[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 137 (Wednesday, September 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8572-H8578]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1854, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1996

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 206, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1854) making appropriations for 
the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, 
and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report 
is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
July 28, 1995, at page H7964.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the order of the House, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Packard] and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Fazio] each will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to present the conference report on the 
1996 legislative branch appropriations bill. This is the first 1996 
appropriations bill to come out of conference, but there are a number 
close behind us.
  The conference report presents a bill that will greatly reduce the 
size of our own branch of Government.
  To summarize, the conference agreement provides budget authority of 
$2.18 billion. This is $433 million below the President's budget 
request, a 16.5 percent reduction. It is $205.7 million below fiscal 
year 1995; that's an 8.6 percent reduction in funding below the current 
year. This agreement reduces legislative branch jobs [FTE's] by 2,614 
under fiscal year 1995, Senate staffing excluded; that's a 9.5 percent 
reduction in jobs. Finally, the conference agreement is $114.7 million 
below our 602(b) budget resolution target.
  The House and Senate concluded a successful conference.
  There were 55 amendments to the House bill, all were resolved by the 
conferees.
  I will include a table showing details and a list of the highlights 
of the conference agreement.
  We have compared the conference agreement to the House bill.
  The bill we sent to the Senate did not have funds for Senate 
operations.
  Excluding the Senate items, the conference agreement is $9,518,000 
below the House-passed bill. The reductions to the House bill consist 
of: $18,458,000 further reduction to GAO; $4,511,000 further reduction 
in congressional printing;
 $903,000 reduced from the Joint Committee on Taxation; $1,060,000 
further reduction in the power plant; $14,999,000 reduced from 
Congressional Research Service in order to restore Library of Congress 
funding; $7,000,000 from the Botanic Garden Conservatory renovation 
which eliminates the funds to begin that project.
  There were several additions to the House bill, including: $2,500,000 
for a joint Office of Compliance; $3,615,000 for an orderly shutdown of 
the Office of Technology Assessment; $50,000 for Capitol buildings 
maintenance; $17,753,000 was restored to the funding of the Library of 
Congress; and $13,995,000 was added back for the depository library 
program under the Superintendent of Documents.
  There were several provisions included, primarily to facilitate the 
operations of the House and Senate. The conference report (House Report 
104-212) has been available for several weeks and explains these 
provisions.
  One of these provisions is contained in amendment No. 10 which 
provides $6,115,000 for the orderly shutdown of the Office of 
Technology Assessment and includes provisions for severance pay and 
disposal of property.
  Amendment No. 55 includes some House housekeeping provisions added by 
the managers and a provision that establishes an awards and settlement 
fund required by the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995.
  In addition to the overall reductions I have already enumerated, a 
few of the highlights include:
  House of Representatives--has been cut $57.2 million--$57,174,000--
below 1995. Included in this reduction, committee staff have been cut 
33 percent; committee budgets have been reduced by $39.8 million--
$39,762,000--House administrative offices have been cut by $11.9 
million below 1995--$11,934,000--
 
[[Page H 8573]]

and administrative staff have been reduced by 313 FTE's.
  Senate--has been cut $33.7 million in 1995.
  Joint items--Joint committees--printing, economic, taxation--have 
been cut by 22.8 percent overall.
  Office of Technology Assessment--has been eliminated, a $22 million 
savings.
  Congressional Budget Office--has been given $1.1 million and 13 more 
FTE's to perform unfunded mandates workload.
  Architect of the Capitol--has been cut $16.8 million below 1995. The 
conference agreement ends the subsidy to the Flag Office. Flag prices 
will be raised to reimburse the cost of the flag raising operation. 
Requests for proposal will be issued to privatize custodial and 
maintenance work, and a panel of outside experts will propose how the 
powerplant can be privatized.
  Government Printing Office--has been cut $7.9 million below 1995. 
Congressional printing has been cut by $5.6 million, including no more 
constituent copies of the Congressional Record. The number of daily 
records printed will be reduced from 17,791 to 11,370, and we have 
eliminated free copies of documents to judges, to former Members, to 
press and other media, and to executive agencies.
  Library of Congress--funding increased $1.5 million--only increase in 
bill. The national digital library program of the Library is funded at 
$3 million, the amount requested.
  General Accounting Office--cut $75 million below 1995. The report 
indicates our intent to reduce GAO by 25 percent over a two-year 
period.


