[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 18 (Monday, January 30, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H854-H861]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 38 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 5.

                              {time}  1800


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 5) to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal 
mandates on States and local governments, to ensure that the Federal 
Government pays the costs incurred by those governments in complying 
with certain requirements under Federal statutes and regulations, and 
to provide information on the cost of Federal mandates on the private 
sector, and for other purposes, with Mr. Emerson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole arose earlier today, 
the motion to limit debate on each amendment to section 4, and any 
[[Page H855]] amendment thereto, to 10 minutes, offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], had been agreed to.
  Are there further amendments to section 4?
                 motion to rise offered by mr. volkmer

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 159, 
noes 266, not voting 9, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 59]

                               AYES--159

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Nadler
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--266

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Upton
     Vento
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bass
     Brown (CA)
     Hastert
     Hefner
     Jefferson
     Leach
     Neal
     Rush
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. MINGE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to rise was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                              {time}  1820

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise to express my concern and my 
sense of frustration in regard to the procedure that is now being 
followed in reference to this debate, and I rise as the cochairman of 
the Unfunded Mandates Caucus. I am not a member of the committee of 
jurisdiction, but I rise with a deep-seated feeling that a great 
majority in this House wants to finish this bill, and I would hope that 
we could do that.
  So, in discussing this matter, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to bring to the 
attention of my colleagues a draft memo that came to my office last 
January 11. It says, ``From the Democrat leadership'': You may want to 
change your faxes. It says, ``First and foremost, our actions and 
statements must comport with and amplify our overall thematic 
characterizations of the Republican legislative agenda and 
congressional management. The arrogance and unfairness of the 
Republican approach during the markup has led to a shoddy product and 
one that may (though not all)'' not all of your caucus, ``and the 
members of our caucus believe contains unfair and unsound policies.
  ``Anger and consternation about this procedural abuse should be 
restated repeatedly, ``--and goodness knows my colleagues have done 
that--'' in the days leading up to the floor action by the leadership, 
using letters to the Speaker and complaining about the mistreatment of 
the minority, press conferences and discussions with key press people, 
floor statements, 1-minutes, op-eds, and other communications and 
techniques.''
  Mr. Chairman, I know my colleagues' concerns. I know they are 
concerned about a gag rule and fairness. Lord knows I have been 
concerned during my tenure when I have been a member of the minority, 
more especially as a member of the House Administration Committee. I 
remember times when we were ruled out of order and we could not even 
speak. I remember one time when the doors were locked and we could not 
even get in to conduct a hearing.
  All of the debate, as of right now, is on establishing the purpose 
and the scope of the bill. Thirty amendments remain. Even if my 
colleagues do not offer amendments in the second degree, that is 5 
hours of debate, 7\1/2\ hours of voting.
  Now how long is long? We have not got to title I. That is the 
commission. That is where we go back over existing unfunded mandates 
and we take care of that, and that deserves debate.
  Now title II is the regulatory section. Title III is the point of 
order section. We have not even got there yet.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] has an amendment pending 
on clean water. We have eight. That is between seven and nine, eight 
amendments on clean water. The first amendment by Mr. Taylor was on 
clean water.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, to date we have had 5 days, including 1 day of 
general debate, 20 hours, 168 amendments have been proposed, 16 
amendments have 
[[Page H856]] been considered, and 2 amendments have been passed.
  We need to settle this bill. The delay, the crisis, is throughout 
this country in regard to the city councils, and the school boards, and 
every business and every farm, every entity that we have out there 
suffering from unfunded mandates. The Senate has passed the bill, and I 
must tell my colleagues, which I share their concern about minority 
rights and the gag rule--my word, people: 30 more amendments, 7\1/2\ 
hours of voting, 5 hours and we are not even to the 3 titles. How long 
is long?
  With all due respect, with all due respect, and I mean this very 
sincerely, people crawl out of train wrecks faster than you people 
consider bills.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes as I announce to the Members 
of this body and their families that everybody should be prepared to 
remain here tonight in session until we complete this section of the 
bill irrespective of the number of votes, procedural or substantive. We 
will remain here tonight until we finish this section of the bill.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that we are debating this 
piece of legislation. We are moving along very judiciously. We have had 
Members, as a matter of fact, who have several amendments; they have 
offered to put those amendments en bloc, as the other side very well 
knows. We have been cooperative in any way that we can.
  The interesting thing about this is that we are going to rush to 
judgment about the amendments that we have. We have a gag rule that has 
been imposed upon us tonight. We find ourselves without the ability--we 
found ourselves without the ability in committee to offer amendments, 
and now we have the gag rule.
  Now everybody is talking about, ``Why don't we go on?'' It is because 
we want to get this thing done, and we want to do it right. We want to 
be able to deliberate in the fashion that everybody is supposed to be 
accustomed to in this House of Representatives.
  This is a deliberative body, not one that is not deliberative. I say 
to my colleagues, ``When you can't deliberate in committee, you have to 
deliberate on the floor.''
  Further, this bill will not become effective until October 1995. If 
they were in such a hurry to get this done, why are they making the 
effective date 10 months from now?
  It seems to me something is wrong with that kind of thinking, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the gentlemen on the other side 
of the aisle who raised the question about why we are moving the way we 
are, I want to go back to the comment made by the gentlewoman from 
Illinois: This is a deliberative body.
  We have been on this bill 2 weeks. There is no national emergency 
that says that we have to finish this in another week. What they are 
are national imperatives that are reflected in the amendments by the 
people who have been duly represented from constituencies across this 
country.
  Now, if in fact we are going to play games about how long we take to 
do a bill, then perhaps we ought to do as the distinguished gentleman 
from Texas said. Let us just go on ad infinitum. I mean that is why we 
are here anyway. It was not this side's decision to start at 5 p.m., 
and quite frankly, as my colleagues know, I hear the debate on both 
sides of the aisle regarding this. I think we ought to move forward, 
and I would sincerely appreciate if the minority would stop suggesting 
that Members in the minority should have no rights at all to offer 
amendments, or to debate those amendments, or to debate aspects of the 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a process that has been going on long before 
any Member in this body ever got here, it will go on long afterward, 
and I would hope and expect that we could move forward with some sense 
of fairness and some sense of understanding that people on this side of 
the aisle have a right to offer amendments and have every right to 
expect that those amendments are going to be debated. The 
constituencies that sent them here expect that also.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MFUME. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, it appeared to me to be quite obvious 
that, if the gentleman from Pennsylvania who made the earlier motion 
would now move that there be no limitation to amendments, that we could 
proceed with the amendments in order, and I do not think we would have 
any of this stuff, and we could get out of here a lot earlier than 
otherwise.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MFUME. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. There is no limitation on amendments. All we have said 
is that there is a limitation on debate time.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Ten minutes on each amendment. If the gentleman would 
withdraw that and make a motion that there would be no limitation on 
amendments, on time limits on amendments, then I think we--we have 
already spent over an hour and have not got through the first 
amendment.
                              {time}  1830

