[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.
  

                          ____________________