[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 80 (Wednesday, June 22, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 3555, VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND 
                      LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion to instruct 
conferees on the bill (H.R. 3355) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control 
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow grants to increase police 
presence, to expand and improve cooperative efforts between law 
enforcement agencies and members of the community to address crime and 
disorder problems, and otherwise to enhance public safety.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. McCollum moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the 
     bill H.R. 3355 be instructed not to make any agreement that 
     would have the effect of reducing the funding provided for 
     prisons to a level that is less than the level provided in 
     titles VI and VIII of the House amendment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] is 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I would like to claim the time in opposition 
to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct conferees on the crime bill that 
I am offering tonight is very straightforward, as was read. It is a 
motion to stick with the House funding level for prison construction 
that is in the House bill when the conferees agree and meet with the 
Senate on what the final product of the crime bill will be.
  Mr. Speaker, that position in the crime bill is a total on the House 
side of $13.5 billion. It appears from the chairman's mark that at 
least has been circulated around, whether it is the formal mark or not, 
that there may be an indication there is movement to make the figure 
for prison construction in the final product $6.35 billion or so, 
instead of the $13.5 billion that is in our bill today.
  That is simply not an adequate amount of money, Mr. Speaker, for the 
prison construction necessary for us to assist the States in a 
partnership to get those who are repeat violent criminals and felons 
off the street and stop the revolving door that is causing the bulk of 
our crime problem in this country today.
  Mr. Speaker, we know, for example, that roughly 6 percent of all 
criminals commit better than 70 percent of the violent crimes in this 
country and are serving only an average of 37 to 38 percent of their 
sentences. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing that could 
possibly be more important in the crime legislation we are about to do 
than to provide the resources that are necessary to get this 6 percent 
of these repeat violent offenders off the streets, lock them up, and 
throw away the keys. That is the first step.
  It is like somebody who is bleeding to death, who has been run over 
by a car and has a lot of internal injuries. There may be some 
underlying problems causing crime in this Nation that we all would like 
to see addressed, but if you do not apply the tourniquet to the arm to 
stop the bleeding when you arrive on the scene, you cannot have a 
patient alive to work on the rest of the problems that he has.
  The tourniquet in this case is our money and our resources to help 
the States to provide the prison space necessary to get these really 
bad guys off the streets. That is the crisis of the moment.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is the same mark bill that has 
been circulated, and I do not know the authenticity of it, because we 
have only met in pro forma type of session on the conference committee 
so far, but it looks like there is going to be about 30 billion 
dollars' worth of money in the final product that is proposed by the 
conference managers to the conference committee on the crime bill, $30 
billion in this bill, only $6.5 billion of which would be for prisons, 
less than half of what we proposed in our bill.
  Mr. Speaker, my motion to instruct is very simple. It is simply to 
say that we on the House side believe our conferees should stick to 
their guns, stick with what we put in the bill, and the dollar amount, 
not the details of how it is done, but just the dollar amount, at a 
level that is responsible.
  The Bureau of Prisons has told me that we cannot begin to capture the 
repeat violent offenders for less than $10 billion, the ones that 
actually repeat. The bill itself and language that will probably come 
out of conference will cover for prison moneys a lot of people who are 
not repeat violent offenders, so we need to keep the higher dollar 
amount up there that is involved in this.
  In fact, what we have seen, some of the money that is involved may be 
allocated for other programs, rather than strictly building straight 
prisons that will be labeled prison construction.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of points about what 
happens every day in America to drive home. Then I have a colleague on 
the other side of the aisle who has been very instrumental in this that 
I would like to yield to.
  Every day in America 14 people are murdered, 48 women are raped, and 
578 people are victims of a robbery by a criminal who has already been 
caught, convicted, and then returned to the streets on probation or 
early release. Mr. Speaker, that simply must stop. That is why it is 
important to keep the money in the final product of this crime 
conference that will build the prisons necessary to take these 
repeaters off the streets and keep them locked up.
  Mr. Speaker, I introduce the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman], who 
has been so instrumental in this process, and has been a cohort in 
trying to get truth in sentencing to stop this revolving door, and who 
supports this motion to instruct today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Chapman] to discuss this motion to instruct. He has been a very good 
cosponsor of our efforts at truth in sentencing, and I believe he 
firmly supports this motion to instruct today.
  (Mr. CHAPMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CHAPMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman on this particular 
motion and tell him that I will gladly support him. While the crime 
conference is working and working hard on a bill that we certainly hope 
is going to enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support in the House, one of 
the things I think we in the House of Representatives did was vote for 
a balanced crime bill.
