[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 104 (Friday, July 26, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H5962-H5969]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3009, TRADE 
                              ACT OF 2002.

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 509 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 509

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 3009) an Act to extend the Andean Trade Preference 
     Act, to grant additional trade benefits under that Act, and 
     for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
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, House Resolution 509 is a standard and 
fair rule providing for the consideration of the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 3009, the Trade Act of 2002. The rule waives all points 
of order against the conference report and against its consideration. 
Additionally, the rule provides that the conference report shall be 
considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, there was a time when this country could boast that we 
were the world leader for shaping the rules on international trade, 
globalization and open markets. Sadly, this is no longer the case.

                              {time}  0030

  What we have before us today is a historic opportunity to remedy this 
obvious shortcoming. I would like to personally commend all those on 
both sides of the aisle, and in both Chambers, who have worked in a 
bipartisan manner to make this possible.
  Trade is a fundamental element of the U.S. economy, stimulating 
growth, creating jobs, and expanding consumer choices. Nearly one in 
every 10 American jobs is directly linked to the export of U.S. goods 
and services, and these jobs are estimated to pay 13 to 18 percent more 
than the U.S. national average. From family farms to high-tech startups 
to established businesses and manufacturers, increasing free and fair 
trade will keep our economy going and create jobs in our economy.
  Consider a study conducted by the University of Michigan. The average 
American family of four could see an annual income gain of nearly 
$2,500 from a global reduction in tariffs and trade barriers. That 
money would be a welcome addition to the family budget.
  Trade is also a cornerstone of American relations with other 
countries. Free-flowing trade helps alleviate poverty, building 
stronger and more prosperous neighbors. With trade as a conduit, walls 
can break down and democratic ideals can be shared more openly between 
countries. Whether bolstering our economy at home or spreading the 
values of democracy worldwide, free trade is an important tool in 
fostering new opportunities for the United States. Trade promotion 
authority is vital to making these opportunities possible.
  Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of bipartisanship that has helped bring us 
to this point, I would like to quote President John Kennedy who, in 
1960, noted, ``World trade is more than ever essential to world peace. 
We must therefore resist the temptation to accept remedies that deny 
American producers and consumers access to world markets and destroy 
the prosperity of our friends in the non-Communist world.''
  At a time when America strives to enhance and strengthen our 
friendships around the world, it is imperative that we recognize the 
correlation between peace and free trade.
  Mr. Speaker, this agreement has been a long time in coming. Even 
though every President from Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton has enjoyed 
the right of trade promotion authority, that authority has been lacking 
since its expiration in 1994. The underlying legislation will restore 
that negotiating authority and open the doors of prosperity for this 
country. Let us not make America, its workers or its products wait any 
longer.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Is it permissible during a debate on the rule for 
Members to revise and extend their remarks?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is, by unanimous consent.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. At this time of morning I think it would be very wise. 
Since both sides have heard all of the debate, some of the Members 
consider the fact at this late hour that a revision and extension of 
remarks would serve the same purpose.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
York for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My good friend from Alabama makes a great suggestion, but an even 
greater suggestion would be for us not to be in the dead of night 
undertaking this extraordinary work.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in strong 
opposition to the underlying conference report. It is the conference 
report on what is called TPA. Yes, TPA. By my way of thinking, that 
ought to stand for Thoughtless Political Action, because that is 
precisely what this House is prepared to do. I hope the American worker 
is braced for the sucker punch they are about to receive. I said 
exactly 1 month ago that it is no wonder that the American people have 
such disdain for politicians. Well, this conference report

[[Page H5963]]