                                summary

  In summary, the bill is $205.7 million below fiscal year 1995. It 
effects a 2,614 reduction in full-time-equivalent jobs; that's a 9.5 
percent cut, not including Senate jobs. In total, it is a $432.8 
million reduction below the requests included in the President's 
budget, a 16.5 percent reduction. Finally, it is $114.7 million below 
our 602(b) target allocation.
  Every Member can justify an ``aye'' vote on passage.

[[Page H 8574]]
  TH06SE95.000
  


[[Page H 8575]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to see Cal Ripkin break that record as 
much as anybody, but, you know, there are other people's lives at stake 
here in this bill.
  I rise in opposition to the bill. One reason is it eliminates the 
Office of Technology Assessment. I think it is important that the 
Members understand fully what this bill does. For one, it eliminates 
the Office of Technology Assessment, the studies they do, technical 
studies, studies that give us information we could not get otherwise. 
They are overseen by a bipartisan board.
  It is going to make us much more reliant upon the high-priced 
lobbyists that represent the billion-dollar telecommunications industry 
or whatever others may have a vested interest.
  It eliminates 25 percent of the General Accounting Office. Think of 
the millions of dollars that have been saved every year by GAO. Yet we 
are going to tell them that a quarter of GAO is expendable. I think 
that is penny wise and pound foolish.
  But most importantly, my friends in this Chamber, we need to know 
what this does to the lives of those people that have devoted their 
lives to serving this institution.
  I would like you to focus for a moment on someone like Nancy Glorius. 
She started working for this institution when she was 15 years old. She 
has worked for the House of Representatives for 34 years, helping the 
House buy anything from paper clips to computer networks, has always 
done a good job. You know what, she just received a form letter, pink 
slip, without so much as her name on it, after spending 34 years of her 
life serving this institution; people like Charles Hoag, who worked 
here 24 years and was let go just months before his retirement and 
replaced with higher paid employees. This is not right.
  This institution will not serve us, more importantly the American 
people, if this is the way we conduct ourselves.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas], chairman of the Committee on House Oversight.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston], and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative Appropriations, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], and the ranking member, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], because the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio] also serves as the ranking member on House 
oversight.
  I think the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] made the point 
this is an absolute reduction. It is a cut. This is a change from 
previous Congresses.

