[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 27, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9516-H9522]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 743, TEAMWORK FOR EMPLOYEES AND 
                          MANAGERS ACT OF 1995

  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 226 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 226

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 743) to amend the National Labor Relations Act 
     to allow labor management cooperative efforts that improve 
     economic competitiveness in the United States to continue to 
     thrive, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall dispensed with. Points of order against consideration 
     of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2(l)(2)(B) of 
     rule XI are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Economic and Educational 
     Opportunities now printed in the bill. Each section of the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 226 is an open rule, providing for 
consideration of H.R. 743, the Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act 
of 1995. The resolution provides for 1 hour of general debate, to be 
equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. The rule makes in 
order the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as an 
original bill for purpose of amendment, with each section considered as 
read. Further, the rule authorizes the Chair to give priority 
recognition to members who have had their amendment preprinted in the 
Congressional Record, and the rule provides one motion to recommit, 
with or without instructions.
  The rule also waives clause 2(1)(2)(B) of rule XI, which requires the 
publication of rollcall votes in committee reports. The Economic and 
Educational Opportunities Report 104-248 on H.R. 743 contains incorrect 
information on rollcall votes due to typographical errors during the 
printing process. The votes were correctly reported in the original 
report filed with the Clerk. However, a star print--report No. 99-006--
has been issued which contains the correct rollcall information.
  Mr. Speaker, the workplace model used to craft labor laws of the 
early 20th century no longer meet the needs and reality of the current 
marketplace and employer-employee relations. The TEAM Act recognizes 
that the most effective workplaces are those where employees and 
employers cooperatively work together, and makes the necessary changes 
to our labor laws to allow this new workplace dynamic to flourish.
  The TEAM Act will help to promote greater employee involvement in the 
workplace by clarifying that it is not impermissible for an employer to 
establish or participate in any organization in which employees are 
involved to address workplace issues such as quality, productivity, and 
efficiency. These organizations will not have the authority to enter 
into or negotiate collective-bargaining agreements--all of those rights 
remain unchanged. The act also specifies that unionized workplaces will 
not be affected.
  Greater employee involvement in the workplace has proven to be an 
effective tool to increase the job satisfaction each employee derives 
from the workplace, and brings greater value to the production process. 
The TEAM Act recognizes that employers and employees can work together 
based on cooperation, not confrontation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule for 
consideration of H.R. 743. This open rule provides for fair debate of 
the bill and permits Members to offer amendments for consideration by 
the full House.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following statistical 
information from the Committee on Rules establishing for the Record the 
openness of the rules process in the 104th Congress:


[[Page H 9517]]
  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                           [As of September 26, 1995]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\..............                 46                 44                 50                 75
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 15                 22
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                  2                  3
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 67                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             



