[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15108-15112]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(A) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
                  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 507 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 507

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is 
     waived with respect to any resolution reported on the 
     legislative day of Friday, July 26, 2002, providing for 
     consideration or disposition of any of the following 
     measures:
       (1) A conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3009) 
     to extend the Andean Trade Preference Act, to grant 
     additional trade benefits under the Act, and for other 
     purposes.
       (2) A conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3295) 
     to establish a program to provide funds to States to replace 
     punch card voting systems, to establish the Election 
     Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of 
     Federal elections and to otherwise provide assistance with 
     the administration of certain Federal election laws and 
     programs, to establish minimum election administration 
     standards for States and units of local government with 
     responsibility for the administration of Federal elections, 
     and for other purposes.
       (3) A conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 333) to 
     amend title 11, United States Code, and for other purposes.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I 
yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 507 waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is 
reported from the Committee on Rules.
  The rule applies the waiver to a special rule reported on the 
legislative day of Friday, July 26, 2002, providing for consideration 
or disposition of the conference report to accompany the following 
bill: H.R. 3009, the Trade Act of 2002.
  The rule will allow this body to consider the conference agreement on 
the important topic of trade promotion authority. The rule moves the 
process forward so this body can work its will on a long overdue piece 
of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, there are only a few months remaining in the 107th 
Congress. In the past 2 years, we have had many accomplishments, but 
success in the area of expanding trade and opening markets is yet to be 
realized. But the power to change that is within our reach. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in taking the first step in the final leg of our 
efforts to bring to fruition this critical piece of legislation.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule so that we will be 
able to bring up this important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats strongly support free and fair trade that 
grows the economy and benefits American workers. At the same time, we 
insist on fulfilling our responsibility to ensure a level playing field 
for American businesses, farmers, and workers; and we insist on 
ensuring that Americans who lose their jobs because of trade are given 
the assistance and opportunity they need to adapt to the new economy.
  Unfortunately, this trade promotion authority conference agreement 
fails to accomplish these goals, and therefore, risks future trade 
agreements negotiated under it. That much we know about the conference 
report, Mr. Speaker.
  But since the conference report has not been filed, and since the 
Committee on Rules has not reported out the rule for consideration of 
the conference report, we have no way of knowing what is in this 
conference report that we are now clearing the parliamentary way for.
  That is a major problem for this House of Representatives because 
Republican leaders now want to pass this martial law, thereby waiving 
the House rule that gives every Member 1 day to review legislation 
before it comes to the floor. If that occurs, then the overwhelming 
majority of the Members of this House will have absolutely no way of 
knowing what is in this conference report.
  Now, we would like to be able to trust what the Republican leadership 
says is in the bill, but they have been caught red-handed on too many 
occasions when they tried to sneak controversial provisions into big 
pieces of legislation like this.
  As I understand it, they have even put such controversial provisions 
in this agreement that committee chairmen are objecting to it in the 
strongest possible terms, this after the Republican leadership snuck 
into the homeland security bill provisions that were objectionable to 
many Members of this body, but who did not know they were there until 
the bill was on the floor.
  So the Republican leadership has lost the credibility to come to the 
House floor and say, trust us. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to 
defeat this martial law rule. That is the only way Members will be able 
to figure out what is really in this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, both Republicans and Democrats have told 
me that the Committee on Ways and Means conference report has been on 
its Web site since this afternoon.
  Two, as is always customary in the Committee on Rules, there will be 
notice to, first, the Committee on Rules itself, which will have an 
ample time to see the legislation, and then we will hold a hearing and 
move forward on the decision of granting a rule on the legislation.
  To my knowledge, in the time I have been here, that provides not only 
the Web site access to the entire membership, but also close scrutiny 
by both the Committee on Rules staff and the entire majority and 
minority staffs that choose to look at it and have comments, both in 
the Committee on Rules and then, finally, as we had that debate on the 
floor.
  Certainly there is no secret that we have been in a long journey 
looking to have an opportunity to have trade legislation passed here in 
the House. We now have a conference report that has brought a consensus 
not only of a Republican majority here in the House, but Republican and 
Democrats who supports free trade in this body and in the other body.
  So we will have plenty of opportunity for our colleagues, both the 
majority and the minority, to review the legislation. Some have already 
done so as

