
colleagues are for or against this, this matter deserves a debate on
the floor today, and I would urge the Members of this body to do just
that.
These steel tariffs the President has imposed are also not WTO
consistent. That is pretty clear. There was a decision in a Korean case
involving a line pipe that made quite the case that unless there are
recent upsurges in the importation of a product that the 201 action
does not apply. Here we have had steel importations going down the last
4 years, from 1998 to now. The better action here would have been to
find some way to fix the number of imports that can come into the
country at what was the pre-1998 levels. That would have been the
sensible and supportable action.
That did not happen here, Mr. Speaker; and therefore this bill is not
designed to fix any problem, but it is designed for political reasons,
not supported by any economist in the country, not even supported by
economists in the White House, not even supported by the Secretary of
the U.S. Treasury. It is unsupportable economically, and I urge this
body to vote ``no'' on the resolution.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
{time} 1045
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in
opposition to the resolution seeking to roll back steel import tariffs.
We in the Congressional Steel Caucus pushed a long time for the
administration to initiate a section 201 steel investigation into
dumping. We pushed the International Trade Commission to recognize the
devastating effect of steel imports. We gathered with 25,000
steelworkers on the Ellipse to encourage the President to impose an
effective remedy. We did get a remedy.
What has this tariff meant to the steel industry? It has helped us in
Cleveland find a new owner to keep our steel mill running. It has
helped create a climate to boost America's manufacturing output. Still,
tens of thousands of steelworker retirees are losing health benefits,
so we introduced the bipartisan Steel Legacy Relief Act to help obtain
health benefits equivalent to what is provided by Medicare and a
prescription drug benefit similar to the Blue Cross/Blue Shield
program.
The United States should not stand by and watch while thousands and
thousands of workers who helped build this country are suffering. We
must say to our Nation's retired steelworkers, ``You have worked all
your life to make America strong. We have not forgotten, and we will
not let you down.''
I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule, oppose efforts to roll
back steel tariffs, and sign on to our bill to address steel legacy
costs.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), who has been a great leader on behalf of
workers in the steel industry.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule to table the motion
of the gentleman from Louisiana. I have a great deal of respect for
him, but I would point out to my colleagues that on October 22 last
year, the International Trade Commission unanimously, three Republicans
and three Democrats, found that illegally dumped steel caused serious
injury to the United States of America and its workers. They were
right.
Since 1977, we have lost 34.5 million tons of capacity. But,
moreover, we lost many jobs. The gentleman from Louisiana mentioned
earlier in his remarks that people in Korea and Japan and Brazil are
upset over the President's implementation of the ITC decision. I would
point out that some of the 72,567 Americans who have lost their job at
bankrupt or closed companies in places like Dunkirk, New York,
Vineyard, Utah, Gadsden, Alabama, Sterling, Illinois, and Sand Springs,
Oklahoma, are even more upset, and they are our responsibility to
protect.
The President acted appropriately on March 5 by imposing 30 percent
tariffs. We ought not to set the President's program back.
Additionally, I am concerned, as I address the House today, that
hundreds of exemptions have been asked for by our trading partners, and
hundreds more have been asked for. And now we have 1,200 exemptions
that have been requested, and the Secretary of the Treasury has
indicated on a recent trip to Europe that a significant number of them
might be approved.
I would hope that the administration does not follow through on the
implication of the Secretary's remarks, that they hold firm, and that
exemptions are only granted in the case where there is no other U.S.
alternative for the products made.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to urge those Members
who are undecided about how to vote on this rule to consider the
hundreds of thousands of steelworker jobs that have been lost since the
steel crisis began in 1998, all due to the flood of steel imports.
Last year alone, over 20,000 jobs were lost in America's basic steel
industry, and half of the Nation's bankrupt steel companies have now
been forced to cease operations completely. In addition to the job
losses, the steel crisis has put the health care benefits of 600,000
industry retirees at risk. Over 100,000 retirees and their dependents
have already lost or will lose their health care benefits following
bankruptcy.
The President's decision to apply 30 percent tariffs to certain steel
imports was a step forward in protecting our national security,
protecting legacy costs for steel workers' health benefits, and, most
importantly, protecting America's jobs. I urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of this rule and stand up in support of rebuilding this Nation's
steel industry.
[[Page H2174]]
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in support of this rule to table the resolution
disapproving the President's decision on the section 201 steel
investigation.