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I know we are all trying to be as fair as we possibly 
can. With all sincerity, we put out an open rule on this bill because 
we did not want it to be a closed rule. We did not want to gag Members 
on either side of the aisle. Regardless of whether you are a Republican 
or Democrat, conservative or liberal, you are entitled to be heard. And 
in putting the open rule out, we have given you the opportunity to 
offer whatever amendments you want to. But there is a time constraint, 
and I will say to my good friend the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Mfume], and he is a good friend, we have a contract to abide by. We are 
going to get these rules through this Congress.
  With 5 days acting on the bill, significant amendments on both sides 
of the aisle can be offered to these four sections, and there has been 
ample opportunity. All we are saying now is we have to move on. We 
cannot continue another 5 days on this issue.
  The suggestion was made to me that we go upstairs and put out a 
closed rule, because we have spent 5 days on this issue. And I 
personally opposed that. I do not think we should do that, because you 
should have ample opportunity to be heard.
  But as we progress now, after 5 days, we are going to move on to 
title I probably at 2 o'clock in the morning, and then we will give 
ample debate on title I. But at some point you will have to limit 
debate on title I. We have to move through this bill because we have 
other important issues to come before us.
  It does not matter that this bill has an effective date of next 
October. The fact is the American people want us to pass this bill. The 
Governors' Association, the school boards, as the gentleman from Kansas 
[Mr. Roberts] has mentioned, the local governments that I served in, 
they wanted to know that we are going to pass this before final action 
is taken on the balanced budget amendment.
  All Members know that and are very much aware of that. So time is of 
the essence. We have to pass this bill, and we are going to do it one 
way or another. We will do it all with your cooperation.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would 
submit the debate that has gone on has been on both sides of the aisle 
here in terms of Republicans using their time. Furthermore, I would 
suggest my information was there was no discussion with the minority 
when the motion was made today with regard to limiting amendments and 
the time for amendments on title IV. There is no consultation here, 
there is no bipartisan effort to work on this bill; that is, both in 
the actions of the committee and on this House floor tonight. When 
[[Page H857]] you start at 5 p.m., who starts at 5 p.m. with their 
workday and expects to get their job done?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman knows 
for several days negotiations have been going on between myself, the 
manager of the bill, between the minority leader on your side, trying 
to get you to come up with the significant amendments and have you 
offer them, but we have not been able to get anyplace. We have been 
trying. But we are going to remain as open and fair and accountable as 
we can, but it is up to you. It is up to you. If you want to cooperate, 
we will stay that way. If you do not, again I have to remind you, we 
are going to put this bill through in the next 48 hours.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand guerrilla tactics. See, some of my good 
friends are smiling on that side of the aisle. I remember when we were 
in the minority. Sometimes there were closed rules and sometimes the 
rights of the minority--we were then the minority--were violated, and 
we had to do something. So I understand that. I understand that.
  But our side has pledged and the Committee on Rules chairman has just 
stated that we wanted to be as fair as possible and have open rules. 
And toward that end, you have an open rule before you right now and 
there has been debate going on ad infinitum on this particular piece of 
legislation.
  But let me just tell you, I serve not only on the old Committee on 
Government Operations, but also the Committee on International 
Operations, the former Committee on Foreign Affairs, and it has been my 
observation, and I think the observation of everybody in the majority, 
that every single dilatory tactic that can be employed is being 
employed to slow down the progress on the Contract With America. It is 
very evident. And I think anybody who watches the deliberations of this 
body knows that every one of these tactics are being employed. Every 
one of these tactics are being employed, not because you have 
alternative ideas that are good for America but because you do not want 
the Contract With America, which is supported by probably 75 percent of 
Americans, to be heard on this floor. The American people need to know 
that, and they will know that, the people of this country will see that 
very, very clearly.
  So I would just like to say to those of you who suffered in this last 
election and do not apparently have any ideas with which to do combat 
with the Contract With America that it would be in your interests to 
let open rules come down in an orderly manner, and conduct the business 
of this House. If you do not do that, we are going to get the Contract 
With America to this floor, and they are going to be voted on. If we 
have to stay here every night for months on end, we are going to get 
that done. And the American people, when they see the tactics you are 
employing to slow down what they wanted and what they elected us to do, 
it is going to cost you even more dearly in 1996.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding, and I appreciate his remarks and certainly appreciate the 
remarks of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]. I recognize that 
to a large extent his desire to not go back and close this rule is 
sincere, and I appreciate that. But we have engaged in a process of who 
can out-talk who, and we have not done one amendment.
  When the other side won the vote to allow us to move ahead with the 
10-minute procedure, that would have taken place, had not the gentleman 
from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] gotten up and began to read and suggest over 
here we were doing something. I would think after this maybe we could 
go into the next amendment.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that was a 
great speech, but actions speak louder than words, and anybody watching 
these proceedings knows what you are doing.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further substantive amendments to section 4?