                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                           [As of September 26, 1995]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)  O...................  H.R. 5..............  Unfunded Mandate Reform..  A: 350-71 (1/19/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)  MC..................  H. Con. Res. 17.....  Social Security..........  A: 255-172 (1/25/  
                                            H.J. Res. 1.........  Balanced Budget Amdt.....   95).              
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 101............  Land Transfer, Taos        A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Pueblo Indians.            95).              
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 400............  Land Exchange, Arctic      A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Nat'l. Park and Preserve.  95).              
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 440............  Land Conveyance, Butte     A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   County, Calif.             95).              
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95).  O...................  H.R. 2..............  Line Item Veto...........  A: voice vote (2/2/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 665............  Victim Restitution.......  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 666............  Exclusionary Rule Reform.  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).  MO..................  H.R. 667............  Violent Criminal           A: voice vote (2/9/
                                                                   Incarceration.             95).              
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).  O...................  H.R. 668............  Criminal Alien             A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Deportation.               95).              
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)  MO..................  H.R. 728............  Law Enforcement Block      A: voice vote (2/13/
                                                                   Grants.                    95).              
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)  MO..................  H.R. 7..............  National Security          PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
                                                                   Revitalization.            127 (2/15/95).    
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)  MC..................  H.R. 831............  Health Insurance           PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
                                                                   Deductibility.             188 (2/21/95).    
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)  O...................  H.R. 830............  Paperwork Reduction Act..  A: voice vote (2/22/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)  MC..................  H.R. 889............  Defense Supplemental.....  A: 282-144 (2/22/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)  MO..................  H.R. 450............  Regulatory Transition Act  A: 252-175 (2/23/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1022...........  Risk Assessment..........  A: 253-165 (2/27/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 100 (2/27/    O...................  H.R. 926............  Regulatory Reform and      A: voice vote (2/28/
 95).                                                              Relief Act.                95).              
H. Res. 101 (2/28/    MO..................  H.R. 925............  Private Property           A: 271-151 (3/2/   
 95).                                                              Protection Act.            95).              
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1058...........  Securities Litigation      ...................
                                                                   Reform.                                      
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       95).              
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)  MO..................  ....................  .........................  A: 257-155 (3/7/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)  Debate..............  H.R. 956............  Product Liability Reform.  A: voice vote (3/8/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)  MC..................  ....................  .........................  PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
                                                                                              181 (3/9/95).     
H. Res. 115 (3/14/    MO..................  H.R. 1159...........  Making Emergency Supp.     A: 242-190 (3/15/  
 95).                                                              Approps..                  95).              
H. Res. 116 (3/15/    MC..................  H.J. Res. 73........  Term Limits Const. Amdt..  A: voice vote (3/28/
 95).                                                                                         95).              
H. Res. 117 (3/16/    Debate..............  H.R. 4..............  Personal Responsibility    A: voice vote (3/21/
 95).                                                              Act of 1995.               95).              
H. Res. 119 (3/21/    MC..................  ....................  .........................  A: 217-211 (3/22/  
 95).                                                                                         95).              
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1271...........  Family Privacy Protection  A: 423-1 (4/4/95). 
                                                                   Act.                                         
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 660............  Older Persons Housing Act  A: voice vote (4/6/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1215...........  Contract With America Tax  A: 228-204 (4/5/   
                                                                   Relief Act of 1995.        95).              
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)  MC..................  H.R. 483............  Medicare Select Expansion   A: 253-172 (4/6/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 655............  Hydrogen Future Act of     A: voice vote (5/2/
                                                                   1995.                      95).              
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1361...........  Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996  A: voice vote (5/9/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)  O...................  H.R. 961............  Clean Water Amendments...  A: 414-4 (5/10/95).
H. Res. 144 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 535............  Fish Hatchery--Arkansas..  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95).              
H. Res. 145 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 584............  Fish Hatchery--Iowa......  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95).              
H. Res. 146 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 614............  Fish Hatchery--Minnesota.  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95).              
H. Res. 149 (5/16/    MC..................  H. Con. Res. 67.....  Budget Resolution FY 1996  PQ: 252-170 A: 255-
 95).                                                                                         168 (5/17/95).    
H. Res. 155 (5/22/    MO..................  H.R. 1561...........  American Overseas          A: 233-176 (5/23/  
 95).                                                              Interests Act.             95).              
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1530...........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY      PQ: 225-191 A: 233-
                                                                   1996.                      183 (6/13/95).    
H. Res. 167 (6/15/    O...................  H.R. 1817...........  MilCon Appropriations FY   PQ: 223-180 A: 245-
 95).                                                              1996.                      155 (6/16/95).    
H. Res. 169 (6/19/    MC..................  H.R. 1854...........  Leg. Branch Approps. FY    PQ: 232-196 A: 236-
 95).                                                              1996.                      191 (6/20/95).    
H. Res. 170 (6/20/    O...................  H.R. 1868...........  For. Ops. Approps. FY      PQ: 221-178 A: 217-
 95).                                                              1996.                      175 (6/22/95).    
H. Res. 171 (6/22/    O...................  H.R. 1905...........  Energy & Water Approps.    A: voice vote (7/12/
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95).              
H. Res. 173 (6/27/    C...................  H.J. Res. 79........  Flag Constitutional        PQ: 258-170 A: 271-
 95).                                                              Amendment.                 152 (6/28/95).    
H. Res. 176 (6/28/    MC..................  H.R. 1944...........  Emer. Supp. Approps......  PQ: 236-194 A: 234-
 95).                                                                                         192 (6/29/95).    
H. Res. 185 (7/11/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 235-193 D: 192-
 95).                                                                                         238 (7/12/95).    
H. Res. 187 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 230-194 A: 229-
 95).                                                              #2.                        195 (7/13/95).    
H. Res. 188 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1976...........  Agriculture Approps. FY    PQ: 242-185 A:     
 95).                                                              1996.                      voice vote (7/18/ 
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 190 (7/17/    O...................  H.R. 2020...........  Treasury/Postal Approps.   PQ: 232-192 A:     
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   voice vote (7/18/ 
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 193 (7/19/    C...................  H.J. Res. 96........  Disapproval of MFN to      A: voice vote (7/20/
 95).                                                              China.                     95).              
H. Res. 194 (7/19/    O...................  H.R. 2002...........  Transportation Approps.    PQ: 217-202 (7/21/ 
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95).              
H. Res. 197 (7/21/    O...................  H.R. 70.............  Exports of Alaskan Crude   A: voice vote (7/24/
 95).                                                              Oil.                       95).              
H. Res. 198 (7/21/    O...................  H.R. 2076...........  Commerce, State Approps.   A: voice vote (7/25/
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95).              
H. Res. 201 (7/25/    O...................  H.R. 2099...........  VA/HUD Approps. FY 1996..  A: 230-189 (7/25/  
 95).                                                                                         95).              
H. Res. 204 (7/28/    MC..................  S. 21...............  Terminating U.S. Arms      A: voice vote (8/1/
 95).                                                              Embargo on Bosnia.         95).              
H. Res. 205 (7/28/    O...................  H.R. 2126...........  Defense Approps. FY 1996.  A: 409-1 (7/31/95).
 95).                                                                                                           
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1555...........  Communications Act of      A: 255-156 (8/2/   
                                                                   1995.                      95).              
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 2127...........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY     A: 323-104 (8/2/   
                                                                   1996.                      95).              
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)  O...................  H.R. 1594...........  Economically Targeted      A: voice vote (9/12/
                                                                   Investments.               95).              
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1655...........  Intelligence               A: voice vote (9/12/
                                                                   Authorization FY 1996.     95).              
H. Res. 218 (9/12/    O...................  H.R. 1162...........  Deficit Reduction Lockbox  A: voice vote (9/13/
 95).                                                                                         95).              
H. Res. 219 (9/12/    O...................  H.R. 1670...........  Federal Acquisition        A: 414-0 (9/13/95).
 95).                                                              Reform Act.                                  
H. Res. 222 (9/18/    O...................  H.R. 1617...........  CAREERS Act..............  A: 388-2 (9/19/95).
 95).                                                                                                           
H. Res. 224 (9/19/    O...................  H.R. 2274...........  Natl. Highway System.....  PQ: 241-173 A: 375-
 95).                                                                                         39-1 (9/20/95).   
H. Res. 225 (9/19/    MC..................  H.R. 927............  Cuban Liberty & Dem.       A: 304-118 (9/20/  
 95).                                                              Solidarity.                95).              
H. Res. 226 (9/21/    O...................  H.R. 743............  Team Act.................  ...................
 95).                                                                                                           
H. Res. 227 (9/21/    O...................  H.R. 1170...........  3-Judge Court............  ...................
 95).                                                                                                           
H. Res. 228 (9/21/    O...................  H.R. 1601...........  Internatl. Space Station.  ...................
 95).                                                                                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               

