[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 27, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9551-H9556]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            TEAMWORK FOR EMPLOYEES AND MANAGERS ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Salmon). Pursuant to House Resolution 
226 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 743.

                             {time}   1747


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 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, with Mr. Kolbe in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
section 3 had been designated and pending was the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time during further 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded 
vote on any amendment and may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the 
time for voting by electronic device on any postponed question that 
immediately follows another vote by electronic device without 
intervening business, provided that the time for voting by electronic 
device on the first in any series of questions shall not be less than 
15 minutes.
  Debate on each further amendment to the bill will be debatable for 10 
minutes, equally divided between the proponent and an opponent of the 
amendment.
  Two and one-half minutes remain on each side on the Moran amendment. 
The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] controls 2\1/2\ minutes and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] controls 2\1/2\ minutes and 
will be entitled to close the debate.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there are some things that I want to emphasize in this, 
because some of my very good friends have spoken on this, and perhaps 
there may be some misunderstanding.
  In the first place, this does not affect any of the teams that 
currently exist that enable employers to deal with employees. This only 
affects groups that are set up to discuss the wages and working 
conditions. Those specific, most profound issues that are restricted by 
the National Labor Relations Act. Because the Labor Relations Act says 
that if you are going to discuss the wages and conditions of 
employment, then you really need legitimate elected representatives.
  Mr. Chairman, that is all this amendment does. This amendment simply 
says that if you are going to have people making those determinations, 
the most important determinations in terms of the workforce, then those 
representatives of the employees ought to be democratically elected by 
the employees.
  It does not go into a lot of rigamarole on how it might occur. I am 
sure there might be many ways of doing it, but it has to be a secret 
ballot and that is all that we ask. We do not tie it to any Federal 
bureaucracy. But I know that this is an aspect of fairness that not 
only legitimizes this bill, if it were to pass, but legitimizes the 
labor-management relationship within the work force.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] is 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, let me describe why this amendment is not 
going to work and why it reflects the mentality that simply does not 
reflect what is going on in the workplace today.
  Let us take again a real-life example; not something that is going on 
in the Congress. People in the workshop are upset. They have been 
working a lot of overtime and maybe they do not like that. They have 
been complaining to the supervisor.
  No union is present and no organizing. The supervisor goes to the 
plant manager. What can the plant manager do? The other side has 
admitted that there is a problem. That the plant manager cannot just 
form some kind of a team under current law to examine it; that it would 
be illegal under current law. So what can the plant manager do?
  Mr. Chairman, he can just say, ``Forget it. I am going to make the 
decision myself. We are going to continue working the way we are.'' 
What we want to say is let him do what people are already trying to do 
in thousands of places around the country. Say, ``Okay. You talk to the 
people involved in it. Make sure you talk to Bill and Fred. Get them 
together and come up with a solution.''
  Mr. Chairman, what the amendment would say, before he can do that he 
has got to have an election with a secret ballot. What unit are you 
going to use? Just the craft unit in the plant? Are you going to use 
the whole unit? What day are you going to have the election? How many 
weeks are they going to have beforehand? What is the nominating 
process? How are they going to conduct the secret ballot?
  Mr. Chairman, it is going to take months to resolve something that 
people in the real world outside of Government need to get resolved 
quickly. The effect of this amendment, or the defeat of this bill, 
would be to say, in effect, management must act dictatorially unless 
the employees choose the union.
  Mr. Chairman, why do we want to force that in the workplaces on the 
employees and the employees in the United States? If people have a 
representative who will go in and collectively bargain and want a 
secret ballot and they want the months and months of campaigning, there 
is a method to get that. Under current law, it is called a union. If 
that is what they want, they can have it.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not foreclose this expeditious means of 
getting people involved in decisions that are going to have to be made 
dictatorially by management. There is a problem. We have established 
consensus. This is a narrowly tailored bill to achieve it. The 
amendment, although offered in good faith, and I respect the work of 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], is unworkable. Defeat the 
amendment and pass the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].

[[Page H 9552]]

  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Moran], will be postponed.