While the relief under section 201 was not everything I had hoped
for, I commend the President for taking action to help our ailing iron
ore and steel industries and for imposing stronger remedies than those
recommended by the International Trade Commission.
If this resolution passes, the President's remedies would be
overturned and the ITC recommendations then would become our law. This
would weaken the tariffs that have been imposed. This would withdraw
the helping hand that we have finally offered to the iron ore and steel
industries.
Let me give an example. In the case of slab steel, which has been so
destructive to the iron ore mines I represent, I had hoped for a
straight tariff on the slab imports being dumped in the United States.
The ITC recommended a tariff of 20 percent in the first year for
imports over the quota. President Bush instituted a 30 percent tariff
on the first year over the quota for slabs. This fell short of the
relief our iron ore industry needs, but this resolution would mean, if
it passes, that we would have to go back to the ITC 20 percent relief
that is even more watered down. We cannot allow this to happen.
Our iron ore and steel industries depend on this relief. Without it,
I am afraid our iron ore and steel industries will surely perish. I
urge my colleagues to vote for this rule to table consideration of
House Joint Resolution 84 and for preserving our American steel
industry.
Let us stand with the President in aiding the iron ore and steel
industries and look ahead to other ways we can help these industries,
such as the much-needed legacy cost relief. Rather than taking a step
backwards, we should now work to pass effective legacy cost legislation
so that we can continue our forward momentum in bringing back our iron
ore and steel industries.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Regula).
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of tabling H.J. Res. 84.
This safeguard action gives our domestic steel industry and its
employees a much-needed period of readjustment to recover from the
substantial damage done by the latest steel import surge that began in
1998.
Thirty-three companies have declared bankruptcy in recent years, and
17 have closed their doors completely. 46,700 steelworkers have lost
their jobs and 125,000 retirees have lost their health care benefits
during this crisis.
The surge of low-priced imports is the result of foreign steel
companies, often subsidized by foreign governments, building huge
amounts of excess steel-making capacity. With their own markets unable
to absorb all of this steel, they have flooded the U.S. market with
their excess capacity.
We remain the most open market in the world. We cannot have free
trade unless it is also fair trade, and President Bush recognized this
fact last summer when he initiated the section 201 investigation on
steel imports. The International Trade Commission conducted the
investigation. This is an independent body. After many days of
testimony, the Commission determined that steel imports were a
substantial cause of serious injury to the U.S. steel industry.
On March 5, President Bush imposed temporary steel tariffs that range
from 8 percent to 30 percent for a 3-year period. It is not a permanent
tariff. This type of temporary safeguard measure is specifically
allowed by World Trade Organization rules. Many of our trading partners
have imposed safeguard measures on a variety of other products.
U.S. steel companies and steelworkers are only asking for a level
playing field. The action taken by President Bush allows time for
restructuring and for talks with our trading partners to reduce the
worldwide excess steel-making capacity.
A strong domestic steel industry is crucial to the economic and
national security of our Nation. It is important that today we give the
President's safeguard actions time to work. Vote to table H.J. Res. 84.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
(Mr. DOYLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 414 and in
support of the tens of thousands of steelworkers across the Nation, as
we fight to rebuild an industry that has been devastated by illegal
dumping of foreign steel onto American markets.
I want to say that again: Illegal dumping of steel onto American
markets has devastated this industry. As a Member of Congress whose
family has worked over 73 years in the steel industry, I believe it is
critical that we fight to ensure that our Nation's steelworkers have a
fair and level playing field to market their product. After all, this
is the same industry that built America and remains its backbone.
Over the past several years, 51 steel mills have been closed, 31
steel producers have filed for bankruptcy, and over 46,000 hardworking
Americans have lost their jobs. And why did they lose their jobs?
Because their competitors are cheating, breaking our trade laws. And it
has been a national disgrace that we have allowed it to happen this
long.
Across my district in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, once called the steel
capital of the world, thousands of hardworking men and women have lost
their jobs because their competitors were cheating. Without the
protections provided by the President on March 5, more workers will be
left jobless by foreign producers who illegally bombard our markets
with cheap foreign steel.