  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 743 and to rule 
which provides for its consideration. This bill is nothing more than a 
thinly disguised attempt to return to the old days of company unions. 
Supporters of this bill represent it as a means of empowering employees 
in the 21st century workplace. But, I submit Mr. Speaker, that rather 
than looking forward, this bill represents a return to the early 20th 
century when employers controlled both sides of a bargaining table, if 
indeed such a table existed.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation effectively repeals a worker protection 
that has been in place for 60 years. In 1935, when the Wagner Act was 
enacted, the Congress chose to extend a guarantee 

[[Page H 9518]]
of a fundamental principle of democracy to the workplace. That 
principle, in essence, is the freedom of association, the right of 
employees to choose their own independent representative to negotiate 
with an employer over wages, hours, or conditions of employment. Common 
sense and decency demand no less for the working men and women in this 
country, most especially as we enter the 21st century.
  This democratic principle should serve as a moral compass as we, as a 
Nation, negotiate our place in the global economy. If we are indeed the 
greatest democratic Nation in the history of the planet, then how can 
we deny such a fundamental principle of democracy to our own workers, 
for are they not the backbone of our country and all it stands for?
  Proponents of this legislation claim that in order for business to 
compete in the new century that new efficiencies must be implemented in 
the workplace, by establishing work teams or labor-management 
cooperation programs. They claim section 8(a)(2) precludes such labor-
management association. But I would beg to differ. Mr. Speaker, 
innovations such as employee work teams are already flourishing in the 
shops, businesses, and factories of this country, in spite of the 
existence of section 8(a)(2).
  In fact, the NLRB has already held, in General Foods, that the 
employer has the right to set up a method of production which delegated 
significant managerial responsibilities to employee work teams. And, in 
the Electromation case, the very case the proponents cite as a powerful 
example of the need for this change in the law, the court of appeals 
held that section 8(a)(2) does not foreclose appropriate employee 
involvement which focused solely on increasing company productivity, 
efficiency, and quality control.
  If one examines the law, one can see that section 8(a)(2) does not 
prohibit employee involvement, it merely distinguishes between 
legitimate and illegitimate activity. Section 8(a)(2) prohibits only 
one form of employee involvement: The employee program which is 
dominated by the employer and which deals with employees' wages or 
other terms or conditions of employment. Section 8(a)(2) merely seeks 
to assure workers that they will have the right to determine who speaks 
for them and who will ultimately be responsible to them.
  Mr. Speaker, if issues were left open by the Electromation case, then 
let us address those specific issues. If there was a chilling effect on 
existing employee involvement programs, then let us fix that problem. 
But H.R. 743 is not a fix: It is, instead, a fundamental change in the 
rights of working men and women. And it is a change that is unfair and 
unreasonable and I urge defeat of the bill.

