[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 139 (Friday, September 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8704-H8707]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2020, TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND
GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2020) making appropriations for the
Treasury Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive
Office of the President, and certain independent agencies, for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, with
Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the amendments and agree to the
conference asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
motion to instruct conferees offered by mr. obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the bill, H.R. 2020, be instructed to agree to the
amendment of the Senate numbered 130.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] will
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, am I correct that under the rules, a Member
in opposition has the right to half the time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. One-third of the time could be allotted to a
Member in opposition.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, is it my understanding that the gentleman is
yielding to me the time?
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield my 30 minutes
to the gentleman from Maryland.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the motion?
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I am not in favor of the motion, but I
would yield my 30 minutes to the gentleman.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is yielding all 30 minutes to
the gentleman from Maryland. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized
for 30 minutes in opposition to the motion.
The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, what is before us is the question of going to conference
on the Treasury-Postal appropriation bill. The motion that I have just
made is a motion which would accept the Senate amendment numbered 130,
which in essence indicates that the congressional pay will be frozen
for yet another year with no COLA, although that COLA will be provided
for other Federal employees.
Mr. Speaker, as Members of the House know, this House established a
new procedure. As Members will remember in, I believe, 1991, the
Congress took a step forward, at least I think many thoughtful Members
will recognize it was a step forward, when we decided that outside
income for Members of Congress was going to be limited and that instead
we would have only one paymaster, that being the general public, rather
than supplementing our pay through various activities, including giving
speeches and earning outside income in a manner which many people were
concerned created the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The Congress took a lot of heat for that action at the time, but I
think it was the right action because
I think it substantially improved the financial practices around here.
It was supported on both sides of the aisle on a bipartisan basis.
We established a new process under that legislation which guaranteed
that Members of Congress would never get a pay increase larger than
that provided for other Federal employees. And, in fact, the way it was
set up, we got that adjustment one year later, so that we could not be
accused of setting the trend for increased pay, but rather we were
following what would happen in other sectors of the economy.
Mr. Speaker, under that we received two small cost of living
adjustments: A 3.5 increase in 1992 and a 3.2 increase in 1993. Since
that time we have taken action each year to freeze our own pay. So that
means that for calendar year
[[Page H 8705]]
1994, and 1995, the Congress voluntarily decided not to accept a
congressional pay raise, even though other Federal employees did
receive a pay raise.
The Senate has now taken an action on this bill which indicates their
belief that we should do that for another year.
{time} 1130
I think that probably the vast majority of Members on both sides of
the aisle will share the view that under the circumstances that we face
with other agencies of Government being cut, with many other programs
being cut, when we are in the process of establishing budget guidelines
that we will live with for either the next 5 or 7 years on our way to
what people would like to think would be a balanced budget, I think
that under the circumstances, it would be highly unrealistic to expect
that the Congress this year would receive even a cost-of-living
adjustment.
So I am simply offering this motion because I think that it is
generally accepted in the House that, under these circumstances, it
would be appropriate to accept the Senate position.
In doing so, I would make the following observation, however: I
believe it is essential to the ability of this House over the long term
to attract quality candidates, and I think it is essential to see to it
that in the long term we do not have renewed pressures for providing
other ways for Members to receive income by, in effect, cashing in on
their own notoriety, for want of a better word, or by cashing in on
their title as a Member of Congress to increase their pay. In order to
prevent those actions from happening, it is going to be necessary at
some time for Members of Congress to receive pay adjustments identical
to those provided to other workers in the Federal Government.
I do not believe that people can expect that forever there will be no
adjustments in congressional pay. But I think it is common good sense
to recognize that, under these circumstances, Members of Congress are
not and should not be providing themselves with an increase in pay when
we are in the process of establishing a multiyear effort to reduce the
deficit and cut expenditures.
So, for the third year in a row, the effect of this motion would be
to deny ourselves a pay raise. I think that that is the rational thing
to do under these circumstances, and I would urge support for the
motion.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
It is with some degree of reluctance that I rise in a bipartisan
display of support. It is with some degree of reluctance that I rise in
an effort to display bipartisan support for the gentleman's amendment.
I agree with the gentleman's conclusions. This Congress has made
great strides in making deep cuts in the Federal budget. To date, the
appropriations process has yielded net savings in fiscal year 1995 and
1996 of approximately $44 billion, and it would be highly untenable for
the Congress to say, ``Well, we are going to cut the rest of the
Federal budget, but we are going to go ahead and allow our own pay to
escalate.''
