[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7772-7776]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1646, FOREIGN RELATIONS 
             AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2002 AND 2003.

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 138 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 138

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1646) to authorize appropriations for the 
     Department of State for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on International Relations. After general debate 
     the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on International Relations now printed in the 
     bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. 
     No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Except as specified in section 2 of this 
     resolution, each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules out of the order printed, 
     but not sooner than one hour after the Majority Leader or his 
     designee announces from the floor a request to that effect.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), 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. Speaker, House Resolution 138 is a structured rule providing for 
the consideration of H.R. 1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act 
for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. The rule provides for 1 hour of general 
debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on International Relations. The rule 
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. It provides that no 
further amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in 
the Committee on Rules report.
  The rule provides that each amendment printed in the report shall be 
offered only in the order printed in the report except as specified in 
section 2 of the resolution. These amendments shall be offered by a 
Member designated in the report, shall be debatable for the time 
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole. The rule waives all points of order against 
such amendments.
  Section 2 of the resolution allows the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole to permit amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report 
to be considered out of the order printed provided that the majority 
leader or his designee announces such a request from the floor no 
sooner than 1 hour before its consideration. Finally, the rule provides 
one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  The authority provided in section 2 of the resolution will provide 
flexibility for the House during the lengthy consideration of this bill 
and the 26 amendments which have been made in order by the Committee on 
Rules.
  In considering amendments, the Committee on Rules was as fair and 
open as possible, Mr. Speaker. Of the 71 amendments filed, several of 
which were duplicative or overlapping, this rule makes in order three 
bipartisan amendments, 13 Democrat amendments, and 10 Republican 
amendments. I believe this is a generous composition. I commend the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and my colleagues on the 
Committee on Rules for reaching this balance.
  I support this fair rule which brings forth very important bipartisan 
legislation authorizing appropriations for 2002 and 2003 for the 
Department of State, U.S. contributions to international organizations 
and commissions, international broadcasting activities, security 
assistance and for other purposes.
  This bill authorizes appropriations for the State Department, thereby 
setting an upper limit on the amounts that may be appropriated in the 
Commerce-Justice-State and the Foreign Operations appropriations bills. 
It also sets forth authorities and restrictions under which U.S. 
foreign policy operations may be conducted during the next 2 years.
  It is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. Some of the amendments that have been 
made in order can make the bill even better by addressing important 
issues, such as the Mexico City policy and United Nations funding. I 
believe the rule provides ample opportunity to discuss the pros and 
cons of the Mexico City policy concerning funding for international 
family planning organizations that offer abortions by allowing an 
amendment to strike an amendment that was adopted during the committee 
consideration of the bill. Members will have a clean vote on this issue 
after a thorough debate. As a believer in the right to life, I intend 
to support the Hyde-Barcia-Smith-Oberstar amendment because I believe 
in preserving the President's legal authority to implement the Mexico 
City policy. The President should have the same authority as those 
before him. Preserving this policy will not take any funding away from 
the $425 million the administration has requested for use in population 
assistance around the world.
  But my view is not what is important, Mr. Speaker. What is important 
is that this issue will be thoroughly available for debate. Last week, 
as Members know, the United Nations Economic and Social Council voted 
to

[[Page 7773]]