                              {time}  1300

  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule should be adopted and we should move swiftly 
to enact the TEAM Act, because it is necessary for us to do that to 
enable modern business practices to be continued and expanded here in 
the United States.
  We have come a long way since the World War I Henry Ford-style mass 
production, where you do what you are told and you show up. Henry Ford 
used to say ``The only trouble I have with employees is that I am 
hiring their mind along with their hands.'' He just wanted people who 
would do what they were told and be as productive as possible and not 
bring all of their abilities to building quality into their product.
  We have come a long way from that. To have a sophisticated modern 
economy, we need to involve employees' abilities as fully as possible 
in the workplace and in the enterprise in which they are active.
  I had a meeting some years ago when we were worried about the 
Japanese threat, and one of the Japanese businessmen who was there said 
``Well, you know, we are going to beat you every time in the 
marketplace.'' I asked ``Why is that?'' He said ``Because when we 
compete with an American corporation with 10,000 employees, we are only 
competing really with 10 or 15 brains. The rest are just doing what 
they are told. I have 5,000 Japanese employees, and all of their brains 
are actively working to maximize our quality and our cost effectiveness 
in the workplace.''
  We have changed that here in America. We have got to keep on changing 
that through employee involvement, employee circles, working to give 
everyone a greater say in how their jobs are operated and in the goods 
that they produce and the quality that is built into them. That is what 
employee involvement is all about.
  Unfortunately, under some outdated--in this new world--labor 
legislation passed in other times, courts have held that employee 
involvement practices violate legal standards. For example, here is a 
case of the Donnelly Corp., whose employee involvement program really 
resulted in a classic catch-22 situation and would be in violation of 
law if we fail to pass the TEAM Act.
  That company had a program which was lauded by the U.S. Department of 
Labor for its innovations in worker-management relations. But, 
ironically, as a result of Donnelly's testimony before the Dunlop 
Commission on the future of worker-management relations as they worked 
to try to improve our competitiveness and the fulfilling nature of 
employment in our country, their program is regarded as in jeopardy.
  The National Labor Relations Board is challenging the program of the 
Donnelly Corp. as a violation of section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor 
Relations Act. Donnelly's program, as I said, was praised for its 
reliance on the principle that workers, when given the opportunity, 
make an invaluable contribution to the success of their companies. They 
do not have to be told what to do. They can decide for themselves. The 
development of the Donnelly program was directly intended to empower 
employees and push decisionmaking authority down to the shop floor. 
Unfortunately, a single labor law professor who heard their innovative 
story decided to punish them and their employer for the sake of 
preserving the 1930 style of collective bargaining.
  So the TEAM Act would ensure that proceedings like that now involving 
the Donnelly Corp. before the National Labor Relations Board could not 
be brought because it would clarify the law and make it clear that 
employee involvement would not violate section 8(a)(2) of the National 
Labor Relations Act.

  For that reason I would urge adoption of this rule and the passage of 
the TEAM Act.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Nadler].
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule on H.R. 743, the 
so-called TEAM Act. This bill would be a flagrant violation of the 
rights of workers and is in absolute disregard of the democratic values 
of this country.
  Sixty years ago, this Nation enacted laws to protect its workers by 
ensuring their right to have an independent voice in the conditions of 
their workplaces. Workers were permitted and guaranteed by law the 
right to have a separate negotiating body on which they could rely in 
effectively representing their interests. As a result of the efforts of 
these organized employee representative bodies, or unions, for the 
first time substantial protection of workers' rights were achieved in 
this country, and many unfair labor practices and unsafe working 
environments were addressed and improved, not to mention improvements 
in wages and hours.
  This bill, however, ironically in the name of teamwork, would rob 
workers of that independent voice and thwart organizing efforts, 
leaving employees vulnerable to abuse by employers. This bill would 
give the management under certain circumstances the exclusive authority 
to set conditions of employment, wages and hours, sole authority to 
deal with labor disputes and grievances under certain circumstances, 
authority to select and appoint members of workplace teams, and the 
authority in some cases to set the agenda and even terminate employees 
at will. By dictating to workers who will represent 