                    amendments offered by mr. borski

  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments which were printed 
in the Record as amendments numbered 35 and 36.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Borski:
       In section 4, strike ``or'' after the semicolon at the end 
     of paragraph (6), strike the period at the end of paragraph 
     (7) and insert ``; or'', and after paragraph (7) add the 
     following new paragraph:
       (8) establishes or enforces any condition or limitation on 
     the addition into waters of the United States of pollutants 
     that are--
       (A) known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to 
     cause significant adverse acute human health effects; or
       (B) known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to 
     cause in humans--
       (i) cancer or teratogenic effects; or
       (ii) serious or irreversible--
       (I) reproductive dysfunctions;
       (II) neurological disorders;
       (III) heritable genetic mutations; or
       (IV) other chronic health effects.
       In section 301, in the proposed section 422 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, strike ``or'' after the 
     semicolon at the end of paragraph (6), strike the period at 
     the end of paragraph (7) and insert ``; or'', and after 
     paragraph (7) add the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) establishes or enforces any condition or limitation 
     on the addition into waters of the United States of 
     pollutants that are--
       ``(A) known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to 
     cause significant adverse acute human health effects; or
       ``(B) known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to 
     cause in humans--
       ``(i) cancer or teratogenic effects; or
       ``(ii) serious or irreversible--
       ``(I) reproductive dysfunctions;
       ``(II) neurological disorders;
       ``(III) heritable genetic mutations; or
       ``(IV) other chronic health effects.