remove the U.S. from the U.N. Commission on Human Rights for the first 
time since the commission's inception in 1947.
  Unfortunately, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights has more and more 
become a club of dictatorships, with the inclusion of such regimes as 
Sudan, China, Libya, Vietnam. The Cuban dictatorship is automatically 
reelected as a member each time. The expulsion of the United States 
simply shows, in my opinion, the true nature of a significant portion 
of that commission. I am confident that the United States Congress 
through this legislation will make it clear that it takes note of what 
is unfortunately really happening to the United Nations.
  In response to the U.N. actions, we will be debating the Hyde-Lantos-
Sweeney amendment, which would send a clear signal to the governments 
which did not stand with the U.S. on the U.N. vote that expelled the 
United States from the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Hyde-Lantos-
Sweeney, which I intend to support, ties United States return to the 
U.N. Human Rights Commission to the release of $244 million in 
previously appropriated funds to pay U.S. arrearages to the United 
Nations. If the amendment is adopted, money will still be available to 
be released for fiscal year 2001; but it would condition the spending 
of money for 2002 on the readmission of the United States to the U.N. 
Human Rights Commission, giving the U.N. ample opportunity to meet this 
condition.
  I am also supportive of an amendment sponsored by the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) which will keep the U.S. from wasting valuable 
time and funds joining and participating in the U.N. so-called 
Educational and Scientific Cultural Organization, which in my view is 
an organization truly in search of a mission. Currently, the U.S. gives 
approximately $3 million each year on a voluntary basis to support 
educational, scientific, and cultural projects which we feel are 
worthwhile, whereas if we were to become a member, we would be funding 
good and bad projects alike.
  This structured rule is not without precedent, Mr. Speaker.

                              {time}  1015

  In the 103rd Congress, at the request of the chairman of the 
Committee on International Relations, the State Department 
authorization bill was considered under a structured rule.
  We also considered last year's American Embassy security bill under a 
structured rule.
  The rule is allowing for 26 amendments, which will obviously take up 
a significant amount of time of the House, and which are as wide-
ranging in subject as they are in sponsorship.
  I look forward to a vigorous debate on this bill. I commend the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), as well as the ranking member, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for their commitment to human 
rights, their hard work in crafting this bipartisan bill and, as 
always, for making us all in this House proud.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a restrictive rule. It will allow for 
consideration of H.R. 1646. It is a bill that would authorize the 
Department of State for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. As my colleague 
from Florida has described, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate. It 
will be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on International Relations. The rule 
permits floor consideration of only those amendments selected by the 
Committee on Rules.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for their leadership on this 
bill. It is refreshing to see a State Department authorization bill 
which increases funding for vital foreign policy programs instead of 
making major cuts as we have done in the past.
  Our Nation's diplomats are the ounce of prevention towards avoiding 
international conflict, and a good diplomatic corps with sufficient 