[[Page H 9519]]
them in discussions concerning the conditions of their workplaces, it 
strips workers of their basic rights to organize and to be represented 
independently. This kind of so-called cooperation between employees and 
employers would put workers in the most compromising position, in 
effect back where they were before the passage of the National Labor 
Relations Act in 1935.
  This bill is not about teamwork. What it really is about is employer 
domination and destruction of the rights of workers. This bill fosters 
the exploitation of workers and denies them a democratic voice in their 
workplace. The so-called TEAM Act is destructive of the democratic 
progress this Nation has made, as have been so many of the Republican 
bills that have come to this floor in this session.
  For the sake of fairness and for the preservation of the basic rights 
of workers, I urge my colleagues to oppose this very reactionary and 
very misguided legislation.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 743, 
the TEAM Act. Today, an employer who works together with employees to 
improve work safety, boost productivity or address employee morale, is 
violating the law. I have got union groups in my particular district. 
Labor works with management, management works with labor, and it is as 
it should be. But in all circumstances it does not work that smooth. As 
a matter of fact, these individuals sit down and they plan the goals, 
plan how much work is to be done, and the group, labor and management, 
actually sits down and determines if they want to shut down because 
they cannot reach their goal or if it is good for business, because 
they are smart enough to realize it is better to be working than not 
working, and they work very closely together.
  But for management to be able to sit down with workers and organize 
as far as what is good for that company and be in violation of the law, 
it is just not good common sense.
  Mr. Speaker, the labor unions represent less than 12 percent of the 
work force in this country. The rest of the work force, over 82 
percent, is made up of small and large business in private industry, 
and the opposite side of the aisle say they constantly represent the 
worker. If that was the case, they would represent 82 percent of the 
private enterprise and the unions. But that is not the direction they 
want to go.
  The TEAM Act says simply that an employer can work with employees, 
period. It does not permit illegal employer unions. It does not affect 
union shops at all. It does not intrude on collective bargaining. It 
simply allows employers and employees to work together. That is good 
common sense. Unfortunately, that does not exist in this body many 
times.
  The TEAM Act has a broad range of support, because happy employees 
who are involved in their work are unlikely to join labor unions and 
pay union dues. The TEAM Act is opposed, of course, by organized labor.
  Vote ``yes'' on the TEAM Act and oppose weakening amendments and 
support a strong labor force, both private and union.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, the Teamwork for Employers 
and Managers Act is a euphemism. It perverts the notion that labor and 
management are on the same team, when only the management gets to call 
the plays.
  In my State of Rhode Island, we would call this bill the Waybosset 
bill. If anybody has even been to Providence, RI, and driven down 
Waybosset Street, they would know that I mean. it is a one-way street.
  That is what we are calling for in this bill, the TEAM Act. It is 
saying management can choose who they are going to bargain with. That 
does not sound fair to me. That perverts the whole idea of bargaining. 
How is labor going to have representation at the table if they cannot 
even choose their own representatives? This bill says that management 
is going to decide who represents labor.
  My colleagues, just think of what we have already done this session. 
The Republicans have dismantled OSHA. They have also said that when it 
comes to worker health and safety, that is voluntary. That is like 
saying stoplights should be voluntary. How often do you think a manager 
is going to go into their own workplace and say ``This is unsafe for 
the workers,'' when in essence they would be criticizing themselves? 
Managers do not even have to keep track of or records now of their own 
inspections.
  Mr. Speaker, no one should be fooled by the rhetoric here. This TEAM 
Act is a euphemism. It is nothing more than a one-way street for 
management to call the plays and expect labor to run their own plays.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the TEAM Act.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will agree with one thing my colleague just said, that 
we ought not to believe the rhetoric that people are saying about this 
bill. Let me describe what the bill does and why we need it. One of the 
really important developments, Mr. Speaker, of the last 10 to 15 years 
in particular has been the development of something called employee 
involvement or employee teams. There are millions of Americans familiar 
with it because they are participating in them.
  These are a very flexible, diverse kind of way to get employees 
involved in making decisions which otherwise would have to be made 
entirely by management. It can cover everything from scheduling 
decisions to safety to productivity. It can be as formal as a regular 
safety committee, or as informal as people getting together for a few 
days to talk about scheduling or talk about how we deal with this 
problem on the production line. It increases employee satisfaction, it 
increases productivity, it has made American industry more competitive 
internationally. It is a good thing, and we have dozens and dozens and 
dozens of people come and testify and tell us that. And these were 
employees.
  I have been out in shops and touring places in my district, and they 
all wanted to be able to do this. And the problem is that that form of 
employee involvement is quite probably illegal under the National Labor 
Relations Act, because 60 years ago, Congress quite properly outlawed 
company unions, and the National Labor Relations Board has interpreted 
these things as to be in effect company unions. Now we need to be able 
to provide relief to these millions of Americans who are doing 
something they want to do and helping the economy at the same time.