It is for these hardworking men and women and their families that I
fight today. After all, if we are going to have free trade, we first
have to have fair trade. The writing is on the wall and the call of our
steelworkers must be heard.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this
rule to table an ill-advised resolution which poses a direct threat to
the same industry that built and continues to remain America's
backbone.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 414 and in support of
the President and the tens of thousands of steelworkers across our
nation as we fight to rebuild an industry that has been devastated by
the illegal dumping of foreign steel onto American markets.
As a Member of Congress whose family has worked in the steel industry
for over 73 years, I believe it is critical that we fight to ensure
that our nation's steel workers have a fair and level playing field to
market their product. After all, this is the same industry that built
America into the world's pre-eminent superpower and it is the same
industry we will continue to rely on to remain safe and strong. The
very backbone of America is being threatened today.
Over the past several years, 51 steel mills have been closed, 31
steel producers have filed for bankruptcy, and over 46,000 hard working
Americans have lost their jobs. The International Trade Commission
ruled unanimously that this loss is directly the result of steel
dumping and not the fault of the American steel industry. Across the
district that I represent in Western Pennsylvania, an area once
universally called the Steel Capital of the World, thousands of hard
working men and woman have lost their jobs due to unfair competition
and through no fault of their own.
In fact, the productivity, work ethic, and technology of America's
steel industry is far superior to any other nation in the world.
However, without the protections provided by the President on March
5th, these workers will be left jobless by foreign producers who
illegally bombard our markets with cheap, foreign steel. It is for
these hard working men and women, and their families, that I fight
today!
America cannot simply stand back under the banner of free trade and
allow foreign nations to subsidize their steel industries, underpay
their workers and dump their products on our markets with the hope of
destroying the American steel industry. After all, in order to have
free trade, we must first have fair trade. The writing is on the wall
and the call of our steel workers must be heard.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am standing today with the President and alongside
every American steel worker. I urge my colleagues to join me and vote
against this ill-advised resolution
[[Page H2175]]
which poses a direct threat to the same industry that built, and
continues to remain, America's backbone.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), who is the Chair of the Congressional Steel
Caucus.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, this is a critical issue. I came to the
floor prepared to give a lengthy and detailed speech, and, instead, I
will simply submit that for the record. I would like to take 2 minutes
to speak from the heart on what I think is an absolutely critical issue
for the American economy.
George Bush, when he took office last year, took a look at the issue
facing steel, took a look at the crisis in American steel and initiated
a WTO consistent process to evaluate the situation. The finding of the
International Trade Commission was this: That, clearly, we were facing
a surge of imports; clearly, there are unfair traders involved; and,
clearly, we need to have an opportunity to give a breathing space to
the U.S. industry.
The authors of the resolution today are opposed to what the President
is trying to do, and I hope that this resolution will be tabled. We
will be sending the wrong message to our international trading partners
if we allow the Jefferson resolution to stand.
The Jefferson resolution, in effect, sends the message that it is
open season on America's manufacturing sector. It simply says you do
not have to play by the rules; that the global excess capacity in steel
can continue to be dumped on the American market. And it will send a
very clear message that notwithstanding the fact that America has some
of the most productive steel mills in the world, America will not be
able to defend itself when facing unfair trading practices in this
critical sector.
The message that this resolution would send is that we are not
prepared to defend ourselves in the critical area of trade; that we are
not prepared to insist on maintaining an internationally competitive
manufacturing sector in this globe.
We need to stand up for steel. We need to stand up for the President.
Today, table this resolution and let our trading partners know we stand
for fair trade.
Mr. Speaker, the time has come for Congress to rally behind the
President and stand up for steel. The passage of H.J. Res. 84 would
send a clear message to the world that it is open season on the
American manufacturing base. Anything less than the Section 201 relief
provided by the President is unacceptable.
The Bush Administration labored over the various options for relief
under Section 201 and it represents a milestone shift toward a stronger
trade policy that insists on a level playing field of trade for
domestic producers. The relief provided by President Bush is balanced,
allowed under U.S. Trade Law and consistent with the rules under the
World Trade Organization.
A strong tariff-based remedy is the only way to prevent the loss of
thousands of additional steel-related jobs and indicate to foreign
producers that the United States is not a dumping ground for excess
steel products. But today we find ourselves faced with H.J. Res. 84.
It's a joke of a proposal that dramatically weakens the tariff remedies
by up to 10 percent for certain steel products by tossing aside the
President's remedy and instead using the majority view of the
International Trade Commission.