bears that out in spades. Like the bill last month, this conference 
report is another perfect example of backroom deals gone bad in the 
dead of the night, legislating under the cloak of darkness, and 
accountability at its most pernicious.
  On December 6 of last year, with the number of unemployed Americans 
totaling more than 8.25 million, the majority made a series of back-
door deals to secure trade promotion authority for an administration 
which in my judgment has yet to prove to Americans that it really cares 
about their jobs. All of this was done under the pretense of furthering 
U.S. business interests abroad. At least the majority can rightfully 
argue that TPA does further U.S. interests abroad. Too bad this 
expansion is done at the expense of the American worker as well as the 
environment.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues fully understand that since 
the current administration took office, an average of 157,000 Americans 
are losing their jobs every month. Tonight, the majority is again 
poised to eliminate tens of thousands of more jobs under the pretense 
of United States trade promotion. Knowingly eliminating any job at a 
time our economy has proven that it is incapable of re-creating that 
job is not an option that Congress should entertain. We really ought to 
be ashamed of ourselves for even considering this kind of measure.
  You see, Mr. Speaker, this body knows that trade agreements cost 
American jobs. In fact, 420 of us agreed to this conclusion when the 
House overwhelmingly extended trade adjustment authority in June 2001. 
Yet the TAA provisions in the conference report are a reckless 
disregard of the obvious. Aside from the inept direct financial 
assistance available to displaced workers, the conference report has 
reduced the Senate-passed TAA proposal on health care to a tax credit 
that covers a meager 65 percent of the cost of a worker's premium. 
Realize, the Federal Government pays 72 percent of Members' health care 
premiums, and it is preposterous for us to expect the unemployed to pay 
any more than we do on health care.
  But all of this does not even matter if the Treasury Department does 
not establish the guidelines for a complex TAA program, or if States do 
not release the TAA funds once they have been administered. It is funny 
how language ensuring the distribution of TAA funds is mysteriously 
missing from this report that was on the Internet at 4, or at 7:15, 
take your pick. The majority maintains that it is obvious that States 
will release the funds. I say if it is so obvious, put it in writing.
  Realize, providing open-ended authority to the President without 
requiring that environmental, labor and agricultural standards be 
included in any trade agreement is nothing short of hammering another 
nail in the coffin of hundreds of American industries nationwide.
  I support free trade. I have in the past and I will again in the 
future. However, any free trade agreement must also be a fair trade 
agreement. Through the eyes of a farmer, it is outrageous to expect the 
American agricultural industry to compete with South American, Central 
American or Asian agricultural industries who are not required to pay 
their workers a living wage and are not held to the same environmental 
standards as farmers are here in the United States.
  Don't believe me? Look at what NAFTA did. I voted for that measure, 
and it is the worst vote I have cast in this body. Just look at what it 
did to my home State of Florida, specifically the agriculture industry. 
From citrus to sugar and from rice to tomatoes, Florida's agricultural 
industry has lost thousands of jobs as a direct result of NAFTA. The 
tomato industry went basket belly up after dumping. While Mexican 
farmers have profited, and I hold no grudge against them, companies 
have closed; and Florida farmers no longer have jobs or farms.
  Mr. Speaker, we can continue to stay here in the middle of the night 
and play politics with Americans' lives under the pretense of U.S. 
trade promotion, or we can get serious about securing the future of 
American jobs and industries. This report does not re-create the 
364,000 jobs which were lost in the month of June, and it certainly 
does not re-create the 1.7 million jobs we have lost since September 
11. This report does not ensure the future of United States 
agriculture, and it definitely does not ensure the future of the U.S. 
steel and textile industries.
  It is one thing to talk politics, and it is another thing to talk 
policy, but when the politics begin to interfere with the policy and 
that policy interferes with American lives and livelihoods, then we 
have a problem. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, we have a problem.
  This report lays the foundation for hundreds of thousands of U.S. 
jobs to be shipped off to foreign countries with no guarantee that 
displaced American workers will be compensated. The environmental and 
labor provisions that do exist in the report are as disingenuous as the 
pretenses with which the majority brings this legislation to the floor 
this morning. This so-called Trade Promotion Act does indeed grant some 
significant benefits to some workers. Regrettably, not the workers who 
pay our salaries with their hard-earned tax dollars. There is nothing 
in this bill that promotes the interest of the American worker. 
Nothing.
  This bill does so little for the American worker, under the guise of 
doing so much, that I recommend changing the name TPA to the Trade 
Pretense Act. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder).
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise today in strong support of both the rule and the 
underlying legislation, the conference report on the Trade Act of 2002.
  First and foremost, as a member of the conference committee on the 
2002 Trade Act, I wish to express my gratitude to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, for his leadership and diligence in bringing this important 
legislation to the floor today. I commend the chairman for his devotion 
to promoting the principles of free trade and ensuring the U.S.'s 
prominence in the international marketplace.
  Mr. Speaker, in one of his first requests to the 107th Congress, 
President Bush requested the authority to negotiate trade agreements 
with credibility in the international arena. The President understands 
what so many macroeconomists have proclaimed, trade is beneficial to 
all nations and all peoples. Through trade agreements with other 
nations, new horizons are opened for U.S. exports, helping to create 
high-quality new jobs for Americans while American consumers gain 
access to lower-cost goods. The President knows that free trade 
benefits the U.S. economy. Given our recent economic uncertainty, it is 
important that we finally grant his request for the authority to 
negotiate trade agreements in order to help strengthen our economy.
  Finally, without this legislation, the House of Representatives has 
no voice in the negotiation of trade agreements. The House is elevated 
by the trade promotion authority provisions included in the 2002 Trade 
Act, which require the President to consult with both the House and the 
Senate throughout trade negotiations. Once an agreement has been 
reached, the House and Senate each have the opportunity to approve or 
disapprove the agreement. Mr. Speaker, this conference report gives the 
House of Representatives a voice in trade negotiations, a voice which 
would otherwise be silent.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the rule and the 
conference report to ensure that we may participate in future trade 
negotiations.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), who has extensive 
knowledge on the subject that we are talking about.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  0045