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: Page 7, line 16, strike 
     ``employees'' and insert ``who participate to at least the 
     same extent practicable as representatives of management,''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent request, the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] will be recognized for 5 minutes, 
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] will be recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment basically says, page 7, line 16, after 
``employees,'' insert, ``who participate to at least the same extent 
practicable as representatives of management.''
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is predicated on legal precedents of law 
now. Section 302 of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act allows multi-employer 
pension funds in this case to be administered by a joint labor 
management board of trustees.
  The key language in this legislation foundation is so long as both 
sides are equally represented. The statutory requirement ensures that 
equality is not illusory, but real. This does not micromanage business 
and it would offer some basic protections as it deals with fairness.
  Now, there have been some attempts to reach common ground on this 
language, but I believe the language is, in fact, a basic, commonsense 
fairness provision.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman for 
his effort in trying to work something out here. Let us clarify. I ask 
the gentleman whether I understand the amendment correctly. What the 
gentleman from Ohio is saying is that to the extent practicable, a team 
ought to have the same number of employers as employees?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, to the greatest 
extent practicable all those matters of representation should be on an 
equal footing. I have left the language open in the event that there 
are some other mitigating factors which might cause some confusion.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, 
and in our previous discussions that the gentleman and I had before he 
brought the amendment up, in a situation, for example, in a small 
business where I happen to be the employer and I happen to have 30 
employees, that does not mean that we would limit the team to 1 
employee.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, no, it would not. To 
the greatest extent practicable, fairness, and where it can be reached, 
equality in reaching these cooperative provisions that the bill 
espouses. Where they can be obtained, to the greatest extent 
practicable that shall be the benchmark and the guiding mark.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
clarification.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, let me say this. Democrats are looking 
for some sinister side to this. The Republicans are not; they are 
saying it is all well-intentioned. Frankly, I do not know. All I know 
is this. If we are going to have these teams, there has been a 
statutory benchmark that says, Look, when we have joint employer-
employee groups, the key legislative legal language is ``fair and equal 
representation.'' Everybody having the same input as possible.
  Now, I would be willing to work out anything that would reach the 
intent of that language, but I do not believe that there is much of a 
difference in the positions that we have discussed.

                              {time}  1800

  I believe the language is self-explanatory to the greatest extent 
practicable, but it ensures that fairness provision, as listed in 
section 302 of the Taft-Hartley Act, which speaks to participatory 
committees.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
who defines whether it is practicable?
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, the question that I have here, and I am not 
trying to be difficult, basically, as I understand the gentleman's 
amendment, section 3 would read that, it shall not constitute or be 
evidence of an unfair labor practice under this paragraph for an 
employer to establish, assist, maintain or participate in any 
organization or entity of any kind in which employees participate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] has 
expired.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Fawell].
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, in which employees participate to at least 
the same extent practicable as representatives of management.
  My question is, how do we determine whether or not the employees are 
participating to the same extent as representatives of management? It 
is not just a case of numbers. Now you are talking about a very 
subjective question of, are the employees participating to the same 
extent as are representatives of management. I do not know how that can 
be. I can see it being the formation of an awful lot of lawsuits.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the existing 
language that deals with participatory committees under a labor setting 
is as long as both sides are equally represented. Now, I leave it open 
and broad enough, and to answer the gentleman from Wisconsin, that 
could be determined by the committee itself, those equally represented 
groups there, as to how and what in fact it is. It does not have to 
entail a big legal process. That would be my legislative intent.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] has 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman would answer a 
question. I can explain the problem I have got with his amendment. I 
see what the gentleman is driving at, but I want to explore why the 
gentleman thinks it is necessary, if I could.
  Again, we are talking about real life problems that arise in the 
workplace. If the workplace is organized, if there is a union 
representing the employees, this bill does not apply. So we are talking 
about unorganized workplaces. So there is no union present.
  Now, where there is no union present, without this bill, there is no 
question that management can decide these issues on its own without 
talking to anybody, can just say, we are going to change the scheduling 
and we are not going to change it. We do not care what people think. 
They just decide it on their own and do it. And that is perfectly 
legal.
  So the question I have to ask the gentleman is, if a manager who 
decided on his own wants to say, well, look to the supervisor Joe, Joe, 
you and Fred go talk to Jane. So now there is two supervisors and Jane. 
What is wrong with allowing management to sample some employee opinion? 
Why do we have to require that they have some kind of equality when all 
that may result is management making the decision dictatorially.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TALENT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I am going to try to give as brief an 
answer as I can. I understand the gentleman's position. I accept it 101 
percent. But if we also take that a step further, 

[[Page H 9553]]

     is it not the intent of this legislation to provide for those 
     nonunion workplaces an opportunity for team coordination and 
     cooperation to move the company forward?
  With that in mind, every existing statute that covers participatory 
employer/employee groups has one basic bit of language, and it talks 
about equal opportunities within that group for both management and 
labor.
  The Traficant amendment basically says to the greatest extent 
practicable that each side should have an equal opportunity to address 
those issues and have their say.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman, I am not 
aware of every statute that says some kind of an equal participatory 
requirement. I mean, there is right now, what the statute provides is 
either management doing it entirely on its own without the 
participation of employees at all or a union being certified which is 
exclusively employees. So it seems to me the gentleman is trying to 
introduce a new concept. I do not know that it makes that much 
practical difference, but I think it is based on a misconception of 
what is going on out there again and what the act is designed to do.
  So I thank the gentleman for offering it. I know it is in good faith, 
but I do not know that it is workable.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I need to have the gentleman make a change. Where he 
says strike and insert, and then he has to put employees back in before 
we go to who, ``employees who participate.''
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.


           modification of amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that page 7, 
line 16, ``employees'' would be listed there before ``who participate 
to at least the same extent practicable as representatives of 
management.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment, as modified.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page 7, line 16, strike ``employees'' and insert ``who 
     participate to at least the same extent practicable as 
     representatives of management.''.

