[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.

                          ____________________