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I am amazed that it 
would be suggested here that we only rise and decide to extend our 
remarks and not talk about the substance. We are talking about a 300-
page bill, is it? We are talking about a bill that is going to set the 
stage for trade negotiations for the

[[Page H5964]]

next half decade, and we are doing it at a quarter to 1:00? It is 
suggested also that we not speak on the substance?
  I am speaking now because I want us to get off on the right foot. 
This is not a debate over expansion of trade. I favor it. It is not a 
debate over globalization. It is here to stay. The issue is whether we 
are going to wrestle with the new issues inevitably rising in this new 
era of trade, or we are going to look the other way.
  Issues like core labor standards, this bill pretends to address them. 
It does not. It says it follows the Jordan standard. It does not. It 
pretends to address the issues of investment. It does not. Like the 
bill that came through here, it is a facade. It says it addresses, it 
was just said, the role of Congress. It does not. It is a facade. If 
anything, it makes it worse. In this new era of trade, it leaves us as 
simply a body to be consulted, and not a partner.
  Look, inevitably there are new issues. If ever there were a 
requirement for bipartisanship in trade, it was in this new era. So it 
called for a bipartisan effort. A partisan approach to trade is built 
on sand, and the majority here started on the wrong foot. They started 
with a partisan approach. They are going to end up on this floor with 
essentially a partisan vote.
  Shame on this approach. You make Trade Promotion Authority one 
without value. Time will show that what you are doing here is going 
through the motions, instead of erecting a strong foundation for trade 
policy in the 21st century. Turn down this rule and turn down the bill.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui).
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say this: What are we really talking about 
here? Let us talk about the legislation for a moment. It is a quarter 
to 1 right now. We just got a 360-page bill about 5 hours ago. We dealt 
with the homeland security legislation, so no one really has had a 
chance to read it.
  I have to say that many people are saying though the trade adjustment 
assistance provision, in which we are supposed to help displaced 
workers, many of the colleagues on my side of the aisle, and I imagine 
on your side of the aisle, have basically said this will help those 
workers who lost their jobs because factories are closing.
  But the reality is that is not so. The Senate had a provision in 
there that if a company would move offshore, let us say to China, and 
500 employees in your home community were laid off, then trade 
adjustment assistance and health care benefits would click in.
  Unfortunately, in the conference, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) insisted that that provision be removed. Now, about 75 percent 
of plant closings are because of companies moving offshore. It is not 
because of import competition. So, a great number of employees that 
many of our constituents right now think will be covered, will not be 
covered.
  I think it is going to be rather tragic when the Senate talks about 
this next week, and our colleagues go back home, after voting for this 
bill, and find out they made a grave mistake.
  Lastly, let me just say, when this bill comes back in terms of a 
multinational 144-country agreement 3 years from now, we are going to 
have changes that Members would never have thought about. You are going 
to have changes in U.S. antitrust laws; you are going to have changes 
in food safety laws; you are going to have changes in accountant 
standards.
  So essentially it means, let us say we have another Enron 2 years 
from now, 3 years from now. The WTO will tell us exactly what kind of 
accounting standards we are going to have. We could not do it on our 
own. We are giving up our authority under article I, section 8 of the 
U.S. Constitution. We have the authority to make all trade laws.
  Essentially we are delegating this authority to the President of the 
United States. We should have some limitations on that authority if in 
fact we want good trade legislation.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, may I please inquire as to the 
amount of time remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) has 18 minutes remaining and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Reynolds) has 24\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. May I inquire if the gentleman from New York 
is inclined, that he have a few speakers, so that we can even out the 
time?
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Florida, 
I have some speakers left, but I was under the impression the gentleman 
had many, so I was looking to continue moving through the flow. We will 
not use the entire time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. We will take one more, and then, most 
respectfully, I will ask the gentleman to utilize some of his time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend who serves with me on the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise at 1 a.m. this morning in opposition to this 
rule, born out of martial law, and in strong opposition to this 
conference report. This is simply a bad deal for American workers. This 
is a very complex conference report that deserves serious consideration 
by this House, which, sadly, it will not get.
  It is not an emergency. It does not require that the House override 
its most basic procedures and principles of fairness. The conference 
report can just as easily be taken up in September, which would allow 
the Members of this House to have a genuine understanding of the 
changes made during conference negotiations.
  If Members are going to be asked to turn the clock back nearly 30 
years on the role and jurisdiction of Congress in our trade laws, if 
Members are going to be asked to give up our constitutional 
responsibility to regulate foreign and domestic commerce, then the 
least we should provide to the Members of this House is the time to 
read both the bold and the fine print of this conference report and to 
have the opportunity to talk to the companies and the workers in our 
districts most likely affected.
  Some of these industries, Mr. Speaker, are in my district, textile 
industries in Fall River. Like recent trade agreements, the conference 
report continues to view the American textile industry and its workers 
as expendable.
  It also deprives secondary workers who lose work or who lose their 
jobs because of trade agreements from receiving the same trade 
adjustment assistance benefits they were granted under NAFTA.
  Let us be clear on this point. It means secondary workers who lose 
their jobs because a plant moved to Mexico may qualify for TAA 
benefits, but secondary workers who lose their jobs because a plant 
moves to China or Chile will not qualify for such benefits. That makes 
no sense.
  Under this conference report, if a trade agreement makes the food our 
families eat dangerous to their health, too bad. If a trade agreement 
undermines our environmental protections, too bad. If a trade agreement 
weakens our ability to enforce our antitrust laws, corporate 
accountability procedures and advertising standards, still too bad. Too 
bad, because Congress will not be able to do a thing about it.
  This conference report is an outrage. This rule and this martial law 
process is an insult. It is an insult to the Members of this House, 
both Democratic Members and Republican Members, and it is an insult to 
the American people. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and no 
on the conference report.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
rule, which will allow for consideration of the Trade Act of 2002 
conference report. It has been a long and arduous process that has 
brought us here this evening. The House originally passed the Andean 
Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act on November 16, 2001 and then 
followed with the passage of the Trade Promotion Authority on December 
6. It is now more than 8 months