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, we accept the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered 
by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. doggett

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Doggett:
       Page 7, beginning on line 23, strike ``in a case in which'' 
     and all that follows through page 8, line 2, and insert the 
     following:
     ``this proviso shall not apply in a case in which--
       (1) a labor organization is the representative of such 
     employees as provided in section 9(a), or
       (2) the employer creates or alters the work unit or 
     committee during organizational or other concerted activities 
     for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid 
     or protection among such employees or seeks to discourage 
     employees from exercising their rights under section 7 of the 
     Act;''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of today, 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] will each be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Early in the consideration of this legislation, I met with employers 
in Austin, TX, folks like 3M and Texas Instruments, Motorola, IBM. I 
have personally seen teams at work in those kind of manufacturing 
plants that are vital to consistently maintaining our unemployment in 
central Texas below 4 percent. I personally believe in the team 
concept. It is already in abundant use in my area, and it is helping to 
keep American firms competitive in the international marketplace.
  Used appropriately, teams represent a process through which every 
employee is offered an opportunity to contribute to the maximum of that 
employee's potential. This approach represents one way for us to 
continue outperforming other countries.
  Some of these employers apparently fear, because of one case, that 
there is the possibility of being involved in litigation with 
unscrupulous employees for doing what they are already doing, for doing 
what is occurring at the very moment that we are debating this bill 
down in Austin, TX and in progressive workplaces across America.
  I do not have any personal problem with clarifying and protecting 
those employers under H.R. 743. But I think if we are going to protect 
the employer, we should also offer protection for the employee.
  My amendment is targeted to do just that. Just as there could be an 
unscrupulous employee stirring up litigation, so there could be an 
unscrupulous employer. My amendment is an attempt to reap the benefits 
of the TEAM Act without allowing abuse of the employee.
  It would simply make clear in a much more narrow way than my 
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer], attempted to do 
earlier that the TEAM Act itself is there, but it would be unfair for 
an employer to use a team to thwart an organizing drive. It says that 
the employer cannot create or alter a team during organizational or 
other concerted activities among employees.
  In other words, an employer cannot start a team or stack a team to 
thwart an organizing drive. And it is entirely neutral on whether 
people should be organized. Just as with the sponsors of this act, I do 
not take a position one way or another as to whether people should be 
in unions. That is up to them. We just should not have another tool in 
that process that could thwart their choice to belong to a union.
  The business leaders that I have talked to in Texas have said they 
are not out to create company unions or to thwart union drives through 
this legislation. So my amendment is consistent with what they say they 
need as well as with what they say they do not need.
  Since our colleagues who are offering the TEAM Act say they also have 
no intention of interfering in union organization, I would say, let us 
just spell it out in the bill. That is what this amendment does.
  I know that achieving moderation in this congress when the issue is 
employer-employee relations, labor-management relations, is not an easy 
task. But that is what we ought to do here tonight. I personally voted 
today for the resolution that permitted the consideration of H.R. 743. 
I want to support the TEAM Act and vote for this bill. But let us be 
sure that we have provided protection for those employees who want the 
right to organize and that they do not get teamed up on.
  Let us pass this amendment, because with it we can protect employees 
while giving employers the flexibility that the sponsors say they need 
and which I believe they need to compete globally.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to make sure that everybody 
understands that if an employer uses a team or committee to interfere 
with the right of employees to organize, that is prohibited by law and 
the TEAM Act would not change that in any way. All the protections in 
the National Labor Relations Act safeguarding the rights of employees 
to organize and form unions remains unaffected by the TEAM Act. 
Employers are still prohibited from interfering with the employees' 
ability to organize under section 8(a)(1) and are prohibited under 
section 8(a)(3) from discriminating against employees on the basis of 
union activity.
  Prohibiting the creation of a team or alteration of a work unit 
during organizational activity would potentially call into question 
every team used because there is no way of ensuring that employers will 
be on notice that such 