  If in fact what we hear may be happening from pressures and from 
other initiatives, that the prison portion of this bill is being 
reduced perhaps to as low as $6.5 billion, while the price of the crime 
bill is going up to $30 billion, I would have to suggest to my 
colleagues in the House that is hardly balanced.
  While we are going to work hard to get a prison grant program, Mr. 
Speaker, and truth in sentencing initiatives that we can all support 
and support in a bipartisan way, I think the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. McCollum] is correct to say that if we are going to make a 
positive difference in stopping crime in this country, violent crime, 
if we are really going to offer a meaningful carrot to the States to do 
something to get the violent criminals off the street, then we really 
need to support the House funding level.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important. It is positive. It is something 
we all ought to support, to ask our conferees to stick to their guns, 
stick to the House position, stick to the funding level for the prison 
grant program that will make a meaningful difference on truth in 
sentencing in this country.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. Speaker, I hope that all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
will vote for this motion to instruct, will give the House conferees 
the reinforcement, the strength that they need to fully fund, 
appropriately fund and in a meaningful way fund truth-in-sentencing for 
this crime bill.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given persmission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with much of anything that 
my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Texas, 
have said. The prison grant money is extremely important. I happen to 
think it is one of the most important provisions in the bill. That is 
probably because I wrote much of that in subcommittee working with my 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida, and our other colleagues on the 
Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration.
  I think it is very important, I think it is very important that we 
begin to move the States toward truth-in-sentencing, that we have the 
States develop comprehensive plans that will do a far better job of 
classification, which inmates come into the system, a better job or 
risk assessment before they leave the system, a far better job than we 
have done in the State systems in trying to provide skills and 
training, trying to deal with their drug problems and mental problems 
when they are in the prison system.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no question, I think that that is extremely 
important, because prisons have become revolving doors and we are not 
incarcerating violent offenders for as long as we should be 
incarcerating them. I cannot argue with any of that. But I do not know 
on what basis my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, suggests that 
the funding level is going to be at $6 billion. I have seen that kind 
of a mark circulated, also.
  I do not know, but I can tell Members that I want to fight for as 
much of this funding as we can. But I am not so sure it is realistic at 
this time since we have not even met except for opening statements to 
decide how much money we can spend for this, because we are talking 
about real money, folks. It is going to be a trust fund, we are going 
to have to find whatever resources we commit to prison grant programs 
and other programs within the crime bill, we are going to have to find 
that money somewhere. It is going to have to come from other programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I think at the same time we want to fund these programs 
realistically, I hope we are not talking about overpromising once again 
and underdelivering, because I think we need to talk in terms of real 
dollars, not authorize anything that we are not prepared to appropriate 
and spend.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why I think our constituencies are 
very frustrated with us is because we have overpromised and we have 
underdeliverd. If what my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum], and the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Jim Chapman, are talking 
about is fighting for as much as we can for this particular program, I 
am on board. I want to fight for whatever we can in the context of this 
conference. Just to make sure, however, that we are talking about real 
dollars and we are not talking about an authorization and not moneys to 
follow what we authorize.
  Mr. Speaker, with that I do not have any other requests for time. I 
do not see any need to basically prolong this debate, because I do not 
think there is any difference between my colleague's position and mine. 
I want to get as much for prison grant programs as we can and have the 
best prison grant program for the States that we can develop so that we 
can move the States toward truth-in-sentencing and that we review 
inadequate sentences and do a far better job of incarcerating violent 
offenders until they are ready to go back into society.
  Mr. Speaker, if that is what my colleague is for today, then frankly 
I do not see much difference between our positions. I cannot say, 
however, that we are going to be able to make a $13.5 billion mark. My 
colleague knows that we will do the best we can and try to preserve as 
much money for grant programs as we can for the States.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say to the gentleman from New Jersey, I 
respect him a great deal. I know his intents are the same as mine and 
general principle. What my primary concern is in some of the things we 
have seen circulated, yes, we have not met, is there may be even more 
money in the prevention programs than there are for prisons and no 
priorities set. I just want to see the House send a strong message of 
the importance of prison monies of our body to the conferees, that we 
stick with it and make that the priority in this bill for spending when 
we start whittling away and start trying to find where to save money.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Schiff], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, before I was elected to Congress, I was a career 
criminal prosecutor. I served 8 years as an elected district attorney, 
a number of years as an assistant prosecutor before that, and also 2 
years as a defense lawyer.