  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments 
be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] is 
recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
                              {time}  1840

  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I believe unreasonable unfunded mandates 
should not be sent to local governments.
  Congress should not require unfunded mandates without careful 
consideration and deliberation.
  But there are issues--major and significant issues--on which the 
Federal Government has a truly legitimate role in setting nation-wide 
standards.
  Mr. Chairman, the Clean Water Act has been one of the great successes 
of modern America in cleaning up our Nation's waters and in protecting 
the health of the American people.
  Is it unreasonable for us to set limits and restrictions on the 
dumping of pollution in our Nation's waterways?
  The Federal Government for more than two decades has paid part of the 
cots of cleaning up the waters.
  It is true that we have set standards and only paid part of the cost. 
We have not paid all of the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to 
protect the American people. It has been a cost-sharing program.
  The alternatives to Federal action to limit water pollution are 
unacceptable. Local governments could also set the standards necessary 
to protect human health and then pay 100 percent of the cost.
  It would be cheaper for local governments to set standards that do 
not protect the health of the American people, but I do not believe 
that local governments officials would choose a policy that would not 
protect the health of their residents. However, if local governments 
might choose to set lower standards for water pollution to save money, 
shouldn't the Federal Government have some role in protecting human 
health?
  My amendment would exempt any bill establishing limits on the 
addition of health-threatening pollutants into the waters.
  These health effects would be only the most serious, such as cancer, 
birth and young infant defects, major reproductive problems, nerve 
system damage, and genetic damage.

[[Page H858]]

  Mr. Chairman, there is truly widespread support to reduce unfunded 
mandates but there is no evidence the American people want to increase 
the risk of the serious health problems caused by water pollution.
  The Clean Water Act was passed in 1972 because of the urgent and 
immediate need to begin a national program of cleaning up our rivers, 
lakes, and streams.
  We were faced with a national crisis of polluted waters that 
threatened the Health of the American public.
  The Clean Water Act has shown a solid record of achievement as we 
have successfully reduced pollution into the waters. The Environmental 
Protection Agency's water quality inventories show an ever-increasing 
percentage of waters that have achieved their cleanup goals.
  I urge the Members of this House not to place the Clean Water Act--
and the health of the American people--on the chopping block.
  We should be cutting back on unfunded mandates but we should not 
destroy our ability to protect the health of the American people.
  I appreciate the committee chairman's concern to keep this law as 
simple as possible. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any 
exceptions. The bill as reported by the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight already has seven exceptions.
  Why do we have those seven exceptions that are already in the bill if 
we want no exceptions?
  We have those exceptions because the authors of the bill believe 
those purposes are important enough that bills on those subjects should 
not be delayed with an additional point of order.
  I am saying that laws concerning the control of water pollution that 
could have a serious and adverse impact on human health should also be 
exempted from this special new requirement.
  We are creating two different rules for legislation on this House 
floor. Some bills face tougher requirements than others.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment attempts to get legislation protecting 
human health into the easier category for floor consideration that has 
already been established by the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee.
  We must act like legislators--Members of the United States House of 
Representatives--and stand behind legislation that will protect the 
health of the American people. I urge my colleagues to support my 
amendment to exempt water pollution laws that protect human health from 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent Punxatawney, PA, and in about 3 or 4 days 
we will be celebrating Groundhog Day. And some years ago there was a 
movie called Groundhog Day in which the same day was repeated over and 
over and over again.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest there is an analogy here to what we 
have been doing in the Committee of the Whole, because a number of 
these amendments are in fact repetitive. We have dealt with at least 
one amendment having to do with the Clean Water Act and with its 
reauthorization, and that was earlier in our debate. There are at least 
eight more pending in that regard.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would call the attention of the Members, 
particularly on the other side of the aisle, to a statement by 
President Clinton made to the Governors just within the last 2 or 3 
days in which he said,

       We are strongly supporting the move to get unfunded 
     mandates legislation passed in the Congress, and we are 
     encouraged by the work that was done in the United States 
     Senate where, as I remember, the bill passed 86 to 10. After 
     a really open and honest discussion of all appropriate 
     amendments, the legislation is now moving through the House.