Let me assure you Mr. Speaker that weak action would silence many
more steel plants, destroying jobs as well as the families and
communities who depend on them, all while dealing a blow to our
national economy and security. Because of eight years of inaction by
the previous administration on this issue, 33 steel companies have
declared bankruptcy, which translates into 45,000 steelworkers who have
lost their jobs because of this most recent surge in steel.
Make no mistake--I am very strongly pro-trade, yet when it comes to
steel it is distorted trade. And keep in mind that we are already
witnessing the positive effects of the relief provided by the
President. Imports have slowed and the window has opened to allow the
domestic steel industry to recover from the devastating import surge.
We are providing the time the domestic steel industry needs to
restructure to remain competitive in the tight global steel market.
President Bush labored over this decision, carefully weighing all of
the options on the table. His decision was tailored to provide relief
to the steel industry while minimizing the negative impact on the rest
of the economy. Very simply, the ITC decision was not.
President Bush's remedy reflects thorough consideration given to
developing countries, trading partners who have entered into trade
agreements with the United States, and to domestic steel mills with
specific needs for imported steel products while crafting the tariffs
and tariff-rate quota.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 84 does reflect the majority opinion of
the ITC, while the President's remedy went beyond that.
The same statute that allows the gentleman from Louisiana to bring
this resolution before us is the same statute that allowed the
President to go beyond the majority opinion of the ITC. According to
the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 Section 203, the President has the right to
take action that he determines will facilitate efforts by the domestic
steel industry to rebound and provide greater economic and social
benefits when compared with the costs.
Clearly, the President and I are in agreement--the majority ITC
opinion would have been ineffective. It would not return steel prices
to their normal pre-crisis levels, and allow American steel companies
to make the necessary investments to remain viable and competitive in
the future while providing good-paying jobs.
The plight of the steel industry is grim but both Congress and the
administration are working hard to give employers the tools they need
to be competitive in the global market. Strong relief, coupled with the
Bush Administration's continued efforts to address foreign market
distortions and global steel overcapacity, will allow domestic steel
manufacturers to restructure and regain ground lost to the injurious
imports. This will ensure the continued viability of an industry that
is a cornerstone of our economy and national security.
The domestic steel industry is at a significant crossroad. By
granting relief under Section 201 of the U.S. trade laws, the Bush
Administration provided critical breathing space for this strategic
industry. Congress must not turn around and apply a choke hold.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule.
{time} 1100
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I share the frustration of the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) on the procedures that are being used
here; and I do not speak to the procedures, but I am going to vote to
uphold the rule of law and support the resolution.
We have laws that are WTO-consistent. They are here to protect our
country from illegally imported products. In December 2001, the
International Trade Commission, which is a nonpartisan body,
unanimously found that the domestic steel industry had been harmed by
the flood of foreign steel imports into the U.S. market since 1998.
They found that our country became the dumping ground for illegally
imported subsidized steel. As a result, our domestic steel producers
were damaged.
In October, Bethlehem Steel Corporation filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection. We now have 33 steel companies in the United
States which are in some form of bankruptcy. They are there not because
they cannot produce cost-effective steel. They can compete if it was
fair competition, but we do not have fair competition because we have
excess capacity in the world in producing steel.
The United States made it a policy to reduce its capacity in the last
decade. We cannot produce enough steel to meet our domestic needs. We
need to import steel. We have done what was necessary to restructure
our steel industry on capacity. But it is our trading partners that
still have the excess capacity that is causing U.S. steel companies to
go in bankruptcy because of the dumped steel.
After we get rid of this resolution, we need to turn our attention to
legacy costs because U.S. steel producers need help on the retiree
costs if they are going to be able to compete on a fair, level playing
field. I hope today's action will not be the last action in supporting
the President. It is legacy protection for our steelworkers.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
Mr. VITTER. Madam Speaker, I rise to strongly support American jobs
and employment here at home, economic development; and because of those
values and because of that focus, I strongly support the Jefferson
resolution and active consideration and debate of it.
U.S. port authorities, port terminal operators, longshore labor
unions,
[[Page H2176]]
other U.S. port and transportation industry organizations all have
opposed President Bush's decision to impose tariffs and quotas on
fairly traded steel products imported into the United States, and all
of those entities are home to good, viable, important, well-paying
American jobs.