                              {time}  1315

  Now, the arguments against this that we have heard made and are going 
to be made by the other side is this will hurt union shops, it will 
circumvent workplaces that are collectively bargained and the proper 
role of the collective bargaining agent.
  The answer to that, the bill exempts workshops that are organized by 
unions. It does not apply there. We will hear argued that the bill 
permits company unions. The truth is the bill explicitly prohibits 
company unions because it says if one of these employee entities has or 
claims the right to bargain collectively, and that is the essence of a 
union, an entity that claims the right to bargain collectively, is not 
covered by the bill. It is not protected by the proviso.
  We will hear it is not needed; that, in fact, there is nothing wrong 
out there; that people are doing this now and are not under threat. Mr. 
Speaker, there are dozens of cases pending before the National Labor 
Relations Board in which these arguments are being challenged now, and 
I do not think the board is wrong in doing that, because under the 
bipolar world of the National Labor Relations Act as it was passed in 
1935, employee relations had to be necessarily adversarial. Either 
management and labor eyed each other across the bargaining table in an 
adversarial fashion or the only other model was employers ramming it 
down the throat of employees. They did not anticipate what would happen 
45 or 50 years later 

[[Page H 9520]]
when people would work together and cooperate.
  These things are foreign to the scheme of the NLRA as it was passed 
60 years ago. That is why we need to update it. Do we really think 
there is no problem? Well, here is what this Congress said last year 
when it was controlled by the other side in a committee report on an 
OSHA bill. ``Substantial uncertainty exists over the impact of the 
Electromation and DuPont decisions'', and those are the decisions we 
are talking about, ``on joint safety and health committees''.
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, these committees may be illegal under 
the law. Mr. William Gould, who is the chairman of the National Labor 
Relations Board, said exactly what I said a minute ago. He said, ``The 
difficulty here is that Federal labor law, because it is still rooted 
in the Great Depression reaction to company unions through which 
employers controlled labor organizations, prohibits financial 
assistance by employers to any labor organization''. That is his quote, 
and he meant including any kind of employee involvement. He suggested 
amendments to the NLRA that allowed for cooperative relationships.
  Mr. Speaker, it is possible to have win-win kinds of legislation. It 
is possible to have legislation which empowers people to do good 
things. That is what we are trying to do here. I urge the House to 
consider this dispassionately, to discount the rhetoric against this 
kind of thing. This is something that people really want. Let us do 
something people really want rather than allowing them to be bound by 
the concepts and the laws on those concepts of 60 years ago when the 
world was a very, very different place than it is now.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, let me confess at the outset that I come 
from a union family. My mother, father, two brothers and I all worked 
for a railroad. We were all proud members of the Brotherhood of Railway 
Clerks, and that is part of my core value. I believe in unionism.
  I believe that labor organizations have an important place in the 
American economy, but let me tell Members a story; 2 or maybe 3 years 
ago the Democratic Caucus had a meeting, and we invited in the head 
manager and the top union representative from the Saturn plant in 
Tennessee. We have seen all the ads about their teamwork there. These 
two men came to the stage both wearing khaki pants and a white button-
down shirt and a red cardigan sweater. They sat down and started 
talking about their team concept in building cars, and for the first 10 
minutes, I swear, I could not tell which was on the management side and 
which was on the labor side. It was clearly the best of all possible 
worlds. Here was a workplace situation where workers were being treated 
with dignity, brought into the decision process. The kind of team 
approach which we all hope will become part of American business and 
the American labor experience.
  Mr. Speaker, I can say with some certitude, because I have heard it 
from those who support this TEAM Act, that this is not an exception at 
the Saturn plant. In fact, what we are told is that 80 percent of the 
largest companies in the United States are already doing this; that 
some 30,000 workplaces across the country have tried these concepts 
where the workers and the management sit down and work together and it 
works. The productivity of the workers is shown in the wages and in the 
quality of the product and the profits for the company, and that is 
certainly what we all want.
  So the obvious question, if this is taking place in so many 
businesses across the United States, why do we need this law? If 
Congress is going to spend its time passing laws to enact things that 
already exist, we are going to have a pretty busy schedule, and there 
are a lot of things we should be spending our time on and problems that 
need to be solved.
  Well, when we open up the lid and look inside the TEAM Act, we find 
it is much more than I just described and much more than we heard form 
the Republicans who are supporting it. It is not a question of employee 
and employer cooperation. We all want that. What they are trying to do 
is twofold. First, they have three companies that have gone over the 
line and pushed it too far. They have cases ending before the National 
Labor Relations Board. These companies, these special interests, are 
pushing for this legislation to get them off the hook.
  Second, many companies think if they can create this kind of a 
company union, they can break efforts to organize plants and businesses 
across the United States by labor organizations. They will come in and 
say, do not sign up with the international union, we will create our 
little company union here and, therefore, you will not have to do 
business with them. It is a way to break down an effort to organize a 
plant.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is a good thing for us to see in 
this country. The single biggest problem we face in our economy is that 
working families, middle-class families, are working harder, putting in 
more hours, going to work, husbands and wives both playing by the rules 
and beating their heads against the wall. The productivity is up, 
corporate profits are up, and wages are not up.
  Wages are stagnant and people are frustrated and angry and they 
should be. It is no coincidence we have seen a decline in the size and 
quality of the middle class in America as we have seen a decline in the 
size of labor unionism, because those workers no longer have a place at 
the table in collective bargaining. The TEAM Act is an effort to keep 
those workers away from the table, put them in little company unions 
where they can be controlled.
  What we need in this country is an honest approach. Collective 
bargaining. Hard work should be rewarded. People should get a decent 
paycheck. That is part of the American dream, and it is a darned good 
reason to vote against the TEAM Act.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling,] the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Durbin] who talked about the beautiful operation going on in union 
settings between labor and management, and that is true, and that is 
what we want to do for the rest of the people in the United States. At 
the present time that cannot happen if you are not a unionized plant. 
Either management dictates everything or employees dictate everything. 
They cannot work together as they do in a union setting. That is why 
the necessity for the legislation that is on the floor today.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Ms. Velazquez].
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the bill.
  The most important reason workers organize or join a union at their 
workplace is so that they have some collective clout. Every employee 
knows that without a union, the employer makes all the rules--pay, 
hours, overtime, working conditions. The employer owns the job and 
workers can be fired without cause.
  Only the legal protection of the National Labor Relations Act and its 
8(a)(2) provision, ensures that people have the right to elect 
representatives of their own choosing to negotiate on the employees 
behalf. If we change this critical protection in the law, then 
democracy fails.