[[Page 15109]]

they have gone to the Committee on Ways and Means Web site. Others will 
have the opportunity through the process this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would make a couple of observations. First of all, the 
gentleman has just stated that, well, the conference report is on the 
Web site. I would ask, is that the conference report that is going to 
be signed by the conferees? And if so, why has it not been signed 
earlier in the evening?
  Apparently someone on the gentleman's side had some reservations 
about what was posted on the Web site and was not sure that that was 
going to be the final product.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding to me, Mr. Speaker.
  Let me say that, in fact, all of the conferees have signed that 
report, and the gentleman is correct that it has yet to be filed; but 
at 4 o'clock this afternoon a hard copy was delivered to the minority 
members of the Committee on Rules; and as has been said by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), it has been made available on 
the Web site.
  That is the report that will in fact be filed. This is the report 
that was agreed to by both the Members of the House and Senate in the 
conference.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would point out that 
the gentleman from Florida is a member of the conference committee and 
has not signed the conference report.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the chairman 
that my office was called earlier and I said that I would be happy to 
consider signing it, and they told me they would get back to me. In 
fact, I still have not signed it. My staff said if we saw it, we would 
sign it. So, Mr. Speaker, I have not signed the conference report, and 
I am a member of the conference committee on trade promotion authority.
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would further yield, when I said 
everyone has signed, I know that my friend was raising the concern 
about majority Members signing the issue. That was what I meant, all of 
the majority Members of the House who were conferees have in fact 
signed.
  Mr. FROST. Reclaiming my time, everyone on that side of the aisle. 
When the gentleman says everyone, he means everyone on that side of the 
aisle.
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield, what I will say is that when 
the gentleman said there was a particular concern about a signature and 
was looking to this side of the aisle, I inferred from the way he said 
it that he was concerned about a signature from this side of the aisle.
  The fact of the matter is the majority Members have signed the 
conference report. Does that answer the question that the gentleman 
posed? I thank my friend for yielding to me.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is curious that this 
document has been somewhere in cyberspace since 4 o'clock and yet has 
not been made available to the House, apparently because someone was 
thinking about making a change in that document. Otherwise, it would 
have been made available to the House.
  I would point out that one of the earlier speakers said, well, the 
Committee on Rules members will have plenty of time to review this 
document. Actually, we will have 15 minutes. We have been given 15 
minutes from the time we get the document until the Committee on Rules 
will be meeting.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we review again that we are 
not going to do anything other than the possibility of having a late 
decision of debate, but on this day, since 4 p.m., the minority staff 
of the Committee on Rules has been given a hard copy of the conference 
report. We also know that it has been on the Web site. We also know 
that some Members have started this and reviewed it early, and very 
thoroughly; other Members may not have had an opportunity to open their 
Web site to garner the information.
  We are moving here methodically. The methodical aspect is first of 
all having the debate on the same-day rule, which the Committee on 
Rules granted this morning. We now bring that to the body as a whole 
for their consideration. We will then schedule a Committee on Rules 
meeting, of which there will be a hearing to consider a conference 
report that has been made available since this afternoon to the entire 
body and has a majority of signatures, as the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules has indicated, from what he is aware of, and that the minority 
of the Committee on Rules has had documentation, hard copy, written, 
before them since 4 p.m. today.
  So as we move forward, my hope is that the Congress, this body, can 
make a decision of whether we will continue on a same-day rule to take 
up the trade promotion authority and have the opportunity to move 
forward with consideration of what has been a long journey, a process 
that has had the House deliberate, the other body deliberate, a 
conference report negotiated off and on throughout weeks, and now an 
opportunity for the House to consider an up-or-down on that conference 
report that has been put together not by just the majority of the House 
or the other body, but by a consensus of those who support free trade.
  The votes, as they have been in the past in this instance, have been 
of those who support free trade, both Republican and Democrat, and 
those who are opposed to free trade.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Chairman Dreier), from the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time to me.
  I would like to take a few minutes to describe how we got to where we 
are.

