[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 167 (Thursday, October 26, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H10868-H10872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING SOCIAL SECURITY EARNINGS TEST REFORM

  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 245, I call up 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 109) expressing the sense of 
the Congress regarding the need for raising the Social Security 
earnings limit, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman the designee of the 
majority leader?
  Mr. HASTERT. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman for 
Illinois [Mr. Hastert] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Jacobs], who I presume is the designee of 
the minority leader, will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this resolution, which Senator Dole and 
Senator McCain will be introducing in the other body, is very 
straightforward. Because of the unique rules of the other body, it is 
not possible for us to lift the Social Security earnings limit in the 
reconciliation bill before this House today.
  But an overwhelming majority of this House and of the other body 
favor such a move. In fact, the President of the United States, in his 
1992 campaign platform ``Putting People First'' also expressed his 
commitment to lifting the Social Security earnings limit.
  We all agree that it is simply wrong to penalize low and middle 
income seniors who must work, with a tax rate equal to that of 
millionaires. These seniors are some of our most productive and 
responsible workers. They are working to provide for themselves. They 
do not want to be a burden to their families or the taxpayers of this 
Nation. We should be rewarding such behavior, not penalizing it.
  Mr. Speaker, my resolution is intended to do two things. First, it 
restates the commitment of this House to lift the Social Security 
earnings limit this year. We have already passed a measure in this 
House to lift the earnings limit on Social Security and we expect our 
colleagues in the other body to take it up shortly.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise because I support increasing the 
Social Security earnings test. I believe that we should be encouraging 
work for all Americans, especially those who have a lifetime of 
experience. The current annual Social Security earnings limit of 
$11,000 penalizes too many who want to work after 65.
  I know that many workings seniors will be disappointed today that the 
increase in the Social Security earnings test passed earlier this year 
by the House is going to be dropped by the reconciliation bill. 
instead, we are voting today on a resolution which merely states that 
Congress intends to address this issue and I thank the gentleman for 
this resolution, but when we do raise the earnings test, let us make 
sure we do so without adversely impacting the Social Security trust 
funds.
  We do not want to reduce the solvency of the funds that guarantee 
every retiree a return on the money they paid into the system. Let us 
again find a responsible, sensible way to increase the earnings test, 
so that all 

[[Page H10869]]

Americans can get a fair return for their hard work.
  And let us make sure, Mr. Speaker, the earnings test applies to all 
people on Social Security. We should not encourage some over 65 to work 
and then discriminate against others, and this year, when we did pass 
this earnings-test increase, we discriminated against an individual 
over 65 who was blind. This is not fair. We should raise the limit for 
all people over 65 so they get a return on their hard work, and I thank 
the gentleman for this resolution.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer], the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me. This issue is something that has been one of my top priorities 
since I came to the Congress over two decades ago, raising the unfair 
earnings limit on seniors who want to work and continue to contribute 
to themselves and to their country once they have passed the retirement 
age of 65. It is nothing more than a tax on working, and it sends the 
wrong message to American seniors.
  Last fall we promised seniors that we would pass legislation to raise 
the earnings limitation, and on April 5 we did, raising it to $30,000 
by the year 2000 as part of our tax bill under the Contract With 
America. Then, as with all legislation, it was the Senate's turn to act 
on the provision. Unfortunately, the Senate did not. And, as we know 
all too well, without the cooperation of the Senate, no legislation is 
possible, no matter how strongly the House may feel about it.
  Now the House will act today on its historic budget reconciliation 
bill. Because an arcane Budget Act rule would put the entire budget 
reconciliation bill at risk in the Senate if it included any Social 
Security provisions, at the request of the Senate we did not include 
the earnings limitation provision in the House budget reconciliation 
bill.

