[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.
____________________