This is not a one-sided debate about American jobs. I am very
sympathetic to U.S. steel producers and their employees, but that is
not the only place jobs are impacted in terms of this action. They are
impacted even more on the negative side by President Bush's decision
with regard to ports and other maritime-related commerce.
I know that very well from my home, the New Orleans area. Forty
percent of the revenue from the port of New Orleans is directly tied to
steel imports. That supports more than 8,600 jobs just within the
Greater New Orleans area, and if we look at Louisiana as a whole, there
are thousands more, and if we look at the Nation, there are tens of
thousands more.
There are far more good American jobs that will be cut, that will be
hurt because of this decision than those jobs in the domestic steel
industry that will be saved, and that is why I strongly support this
resolution and believe that we should have full debate and
consideration of it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).
Mr. JEFFERSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Vitter) for his remarks in support of the resolution and in
opposition to the process being used here. Many of the speakers who
have preceded me have talked about the ITC decision, the merits of it,
that it was a 6-member vote, 3 on the Democratic side and 3 on the
Republican side supporting it.
If the resolution passes, the ITC decision is in effect. This does
not undo the ITC decision because it cannot. Honestly, I wish it could;
but it cannot. The ITC decision will stand if this resolution should
pass.
What is most egregious this morning is not whether you disagree with
the position on the merits of the resolution, but whether we are going
to have a debate on this matter or not. That, it seems to me, is the
undeniable wrongness that is being accomplished here. I believe it is a
shameful process, and in some respects it is a very hypocritical
process. I have no problem with the idea that steelworkers need relief.
I think the relief ought to come from making sure that we continue our
work on eliminating the overcapacity in not only our markets but the
world markets.
I think it comes in making sure that the quotas are right for pre-
1988 importation levels, and I think it is also important to think
about the legacy cost issues which are not addressed by this resolution
and the President's action, to see what we can do to make sure that the
$13 billion legacy costs that are out there get taken care of. That is
not the subject of any of these discussions, yet they are talked about
by Members who oppose this resolution as if they were a part of what we
are dealing with here.
Today on this vote the only issue is whether there will be a full
debate on this question today or not. How in the world can the House
oppose a full debate on a matter of such dimensions as the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) has described, as I have described, and as
others have described? It is a matter which has put the President's
economic advisers on one page opposing the President's action. Some
political advisors say it is a good idea, but his economic advisers do
not support it. It is not justifiable on any economic ground. Give us a
chance to debate. Vote no on the resolution.
Madam Speaker, I will move for the previous question when the vote is
called.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Phelps).
(Mr. PHELPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PHELPS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I
support the President's decision to impose a 30 percent tariff as a
first step in saving our American steel industry and the job and health
insurance of Illinois steelworkers and retirees. The American steel
industry and steelworkers are in the midst of the worst crisis in many
years due to the continued illegal dumping into this country of
foreign-made steel. Thousands of steelworkers have lost their jobs, and
countless more are in jeopardy.
In my congressional district in central and southern Illinois, the
effects have been devastating. I am troubled by foreign producers
seeking additional exclusions from the tariffs for specific steel
products, despite that these products are available from domestic
producers. More disturbing are reported statements that a significant
proportion of these exclusion requests will in fact be granted. Further
exclusion will turn the section 201 tariffs into Swiss cheese where the
holes will allow so much low-priced steel to enter the U.S. market that
the industry will receive no meaningful relief.
The domestic steel industry has invested billions of dollars in
upgrading and modernizing its facilities, and as a result is among the
most productive makers of high-quality steel in the world. No industry,
no matter how productive, however, can compete against the onslaught of
low price and often unfairly traded steel imports. The section 201
relief that the President announced in March can provide substantial
relief to the industry, but this will only occur if the tariffs stay in
place without additional exclusions. It is imperative that we send the
strongest possible message to deter our trading partners from further
illegal dumping, and to give the domestic steel industry the time it
needs to recover from its injury. Anything less would be a disservice
to those working men and women who are counting on the government to
stand up for them. Vote yes on the rule to table House Joint Resolution
84.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).
Mr. JEFFERSON. Madam Speaker, at the end of this discussion, I will
urge Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question
is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment
provides that the underlying resolution, H.J. Res. 84, disapproving the
action taken by the President under section 203 of the Trade Act, will
be considered by the House separately with a clean vote, and not simply
tabled as the rule provides.