                              {time}  1130

  Nothing is more important to Americans of all ages than achieving a 
balanced budget, which the budget reconciliation bill today will do, 
but it is also important to let working seniors know that we remain 
totally committed to raising the unfair limit on earnings. That is why 
we introduced a concurrent resolution yesterday. It makes it clear to 
working seniors that we in the House remain committed to raising the 
earnings limit, separate from reconciliation, and that our colleagues 
in the Senate now join us in that commitment.
  The House has already passed a bill to raise the earnings limit. It 
does not need to pass another. Now that Senate leaders have promised 
that the Senate will act, I am confident that the increase in the 
earnings limit that means so much to working seniors will become a 
reality. I have worked hard to see this happen for over two decades, 
joined in the Senate by Barry Goldwater as the leader sponsor until the 
year he retired.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] is to be commended for his 
efforts that have gone on for several years, as is the gentleman from 
Kentucky, Jim Bunning, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social 
Security of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  I appreciate the support of the Speaker and the majority leader in 
this effort. This change is long overdue, because it means so much to 
hard-working seniors, and we will do everything that we can, and 
certainly I, as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, to see 
that it comes to pass.
  Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are 
considering today expresses the sense of Congress that the Social 
Security earnings limit should be increased. The timing of this 
concurrent resolution is very interesting, and very telling of what is 
really happening here today. Did the Republicans not promise senior 
citizens across Ameica that this year, this year, they would increase 
the Social Security earnings limit from the current $11,200 to an 
eventual $30,000 per year in the year 2000? Was not increasing the 
Social Security earnings limit part of the original reconciliation 
package? Why now is it being pulled at this moment?
  The answer as to why this provision has been pulled from the bill we 
are considering today is quite simple: The Republicans have made a 
promise that they cannot and will not keep. They are finding a 
difficulty associated with saying on one hand they can quickly and 
easily balance the budget while saying on the other they can deliver on 
the many promises that they have made. Today the veneer is peeled off. 
We are witnessing exactly what is really happening.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal], that the President of the United States said 
that he would lift the earnings test in 1992, and we have not seen that 
happen. We are doing it today, and we will make sure that it is done.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] who has been a leader on this issue for the 
last 8 years.
  (Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House 
Concurrent Resolution 109.
  Mr. Speaker, on this historic day, it's important to talk about 
promises made--and promises kept--to senior Americans who want to keep 
working and contributing past age 65.
  A year ago in September, House Republicans promised working seniors 
that we would try to pass legislation to raise the limit on earnings 
that is so unfair, especially to middle and lower income seniors who 
work out of economic necessity.
  And on April 5, we kept our promise to working seniors by passing a 
tax bill that raised the earnings limit to $30,000 by the year 2000--
almost triple what it is now.
  And then we sent our bill over to the Senate so our colleagues there 
could pass it as well. But months went by, and unfortunately the Senate 
took no action.
  Now, the tax bill has been wrapped up in the budget reconciliation 
bill we are considering today. But, unfortunately there is an arcane 
budget rule which would put the entire budget reconciliation bill at 
risk if it includes any Social Security provisions.
  The arcane Senate rule put us in a tough position. The budget 
reconciliation bill will make it possible to achieve a balanced budget 
for the first time since 1969, and put an end to mortgaging our 
grandchildren's future. And as I said yesterday, as the grandfather of 
28, nothing is more important than that.
  As a result, it has been determined that we must drop the earnings 
limit provision from reconciliation rather than risk losing it all.
  Yesterday, we introduced House Concurrent Resolution 109--the 
resolution we are considering--to make it clear that, even though we 
were forced to drop the earning limit increase from reconciliation, we 
have not given up on our commitment to passing it--and passing it this 
year.
  We are still committed to making sure that the earnings limit is 
increased.
  The House has already passed the earnings limit increase--and this 
resolution simply says that we are committed to making sure that the 
Senate follows through. That is what this resolution is all about.
  It's a renewal of the promise we made last year. We have not given 
up--and I, for one, do not intend to give up until we get the Social 
Security earnings limit increased. I urge my colleagues to support this 
resolution.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and compatriot, and I know I 
should say champion, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] for all 
the work he has done, because the Social Security earnings test 
limitation penalizes seniors who want and need to work.
  In the Contract With America we pledged and voted to fix this 
inequity by raising the earnings threshold to a more reasonable level, 
and we are going to do it. Ultimately I believe we should repeal the 
limit altogether, because I think penalizing work is un-American and so 
do most Americans, but we have more work to do to reach that goal. This 
fix provides much-needed relief in the meantime. This resolution locks 
in our commitment to getting an increase in the earnings test limit 
signed into law this year. It also locks in the other body, and we have 
a 

[[Page H10870]]