So I join the gentleman, and I suspect that the vast majority of the
Members of this House will join him. The Senate has already gone on
record as supporting this effort, and so this effort is merely to
conform with what the Senate has already done.
But let me say that I also have some grave concern that pay,
unfortunately, becomes an aspect, an ingredient to a degree of short
term politics. I frankly do not know any Members over the years that I
have served in the Congress that have been defeated over the pay raise
issue. But I suspect, if any have, they are very few in number.
The American people, I think, intuitively understand that public
officials have to make a living, and if they do not want a body of 100
percent of millionaires in the House of Representatives or in the
Senate, then obviously they have to pay them a salary.
One can argue how much that salary should be. But a few years ago, as
the gentleman pointed out, we had an honoraria process whereby Members
of the Congress would supplement their own income by going out and
getting speaking fees. I think that the press did a pretty good job,
and Members in this body and the Members of the other body stood up and
talked about how that process had gone astray. That situation had done
much to begin to corrupt the institution. People were not working for
their pay. They were going out and cutting deals. They were walking
into breakfasts and walking out with thousand dollar checks. Frankly,
the whole system smelled.
So the gentleman who is presenting this initiative, and several
others and I were eager to get rid of honoraria. Honoraria is now
history. It is gone for Members of Congress, and I think that is good.
In an effort to compensate for what was a significant loss of income
for many Members of the House and in the other body, there was a fairly
significant pay increase. But really it was not an increase, because it
was offsetting income that was lost.
That being said, that was several years ago, and since then Members
have gotten some nominal COLA's, along with the rest of the Federal
employees and military retirees and others, but not as often as the
Federal employees and the military retirees. In the last 2 or 3 years
this body and the other body have joined together and frozen our pay.
We have not had any COLA's, even though Federal employees and military
retirees have gotten their COLA's, and that is OK. We are doing it
again this year.
I dare say, for one reason or another it is quite possible we may do
that again next year. But I would like to offer a cautionary note to my
colleagues in this body and tell you that unless you want a situation
where all of the Members of the various districts, the 435 districts of
this great Nation that serve in this body, if you want everyone to be a
millionaire, well then just keep on freezing the pay because a person
of modest means will not be able to serve here after some length of
time. He will not be able to raise his family. He will not be able to
send his children to college or educate his kids or meet obligations to
his family. She will not be able to raise her family. He or she will
not be running for Congress because he or she at some point will not be
able to afford to be here. I do not think that is what we want.
I think the great thing about this country is that we have not had to
depend solely on the affluent class, if you will, to serve as our
public figures.
I think the great thing about this institution, particularly the
House of Representatives, and I do distinguish it from the Senate,
because 82 percent of them are millionaires, I am not trying to condemn
anybody who has been smart enough or affluent enough or wise enough to
invest their money and has made great fortune for himself or inherited
great fortune. I think that is great. That is the American system.
All of those that are of affluent means that serve in this body serve
valiantly and serve their constituents, but our constituents should
also have the opportunity to elect people who are not affluent, who are
not people who absolutely can pay their way to be here.
That is why I think that is a mistake to freeze our pay year after
year after year. I think there is great merit in giving the Federal
employees a cost-of-living adjustment periodically. There is great
merit in giving retired Federal employees, retired military personnel a
cost-of-living adjustment periodically, and, yes, I think that there is
great merit in providing judges and Members of Congress and heads of
departments of the executive branch and other ranking leaders a
periodic adjustment in their cost of living as well. Not to do so risks
changing this system, risks changing this country, and not necessarily
for the better, because it will not only go to those folks who are of
independent means, it could go to those folks who might other wise seek
to find outside income through less-than-appropriate channels. I would
not want to see that happen either.
So I think that the gentleman's motion is well taken at this time. It
is with some degree of reluctance that I support it, but I do urge that
all of the Members of this body support it. Let us send this issue on
to the conference and get it over with and address this issue next year
and the years thereafter.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H 8706]]
Mr. Speaker, for all of the reasons articulated by the distinguished
gentleman from Louisiana, the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, I rise in opposition to this motion. I think he is
absolutely correct, and the reasons that he articulated were the
reasons that undergirded the efforts of this House of Representatives
to, in a fair and open manner, adopt legislation which would lead to a
reasonable incremental adjustment in the pay of Members.