                              {time}  1745

  Notwithstanding the desire not to make reductions or cuts, I still 
want to compliment everyone involved because I think it was done in the 
fairest manner and in the most efficient way possible. We took the 
major cuts ourselves. We eliminated three committees. Fully 30 percent 
of the money, 29 million, came out of the committees.
  So, I think by example we have indicated where we want to go. The 25-
percent General Accounting Office cut was recommended by the General 
Accounting Office. All we did was accept it. We have more changes 
coming. Look at the new handbook which my colleagues have received. 
This is just the beginning.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I have never voted for a legislative 
appropriations bill in the 4 years that I have been in Congress. But 
for the first time, in a bipartisan way, in order to balance the 
budget, in order to work together across aisles, and I hope this is a 
vanguard in the next few weeks and months, I will vote for this bill. 
It makes tough choices toward balancing the budget. It cuts 33 percent 
out of our mail accounts. It cuts money from the clerk hire. It cuts 
money from the General Accounting Office and the Office of Technology 
Assessment.
  Yes, my colleagues, if we are going to more toward balancing the 
budget, which I fully endorse, Congress has to take the first step and 
share in the sacrifice.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, we were successful in working with the 
gentleman from New Jersey and getting a Roemer-Zimmer amendment 
attached. If my colleagues save money in their office account, that 
money will go for the U.S. deficit.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Nussle].
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage with the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Packard] in a colloquy.
  Mr. Packard, in reviewing the conference report language, it appears 
that the intent of the subcommittee is to prohibit all moves by Members 
of their offices. As my colleague knows, as part of the transition we 
are attempting to consolidate Member offices, consolidate split suites 
where there are two rooms and one room that is located elsewhere. We 
want to make sure that the bipartisan building commission, as part of 
the transition, still has the ability to consolidate suites, and I want 
to make sure that even though there is a prohibition, that that 
prohibition is more if a Member's term is limited for one reason or 
another by death or resignation and not for the incidental 
consolidation Members' suites.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. The subcommittee recognizes that the bipartisan Building 
Commission may need some flexibility in fulfilling its goal of 
consolidating office space, including eliminating split suites. It is 
not the intent of the subcommittee to prohibit such moves authorized by 
the bipartisan Buidling Commission.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member 
of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I do support the cuts in this bill, but I do 
not believe that Congress ought to be exempted from the negotiating 
squeeze if, in fact, the entire national budget is headed for a train 
wreck. The President has indicated that, if we send this bill to him 
before other issues are resolved, he will veto it. That is not going to 
be in anybody's interest, so it seems to me what we ought to do is to 
delay the sending of this bill to the President.
  That is why the motion to recommit, which I will offer in just a 
moment, will do just that. It will simply recommit the conference 
report to the committee with instructions that the conference not meet 
until subsequently instructed to do so by the House pursuant to clause 
1(c) of rule XXVIII. That would simply facilitate the delaying of this 
bill until other budget issues are worked out in other appropriation 
bills so that we are not in the unseemly position of appearing to be 
trying to speed passage through of the bill that funds our agencies 
while other agencies are going to get caught in the squeeze.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
in response to the motion to recommit.
  Let us look at the motion to recommit. It delays. If my colleagues 
want gridlock, if my colleagues want a so-called train wreck, then vote 
for this motion to recommit. The best way to avoid a train wreck is to 
do what we are supposed to do, and that is pass appropriations bills.
  What is wrong with the conference report the way it is? I do not 
think there is anything wrong with it. It cuts below last year's bill. 
Could it be that those who want to hold this bill are opposed to 
deficit reduction? We are supposed to be bringing about deficit 
reduction. That's what this conference report does. It also makes 
significant reforms in the legislative branch.
  Vote against delay. Vote against the motion to recommit.
  Since the first of the year Republicans have set an aggressive 
legislative agenda. Now we are bringing the 

[[Page H 8576]]
fruits of our labors to our colleagues. Let us move forward. Vote for 
deficit reduction, vote against delay, vote against the motion to 
recommit.
  This motion to recommit the bill to conference is an unprecedented 
action since I have been here. It is designed to remove control of the 
legislative agenda from the majority. It is designed to delay the 
appropriations process. It is designed to give the President control 
over the legislative branch of Government. I would ask the Members to 
oppose the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] is through, 
I will yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from California going to have a 
colloquy with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer]?
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I do not see that on the table right now.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I think it might be important 
simply to reference the concern the gentleman had, however.
  Mr. PACKARD. There has been some concern, particularly by the 
Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, that our bill would change the 
reduction in force of GAO as it affects, as it might affect, veterans' 
preference. We have discussed this with Mr. Buyer, chairman of the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs subcommittee. I have a letter from the 
GAO, and I would submit it for the Record. It is to Mr. Detweiler, the 
National Commander of the American Legion, who has posed the problem in 
a letter of August 22, 1995. The Comptroller General's, Mr. Charles 
Bowsher letter assures the veterans that there is no intention of 
undermining veterans' preference, and certainly I think this issue is 
cleared up as far as my understanding of the bill is concerned. There 
apparently has been a misunderstanding of section 212 of the conference 
report. Mr. Bowsher's letter clears that up. And both Mr. Buyer and I 
wanted to make sure this is clarified.
  The letters referred to are as follows:

                                               Comptroller General


                                         of the United States,

                                Washington, DC, September 1, 1995.
     Mr. William Detweiler,
     National Commander, The American Legion, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Detweiler: I am very troubled by the August 22 
     letter, which you sent to members of Congress. Your assertion 
     that section 211 of H.R. 1854 (the legislative branch 
     appropriations bill) would result in an erosion of veterans' 
     preference is erroneous.
       Section 211 provides no exemption from the statutory 
     requirement for veterans' preference in a reduction-in-force. 
     On the contrary, section 211 specifically requires that GAO 
     recognize veterans' preference in developing its reduction-
     in-force rules. GAO will do so.
       Beyond this bill, GAO's enabling legislation requires that 
     the agency accord employees the same preferences, including 
     veterans' preference, that are provided to employees in the 
     executive branch.
       I assure you that we have no intention of undermining 
     veterans' preference. Indeed, GAO is committed to preserving 
     veterans' preference and will accord veterans the same rights 
     as they would receive during reductions-in-force in executive 
     branch agencies.
       I would be happy to meet with you to discuss this matter 
     further. I hope you will join us in correcting any 
     misunderstanding your letter has created about the effect of 
     section 211 on veterans' preference.
           Sincerely yours,
                                               Charles A. Bowsher,
     Comptroller General of the United States.
                                                                    ____