                              {time}  2330

  We passed the North American Free Trade Agreement 9 years ago and so 
we are rapidly approaching the tenth anniversary of the passage of the 
North American Free Trade Agreement. And, clearly, the implementation 
of NAFTA has been one of the greatest things that has happened in the 
relationship for this hemisphere. We have been able to take tremendous 
strides in enhancing the economic relationship among Canada, the United 
States, and Mexico with the North American Free Trade Agreement. We 
have seen free trade between the United States and Mexico more than 
double in the period of time that we have put NAFTA into place. And I 
think one of the most important products has been the successful 
implementation of full democratization in Mexico. We all know that they 
had 71 years of one-party rule and bringing about the economic 
liberalization that came under the leadership of President Miguel de la 
Madrid and Carlos Salinas went a long way towards encouraging 
democratization. We saw political liberalization follow economic 
liberalization. And we know that while there are still very serious 
problems, we have migration problems, we have water problems, other 
issues that exist between the United States and Mexico, clearly the 
election of President Fox is something that was heralded in that 
country and here in the United States and throughout the hemisphere 
and, for that matter, throughout the world.
  The reason I point to that is it is very clear that expanding trade 
is one of the most important vehicles toward expanding democratization. 
And that is really what this is all about.
  We are here right now having spent nearly a decade because we saw the 
authority, what was known as Fast Track, what we now describe as Trade 
Promotion Authority, expire shortly after implementation of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement. And during that period of time, I am 
very proud of the fact that through the Clinton presidency, I worked 
closely with President Clinton, with his U.S. Trade

[[Page 15110]]

Representative Mickey Cantor and then Charlene Barshefski to try to 
grant President Clinton the authority to proceed with NAFTA-like 
agreements so that we could establish what our goal is here, and that 
is a free trade area of the Americas. And we know that there are very 
serious problems that exist in South America, in Venezuela, in 
Argentina and other countries. And virtually everyone agrees that if we 
were to have the chance to expand this NAFTA concept to a free trade 
area of the Americas, we would be able to more effectively address the 
political problems and economic problems that exist in those countries 
and, similarly, in other parts of the world, we have those challenges 
and, of course, the national security question for us.
  We have just successfully passed a bill establishing a Department of 
Homeland Security, and that is very important in dealing with our 
security here. But we know that economic liberalization and 
democratization are very important to encourage in other parts of the 
world where, in fact, terrorist threats have begun.
  And so I think that the vote that we are going to cast granting this 
same- day rule will allow us to bring up and consider the bill that 
grants President Bush trade promotion authority.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I underscored the fact I, as a Republican, I am a 
very proud Republican and no one has ever questioned my Republican 
credentials. Some did when I worked so hard to try to grant President 
Clinton trade promotion authority, but I believed was the right thing 
to do. And that is why I like to think that Democrats who join and 
understand of the very important benefits to economic liberalization 
and the expansion of freedom and democracy will join with us in 
bringing us support in a bipartisan way, which trade has traditionally 
been. But we are right now at 11:34 in the evening still working at 
this, trying to address some concerns that are out there because we, as 
conferees, went through a laborious process trying to address concerns 
and, of course, we have a Democratic United States Senate and we had to 
work closely with the senators to come to an agreement. And I believe 
that the agreement that has been struck is deserving of wide bipartisan 
support, and so we have taken this step to establish same-day 
consideration.
  We are on what we certainly hope is the last day of this type in the 
Congress before we go into our summer break, and I hope that Members 
will join in providing support for this same-day consideration of the 
rule and support for this very important trade promotion authority bill 
that we hope to be considering in the not too distant future.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time, albeit reluctantly. I am sure everybody wants to go 
home. And this is probably not the greatest time to rise to speak on 
the floor of the House because everybody does want to go home.