resources can prevent much more costly and disruptive military actions.
  I am also pleased that the bill funds our Nation's commitment to 
international organizations, especially the United Nations.
  Last year, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Richard 
Holbrooke, negotiated an agreement to lower our U.N. dues, saving 
America millions of dollars. This legislation will honor that agreement 
by making the technical changes to current U.S. law. We must now uphold 
our part of this bargain by paying our back dues to the United Nations. 
Great nations honor their commitments, and we must pay our bills.
  This measure increases the authorization for UNICEF and for refugee 
assistance. Both of these accounts save lives and they deserve our 
support. Since 1995, funding for the refugee account has been so low it 
has not even kept up with inflation. This bill increases the account by 
more than $100 million above the President's request and will help make 
up for the shortfall. This funding is especially critical, now since a 
funding shortfall is anticipated from other donor nations.
  Though I am pleased with the bill that was reported out of committee, 
I must express my disappointment with the rule to accompany the bill 
that we are now considering. In the 104th and the 105th Congresses, we 
took up the State Department authorization bill under an open rule. In 
the 107th Congress, the rule was restrictive but the Committee on Rules 
made in order most requested amendments. Now this restrictive rule 
makes in order less than half of the amendments requested.
  Moreover, the amendments that are made in order do not fully address 
the breadth of issues of concern to House Members.
  I am especially concerned about one amendment made in order to be 
offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lantos) to withhold some U.N. dues unless the 
United States is returned to its seat on the U.N. Human Rights 
Commission. I must state that I hold these gentlemen in the highest 
personal regard and I fully support the ultimate goal of their 
amendment. Like most Americans, I am outraged that the United States 
was removed from both the United Nations Human Rights Commission and 
the International Narcotics Control Board. Like the sponsors of this 
amendment, I want the United States to get back on these commissions in 
2002. However, I strongly oppose the approach of the Hyde-Lantos 
amendment that hold our U.N. back dues hostage to the United States 
returning to these commissions.
  This is the money we owe the U.N. and we have already agreed to pay 
it. As the gentlemen know, I am opposed to linking back payment of U.N. 
dues to any cause. With great reluctance, I broke from my pro-life 
colleagues who wanted to link payment of our dues to funding some 
international family planning organizations. Then, as now, I fully 
supported the end result but then, as now, I do not think that 
threatening to withhold our U.N. dues, our U.N. back dues, was the 
proper tactic.
  Mr. Speaker, this is President Bush's view as well. Yesterday, the 
President's spokesman stated while the United States is disappointed 
with the results of the Human Rights Commission election, the President 
feels strongly that this issue should not be linked to the payment of 
our arrears to the U.N. and other international organizations.
  The United States has been and continues to be a beacon of hope for 
defending the human rights and freedoms of all people, and this is the 
promise of the United Nations. I am afraid that the Hyde-Lantos 
amendment would only further undermine the operations of the U.N. and 
our ability to provide leadership. Despite my support for the bill, I 
reluctantly oppose the rule, and ask my colleagues to vote no on this 
unnecessarily restrictive rule. Should the rule pass, I ask my 
colleagues to vote no on the Hyde-Lantos amendment.