[[Page H 9554]]

activity is taking place in the workplace.
  Is a discussion between two employees about the benefits of a union 
organization an activity, an organizational activity? What about 
offsite meetings between the local and several employees? Prohibiting 
the same activity during concerted activities makes matters even worse, 
as that concept is extremely broad under the National Labor Relations 
Act. Indeed, it can cover any time two employees are talking about a 
term or a condition of employment.
  So the amendment would really cause all sorts of confusion and I 
suppose all sorts of litigation also.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [MR. Fawell].
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. An employer cannot 
use a team or committee to interfere with the employees ability to 
organize or engage in other concerted activities for mutual aid or 
protection. Interestingly enough, this is set forth right in section 
(a)(1) which makes it an unfair labor practice for employers to 
interfere with, to restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of 
their rights guaranteed by section 7 of the National Labor Relations 
Act or to organize or bargain collectively through representatives of 
their own choosing. That remains untouched by this 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 in fact of section 
8(a)(1), because it was used as an inducement to persuade employees to 
vote against the union.
  Again, I just urge Members not to start filling in all of these 
various types of laws in this bill. It is already taken care of.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, as I hear the arguments against the amendment, they 
seem to boil down to that it is already against the law to do what I 
want to accomplish through this amendment and, on the other hand, that 
the amendment is too broad to do what is already in the law. If it is 
already in the law and there is no intent to use the TEAM Act in order 
to thwart organizing drives, then why not put it in again and clarify 
it and assure those who have been concerned that that is the purpose of 
this act that in fact we are prohibiting it.
  As far as whether the second argument, that the amendment is too 
broad, I have drawn it directly from section 7 of the act and have not 
included any new terms of art but have relied on those terms that are 
already in as codified 29 U.S.C. 157, where we already have a body of 
court law concerning what these terms mean.
  As to the final point, which I wonder if offered almost frivolously, 
that perhaps the employer would not know when employees were engaged in 
an organizing drive, I guarantee my colleagues that any of the Texas 
employers that I know, they are going to know if there is an organizing 
drive going on in their plant.
  This is a narrow amendment. It does not use the categories, nor is it 
subject to the kind of objections that were raised to the amendment 
which I thought was a good one, of my colleague, the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].
  It is designed only to assure employees that they are not going to be 
teamed up on. If we do that, then I can certainly join this bill. I 
think the bill is basically a good concept. I want to support the bill. 
I want to see a bill that can be signed by the President into law and 
one that is equally fair to employer and employee.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] is 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not question the intent 
of our colleague from Texas. The concern I have is that section 7 of 
the act, which he took it from, talks about interfering. The problem 
with the amendment is that it says, if this happens at the same time, 
whether there is interference or not, then there is an automatic 
violation, and that becomes a problem when we look at our paren 2 where 
the employer alters the work unit. The gentleman and I know that simply 
any kind of change of the work force or the change of the production 
line alters the word unit. Now my colleague would say he has got that 
during an organizational or other concerted activity for the purpose of 
collective bargaining, or mutual aid, or protection among the 
employees. So, if we are altering the work unit, changing the 
production line for the mutual aid or protection of the employees 
making the place safer for the work force, if that were happening at 
the same time the TEAM were in effect, it would not have to be 
interference, but if it is happening at the same time, it becomes a 
problem.
  I have to tell my colleague I think most people on this side of the 
aisle do not want TEAM to become an excuse and tactic to prevent 
organization, and if during this process, as we move through the Senate 
and conference, if we can talk this out, I think some of us want to 
work with the gentleman on that. Our concern is that the language the 
gentleman has seems to go beyond that, and we have some concerns, so 
that is why I would encourage my colleagues not to support the 
amendment at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Doggett] will be postponed.


          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: The amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]; the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].


                     amendment offered by mr. moran

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the 
additional amendment on which the Chair has postponed further 
proceedings.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, is it necessary to ask for a recorded vote 
again?
  The CHAIRMAN. At the appropriate time Members will be asked to stand 
for a recorded vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195, 
noes 228, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 689]

                               AYES--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)

[[Page H 9555]]

     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--228

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

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Hoke
     Jefferson
     Martinez
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Schumer
     Solomon
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Watts (OK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1837

  Mr. SKELTON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. ORITZ and Ms. BROWN of Florida changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    amendment offered by mr. doggett

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the request for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 234, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 690]

                               AYES--187

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--234

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo

[[Page H 9556]]

     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Dunn
     Hilliard
     Jefferson
     Martinez
     Metcalf
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Schumer
     Solomon
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Watts (OK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1845

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1845

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate section 4.
  The text of section 4 is as follows:

     SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON EFFECT OF ACT.

       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.

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Kolbe, chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration 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, pursuant to House 
Resolution 226, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Under the rule, the previous 
question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 221, 
noes 202, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 691]

                               AYES--221

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--202

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schaefer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Stark
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Jefferson
     Lewis (CA)
     Martinez
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Schumer
     Solomon
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Watts (OK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1903

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________