Madam Speaker, whether or not the Members agree with the President's
action on this issue of considerable importance, we should all agree
that this deserves to be considered under the process that was set up
in section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974. That act allows the House to
take an up or down vote on the President's action. This convoluted
process of tabling the disapproval resolution before we even get to a
vote completely short-circuits the regular process. Vote no on the
previous question so we can all vote up or down on H.J. Res. 84.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, this process is not very clear. I wish it were
different, but in the end I am going to support the rule because I
believe in upholding the President's decision on tariffs because in the
end I think it will save jobs in this country.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have worked on this rule with the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). This is his first rule as
a member of the Committee on Rules, but all remember his years of
service to Joe Moakley when he was a staffer before being elected to
his seat. It is an honor to serve with the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern) now as a member of the Committee on Rules.
[[Page H2177]]
House Resolution 414 is a unique rule providing for the disposition
of House Joint Resolution 84, a resolution of disapproval. Under this
rule, H.J. Res. 84 would be automatically tabled. H.J. Res. 84
disapproves the action taken by President Bush to impose temporary
tariffs on some types of steel products.
Under the Trade Act, Congress has the authority to disapprove of such
actions within 90 days. Such a disapproval resolution is highly
privileged, not amendable, and floor debate is limited to 20 hours. To
put it simply, a vote in favor of this rule will lay on the table the
disapproval resolution and conclude further deliberations. While
congressional disapproval is certainly allowed under the statute, this
rule recognizes that the circumstances in this case simply do not
warrant such action. Laying this resolution on the table does not hurt
the steel industry, as we have heard from so many Members on a
bipartisan basis from the Steel Caucus. In fact, it will keep intact
the President's remedy that the industry favors. The disapproval
resolution could potentially be even more harmful to the industry. This
disapproval resolution does not eliminate tariffs on steel imports
either. It merely replaces one set of tariffs with another.
Madam Speaker, let me reiterate that a vote in favor of this rule
will table the disapproval resolution, keep intact the President's
current remedy, and conclude debate on this issue. I urge an aye vote.
I urge my colleagues to table the resolution by voting aye.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Jefferson is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 414
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 84) disapproving the action taken by the President under
section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974 transmitted to the
Congress on March 5, 2002. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except one hour of debate
on the joint resolution equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, if you want to know how foreign steel is
affecting our communities just ask Ernie Ronn. Ernie is a retired iron
ore miner from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
If you ask Ernie, or thousands of other iron ore and steel workers
how steel dumping is affecting our community, they'll all tell you the
same thing--this foreign steel is killing us.
Last July, thousands of iron ore workers in Marquette, Michigan held
a rally which filled and entire indoor stadium. Later the workers,
their families, children and business owners filled the streets of
Marquette.
They know that when a mine shuts down in the U.P. or a steel factory
closes in River Rouge you cripple an entire community, you erode the
tax base, police and fire services suffer, and no one goes unaffected.
The citizens of Marquette marched because their jobs, their
community, and their future was--and still is--at stake.
At that rally a year ago, Ernie Ronn told us that this was the fourth
demonstration he'd been to. He said, ``my grandfather and your
grandfather, they came to this country--from Poland, Finland, Slovenia,
Ukraine, Italy and Germany--to make better lives for you and I. That's
what we want to do for our kids, make it a better world. It's a common
thread for people. We've built a great community, and now we must keep
it strong. We shouldn't have to keep trying to get that message
across.''
While Mr. Ronn said those words nearly a year ago, they couldn't be
more apt today. It's time to end this debate. The President has taken
action; his decision has already been implemented. It's time to move
forward.
For the iron ore workers in Marquette and the steelworkers down river
of Detroit this is a matter of putting food on the table, paying the
mortgage or rent, and keeping their families healthy and safe. Vote for
this rule to table the resolution.
Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule to table
this misguided resolution.
If we pass H.J. Res. 84 we're going to be sending a message to the
rest of the world. And that message is: Foreign countries, go ahead.
Flood our markets. Illegally dump your products here. Because the
United States is not going to enforce our trade laws. We'll be
declaring ``open season'' on America's manufacturing base and on
American workers.
We cannot let that happen. We must stop it. And I'm proud that our
President, George W. Bush, took decisive action to restore fair
competition for our steelworkers. If American steelworkers are allowed
to compete on a level playing field, they will win. But if we do not
restore that level playing field, more American steelworkers will lose
their jobs.