  I am not sure that he was aware how slowly it was moving. I think 
there are about 100 amendments pending, he said, but I think they will 
move through it in a fairly expeditious way, just as the Senate did.
  So I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to heed 
the suggestion of their President to move this bill as expeditiously as 
possible. This, again, is an amendment that deals with a very, very 
important piece of legislation. It deals with a very important issue. 
The only question is, does it rise to any higher level of concern than 
all of the other exemptions that we have been considering.
  Again, this is not a retrospective look. It is only prospective. It 
will not affect anything that is presently on the books, nor should it. 
But it does say that if we are going to enact additional requirements 
under the Clean Water Act, then we should at least consider the cost to 
those who are going to be imposed upon.
  Mr. Chairman, I would plead with the Members to defeat this amendment 
and recognize that the Governors, the county commissioners, all of our 
State and local officials are crying out for relief from unfunded 
mandates.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk a little bit about the 
Portland metropolitan area which has a problem with combined sewer 
overflows and the cost of clean-up is estimated at $1 billion. But 
Portland area residents, the State and the city governments are not 
urging us to roll back the Clean Water Act. In contrast to what heard 
today, public opinion poll after public opinion poll ranks clean water 
as the top priority for the northwest.
  The answer does not lie in forsaking fundamental values. Instead we 
must update and reprioritize our budget priorities.
  We should spend, in my opinion, less on cold war weapons and more on 
domestic priorities.
  I support the Borski amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, under this bill the Congress will still have 
the authority to pass the legislation that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania wants. We still have that authority. We have not given 
that up at all. We will simply have the cost in front of us before we 
move ahead and, before we say to our localities that we are going to 
pass the bill to them and shift the tax burden from the progressive 
income tax to local property taxes, we are going to understand what 
that bill is. Before we say that this amendment is more important than 
local education projects, than local police protection, we are going to 
have a cost done so that this body can appropriately consider it.
  We can still address the clean water that the gentleman is concerned 
about. This does not affect any existing mandate whatsoever. I think 
that needs to be clarified. We still have that flexibility, but we are 
going to know the cost first.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], who is wearing the pride of the 
Super Bowl victors on his shirt. I would remind the gentleman that the 
Eagles defeated the 49ers 40 to 8.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Borski amendment. 
This amendment assures that we do not cripple our future efforts at 
protecting the basic rights of our constituents.
  As we learned so dramatically in Milwaukee, when over 100 individuals 
died because of waterborne bacteria, pollutants in our water can have 
serious adverse health effects. If we support the Borski amendment, we 
will be able to respond to new and serious threats to human health.
  If we do not adopt this amendment, government will be far less able 
to respond and will be far slower in responding to new and serious 
waterborne threats to human health.
  To me, this is what the amendment is all about. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to support the Borski amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of Mr. Borski's 
amendment.
  The Borski amendment assures that we do not cripple our future 
efforts at protecting the basic health rights of our constituents. As 
we learned so dramatically in Milwaukee when over 100 individuals died 
because of waterborne bacteria, pollutants in our water can have 
serious adverse health effects.
  I congratulate my colleague for having the foresight to be willing to 
assure our ability to continue to protect our constituents from water 
pollution which may cause significant and serious health problems.
  [[Page H859]] Both this floor and the Transportation Committee have 
been the scene of spirited debate over what is the proper level of 
protection of the environment. Although we Members may differ on how we 
answer that question, I do not believe that we have ever differed on 
the need to preserve basic human health from the most serious adverse 
effects of pollution.
  The protection of human health should not be considered an unfunded 
mandate. In fact, one of the primary responsibilities of State and 
local government is to assure the protection of the health of their 
citizens. Fortunately, in the area of clean water, Congress has been 
funding the efforts of State and local governments in protecting 
citizens from pollution. Over $60 billion has been provided to date and 
I fully expect funding to continue.
  However, we should not be so foolish to believe that State and local 
governments would not take steps to protect human health but for the 
requirements of the Clean Water Act. For example, 100 years ago Chicago 
took steps as bold as to reverse the flow of the Chicago River in 
support of public health.
  The world we live in is more complex than that which existed in the 
last century, we do not know what the next century will bring. If we 
support the Borski amendment, we will be able to respond to new and 
serious threats to human health. If we do not adopt this amendment, 
government will be far less able to respond, and will be far slower in 
responding, to new and serious waterborne threats to human health. That 
is what this amendment is all about.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Borski amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to who has the right to 
close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has the 
right to close.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the gentleman did not reference 
the Redskins' performance this year, but we are coming back.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania providing this legislation not apply to 
regulations protecting U.S. waters and pollutants of toxic waste.
  Day after day after day, like ground-hog day in that movie, we are 
having the Chesapeake Bay polluted, one of the greatest estuaries of 
this world. We need to stop it. The Federal Government has taken 
substantial steps toward that end.
  I think it is appropriate to say in this instance, because of the 
critical nature of the problem that we confront with respect to the 
pollution of the Chesapeake Bay and other waterways of this Nation, 
that this is not the type of unfunded mandate, that, in fact, yes, it 
is costly to clean up our waste, but it is not so costly that the cost 
downstream and in the long run is not far greater.