[[Page H5965]]

since the passage of the first bill, and I believe that we have a 
product today that is of extreme importance really in the national 
security of the United States.
  We have a unique opportunity to strengthen democracies under great 
pressure in this hemisphere. Nations in this hemisphere are facing 
numerous challenges that threaten their fledgling democracies, 
including narco trafficking and terrorism.
  One of the surest ways to support democracies under extreme pressure 
in our hemisphere is by facilitating the emergence of a Common Market 
of the Americas, the free trade area of the Americas. Free trade among 
free peoples is good policy and good for the people of the Western 
hemisphere. To achieve a Free Trade Area of the Americas, Mr. Speaker, 
it is crucial that we approve this conference report and finally give 
the President the authority he needs to get this process going and to 
make it a reality.
  I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying bill due also 
to another provision that has been very needed for a long time.
  This bill includes the extension of the Andean Trade Preference Act. 
Due to the ATPA, the U.S. and the Andean nations have enjoyed an $18 
billion beneficial trade relationship for the last decade. The 
extension of the ATPA is not merely a matter of economic or trade 
policy, but it is a decision with consequences for U.S. foreign and 
national security policy in this hemisphere.
  Bolivia, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador are nations that we must continue 
to help. They have indicated over the past decade that they wish to be 
strong members of a free and democratic hemisphere, a hemisphere that 
will one day be free of terrorism and free of tyranny. Continuing ATPA 
will help the Andean nations fight poverty, terrorism and drug 
protection, as well as protect democracy and promote human rights. ATPA 
promotes job creation in a region with where the alternative for many 
workers is easily a life devoted to drug promotion.
  Promoting development in this region is crucial to a U.S. foreign 
policy that seeks to support countries fighting against terrorism and 
fighting against the drug trade.
  I urge my colleagues to consider the benefits of extending ATPA, not 
only to our South American neighbors, but also because of the effect on 
the American consumers, who will enjoy a wide variety of product choice 
with fewer artificial constraints and restrictions.
  Extending and improving ATPA is a decisive step toward improved 
relations with this hemisphere. This legislation will foster the 
expression of a mutually supported and beneficial relation between the 
U.S. and the democracies of the Western hemisphere.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and 
those who have worked so hard to finally bring to a reality before us 
tonight. I urge my colleagues to pass the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal to the Members on this 
floor and beyond, because I looked through these 304 pages, thank you 
for giving me that courtesy, and looked very, very carefully for the 
sections on child labor. And I want you all to know that it has been 
taken out at the conference level.
  We know what goes on in other countries. So do not talk about the 
free market. This is child slavery. Everybody in this room knows about 
it. Everybody reads about it, day in and day out.
  Why was that taken out of this bill? That is only one section of the 
304 pages. Why was it taken out? It was taken out because what we are 
going to do this evening, this morning, or tomorrow afternoon, whenever 
we end this debate, what we are going to be doing is allowing the same 
corporate cowboys that we have been talking about for the last 3 weeks 
on this floor and out there to make the decisions on trade.
  This is not free trade. This is at the expense of little children, 
and you know it and everybody else knows it. Whether you are talking 
about farm, whether you are talking about textile, whether you are 
talking about steel, everyone knows it. This was the battle, this was 
the major battle between Jefferson and Hamilton, when they decided to 
extract from the Federalist Papers, 50 of which were written by 
Alexander Hamilton, to discern that we need a diverse economy, not one 
based on one single item. And what have we reaped? We have lost 
1,300,000 manufacturing jobs, and this is where we are headed. I was 
not sent here to surrender my rights and responsibilities under the 
Constitution.