  I want to join particularly in the remarks made by the gentleman from 
Florida that although funds, of course, are not endless, the gentleman 
from New Jersey is very correct about that, of course, it is a matter 
of setting priorities. The highest priority I can recommend is to 
ensure adequate funding for prisons. This is not because I believe that 
every person convicted of every crime should go to prison. Quite the 
contrary. I think there are a number of occasions where an individual 
makes a real mistake in life, really is remorseful about it, really 
will not repeat it and really deserves the opportunity to stay in the 
community.
  Mr. Speaker, the point is, those individuals who are returned to the 
community should be returned to the community only because we believe 
that the best expectation is they will not damage society further.
  That is not what is happening today. Right now individuals are being 
released from prison back to society early or not going to prison at 
all simply to make space for other criminals.
  Mr. Speaker, we should not have people on the streets who will break 
into our homes, who will steal our cars, who will embezzle from their 
employers and commit other offenses over and over and over again 
because we are trying to keep other criminals in prison. The fact of 
the matter is all those who endanger society and are judged that way 
should serve their time in prison. If they are released, it is because 
they deserve release, not because the space is limited.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by mentioning next to prisons, 
the next priority is prosecutors and law enforcement agencies. The 
public is asking for more prosecution of criminals. More criminals will 
be prosecuted with more prosecutors than with more laws. Although the 
appropriations subcommittee that we will vote on tomorrow in the 
Department of Justice budget did an excellent job in trying to set law 
enforcement priorities, there is one glaring omission. In the proposed 
budget tomorrow, the antitrust division of the Department of Justice is 
proposed for a 13 percent increase while the U.S. attorneys who do the 
day-to-day street prosecutions are proposed for a 1.6-percent increase. 
That priority is all wrong. The priority should be on the violent 
criminal prosecutors, because the President of the United States when 
he spoke to Congress said, ``The American people are concerned about 
violent criminals.'' He did not say they were afraid of being mugged by 
antitrust violators.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, very briefly it seems we are knocking on an 
open door. There is not any opposition really to this motion to 
instruct. The value of the motion to instruct is that we go into the 
conference where we have a history of being rolled time and time again 
with a strong statement that the House means what it said when it 
passed and authorized $13.5 billion for prisons. If we want to go home 
and say that we are a fearless fighter of crime and then we did not 
support the $13.5 billion, or the maximum amount available, to get 
violent criminals off the street and in jail, then we are going to have 
a hard sell.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the first thing in the list of priorities, as 
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] said, is to have prisons 
adequate to the potential prison population.
  In Chicago, IL, people are arrested who are dangerous to themselves, 
dangerous to the community, they are released on their own recognizance 
in droves because there is no place to put them. The first duty of 
government is to protect the people, provide for their safety, and it 
seems to me if we are lacking prison space, that ought to be first on 
our priority.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] deserves a lot of credit 
for being the leader certainly on our side of the aisle on this issue. 
I hope we all send a resounding, ringing message to the gentlemen from 
the other body that when we authorized $13.5 billion for prisons, we 
meant it.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Canady], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CANADY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion which is under consideration now goes to the 
very core of the concerns that this Congress should address in any 
meaningful crime bill. The American people understand that the criminal 
justice system in this country is failing them and that we can no 
longer tolerate the status quo. Criminals throughout the country are 
making the rational calculation that crime pays, that the small risk of 
punishment is well worth the benefits to be derived from their criminal 
activities.

                              {time}  1810

  The system has lost its credibility, and the deterrent effect of the 
law has been undermined in a devastating way.
  This motion to instruct conferees represents an essential means of 
restoring the credibility and deterrent force that has been lost in our 
system.
  There is no greater problem affecting our criminal justice system 
today than the problem of early release. Just talk to your 
constituents. You will see their frustration and their fear occasioned 
by this problem.
  Today violent offenders serve only 37 percent of their sentences. The 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] cited that statistic, but it is a 
statistic that bears repeating. It is intolerable, and it must be 
changed.
  This Congress can help correct this fundamental problem by assisting 
the States, expanding the capacity of prison systems, and keep hardened 
criminals off the street. That should be our top priority.
  In Florida alone, 20,350 inmates were released early in fiscal year 
1992-1993 to maintain the State's prison population within its court-
mandated capacity.
  In February, a tragedy occurred in the Ocala National Forest because 
a criminal was released early from a Florida prison. John Edwards was 
murdered and his sister was brutally raped and beaten by two men. One 
of the accused men had been released from a Florida prison after 
serving less than one-fourth of his sentence. This is just one example 
of something that happens day after day all across this country.
  If we in this House are serious about protecting law-abiding people 
of America against the violence of hardened criminals, we will put our 
money where our rhetoric is. We will support the funding level 
previously approved by this House, and we will pass this motion to 
instruct to send a strong message that we will not settle for anything 
less than $13.5 billion to help the States deal with this problem.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know what this debate is about, because, 
frankly, it sounds to me like we are on the same side.