  I should say at the outset that I have not been a supporter of fast 
track legislation, either giving that authority to a Democratic 
president or giving it to a Republican president, so for me this is not 
a partisan issue. But I presume that that part of this will be debated 
during the debate on the bill itself. I am not here to address the 
merit or lack of merits of fast track authority.
  What I am here to address is the martial law rule that we are being 
called upon to vote upon this evening, because I object vigorously to 
martial law. And quite often when we are in the last days of a session 
and the majority is trying to get martial law, I go out of my way to 
come to the floor to speak on this concept of martial law.
  Mr. Speaker, I practiced law for 22 years and there was nothing that 
I hated more in the practice of law than to start the trial of a case 
on a Monday or a Tuesday and have that case wind through the course of 
the week and get to Friday midday or Friday midafternoon and have that 
case still going on. Because what I realized was that whether it was 
somebody's property that was involved or whether it was somebody's 
liberty that was involved, everybody was tired, and the court and the 
judge and the lawyers wanted to start taking short-cuts. And when the 
case went to the jury, the jury was going to want to go home. And 
despite the importance of the matter before that court, you simply 
could not get justice late on a Friday afternoon.
  So here we are at 11:30 on a Friday night, and my colleagues come out 
on the floor and say we want to declare martial law which is to say we 
want you to give us the authority to consider a bill tonight that 
nobody has had a chance to read.
  Now they say they have posted it on a web site sometime this 
afternoon, but I am sure people who have been following this debate and 
session on C-SPAN have realized that this Congress has been in session 
right here on the floor of the House all afternoon debating a very, 
very important bill. And I would grant you, I would bet you that there 
is not a person in this body that has looked at this bill that we are 
getting ready to consider under martial law, same-day consideration. 
The whole rationale of the rule that says you will not consider a bill 
the same day that it is filed is to allow democracy to work, to allow 
the deliberative process to work, to allow the very thing that I 
objected to when I was practicing law, a compromise of justice, a 
compromise of democracy, to keep that from taking place.
  That is why we have the rules of the House. And despite that fact, 
here we are, my colleagues. They took an hour and a half recess before 
they even brought this to the floor because they did not know what was 
in the bill themselves.
  I know I am getting on everybody's nerves, but this is about 
democracy and this is about the ability to read and understand what we 
are being called upon to vote. Just like when I was practicing law for 
22 years, it was about somebody's property or somebody's liberty, this 
is about our democracy. That is what this is about. So heaven forbid 
that they give me 2 more minutes to tell you what this is about.
  This is about the quality of our democracy, and whether my colleagues 
can go home tomorrow or today, actually, we are going home tomorrow 
regardless of what happens here; maybe it is just later tomorrow, and 
so it would not make a whole heck of a lot of difference.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I 
appreciate many of the points he has raised. I have prided myself to 
being strongly committed in minority rights, having served 14 years on 
the minority.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. This is not about minority rights. This 
is about democracy and the rights of every Member of this House.
  Mr. DREIER. Absolutely. Do not get me wrong. I am also concerned 
about majority rights, too, especially when I am a member of the 
majority, too. But I am also sensitive to the minority rights. But, 
again, at 4:00 this afternoon the gentleman's office received by e-mail 
a copy of this conference report which we are prepared to file now. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is here, who is chairman of the 
conference, and he is prepared to file this report, and I hope that we 
will be able to move ahead with its consideration. It has been 10 
hours.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, I presume what that 
means is that what the gentleman is saying is what we are about to vote 
on. I appreciate him clarifying it. I had thought the gentleman just 
said that this thing was just put up on a web site at 3:00 this 
afternoon. Now I am being told that he is getting ready to file it so 
we can read about it while we are debating it on the floor of the 
House.
  This is about the quality of our democracy and whether we have the 
time to read a bill that we were getting right now. There is important 
stuff we are doing here. Certainly no less, no