                              {time}  1850

  Mr. Chairman, I think that is what the gentleman's amendment speaks 
to, and I rise in its support.
  Mr. Chairman, do we need to curb the ease by which we pass unfunded 
mandates on to State and local governments? Yes we do.
  However, it is important to recognize that there are many present 
mandates which the Federal Government imposes and which my constituents 
would not want abolished.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania providing that this legislation not apply 
to regulations protecting U.S. waters from pollutants and toxic waste.
  The transformation of the Chesapeake Bay from its dismal state a 
decade ago into the more healthy estuary in the world is a perfect 
example of what the shortsighted impact of this legislation could be. 
We cannot move backward on the Chesapeake Bay.
  We must guarantee that individual localities not be able to dump 
waste into waters and destroy the very environment that is enjoyed by 
people across the entire mid-Atlantic region and whose health our 
coastal economics depend upon.
  It is imperative that the future impact of H.R. 5 not jeopardize the 
successes of several environmental, safety, and health standards that 
the American people depend upon and support.
  Unfunded mandate legislation cannot and should not result in 
unintended consequences.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a Contract With America. It is the contract 
that we have made together to provide protections and safeguards for 
our environment, our workers, and our health.
  I agree with my colleagues who support this measure that we must more 
carefully judge the requirements we impose. However, in the rush to 
legislate we must ensure that we are not rushing to abdicate important 
protections that the American people want and expect.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I would ask if I have any time remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] has 15 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment attempts to get legislation protecting 
human health in an easier category for floor consideration than has 
already been established by the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to exempt water 
pollution laws to protect human health from this bill.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], chairman of the committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] is 
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have here a copy of a water bill and sewer bill from 
the city of Albuquerque from this month that was sent to a constituent. 
For his sewer charge, it shows: base charge, $13.08; unfunded Federal 
mandate to remove ammonia, $12.15. In other words, a Federal 
requirement to remove one product from the sewer system is equal in 
cost, to the residents I represent, to their whole base charge for all 
of the other costs of running the sewer system.
  Is it possible, Mr. Chairman, that in this or in other instances, 
upon a careful analysis, costs like this must be borne? I think the 
possibility certainly exists. I do agree with the other side, of 
course, on the importance of cleaning up our water, but who has 
measured this? Who has measured from the Federal Government whether in 
fact doubling the cost of the sewer rates to the residents of 
Albuquerque is, in fact, what is needed to keep this water at an 
appropriate level of toxic pollution control?
  Mr. Chairman, my point is that this bill would require that kind of 
accounting, that kind of accountability, and that is why the 
gentleman's amendment should be rejected.


 amendment offered by mr. volkmer to the amendments en bloc offered by 
                               mr. borski

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

       Amendment offered by Mr. Volkmer to the amendments en bloc 
     offered by Mr. Borski:
       At the end of the amendments add the following: ``V. 
     Reproductive disorders.''

  Mr. CHAIRMAN. There is no debate in order on this amendment.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] to the amendments offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski].
  The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Volkmer) 
there were--ayes 42, noes 78.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.


                      announcement by the chairman
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. The Chair an- nounces that pursuant to 
clause 2(c), rule XXIII, he will reduce to 5 minutes any recorded vote 
on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Borski] following the vote on the amendment thereto offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]. This is a 15-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 114, 
noes 312, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 60]

                               AYES--114

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Danner
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Green
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     [[Page H860]] Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--312

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Brown (CA)
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hefner
     Jefferson
     Leach
     Neal
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1911

  Mr. MORAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HILLIARD changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendments was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162, 
noes 263, not voting 9, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 61]

                               AYES--162

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--263

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     [[Page H861]] Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Brown (CA)
     Burton
     de la Garza
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hefner
     Jefferson
     Neal
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1919

  Mr. MARKEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  

                          ____________________