  Employers understand this very well. It is no accident that the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers 
support this bill. If these business representatives--who were not 
chosen by the employees--were interested in employee participation, as 
they claim, then let them prove it by supporting union organizing 
efforts by unions of the employees choice. Democracy succeeds when the 
rights of workers are respected--not eliminated.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this dangerous bill.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].

[[Page H 9521]]

  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make one point about the impact of this bill 
on union organizing. An employer cannot use a team or committee to 
interfere with employees' ability to organize or engage in other 
concerted activities for mutual aid or protection. The law which makes 
it an unfair labor practice for employers to interfere with, restrain, 
or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights, guaranteed by 
section 7 of the NLRA, to organize and bargain collectively through 
representatives of their own choosing--remains untouched by the TEAM 
Act. In a recent case, it was found that an employer's promise, the day 
before a union election, to establish a communications committee to 
deal with employee grievances was a violation of section 8(a)(1) 
because it was used as an inducement to persuade employees to vote 
against the union. This case remains good law even after passage of the 
TEAM Act.
  The bill specifically states that ``it shall not constitute or be 
evidence of a violation under this paragraph for an employer'' to 
establish and participate in an employee involvement structure. H.R. 
743 also specifically provides in section four that ``Nothing in this 
Act shall affect employee rights and responsibilities contained in 
provisions other than section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations 
Act, as amended.''
  Thus, the other protections in section 8(a) of the NLRA which 
prohibit employer conduct that interferes with the right of employees 
to freely choose independent representation remain in full force. If 
employee involvement structures do not prove to be an effective means 
for employees to have input into the production and management policies 
that impact them, those employees have every right, and every reason, 
to formally organize.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson].
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are not here to try to 
undercut unions. On the other hand, I do not want somebody that is 
elected by a union to come and talk common sense, and you know this 
TEAM Act is probably one of the most commonsense pieces of labor 
legislation that this House has ever seen.
  The TEAM Act will allow employers and employees to come together and 
discuss how they as a team, as the bill says, can make their workplace 
safer, more efficient, and produce a higher quality product, all 
without the threat of union legal battles. The aim of the legislation 
is to allow companies to bring their employees into the planning 
process by giving them a hand in formulating their work policy.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know big labor will paint this as detrimental to 
the American worker. It is simply false. The bill makes it clear that 
employer-employee organizations may not enter into or negotiate 
collective bargaining agreements or amend existing collective 
bargaining agreements.
  The real reason that unions are screaming is they are afraid of 
losing power by allowing employees to work with their employers to 
solve basic problems without the heavy hand of union interference.
  As we prepare our work force for the 21st century, we cannot continue 
to hold on to obsolete rules that stifle creative solutions to 
challenges in the workplace, and unions need to change, too. Both 
employees and employers want the ability to improve their performance 
and working conditions. The TEAM Act does that while still protecting 
the rights of the employees.
  Do what is right for American workers, support teamwork. Let us vote 
for this rule and the TEAM Act.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Graham].
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Gunderson] on putting this act together. This will revolutionize 
the way we do business in America, and unfortunately there is some case 
law out there that stands in the way of businesses being competitive in 
the 21st century.