                              {time}  0100

  I did not come here to surrender Article I, Section 8. Maybe that is 
why some of us were sent here, but I was not. I hold that Constitution, 
I carry it with me everywhere I go. I know what my responsibilities are 
as a Congressman, and I intend to follow through.
  I want to be more than a rubber stamp for the President of the United 
States, be he or she Democrat or Republican, on trade agreements. That 
is not why we were sent here. They defied every agreement since 1994, 
and you know it and everybody knows it. I ask my colleagues to vote 
against the rule.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, since I have been here I have 
voted to give the President trade negotiating authority on every trade 
bill that has come to the House floor. I want the President to have 
that authority, and of all of the presidents that I voted to give that 
authority to, President Bush is on the top of my list, because I have 
tremendous confidence in his ability to conduct the proper negotiations 
for the United States. Let us face it. We do need some real 
negotiations with the other industrial leaders of the world.
  But I have a bit of a dilemma here tonight. I am looking at the Rules 
of the House, and this one particular rule is titled, ``Appropriations 
on legislative bills.'' It says, ``A bill or joint resolution carrying 
an appropriation may not be reported by a committee not having 
jurisdiction to report appropriations.'' And when I began to read 
through this bill, once it was available to us, I found, in an 
amendment to section 174 of the Workforce Investment Act, an 
appropriation. It is not an authorization for appropriations, but an 
actual appropriation of $60 million for worker assistance programs. 
This particularly caught my attention because when the House passed the 
supplemental, which was one of the most difficult conferences that I 
have ever taken part in, we included $300 million for this worker 
assistance program. But I had to take it out of the supplemental 
conference agreement because we were spending too much money.
  The problem that I am having tonight is, why is it too much money if 
the proper committee provides it, but it is not too much money when an 
authorizing committee, which does not have the jurisdiction, provides 
it?
  Money spent is money spent, whether it is mandated by an 
authorization bill or whether it is appropriated by the Committee on 
Appropriations. That is what got my attention. As I read this bill, I 
came up with 4 additional sections of the bill where it provides an 
appropriation. So while this has become an appropriations bill, the 
Committee on Appropriations has not had much of a chance to even take a 
look at it.
  So I am in a dilemma, because I want to vote for the President to 
have this negotiating authority, but I also want to preserve the 
integrity of the Rules of the House. I also want to preserve the 
integrity of the appropriations process, which is starting to break 
down because the budget process died on the vine.
  We are trying to appropriate with a budget where the House has a 
budget resolution that is $9 billion less than the Senate. Now, anybody 
that can add and subtract knows we cannot reconcile appropriations 
bills when one body has one number, and another body has another 
number. But that is where we are today, and the appropriations process 
is dragging because of that.
  So I have a real problem here. I want to do something to make sure 
the President has the authority, but I need to protect the integrity of 
the process. When this bill comes time to vote, I

[[Page H5966]]