  But one thing I do want to point out, it is one thing to talk about 
housing violent offenders, taking them out of circulation, taking them 
off the streets, and that is very important. But no matter what kind of 
a sentence you give them short of life without parole, they are going 
to come out at some point.
  It seems to me some of the speakers have lost sight of the fact that 
we need to start dealing with some of the problems when they are in the 
system. We have not done a good job throughout the country of 
classification of the inmates. We have not done a good job of risk 
assessment before inmates are released back into society. We have not 
done a good job of providing skills to them. We have not done a good 
job of dealing with their psychiatric, their mental problems, their 
drug problems. So, you know, in addition to housing violent offenders, 
we need to make sure that we are also dealing with their problems when 
they are in the system. And that is every bit as important as any other 
consideration, whether it be truth in sentencing, whether it be an 
adequate sentence or any other consideration in the bill.
  Frankly, nobody is talking about that. I do not think the public is 
fooled. They know that the prison system is a revolving door, and often 
inmates are coming out of the system worse for the experience. We need 
to do a far better job, and that is what I hope my colleague, the 
gentleman from Florida, will help me get across in conference. Because 
that is every bit as important.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to conclude this little debate.
  As the gentleman from New Jersey said, there is not really a debate 
over enforcing our will or expressing the fact we want to see it 
enforced in the conference today, and I assume we will have a very 
strong vote in favor of this motion to recommit.
  But there is an important underlying current here. I agree with the 
gentleman from New Jersey that there are many other facets we need to 
address in terms of the criminal problems of this Nation that we face 
other than simply incarcerating the very violent and getting them off 
the street and incapacitating them.
  In my judgment, and I think the judgment of the majority of the 
Members here and in the eyes of the Public, there is not anything more 
important or more immediate than doing this, and that in setting 
priorities when we go and sit down as conferees over the next few days, 
it is going to be very important for the conferees to think always the 
top priority is as much money as is needed to have it there for the 
prisons first and foremost, and if we do get down to having to make 
tough choices because of a limited amount of resources, that it not be 
the prison moneys that are cut, that we stick with those funds, and 
that if, indeed, there is a $20 billion instead of a $30 billion bill 
that comes out, that we still put $13 billion, or $13.5, as the House 
wishes here, into prisons, that we make those reductions and those 
adjustments elsewhere and protect the funding for the prisons first and 
foremost.
  I think there is some flavor in a few of the documents circulated, 
again, preliminary documents that would indicate there may be some 
members of the conference, or perhaps some of the staff, who do not see 
it that way, who would put actually more money into the prevention 
programs in the final product than they would put into the prison 
moneys that are needed.
  I would just close by pointing out the importance of the point I am 
making by citing a few of the statistics that are not cited very often. 
More than 40 percent of the murderers released from State prisons are 
rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years. More 
than 20 percent are rearrested for a violent crime within 3 years. One 
in 15 is rearrested for another homicide. At least 30 percent of the 
murders in this country are committed by people on probation, parole, 
or bail. Thirty percent, a tremendous amount. And that is nonsense. Of 
the 50,000 violent criminals put on probation this year, over 9,000 
will be rearrested for a violent crime within 3 years in the same 
State.
  It is this revolving door that we are talking about. It is this 
incredible amount of violent crime being committed by the same people 
that must be stopped first and foremost, and it is for that reason and 
because of the importance of the priorities involved in this that the 
motion to recommit tonight is being offered to try to shore up for our 
conferees the House position of sticking with the $13.5 billion figure 
and not reducing it by some dramatic figure in order to find money for 
something else in the scope of things that are going on when, indeed, 
that money could be there and fully funding the prisons which take the 
priority.
  With that in mind and, again, urging my colleagues to recognize the 
importance of the message being sent tonight, I urge a yes vote on the 
McCollum motion to instruct conferees to stick with the House funding 
for full funding of prisons at $13.5 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. de la Garza). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. 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 338, 
nays 81, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 264]

                               YEAS--338

     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--81

     Abercrombie
     Barlow
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Edwards (CA)
     Ehlers
     Evans
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hughes
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Mann
     Markey
     McDermott
     Meehan
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Synar
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Ackerman
     Ford (MI)
     Hayes
     Houghton
     Lloyd
     Machtley
     McCurdy
     Murtha
     Rostenkowski
     Schumer
     Sharp
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  1840

  Messrs. COYNE, OWENS, and TORRES, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. FIELDS of 
Louisiana changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to instruct conferees was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________