It is obviously a very politically difficult situation. No Member
likes to vote on their raise, and, in fact, what we talk about here is
not a raise in the classic sense. It is a cost-of-living adjustment;
that is to say, a mechanism was established to keep Members even with
the cost-of-living adjustment.
The gentleman from Louisiana pointed out that we do that for others,
social security recipients, Federal retirees, and active Federal
employees, some 2 million, as well as for members of the military. We
do that so that their standard of living will not deteriorate as
inflation occurs. That is the issue here, not a pay raise in the
classic sense.
That resolution of a very thorny issue was arrived at through
bipartisan work and agreement. The current speaker, Speaker Gingrich,
was a part of that, Speaker Foley and the current minority leader, the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] was part of that, the
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] was part of that, and my good
friend from California [Mr. Fazio] was a leader in that effort, the
current chairman of the Committee on Appropriations was a part of that,
the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], who was then chairman of the
Republican Conference, was a part of that, in trying to deal with a
very difficult issue, obviously, with our constituents so that they
knew and we knew and our families knew what is the deal, how do we
adjust congressional pay in a rational, reasonable way.
The failure to have done that over the years led to anomalies that
outraged the American public and gave great fodder for talk show hosts.
What was that? As the gentleman has pointed out, for 3 or 4 or 5
years we would go with zero, and then because Members were falling
substantially behind, the quadrennial pay commission would recommend a
high figure, and we would take a portion of it, in one instance, for
instance, a raise of $10,000, or approximately that figure. That is a
very high figure when one hears about it being a raise and does not
divide it by the 4 or 5 previous years that zero was the adjustment.
As a result, the public was outraged at our giving ourselves from
this perspective such large pay raises. This, again, was an effort to
avoid that consequence and to provide for an annual mechanism that
would go into effect only in the event that Federal employees got a
raise, so that if the other employees of the Federal Government did not
get a raise, Members of Congress would not get a cost-of-living
adjustment. We did that again to ensure that we were not treated
differently.
We talked a lot about treating ourselves the same, covering ourselves
by the same laws that we expect others to abide by, and that was the
reason that we tied ourselves to other Federal employees. We are
ultimately paid by the Federal Government, the Federal taxpayer. We are
Federal employees, and if they did not get an adjustment, we felt we
should not.
In this instance, they will get an adjustment, and the motion offered
by the gentleman from Wisconsin will provide that we will not have an
adjustment, and that will be the third year, and I do not think there
is anybody on this floor that believes that next year the Members of
Congress are going to have the ability or will to look their
constituents in the eye and say, ``We are going to take one-fourth or
one-half or three-fourths of or a whole of that adjustment which we
have not taken.''
{time} 1145
So, we will go 4 years in a row, and the difficulty that will then
occur will be in 1997 there will be an effort, I predict, to do a
larger number, a catchup, if you will, and the American public will
then again say, ``Those guys don't get it. Why are they giving
themselves such a big pay raise?'' And there will be no discussion
about January 1993, or January 1994, or January 1995, or January 1996,
or January 1997. That will be forgotten.
So, I rise to oppose this motion, not because I do not understand the
concerns of my chairman, the concerns of my ranking member. I think I
am a reasonably perceptive Member of this body in terms of the
political realities of this body, and so I understand what the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has said the realities are,
and, having said that, I regret that we find ourselves in a position of
suggesting this alternative.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Fazio], who has forever been a Member of this body
who has taken a lot of flak, a lot of heat. He has had the courage to
stand up for his 434 colleagues, but, much more importantly, for this
institution, and for that I not only have great affection for the
gentleman, but great respect.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for yielding this time to me and, far more
importantly, for his very kind and generous remarks, and I want to
congratulate him for having had the courage, as he always does, to try
to educate not only his constituents, not only his colleagues, but, I
think, the country on the very, very difficult conundrum we often find
ourselves in on this pay issue. There is no question that the
gentleman's comments are pertinent and to the point and that, if we are
not careful, we will repeat the very bitter and unhappy history that we
have seen occur on this floor where periodically, perhaps once a
decade, we go through this catharsis of debate and public reaction over
the question of pay for Members of Congress.