will decide how I am going to vote. But I think it is important that we 
all know that if there is a rule of the House, we ought to abide by it. 
The Committee on Appropriations should appropriate; the Committee on 
Ways and Means should deal with its jurisdictions and authorities; 
other authorizing committees should deal with their authorities and 
jurisdictions, and we should each stick to what has worked so well for 
so long.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who has very few 
peers in this body that have as clear an understanding of trade.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding and say that I rise in opposition to the rule on the 
conference report.
  The American people know something is wrong in Washington when every 
single trade bill passed by this Congress and signed by the President 
results in more lost jobs, more penny-wage jobs, more lost markets as 
imports deluge in here from every single country in the world and we 
cash out good jobs with good benefits in textiles, in electronics, in 
agriculture, in automotive, in machine tools, in steel; even baseball 
and U.S. flags.
  TPA expands NAFTA to the entire hemisphere. Before NAFTA, we had a 
trade balance, I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), 
with Mexico. Every year the trade balance has gone down, gone south, 
losing over hundreds of thousands of jobs into Mexico and cashing out 
our automotive and machine tool industry and even agriculture now down 
there. And when people start getting paid $3 a day, then guess what 
happened? They moved the jobs to China.
  So we have had a sucking sound to Mexico which is now shifting over 
to China, and I defy any American to go into a store today and buy 
something that is not made in China, and the American people can verify 
this through their own experience.
  Now, I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), he did not 
really talk about the pain and suffering. Talk to the workers at Brachs 
Candy in South Chicago. They are about to go through that shutdown, a 
100 year-old company. It is one in a long line of millions of U.S. 
jobs.
  I used to feel sorry for you that you really did not understand, but 
I feel much sorrier for the workers and the farmers of this continent 
and the world, because you are creating a great divergence between 
wealth and poverty. You are drawing a new Mason Dixon Line. It is 
different than what we experienced inside the United States. The 
wealthy, the shareholders, those on Wall Street and the futures 
markets, they love this system. But the workers of our country and the 
farmers of the world, they are being hurt. What do you think is fueling 
immigration into this country from the south?
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule 
and ``no'' on the report. Do not vote for a world with these kinds of 
extremes in wealth and poverty that are cashing out our middle class 
and creating global environmental cesspools and corporate slums and 
global plantations with penny-wage jobs. Vote for the kinds of trade 
agreements that build a middle class here at home and abroad and true 
world peace.
  And what a shame for us, what a shame for us that this is being 
brought up at 1 o'clock in the morning, just like GATT was about 8 
years ago, because they want to do it in the quiet of the night when 
most people are sleeping. It is too important for that. Have some self-
respect for us. Let us debate as we should one of the most important 
bills that will come before this Congress.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would remind Members 
to address their remarks to the Chair and not to each other directly.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have waited far too long to have 
the ability to sell American products overseas. It is just critical, 
critical to America's economy and jobs that we get back into the game, 
that we start to sell American products, because we have been on the 
sidelines since 1994. The rest of the world is running circles around 
us. It is Lewis and Clark days out there and every Nation is out there 
staking out markets for their country except America.
  The potential is just huge for our Nation. Ninety-six percent of the 
world's population lives outside of the country. As of last year, half 
of the adults in the world, half of the adults, have yet to make their 
first telephone call, their first telephone call. That means that if 
European countries land those contracts, they will create European 
lands. If Asia lands those contracts, they will create Asian jobs. But 
if America has the opportunity to get out there and compete, we will 
create American jobs.
  These international trade jobs, they pay more than our domestic jobs 
here at home. They are less likely to be laid off. In Texas, in our 
region, in manufacturing alone, since NAFTA, we have created enough new 
manufacturing jobs to fill every seat in the Astrodome twice over. Two 
out of every three new jobs we are creating in our State comes from 
international trade, and we have $1 billion of environmental projects 
along our border with Mexico: clean air, clean water, waste water and 
sewer that we would never have without trade.
  Trade is good for our jobs, good for our economy, good for labor 
rights.
  There is a principle here. The principle is if Americans build a 
better mousetrap, we should be free to sell it anywhere in the world 
without discrimination. And if someone else builds a better mousetrap, 
we ought to be able to be free to buy it for our families and for our 
businesses. We should not retreat from fair trade competition; we 
should embrace it, because competition is what America is about. It is 
the key to our high-wage and our high-tech future.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is, we do not have a salesman. America 
needs a sales force and a sales leader out there. We are providing the 
President with that. We should support this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), my good friend, 
who simply has, throughout time, stood eyeball to eyeball and toe to 
toe with all who would argue on the subject of trade.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is 1:10 in the morning, and I think that 
all Members of this House recognize that in order for our country to 
enjoy economic growth, that we have to engage in international trade. 
We also recognize that the power of commerce and trade remains in this 
House, but it does not make a lot of sense to believe that 535 
lawmakers will be negotiating trade agreements.
  So therefore, the power should be given to the executive branch to 
actually negotiate these agreements, but it does not mean that the 
House of Representatives should give up its authority to protect the 
American people and American workers as we yield to the executive 
branch. Why? Because it is the executive branch that yields a part of 
our power to world trade organizations, to international organizations.
  All we are saying on our side is that there should be some standard 
for the leader of the Free World, the United States of America, to be 
able to say that as we engage in trade, with all of our power and 
prestige, that there is minimum standards that we expect other nations 
to follow with their workers, with their right to organize, with their 
ability to dream, like Americans dream, that their life can be 
improved.
  Do we say that it should reach our standards? No. What we are saying 
is that there should be standards involved. There should be standards 
involved in protecting what is not ours, not the United States' and not 
other countries', but what God has given the world, and that is our 
environment to live in. Something else that we say we should have, and 
that is the laws of the United States Congress should not be changed by 
foreign nations. We should preserve that right.