[[Page 7774]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise as a member of the Committee on International 
Relations but I would like to express my disappointment that of my 
amendments that were offered to the Committee on Rules, none of them 
were approved. That was a great disappointment to me.
  I will vote for the rule, recognizing the fact that it is hard to 
accommodate everyone, but nevertheless it is very clear that I have 
been an outspoken opponent of the United Nations, and the amendments 
that we will be discussing will really not deal with the essence of 
whether or not we should be involved as we are in foreign 
interventionism. I think we are tinkering on the edges and will not do 
much to improve the bill even if some of the amendments are passed, 
some of which I will support.
  I do think there are some serious things that we must consider. One 
is the issue of national sovereignty. To support H.R. 1646, one has to 
vote to give up some of our national sovereignty to the United Nations. 
There is $844 million for peacekeeping missions. We know now that we 
live in an age when we go to war not by declaration of the U.S. 
Congress but we go to war under U.N. resolutions. When we vote for this 
bill, and if this bill is supported, that concept of giving up our 
sovereignty and going to war under U.N. resolutions is supported.
  I would like to have struck from the bill all the money for 
population control. I will support the Mexican City language, but it 
really does not do that much. All funds are fungible, and if we provide 
hundreds of millions of dollars for population control and say please 
do not use it for abortion, it is just shifting some funds around. So 
there is no real prohibition on the use of American taxpayers' money 
for abortion if we do not strike all of these funds.
  The United Nations have already laid plans for an international tax. 
This January it was proposed that the U.N. would like to put a tax on 
all currency transactions to raise $1.5 billion. This is abhorrent. 
This should be abhorrent to all of us. It should be abhorrent to all 
Americans that we would have an international tax imposed by the United 
Nations.
  Already the United Nations is involved in tax collecting. In Bosnia 
right now, in Serbia, the U.N. has as one of their functions collecting 
taxes on goods coming into the country. There was a demonstration not 
too long ago by the Serbs objecting to this. The idea that U.N. 
soldiers, paid by the American taxpayers, are now tax collectors in 
Bosnia should arouse our concern.
  The only way, since we do not have the amendments to reject outright 
some of this wasteful and harmful funding, the only way we who believe 
that our sovereignty is being challenged is to reject 1646. I see no 
other way to address this subject, because it is not in our best 
interest to go along with this.
  The way the bill is written right now, we will support the Kyoto 
Treaty, and the International Criminal Court is also something that we 
should be contending with.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. I am disappointed that the 
Hastings-Allen amendment was not made in order. Our amendment would 
establish a special coordinator for Korea to negotiate the end of the 
North Korean missile program. We can negotiate away the North Korean 
missile threat, but only if we sit down at the table to discuss the 
subject. President Bush has refused to do so.
  In denying the House a vote on our amendment, Republicans show they 
have no interest in getting rid of North Korean missiles. Why? 
Apparently because those missiles are needed to justify the President's 
extravagant, unworkable missile defense scheme.
  It is far easier to defend against a missile that is never built than 
against a missile that has been launched. There is a new, improved 
climate on the Korean Peninsula. The North Koreans have voluntarily 
continued their moratorium on testing. It is a shame on this bill we 
cannot even vote for a special coordinator to negotiate an end to the 
North Korean missile threat.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Hall) for yielding me this time. I appreciate his great 
leadership in this body on so many issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this restrictive rule. The rule 
should be open and allow for debate of all the issues that could be 
brought to this floor, because it is extremely important.
  Later today I will be speaking about an issue that does not reflect 
the best of our decisions in the deals that we have made. I am 
referring to the Hyde-Lantos-Sweeney amendment. This amendment will 
hold hostage United States payments to the United Nations.
  In 1999, under the Helms-Biden agreement, we negotiated a deal with 
the United Nations. They have held up their end of the bargain. We have 
not. Because the U.N. has voted the U.S. off the Human Rights 
Commission, we are deciding that we can break our agreement, that we 
can break our contract.
  This is wrong, and I think we would be ashamed if our children acted 
in this manner.
  Today I am supporting the Bush administration, because they support 
the funding of the United Nations. If we pass the Hyde-Lantos-Sweeney 
amendment, it will be the first loss of the Bush administration on 
Capitol Hill.
  I would like to quote from Ari Fleisher, representing the Bush 
administration. ``While the United States is disappointed with the 
results of the Human Rights Commission election, the President feels 
strongly that this issue should not be linked to the payment of our 
arrears to the United Nations and other international interests.''
  If we pass this amendment, we will be sending a message to the world 
that our word cannot be trusted and that if we do not get what we want, 
we can break our deal. As I am sure my colleagues will agree, this is 
not the message we want to send to the world community.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, with 
great disappointment that the Committee on Rules did not make in order 
a very important amendment that I had offered. While I understand the 
restrictions that face the Committee on Rules in selecting a workable 
number of amendments under tight time constraints, I regret that the 
committee did not see fit to report my amendment which addresses a very 
critical and legitimate issue.
  The amendment that I had hoped to offer would better coordinate the 
Federal Government's response to international terrorism. In crafting 
this bill, my staff and I worked closely with experts in the field of 
international terrorism, including officials from the Congressional 
Research Service, the Rand Corporation, the State Department and 
Department of Justice. In short, I believe this is a very legitimate 
and growing problem.
  Under the measure which I offered also as a bill, H.R. 1338, the 
Secretary of State would be required to designate an existing Assistant 
Secretary of State to monitor efforts to bring justice to U.S. victims 
of terrorism abroad.