I also want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] who, along with the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and a number of other Members, served so
stalwartly on the commission that we formed in 1989 that brought the
bipartisan leadership of both the caucus and the conference together to
resolve this issue, and we hope once and for all. Obviously that is not
the case. Lynn Martin, who cochaired that effort along with me at that
time, I think would agree that we tried to put in place a very
conservative and automatic process, but in fact, unless we have total
bipartisan consensus in this institution from one generation, one
class, to the next, it is very unlikely that we will have the courage
even to allow the automatic mechanism which guarantees that we make our
cost-of-living adjustment less by five-tenths of 1 percent than
anything that the private sector made. It guarantees that we always get
something that is very modest behind inflation, behind what is
happening in the private sector.
The comments of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] are,
therefore, on point, and I regret that we are at the point we are
today, but reality, as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has
said, has crashed in. We are at a point, and I would hope that all the
Members would understand that regardless of how we may feel differently
on this issue, we ought to accommodate the situation, the politics of
the moment, and we ought to do what we can to lower our voices and to
allow this process to go, as I think we all know it must, toward the
decision that I am sure we will make with great--a majority here in
just a moment--to
lay this issue aside for this Congress. But, as the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has said and the gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. Hoyer] has said, to continue to do this is to create an atmosphere
of crisis that will do far more damage to this institution out in the
future than we can at all mitigate by the minor act we will be making
here in just a moment.
Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, ``Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Livingston, Mr.
Obey, with this kind of leadership where our Speaker and minority
leader are brought together, ultimately we can accomplish our purpose
and, I think, educate the American people as to the importance of it.''
We are not there at the moment, and so, while I know the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] speaks with great sincerity, I do hope
[[Page H 8707]]
that his opposition, which I believe is largely symbolic here today,
will not succeed.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do not see my opposition as largely symbolic. I
perceive it as very real, and those that talk to me about it know that
it is not symbolism that I am seeking.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have just one additional observation.
I recognize fully what the gentleman from Louisiana said, and I
understand the position of the gentleman from Maryland. I do not think
it is reasonable to expect that the only people in America who never
get a pay adjustment would be Members of Congress.
I make no apology for the efforts of the past that have been engaged
in on a bipartisan basis in this House, in full view of the public, not
in a midnight vote, as did occur in the other body, but in full view of
the public, in the afternoon, an up-or-down vote after a long
discussion. I make no apology for the fact that we decided that we
would make the public our only paymaster, because I believe this place
is a much cleaner place for having done that. And I have no argument
with the suggestion that Members of Congress should be treated the same
as other Federal employees with respect to cost-of-living increases.
That is probably as good a guide as any.
Unfortunately we are stuck with the job, under the Constitution, of
determining our own pay. I wish we did not have that job because it is
a no-win situation, and so I think, if we are to set a guideline, what
happens to other Federal employees is probably as good a guideline as
we can find for what ought to happen to us in terms of pay. I would
gladly have somebody else set that pay, but under the circumstances I
think that it is appropriate this year, given what is happening with
the budget, for the Congress to freeze its own pay.
I would note that that is unquestionably a lot easier for Members of
the other body to do because, as the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston] indicated, newspaper stories indicate that there are
possibly up to 80 percent of the Senate that are millionaires. I regret
that condition; I think we would be better off if we had a more even
spread among income groups in the other body. But we do not, and I
recognize it is much easier for them to do this than it is for those on
this side of the Capitol, but I think under the circumstances this is
the best course of action. I think Members understand that.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I, too, yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). Without objection, the previous
questions is ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 387,
nays 31, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 648]
YEAS--387
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Vento
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--31
Berman
Boehlert
Brewster
Clay
Clayton
Collins (MI)
Conyers
DeLay
Engel
Fattah
Flake
Gonzalez
Hastings (FL)
Houghton
Hoyer
King
Lewis (CA)
Martinez
McDermott
Mfume
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Rangel
Serrano
Stark
Thomas
Towns
Velazquez
Watt (NC)
Waxman
NOT VOTING--16
Becerra
Dingell
Hayes
Jefferson
Maloney
McDade
McKinney
Moakley
Morella
Paxon
Reynolds
Sisisky
Stokes
Tucker
Volkmer
Waldholtz
{time} 1215
Messrs. TOWNS, STARK, FLAKE, and MFUME changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. ORTIZ, Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois, and Mrs. MEEK of Florida changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________