commitment from the majority leader to make that happen.
  By passing this resolution, we jump the hurdle of a highly technical 
parliamentary problem pertaining to the rules of the other body when it 
comes to reconciliation, and we get the earnings test limits fix back 
on the fast track. This is good news for America's seniors. I cannot 
understand why our colleagues on the other side of the aisle cannot 
figure that out.
  Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this resolution, but I think 
we should understand what is really happening here. The Republicans, I 
think this resolution shows by its timing, are squirming on the hook, 
on the hook of rising anger against their entire budget resolution. It 
is going to hurt kids, millions and millions of kids. It is hard for 
them to speak. It is going to hurt working families of this country, 
but many of them are too busy working and do not have the resources to 
lobby this Congress. It is going to hurt seniors, and they are speaking 
more and more. This is a resolution to try to cover the tracks of the 
majority here.
  In the contract, they promised seniors that they would raise the 
earnings limit. How did they propose to do it? By raiding the Medicare 
trust fund, by robbing Peter to pay Paul. How they are saying ``We will 
do it later.'' Do we trust them?
  The majority leader on the Senate side said yesterday ``I was there, 
fighting the fight, voting against Medicare, one out of twelve because 
we knew it would not work in 1965.'' It worked in 1965 it worked in 
1975, Medicare worked in 1985, it is working in 1995, and now the 
Republicans proposed to wreck it. This resolution is an effort to cover 
their tracks. I do not think it is going to fool anybody.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this concucurrent 
resolution. I think one of the most unfair tax situations we have in 
this country is the earnings test on senior citizens between the ages 
of 62 and 70, a 50 percent tax on those earning just over $11,000 per 
year, in addition to the taxes they have to pay on the income that they 
earn, plus any State taxes and so on. Someone can be in an 80 or 90 
percent tax bracket because of this earnings test. It is a tremendous 
disincentive for senior citizens between 62 and 70. Between 65 and 70, 
it is a 33 percent additional tax, a trememodous disincentive to work, 
at a time when many people need to remain in the work force, many 
people want to remain in the work force, and they ought to have the 
opportunity to do so.
  I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that it is 
their party who originally enacted the rules in the Senate that prevent 
us from bringing this up in this bill. We will certainly stick by our 
commitment to this. It is not a matter of our not wanting to do it 
because of something we have done, it is because of the rules that 
exist. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

  Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Gibbons], the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I am constantly appalled by the lack of 
knowledge of Members about parliamentary procedure. This bill that we 
are talking about, first of all, I am going to vote for this 
resolution. I am sorry I have to tell the old people that they might as 
well kiss this good-bye, because it costs $12 billion to do that. The 
only place in this whole Congress that you can find $12 billion is in 
the reconciliation bill, so after the reconciliation bill, there will 
not be $12 billion laying around.
  However, this bill, the House reconciliation bill, will never be 
considered by the Senate. They will consider their own reconciliation 
bill. Our bill will be over there laying on the desk. They will take up 
our bill, and the first thing they will do is strike everything after 
the enacting clause. Not a word one of the House reconciliation bill 
will ever be considered by the Senate, so what they are talking about 
here is merely a ruse to allow the gentleman from Georgia, Newt 
Gingrich, to have $12 billion to bargain with you folks to buy your 
votes for that crazy reconciliation bill you have on the floor. That is 
what this is about. You all ought to know your own parliamentary 
procedure. This bill will never be considered there. The basis and the 
whole thrust of your argument is fallacious. You are not avoiding any 
Senate point of order because the Senate will never consider this bill. 
The Senate will consider their own reconciliation bill. Shame on you 
for lying to the American public on why you are doing this.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the distinguished former chairman, 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], that he knows that all 
revenue bills start in the House. We have passed the resolution for the 
earnings test to the Senate. They will pick that up next week. We 
passed this resolution today. They will pass it also today. It is on 
track.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Weller].
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I commend the leadership, the gentleman 
from Illinois, Denny Hastert, on one of the most popular aspects of the 
Contract With America, raising the earnings limit for seniors.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  (Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this concurrent 
resolution.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, the Social Security earnings test limit is 
an archaic provision, created during the Great Depression to make room 
for young people in the work force by forcing seniors to retire. It is 
impractical and outdated and should have been done away with a long 
time ago.
  The individuals most negatively affected by the earnings limit are 
those who have the greatest need for the extra income, and it is not 
right for the Government to impose a punitive tax on their earnings. We 
have made a commitment to raise the earnings limit and this resolution 
is a step toward fulfilling that important promise this year.
  I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 109.
  Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I do intend to vote for this resolution. I 
do respect the sincerity of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert]. 
However, there is no question in my mind that this is a gimmick on the 
part of the Republican leadership. Here we have a bill between Medicare 
and Medicaid that is going to increase taxes on senior citizens by 
doubling part B premiums, has a means test, eliminates a guaranty for 
low-income seniors to pay their part B premiums. This is a tax increase 
in this legislation, and that means that more seniors are going to have 
to go out and work. What happens if they go out and work? They are 
going to see the amount of Social Security that they earn be reduced.
  It is not fair to suggest that somehow this Republican leadership 
could not incorporate expanding this earnings test in the context of 
this bill. They did not because they are trying to save $1 billion, $1 
billion that is going to be taken from working seniors. These are 
seniors that are going to have to go out and work, and a lot of them 
are working right now. They are going to face major tax increases. The 
least that could have been done is to make it a little easier for them 
to work. More taxes, and they do not even get the benefit.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
  