[[Page 15111]]

less important than the things that were being deliberated in the 
courtroom. And all I am asking is for my colleagues to realize that and 
to take the time and to give us the time to read what it is we are 
being asked to vote on.
  And with that, I do not know how I can be more basic than that, but I 
am sure it will not make any difference to my colleagues.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that this is an 
additional step in a commitment this Congress made some time ago to try 
to move to a paperless Congress. More than 8 hours ago Members received 
in each of their offices an electronic copy of the document that was 
just delivered. If Members were concerned about the content of this 
particular report, they could have been reading it for 8 hours.

                              {time}  2345

  And in fact that is one of the things that this Congress can do in 
the 21st century, and that is instead of dealing with massive amounts 
of paper, 6 pounds delivered to each office, which is not read anyway, 
we have provided an electronic forum in which it is easily disseminated 
among staff and Members and that it is a far better way to deal with 
these issues. In addition to that, it allows Members for more than 8 
hours to consult the bill in which we are now bringing up the rule to 
allow us to consider. That is the way this Congress should be operating 
in the 21st century.
  If someone believes they should be lugging around 6 pounds of paper 
when it has been in their office for 8 hours, I would urge Members to 
acquaint themselves with the computer operators and with the staff if 
the folks are not computer literate, because for more than 8 hours this 
identical bill has been in their offices.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) 
for yielding me this time.
  I would like to clarify some misunderstanding because I heard at the 
time as I was sitting in my office that the documents were delivered at 
three o'clock or it was posted on the Web site at four o'clock and that 
would have undoubtedly then would have given about 7 hours and 45 
minutes for us to review the documents in the middle of the Homeland 
Security Department legislation as it was moving through there.
  The reality of it is, and I think the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) would have to verify this or at least his staff would have to 
verify this, or perhaps the gentleman from New York would, we were not 
notified that the documents, all 360 pages, would be posted on the Web 
site until 6:53 or almost seven o'clock in the evening. And as all of 
my colleagues know, we were in the final stages of debate on the 
Homeland Security Department at that time; so we have actually only had 
a little over 4 hours and 45 minutes to review this document, and I 
have to tell my colleagues that one of the things that troubles me 
about this is that this is a significant major piece of legislation, 
and I think that Members on both sides of the aisle, particularly 
Members on my Republican side of the aisle, because we are going to be 
discussing textile rules, we are going to be discussing issues like 
trade adjustment assistance, which could cost considerable sums of 
money.
  We are going to be discussing health care issues that were going to 
go to displaced workers, and it would seem like both parties would want 
an opportunity to review and vet this legislation before we adopt it, 
presumably this evening at 2 or 3 in the morning. And I will tell my 
colleagues why this is important is because the other body this week 
will be taking this legislation up and they will have a chance to 
review it, and all the flaws of this bill will come out, and some of my 
colleagues might be embarrassed if they, in fact, vote for this 
legislation, sight unseen, and it will be sight unseen.
  For example, let me just throw out the trade adjustment assistance 
that many people made a big thing about. The fact of the matter is that 
if a company closes and leaves the United States and goes, let us say, 
to China, which many companies are doing at this time, those employees 
that are displaced from that factory will not be eligible for trade 
adjustment assistance or the health care benefits. Most of my 
colleagues on my side of the aisle who have been told this are 
absolutely astonished because they were told when a plant closes, the 
employees are going to be able to receive assistance, and that is just 
not necessarily true in most cases.
  And the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), if all of us recall, 
just two weeks ago, introduced legislation to provide $90 billion at a 
time when we are all facing a great deal of trouble on Wall Street, $90 
billion worth of tax cuts to U.S. companies that would go offshore, and 
so essentially this bill would encourage companies to go to China 
offshore, and the tax bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) has offered would do the same thing.
  I find it kind of incomprehensible that Members who may not quite 
understand the implication of this, it could hurt their hometown 
companies, would end up voting for this and then next week maybe find 
out that this bill does not say what many of the Members suggested it 
might say. So I think this martial law proposal at this time in this 
evening for this kind of bill is pretty outrageous, and it should not 
be really offered tonight.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am proud to be a member of the Committee on Rules. We are usually 
the last here. This week we have been the last here and the first here. 
We can continue and use the entire full hour on this same-day 
resolution and have all our colleagues debate the same day. And then we 
will have a consensus on whether the House approves of the same-day 
rule or they do not, and then we will move into the opportunity to have 
the Committee on Rules meet because they were noticed last evening.
  At eight this morning, we put out this same-day rule which led the 
indication that we would be considering the trade bill which many in 
the House knew was being negotiated actively by the entire Conference 
Committee. So we will continue and do the full hour here. We will then 
have a Committee on Rules meeting and we will do a full hour on the 
rule and then we will take it to debate, if that is what the body 
chooses to do.
  I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time if the ranking 
member yields his time back and we can move forward, or we will 
continue to take the hour. So I will ask the ranking member if he has 
further speakers or whether he wants to yield his time, in which I will 
follow.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman prepared to yield back his 
time so that the House may proceed to a roll call vote on this 
particular matter?
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Yes.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  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 (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. 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 217, 
nays 207, not voting 9, as follows:

[[Page 15112]]

                             [Roll No. 368]

                               YEAS--217

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     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
     Coble
     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
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     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
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--207

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     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
     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)
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     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
     Moran (VA)
     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
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     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

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Blunt
     Combest
     Lipinski
     Meehan
     Nussle
     Riley
     Roukema
     Smith (MI)
     Stump

                              {time}  0014

  Messrs. JOHN, WEINER, HILL, and SMITH of Washington changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska 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.

                          ____________________