                                          The American Legion,

                                  Washington, DC, August 22, 1995.
       Dear Representative: The American Legion is requesting that 
     you oppose the conference report on H.R. 1854, the FY 1996 
     appropriations bill for the Legislative Branch.
       The American Legion is strongly opposed to section 211 of 
     H.R. 1854, a provision that will allow the General Accounting 
     Office to place less emphasis on veterans' preference in 
     reduction-in-force situations. The American Legion believes 
     this is a major step in the erosion of veterans' preference 
     for employment purposes.
       ``The Veterans' Preference Act of 1944'' was enacted by 
     Congress to assist veterans seeking employment because their 
     military service prevented them from earning promotions and 
     benefits in the civilian work force like their civilian 
     counterparts. Unlike affirmative action programs, veterans' 
     preference requires that veterans must be fully qualified and 
     competitive for the preference to apply. The law simply 
     provides preference to a veteran in obtaining and retaining 
     federal employment provided the candidates or employees have 
     equal qualifications.
       The American Legion requests that you preserve America's 
     contract with veterans and oppose the conference report for 
     H.R. 1854. Thank you for the continued leadership on 
     important veterans issues.
           Sincerely,
                                             William M. Detweiler,
                                               National Commander.

  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, first of all I do want to 
reference the last point made by my friend from California. I have been 
on the phone with the Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Ed 
Scott. It is the administration's position that unless the language is 
changed, the Comptroller General would retain the authority to pay less 
attention to veterans' preference. I appreciate the concern that I know 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] had, and I know that the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] has just indicated he shares, 
but I do think it is important that we point out for the record that 
this concern remains extant in the executive branch, and I also want to 
join with the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] in saying it is 
not the intent of either the majority or the minority to have that 
effect, but I would, for further clarification, include the letter from 
Jesse Brown, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in the Record at this 
time:

                                                  The Secretary of


                                             Veterans Affairs,

                                Washington, DC, September 6, 1995.
     Hon. Vic Fazio,
     Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Legislative, 
         Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Fazio: I am deeply concerned about a 
     provision in the conference report on H.R. 1854, the proposed 
     Legislative Appropriations Act for FY 1996, that could erode 
     veterans' preference under a downsizing of the General 
     Accounting Office.
       Section 212 of the conference report, which originated in 
     the Senate, would authorize the Comptroller General to give 
     less weight to veterans' preference in any reduction-in-force 
     that GAO carries out under this legislation.
       This provision overlooks the vitally important role of 
     veterans' preference in America's sacred contract with her 
     defenders. The week after we commemorated our great victory 
     in World War II and a month after the dedication of the 
     Korean War Memorial is no time for the Congress to permit any 
     dilution of our obligations to our warriors. The suggestion 
     that something less than strict adherence to veterans' 
     preference would be acceptable is a slap in the face to all 
     those who have served and sacrificed in defense of freedom 
     and democracy.
       I hope you agree with me that legislation, such as H.R. 
     1854, allowing the weakening of veterans preference must not 
     be enacted.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Jesse Brown.

  Mr. Speaker, as it relates to the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] to recommit, I want to say very clearly that 
I would never advocate a veto of this bill by any President of either 
party. I have never in the time I have managed this bill as chairman of 
this subcommittee seen that likelihood carried out by President Reagan 
or President Bush. But I think we all understand that none of us want 
to be treated differently in this branch of Government than anyone else 
in Government.
  We want to make that clear to all the people who are observing our 
proceedings. If we are going to be asking loyal and hard-working 
Federal employees to take furloughs and to have their lives disrupted, 
certainly the American public would think it important that we share in 
that same struggle, that same burden. It would only be fitting that we, 
therefore, indicate our interests in being treated alike.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I believe the motion to recommit would instruct the 
conferees to wait until further progress has been made on the other 
appropriations bills, would not tempt the White House to issue a veto, 
and is a middle ground that perhaps some of us would seek short of 
having a confrontation on an issue that ought to be treated with comity 
by both the executive and legislative branch.
  Mr. Speaker, just in completing my remarks, I want to pay tribute 
once again to the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] who has done 
an outstanding job in his first voyage as chairman of this subcommittee 
under very difficult circumstances. I voted for this bill when it 
passed the House, and, as a courtesy to him, I signed the 