[[Page H10871]]

gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I have been a long-time collaborator with 
the gentleman from Illinois in this legislative undertaking. I 
associate myself with the gentleman's remarks and his efforts.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Chabot].
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, as even President Clinton will admit, at 
least when he is a little tired, the Federal Government spends too 
much, and just as important, it taxes too much. The tax burden on 
working senior citizens is especially heavy. It is absolutely 
intolerable that working seniors who earn just over $11,000 are forced 
to give up significant Social Security benefits. As part of our 
Contract With America, we committed to easing the tax burden on senior 
citizens, and I am proud that today we will reaffirm that commitment 
through this resolution. I urge its support.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
resolution. Currently seniors are limited to making $11,200 if they are 
under 70 years old. Now they can, under this resolution, make up to 
$30,000. Seniors are living longer. We want them to live better. At the 
same time we are rolling back the unfair 1993 Social Security tax 
increase, and we are saving Medicare. I strongly support the 
resolution.
  Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to take a few moments to 
understand, this is nothing more than a sense of Congress. It does not 
have the force of law. What we are saying is that senior citizens 
should have the right to earn more money. That is fine. Then let us 
give them the right. Let us put the force of law in this. That could 
have been done.
  The Democrats do not control the Committee on Rules, the majority 
party controls the Committee on Rules. I think what we need to 
understand is that senior citizens may be forced to have to go to work 
at age 65, at age 67, at age 70, and at age 75, because we have already 
heard the majority leader in the other body say ``I was there, fighting 
the fight, voting against Medicare, because we knew it wouldn't work 
back in 1965.'' It did work in 1965, it is working in 1995. If it needs 
to be repaired let us do it that in a bipartisan fashion. We have the 
Speaker of the House telling people ``We did not get rid of Medicare in 
round one, it is not politically feasible, but we are going to get rid 
of it later.''

                              {time}  1145

  This is nothing more than a sham. It is a sham, it is a smoke screen. 
If we are going to legitimately give senior citizens the right to earn 
more money, then let us do it and not just do a sense of Congress.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble].
  (Mr. COBLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hastert] for almost a decade in addressing this problem. 
I stand in hearty endorsement of what is before us today.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan].
  (Mr. FLANAGAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and I rise in strong support of the resolution.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this has been one of the most hilarious debates I have 
witnessed in the over 10 months that I have been here. A Democratic 
President lowers the earnings limit on Social Security recipients' 
outside earnings, increases substantially the penalty for working 
Americans who happen to have senior status, and we in this Congress on 
the Republican side are trying to raise that limit again so that senior 
citizens can work without being penalized, and the Democrats are 
dancing around, coming up with the most ludicrous reasons why they 
cannot support this.
  This is a good resolution. We need to do it. It is the Democrats in 
the Senate that are preventing us from doing it now in the 
reconciliation, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle all know 
that, so let us pass this resolution and eventually pass this into law.
  Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
limited only by such time as I may have.
  Mr. Speaker, we would like to make a couple of clarifications. 
Someone has said that under the Constitution, only the House of 
Representatives can initiate revenue bills. That is not correct. Under 
the Constitution, the House of Representatives can only initiate 
revenue-raising bills.
  The other clarification is the assertion that a promise was made to 
raise the earnings limit, and this we do today. In fact, this we do not 
do today. This we promised to do some day, maybe next year.
  Third, the President of the United States did not lower the earnings 
limit under Social Security. No one has ever lowered the earnings limit 
under Social Security. That would require an act of Congress to do so, 
but no Congress has done it. It has always been uppered, it has never 
been lowered.
  Finally, while I do support the resolution as being in the ambit of 
reality, there is one element of reality I think we ought to 
understand. Often cited is the senior citizen who works at the 
McDonald's or here and there and yon just to make a little bit of money 
and this person is being handicapped by the earnings limit. 
Demonstrably, this is not true. McDonald's pays on average about $5 an 
hour.
  The present earnings limit comes out to about $5 an hour, which is 
not to say that some people, about 800,000, will improve their lot by 
this, but mostly people who are better off.
  Finally, I do not think we should ever repeal the earnings test. That 
has always been the condition of Social Security and I do not think 
that people making $5 million a year ought to get the current money out 
of Social Security.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to agree with the gentleman that people that make $5 
million a year should not be sheltered by the earnings test.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Foley] to close.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend our 
deputy whip, Mr. Hastert, for his efforts today. I cannot believe the 
folderol. President Clinton in his campaign document wanted to repeal 
this. The Senate, controlled by the majority, could not do it. Today, 
Willard Scott honored five Americans who had reached the age of 100 
years old.
  Let us reward these workers of America, those between 65 and 69, and 
repeal this discriminatory, punitive, and unfair penalty against those 
who want to work and help rebuild America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burton of Indiana). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 245, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the concurrent resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTERT. 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 414, 
nays 5, not voting 13, as follows:

[[Page H10872]]


                             [Roll No. 740]

                               YEAS--414

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vento
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--5

     Beilenson
     Johnston
     Skaggs
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Crane
     Fattah
     Greenwood
     Hayes
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Sisisky
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Volkmer
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1211

  So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________