                              {time}  1330

  The Third District of South Carolina has transformed itself in the 
last 30 or 40 years from being a district dominated by the textile 
industry.
  When I was growing up, there was a paternalistic society where people 
were not asked to give their ideas. They were told what to do and when 
to be there and they were treated like children.
  Mr. Speaker, I have seen that industry itself change where now 
business leaders are looking at their employees as assets and they are 
asking them: How can we make our product better? They are talking to 
them about safety in the workplace and about benefit packages.
  Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this bill that prevents people from 
organizing unions, if they want to. What we are trying to do is to make 
sure that when employees and employers want to, they can sit down and 
discuss how to run a business; how to make it better for the employer 
and better for the employee.
  Unless we pass this legislation, there is a legal ruling that will 
stand in the way of that from happening. If that cannot happen in the 
Third Congressional District of South Carolina, we are going to be left 
behind, because employees are assets that have good minds and good 
hearts. They want to give back to the company. They want to be asked 
how to do business. They want to be a part of the process.
  Mr. Speaker, as I go through my district touring plants, I am now 
shown the plant by team leaders. They take a lot of pride in what they 
do. There is dignity in the workplace. This is an absolute, essential 
piece of legislation to allow American businesses to grow. If we do not 
pass this, we are going to go back to the time when workers were 
treated like children and the only people who could talk were unions, 
and that is not fair.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge defeat of the rule and defeat 
of the TEAM Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the continuing assault on the American worker by this 
Congress continues today with the consideration of the TEAM Act. I 
strongly urge the defeat of this proposal.
  This bill, in my opinion, creates more problems than it solves. The 
so-called TEAM Act has nothing to do with teamwork, with workplace 
cooperation, or with empowering employees.
  Under the guise of empowering employees, H.R. 743 guts section 
8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, allowing an employer to 
create an organization of employees, determine its procedures, and 
select the organization's leaders. The bill would reestablish company 
unions, because employers could negotiate the terms and conditions of 
employment with this new organization, so long as the employer does not 
enter into a new contract.
  Mr. Speaker, eliminating the basic right of employees to be 
represented by their own independent representatives in collective 
bargaining will not improve the situations of employers or employees. 
The TEAM Act would turn existing cooperative labor-management groups 
into adversarial relationships. Undermining the basic rights of 
employees is not teamwork, but is an attack on basic rights of workers 
to have independent representation.
  The assault on the workers continues in this Congress. It must be 
stopped. The very first thing we saw at the start of this Congress with 
the Education and Labor Committee was the elimination of the word 
``labor'' in the name of the new committee.
  Then we saw an assault on the minimum wage. Not only has the majority 
refused to raise the minimum wage; they want to eliminate the minimum 
wage totally. We see the OSHA laws, the safety of the American worker 
which is so important, they wan to undermine it and eliminate it and 
scrap it. That continues to march on.
  The National Labor Relations Board, we saw in the funding bills, they 
want to eliminate a lot of moneys to fund that. That is supposed to 
monitor unfair labor practices.
  We talk about Davis-Bacon which is supposed to provide construction 
workers with a prevailing wage. They want to repeal Davis-Bacon.

[[Page H 9522]]

  Mr. Speaker, this TEAM Act is just another in a set of measures by 
the majority Republicans in this Congress to try to undermine the well-
being of the American worker, to try to assault the American worker. It 
really ought to be defeated.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the rule and defeat of this bill. This 
is a terrible piece of legislation. My colleagues have heard the 
speakers on our side. It would change 60 years of settled law in this 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed to hear my colleague from 
Texas urging defeat of this rule, as this is a completely open rule. 
This rule allows any Member of this House to come forward with any 
amendment that they feel needs to be discussed by the House.
  Mr. Speaker, there are no preprinting requirements. There are no time 
limitations. This is an open rule. This is the best way to bring debate 
to this floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support adoption of this 
rule, despite whatever misgivings they may have to the underlying 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Everett). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 267, 
nays 149, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 686]

                               YEAS--267

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     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
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--149

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bonior
     Borski
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bryant (TN)
     Callahan
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Tejeda
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Watts (OK)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1356

  Mr. BEVILL and Mr. RICHARDSON changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mrs. CHENOWETH and Mr. SKAGGS changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________