[[Page H 8577]]
conference report. The conference does make some significant 
improvements. It provides additional funds to CBO to handle the needs 
of unfunded mandate analysis, which we recently gave them. It restores 
additional FTE's to the Government Printing Office, it restores funds 
for our depository libraries around the country, it reestablishes the 
Joint Committee on Printing, it restores the Folk Life Center at the 
Library, and restores funding to the Library of Congress. For many 
Members an important provision: It keeps the Flag Office alive, 
although the cost of flags will rise to cover the full cost of the 
dissemination.
  But sadly it goes too deep in its cuts in the GAO, more than a 15-
percent cut below last year, and most regrettably, and I share this 
with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton], our colleague who 
chairs the board that guides the Office of Technology Assessment, 
rather than support the House position that kept OTA alive under the 
Library of Congress, it actually does away with the entity. So for 
those two reasons, Mr. Speaker, regrettably I must oppose this 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, my most popular remark of the evening: I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if Congress sent as the first appropriations bill the 
Labor-HHS or some other appropriations bill with an 8- or 9-percent cut 
to the President, do my colleagues know what we would hear from the 
President? Why do you not cut yourselves first before cutting these 
other agencies?
  We are cutting ourselves first. We think that is appropriate. This is 
a model for the rest of the appropriations bills. We are proud to send 
it to the President first, but we think it will be accompanied by 
several other bills. I urge the Members to vote for it and to vote 
against the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, today, we in Congress, under the leadership of the 
Republican majority, have the opportunity to end business as usual in 
Government. We have the opportunity to prove to the American people 
that the change they voted for last November has not fallen on deaf 
ears.
  Through the hard work and diligence of both the House and the Senate, 
we have crafted a legislative branch appropriations bill that cuts 
spending and returns sanity to congressional expenditure. This bill 
indicates just how serious we are about reshaping Government. By 
cutting our own budget, we have set the standard for every other 
Federal agency and taken the first crucial step toward a brighter, more 
prosperous future for our children.
  I would encourage all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1854.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.


                 motion to recommit offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Is the gentleman opposed to the 
conference report?
  Mr. OBEY. At the present time, Mr. Speaker, yes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the conference report on H.R. 
     1854 (H. Rept. 104-212) to the Committee on Conference with 
     instruction that the conferees not meet until subsequently 
     instructed to do so by the House pursuant to clause 1(C) of 
     rule XXVIII.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164, 
noes 243, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 637]

                               AYES--164

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bonior
     Borski
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--243

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     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
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Bishop
     Brown (FL)
     Cardin
     Fattah
     Foley
     Geren
     Hoyer
     Lincoln
     Maloney
     McDade
     McKinney
     Mfume
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Oberstar
     Reynolds
     Riggs
     Sabo
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Smith (NJ)
     Tucker
     Waldholtz
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1816

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:


[[Page H 8578]]

       Mrs. Maloney for, with Mr. Foley against.

  Mr. TEJEDA changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. FLAKE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the 
conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 305, 
nays 101, not voting 28, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 638]

                               YEAS--305

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnson (SD)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--101

     Abercrombie
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bonior
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Engel
     Evans
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     Meek
     Miller (CA)
     Moran
     Nadler
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Richardson
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Bishop
     Brown (FL)
     Cardin
     Dicks
     Fattah
     Foley
     Geren
     Hoyer
     Lincoln
     Maloney
     McDade
     McKinney
     Mfume
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Oberstar
     Reynolds
     Riggs
     Sabo
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Smith (NJ)
     Tucker
     Waldholtz
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1825

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Waldholtz for, with Ms. McKinney against.

  Mr. PALLONE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________