[[Page H5967]]

  So all we are saying is that all of us want trade. We recognize that 
it is necessary for us, better for developing nations; not Cuba, 
because of the sovereign State of Florida and the Republic of Florida 
as they dictate our foreign policy and trade policy, but I suggest this 
is a bad rule and a bad time to be debating such an important subject.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds) has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to reserve the 
balance of our time and ask most respectfully that the gentleman from 
New York even out some of the time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Rules has 
requested such time as he may consume, and if the gentleman from 
Florida is prepared to close, I will urge that upon my chair, as he 
would speak to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman saying he does 
not have any more speakers other than the chairperson, or whomever will 
close?
  Mr. REYNOLDS. That is correct.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), a very good 
friend of mine.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, fast track essentially extends our current trade 
policies. And why in God's name would we want to do that when our 
current trade policy is an absolute disaster that has cost this country 
millions of decent-paying jobs and has resulted in the pushing down of 
wages from one end of America to the other?

                              {time}  0115

  The facts are clear. They are not disputable. When we have a failed 
policy, why do we want to extend it?
  I hear some people talking about how fast track and trade policies 
have created new jobs. What world are they living in? The reality is 
today, nobody disputes it, we have a $346 billion trade deficit, 
recordbreaking. No one disputes that between 1994 and 2000, the United 
States lost more than 3 million decent-paying manufacturing jobs due to 
our trade policies. In 2001, manufacturing lost 1.3 million jobs. Over 
the past 4 years, this is incredible, our Nation has lost 10 percent, 
10 percent of our manufacturing base.
  Then people come up here and they say, let us continue; let us extend 
this absurd and failed policy. When will they catch on, when there are 
no more manufacturing jobs in America? When all of our kids are 
flipping hamburgers?
  Everybody knows the truth, and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) 
said it. We all know it. When we go to a department store and buy a 
product, where is that product manufactured? We all know it. It is not 
manufactured in Vermont; it is not manufactured in California. It is 
manufactured in China.
  Why is it manufactured in China? We know the answer to that. In 
China, desperate people, desperate people are working for 20 cents an 
hour, and the corporate titans in this country have sold out our people 
and have taken their plants to China, where people go to jail if they 
try to form a union; where women are brought in from the countryside to 
work 15, 16 hours a day making sneakers for pennies an hour.
  We all know that big money has contributed huge amounts to both 
political parties in order to move these trade issues, but let us stand 
up for ordinary Americans and for the middle class. Let us not become a 
poor, low-wage Nation. Let us reverse our trade policies. Let us demand 
that corporate America reinvest in Vermont, in America, and not just in 
China. Let us have a fair trade policy, rather than this disastrous so-
called free trade.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if this rule passes, we will have great debate by 
sponsors of the legislation. As I have said many times, managing this 
rule in what is now hopefully the final legs of an opportunity to pass 
this conference report that is not a partisan matter on trade, it is a 
bipartisan matter in both Houses as we look to the debate, and then to 
move forward with the will of the House.
  In my home State, international trade is a primary generator of 
business and growth. In the Buffalo area, the highest manufacturing and 
employment sectors are also among the State's top merchandise export 
industries, including electronics, fabricated metals, industrial 
machinery, transportation equipment, and food and food products.
  Consequently, as exports increase, employment in these sectors will 
increase. In the Rochester area, companies like IBM and Kodak play a 
significant impact on the local economy. In employment they will 
benefit directly from increased exports and international sales that 
will result from new trade agreements and open markets that are 
negotiated under the trade promotion authority.
  For example, about one in every five Kodak jobs in the United States 
depends on exports. New trade agreements are needed to break down 
foreign barriers and keep American-made goods competitive overseas, as 
well as open up foreign markets on domestic companies.
  This body and the other body will have the final say on those trade 
agreements. There are 28 bilateral agreements by Mexico and countries 
throughout the world. There are 27 by the European Union. Mr. Speaker, 
this country only has two. The trade promotion authority gives us an 
opportunity to move forward and an opportunity to see more jobs.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), who has been the leader in 
this regard.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Florida, for yielding time to me.
  Yesterday, under enormous pressure from defrauded investors, the 
Republican leadership finally, reluctantly agreed to bring a strong 
accounting bill to the floor. But tonight, the Republican-dominated 
House is poised to turn around and give corporate America its most 
desired prize of all, trade promotion authority, or fast track. The 
fast track conference agreement is a great deal for huge corporations, 
but it is a bad deal for American workers.
  Republican leadership has given these corporations everything it 
wants in this Congress: insurance companies write legislation to 
privatize Medicare; energy companies write our energy policy; chemical 
companies write our environmental policy; Wall Street writes Social 
Security privatization legislation.
  Fast track, the granddaddy of them all, would prevent thousands of 
displaced workers from obtaining training, trade adjustment assistance, 
and health care coverage. It fails to make labor and environmental 
standards required negotiating objectives for future trade agreements.
  But it is worse than that. This TPA, this fast track, shifts power 
from democratic governments to corporations. It allows corporations to 
challenge laws, environmental laws, food safety laws, worker protection 
laws that were passed in this Congress, that were passed in the 50 
State legislatures, regulations that protect workers and protect the 
environment.
  This legislation threatens food safety, it threatens clean air laws, 
it threatens safe drinking water laws, it threatens worker safety laws. 
Vote ``no'' on trade adjustment.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 
minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Just a small bit of history, Mr. Speaker. I 
came to this Congress under the Presidency of William Jefferson 
Clinton, when many times we tried to craft a trade bill that respected 
and understood the role that this Congress has in oversight, respecting 
the laws of this Nation, understanding the needs of workers and the 
environment, and protecting children.
  But it is interesting that under William Jefferson Clinton, this 
Republican