                              {time}  1030

  Each year, hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens work and travel 
overseas, including a growing number of U.S.

[[Page 7775]]

employees who work for the energy industry based in my district. 
Because of the confusing blend of multijurisdictional concerns, U.S. 
victims of terrorism and their families are often unable to obtain 
justice, even when the perpetrators' whereabouts are known by Federal 
authorities.
  Under this measure, the Assistant Secretary of State would be 
required to work directly with the Justice Department and other 
applicable Federal agencies to identify and track terrorists living 
abroad who have killed Americans or who are engaged in acts of 
terrorism that have directly affected American citizens. In addition, 
the Assistant Secretary would provide an annual report to Congress on 
the number of Americans kidnapped, killed, or otherwise directly 
affected by the actions of international terrorists. Also included in 
the annual report to Congress would be a thorough detailing of what 
actions State and Justice are undertaking to obtain justice for U.S. 
victims of international terrorism and a current list of terrorists 
living abroad.
  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not 
see fit to allow this amendment to be debated on the floor of the House 
today. As Members of Congress, we have a profound duty to provide an 
effective response when our constituents have been victims of 
international terrorists while traveling or working abroad. I am 
hopeful that I can count on the support of the chairman and the ranking 
member of the Committee on International Relations in the weeks ahead 
to address this very important problem.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we oppose the rule. The bill is a pretty good bill. I am 
very satisfied with the bill, but the rule is very restrictive.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have crafted a fair rule, with 26 amendments made in 
order, over half from our friends from the other side of the aisle. The 
key issues have all been made in order for debate. We look forward to a 
vigorous debate on this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my support for the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. The Rules 
Committee has blocked an amendment offered by Mr. Gilman and myself. 
This amendment, ``Accountability to Congress for Nuclear Transfers to 
North Korea Act'', would have provided for thoughtful consideration as 
the United States and its allies march forward ponderously towards 
providing nuclear power to North Korea.
  North Korea is a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of 
Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and, as such, is required to submit to 
inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Since the 
early 1990s, however, North Korea has blocked the IAEA from performing 
inspections of certain nuclear facilities. This non-compliance was 
tacitly accepted by the U.S.-North Korean Agreed Framework of 1994, 
which arranged for the provision of 2,000 megawatts of light water 
nuclear reactors to the North Koreans in exchange for them to stop 
operation and construction of their graphite-moderated reactors. IAEA 
inspections, however, must occur before ``key nuclear components'' can 
be delivered.
  With a country that is unwilling to fulfill its international 
obligations, it is important that we scrutinize carefully any transfers 
of nuclear equipment or technology. At the same time, we must recognize 
the precarious power predicament in which North Korea finds itself. The 
nuclear reactors won't be completed for years. And when--and if--they 
are, North Korea's electric grid is not capable of handling and 
transmitting the power that will be produced. The people of North Korea 
will still want for that fundamental building block of an 
industrialized society--sufficient, reliable electricity.
  So we have to balance the various issues; we have to be tough but 
fair-minded. We have to consider carefully any attempt to transfer 
nuclear technology or material to North Korea per the Agreed Framework, 
but we also have to preserve the Agreed Framework, which helped to 
avoid potential military confrontation on the Korean Peninsula. And as 
part of ensuring stability there, we have to recognize the legitimate 
needs of the North Korean people.
  The amendment offered by Mr. Gilman and myself would have 
accomplished this task. First, it required that before any material or 
technology was transferred to North Korea under a nuclear cooperation 
agreement, Congress would have to approve by joint resolution any 
certification made by the President as specified by the North Korea 
Threat Reduction Act of 1999. This portion of the amendment passed the 
House of Representatives in the last Congress by a margin of 374 to 6 
on May 15, 2000. Second, the amendment would have prohibited the 
assumption of liability by the United States government for accidents 
involving nuclear reactors in North Korea. This portion of the 
amendment passed the House of Representatives last May by a margin of 
334 to 85 as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill.
  Finally, the amendment expressed the sense of Congress that the 
provision of non-nuclear power generation to North Korea should be 
considered. This proposal postulated that non-nuclear power was the 
best way to fulfill the energy needs of North Korea. It encouraged the 
modernization of the electricity grid. It required that the President 
report to Congress on the current and projected electricity needs of 
North Korea and on the cost and time-frame for providing non-nuclear 
versus nuclear power generation. It was an information-gathering tool. 
It was a call to think about what we are doing with North Korea. Let us 
not go blindly along, business-as-usual, and hope that somehow, 
someday, the nuclear power plants will be built according to the 
satisfaction of everyone. North Korea will not be satisfied with their 
lack of electricity, and we in the House of Representatives will not be 
satisfied with being shut out of the decisionmaking process regarding 
nuclear transfers to North Korea.
  The rule hides from these realities. It should be rejected.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I 
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on 
the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. 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 226, 
nays 192, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 105]

                               YEAS--226

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)

[[Page 7776]]


     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--192

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

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Abercrombie
     Clement
     Cubin
     Delahunt
     Engel
     Hunter
     Menendez
     Moakley
     Rivers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sensenbrenner
     Stump
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1058

  Messrs. BARRETT of Wisconsin, CLYBURN, and ROSS, and Mrs. McCARTHY of 
New York changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. PAUL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 105, I was unavoidably 
detained on official business. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``nay.''
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was unavoidably absent 
and I was unable to cast my vote on rollcall No. 105, the rule for H.R. 
1646, the State Department Authorization bill.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________