This problem has been going on for years, and President Bush showed
real leadership when he put these tariffs on. This action is absolutely
necessary to defend steelworker jobs against illegally traded steel and
ensure America has a steel industry five and ten years from now.
Madam Speaker, I testified before the International Trade Commission
on several occasions about the illegal import crisis and its effect on
our steel-producing areas like my home State of Alabama. I told them
about the dangers this crisis presents to our national security. And in
this time of war, what is more important than the security of our
Nation and its ability to defend itself?
Vote yes on the rule. Stand with our President. And stand up for the
hardworking citizens who built this country into the great and powerful
Nation it is today.
Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res.
84, to disapprove the President's steel tariffs.
Our domestic steel industry is currently in a crisis situation. The
fundamental cause of this crisis is massive foreign overcapacity, which
has caused the United States to become a dumping ground for world
excess steel products. As a result of this, since 1997, 33 steel
companies have filed for bankruptcy, affecting over 62,000 American
steel workers. Almost 90 percent of the capacity reduction occurred in
2001.
Our domestic steel industry is vital to our national security.
American Armed Forces depend on American steel for their planes, tanks
and ships. A dependence on foreign steel could be catastrophic for our
national defense.
Last year, I joined my colleagues on the Congressional Steel Caucus
in urging the President to implement a Section 201 investigation by the
International Trade Commission to determine if our domestic markets had
been harmed by illegal dumping. In the fall, I testified before the ITC
to express my concerns regarding the steel crisis. The ITC ruled
unanimously that the steel industry had indeed been harmed.
In March of this year, the President announced his intention to
impose tariff safeguards of up to 30 percent on major steel products.
While the President could have imposed tariffs of up to 40 percent, I
am hopeful that the 30 percent tariff will be sufficient to give the
industry a chance at recovery, and am pleased that the President did
decide to take action. His actions sent a strong message that we will
no longer tolerate the unfair trade practices which have harmed the
steel industry.
Madam Speaker, voting no on this resolution is paramount to the U.S.
domestic steel industry, and I urge my colleagues to join me with a no
vote.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Madam 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.
Pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the
question of adoption of the resolution, and thereafter on the motion to
suspend the rules and concur in Senate amendments to H.R. 3525 debated
yesterday.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 355,
nays 62, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 129]
YEAS--355
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
[[Page H2178]]
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--62
Baldwin
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Boucher
Capuano
Castle
Clayton
Condit
Conyers
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dooley
Ford
Frank
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Holt
Israel
Jefferson
Kucinich
Lantos
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lynch
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Moran (VA)
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Price (NC)
Reyes
Sabo
Sanders
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Stenholm
Tierney
Vitter
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--17
Burton
Buyer
Carson (IN)
Clay
Crane
Hall (OH)
Honda
Jones (OH)
Kind (WI)
Miller, George
Nadler
Ose
Riley
Sawyer
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Waxman
{time} 1140
Messrs. WATT of North Carolina, PASTOR, PRICE of North Carolina,
HOLT, SANDERS and WU, and Ms. WOOLSEY and Mrs. NAPOLITANO changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. FARR of California, BACA, POMEROY, and SCHIFF, and Ms.
MILLENDER-McDONALD, Ms. SOLIS, Ms. SANCHEZ, and Mrs. MALONEY of New
York changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
General Leave
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 414.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from New York?
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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. JEFFERSON. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 386,
noes 30, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 130]
AYES--386
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Miller, Jeff
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
[[Page H2179]]
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--30
Baker
Berman
Boehner
Castle
Cooksey
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Tom
Dicks
Dooley
Ehlers
Flake
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herger
Jefferson
John
Kolbe
Larsen (WA)
Lofgren
McCrery
McDermott
Moran (VA)
Payne
Smith (WA)
Stenholm
Tauzin
Vitter
Waters
Watson (CA)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Tancredo
NOT VOTING--17
Burton
Buyer
Carson (IN)
Clay
Crane
Hall (OH)
Honda
Jones (OH)
Kind (WI)
Nadler
Ose
Pombo
Riley
Sawyer
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Waxman
{time} 1151
Mr. HORN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
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.
So House Joint Resolution 84 was laid on the table.
____________________