[[Page H5968]]

House could never get a trade bill to be passed. Now, all of a sudden, 
there is this great energy to move a bill forward that does not take 
into consideration the very thoughtful Levin amendment that considered 
the environment, considered child labor, prohibition, and considered 
health benefits for laid-off employees.
  This particular legislation that has come in the dead of night, when 
no one has been able to read it, is a trade bill for the trash heap, 
the trash heap of a Constitution that has been shredded in this trade 
bill.
  Why do I say that? Because this trade bill allows racial profiling to 
go on by members or employees of the United States Government. I 
respect the U.S. Customs Agency; but for the life of me, I cannot 
understand why we have refused to acknowledge that we in this country 
deserve constitutional rights.
  What they have done is they have decided to say that African American 
women, who are nine times more often stopped by U.S. Customs agents 
then white women, have no constitutional rights. It says to them that 
they can take a plane load of individuals from Italy, and take all the 
African Americans off of the plane and search them and find no 
contraband, and under the trade bill the customs agents would do this 
with impunity.
  I believe we can have a trade bill. It can also be a bipartisan trade 
bill, a responsible trade bill; but I will not lose my constitutional 
rights on a trade bill that deserves to be put on the trash heap of 
disappointments.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), who serves on the 
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations 
from the number one agricultural State in America, California.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to respond to the request, rather 
flippantly, that we go back to the offices and read on the Internet 
what this bill is. I read it, not in my office, because we were voting; 
but there are 304 pages right here on the floor for 435 Members to 
read.
  I want to wake up America at 1:25 in the morning to tell them they 
had better understand what is going on here tonight. This is not one 
little simple trade bill; this is five trade bills. This is a fast 
track bill, an Andean trade preference bill, a customs reauthorization 
bill, a trade assistance package, and a dozen provisions including 
giving the U.S. Trade Representative a slush fund to pay WTO fines 
without congressional approval.
  This bill gutted the Eshoo trade preference adjustments. Reading this 
bill, it is a travesty to California agriculture. We sell out 
California flower growers. We sell out California asparagus growers. 
Yet they were able to protect the Puerto Rico rum producers. We sell 
out textiles, shoes, and jewelry; and we ignore the child labor 
problems that are in Ecuador in the banana industry, as pointed out by 
the New York Times.
  This is a bad bill. Vote against the rule.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield the 
remainder of our time to my good friend, the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. McDermott), who serves on the Committee on Ways and Means and 
certainly has a clear understanding of the measure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. McDermott) is recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to sit on the 
Committee on Ways and Means with the smartest chairman we have in the 
entire history of the Committee on Ways and Means. He sat out here and 
lectured us about the fact that we had not picked up off the Web this 
340-page bill that was sent to us at 6:53, right in the middle of the 
discussion of the homeland security bill.
  What we were supposed to do was get an e-mail from Diane Kirkland. 
You all know who she is; she is very familiar to all of you. This e-
mail says, go and get a link and get this bill. And the chairman stands 
over there with that haughty look and says, you were not smart enough 
to know where to look for the thing that I hid. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is true that it is 1:30; but we have been 
debating this bill since 1994, because 1994 is when this authority 
expired, and we have been working long and hard to promote free trade.
  As I have listened to the horror stories that have come from the 
other side of the aisle, I would have to remind them once again, we 
have seen 134 trade agreements established in the world since that 
expiration, and the United States is a party to only three of them. We 
have not had the authority that will allow us to respond to many of the 
problems that exist out there.
  The world has access to the U.S. consumer market. What trade 
promotion authority will do is it will allow us to pry open markets 
where 90 percent of the world's consumers are. That is about creating 
jobs right here in the United States. That is what trade promotion 
authority is about. Vote ``yes'' for the rule and vote ``yes'' for the 
conference report.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 200, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 369]

                               YEAS--220

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Collins
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh

[[Page H5969]]


     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Baird
     Blunt
     Combest
     Gillmor
     Hefley
     Hinojosa
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     Meehan
     Ney
     Roukema
     Stark
     Stump
     Whitfield

                              {time}  0151

  Mr. HILL and Mr. WYNN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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.

                          ____________________