[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 193 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14052-H14055]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             GENERAL LEAVE

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the conference report.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, just so that all who are listening can understand, the 
cases which we are talking about at this time constitute one-tenth of 1 
percent of all cases brought in Federal district court, approximately 
125 companies a year.
  Yes, we agree that frivolous suits have to be dealt with and we can 
construct a guaranteed procedural safeguard to ensure that they are not 
brought. But what we have here is a specific attempt to ensure that 
this 

[[Page H 14053]]
one category is stigmatized but all of the other frivolous lawsuits are 
not dealt with; 125 companies sued under this, tens of thousands of 
companies suing other companies, mostly for breach of contract.
  Listen to this: Here is a quote from a small high technology company 
in its prospectus. Here is what it says: ``Litigation in the software 
development industry has increasingly been used as a competitive 
tactic, both by established companies seeking to protect their existing 
position and by emerging companies attempting to gain access to the 
market.''
  Imagine that, companies suing other companies trying to keep them off 
balance. Using the courts for that purpose, Pennzoil versus Texaco, 
Polaroid versus Kodak, tens of thousands of cases a year. Why do we not 
apply the very same procedural and substantive test for frivolousness 
to those cases? If our courts are being clogged, use them for those 
cases as well. They are the same lawyers, the very same lawyers giving 
the very same advice, but now in companies suing companies.
  I will tell my colleagues why they do not want it, because businesses 
want to preserve the right to bring frivolous cases against other 
businesses. They just do not want to be sued by investors, investors 
from their very own company.
  This is what the debate is all about, not whether or not frivolous 
cases should be dealt with. They should be, but whether or not in fact 
we are dealing with the problem that exists in the clogged courthouses 
of this country. This bill deals with an ice cube, not the iceberg 
which is out there of frivolous lawsuits which should be dealt with. 
This bill should be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Farr].
  (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  [Mr. FARR of California addressed the House. His remarks will appear 
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], ranking Democrat on the Committee on Commerce.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I commend and thank my dear friend, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] for the outstanding job he 
has done on this legislation.
  With foresight that would impress Nostradamus, the legendary counsel 
to the Senate Banking Committee, Ferdinand Pecora, wrote a book in the 
1930's to remind the public ``what Wall Street was like before Uncle 
Sam stationed a policeman at its corner, lest, in time to come, some 
attempt be made to abolish the post.''
  Percora went on to describe ``a widespread repudiation of old-
fashioned standards of honesty and fair dealing in the creation and 
sale of securities.'' William O. Douglas, who went on to serve as the 
second SEC Chairman and later as a Supreme Court Justice, was more 
blunt: ``Big business behaved like bandits raiding a frontier.''
  Because the bill we are about to vote on goes far beyond what is 
needed to provide a reasonable remedy to the problem of frivolous 
lawsuits, we could be inadvertently opening the door to an era that 
will remind some of a time we said would never be repeated.
  There is no question that when President Roosevelt signed the 
statutes we are so profoundly altering here today, he was convinced he 
was closing the door on the problems that had so painfully been 
revealed by the 1929 crash. FDR said that ``the merchandise of 
securities is really traffic in the economic and social welfare of our 
people. Such traffic demands the utmost good faith and fair dealing on 
the part of those engaged in it. If the country is to flourish, capital 
must be invested in enterprise. But those who seek to draw upon other 
people's money must by wholly candid regarding the facts on which the 
investor's judgment is based.''
  I wonder how many of the Members who will be voting here in just a 
few minutes know about any of this. The Speaker reminds us all to pay 
attention to the lessons of history, but in the midst of the longest 
uninterrupted bull market of the century, it may be easy to wash away 
memories of the catastrophic economic and market conditions that gave 
rise to our securities laws. But that's a grave mistake. Because then 
you would be disregarding the fact that between 1929 and 1932, the 
value of all stocks listed on the NYSE shrank by 83 percent, and that 
half of all the stock sold to investors from 1920 to 1933 turned out to 
be totally worthless.
  The bill before us simply goes too far.
  There is an expression that says that a fanatic is someone who, when 
he has lost sight of his objective redoubles his efforts. This 
legislation suffers from that quality.
  I am no rival for Nostradamus, but I worry that this bill is one we 
may come to regret deeply within the next 3 to 5 years. We have passed 
well-intended but disastrous legislation in the past. The names Garn, 
St Germain, Smoot and Hawley may remind you.
  This bill is going to do for the securities industry and for the 
investors what the names Garn and St Germain did for the depositors and 
for the stockholders and for the savings and loan industry. It is also 
going to have a factor akin to Smoot-Hawley in the field of trade.
  I urge my colleagues, do not let your name be associated with this 
mistake. Listen to reason and demonstrate that this bill can and should 
be improved, and you can do that only in one way, and that is by voting 
no.
  Remember the great scandals of recent history, all of which would 
have received an immunity bath for a large part of the participants, 
particularly those who were aided and abetted by this particular 
legislation: Orange County, Boesky, Milken, Dennis Levine, Keating, 
Prudential Securities, and the Common Fund.
  I would also urge Members to take a look just at the safe harbor 
provision. Never before in my memory has a legislation body given 
immunity bath not only to people who participated in wrongdoing but, 
worse than that, to people who knowingly, actively, willingly, and 
enthusiastically permitted, participated in the generation of 
fraudulent documents and in the active participation of fraudulent 
misbehavior in the securities market. I urge my colleagues to vote no 
on this conference report. The bill is a bad one. It should be 
defeated.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield the 
balance of my time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] who has 
put an enormous amount of work on this bill and done so much to bring 
us to this point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California 
is recognized for 6 minutes.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
chairman of the full committee, whose leadership has in fact brought us 
to this point, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw us back a bit to consider why we 
are here. The purpose of our securities laws, after all, as enacted in 
1933 and 1934 in particular, I mention to the former chairman of the 
full committee, is to protect investors and to maintain the confidence 
of the public at large in our markets so that we can increase our 
national savings, our capital formation, and our investment for the 
benefit of all Americans.
  Investors today are not protected from crooks and swindlers who seek 
to line their own pockets by terrorizing honest men and women through 
the device of a strike suit. They are literally using, these crooks and 
swindlers, our Nation's securities law, to undermine confidence in our 
markets, to attack investors, who are the victims of their extortion.
  That, over and over again, has been what happened when investors 
found themselves targeted for extortion by abusive and manipulative 
lawsuits. There is no relief for the victims of these fraudulent 
lawsuits at present. The investors are cheated, always. In every case 
they are the ones who are made to pay.
  Now, it is true that the same people whose financial self-interest is 
about to be regulated in this important legislation have lied about 
this bill. They have lied about its effects, about its purpose. They 
have spent millions of dollars in order to defeat the regulation. They 
are not forgiven for this, it is not a forgivable act, but it is 
predictable.

[[Page H 14054]]

  Let us escape from the hyperbole and focus on what this bill does. It 
bars professional plaintiffs. We have heard testimony in one case, a 
lead plaintiff had appeared in over 300 lawsuits. The judge said this 
surely must be the unluckiest investor in the world. Another man over 
75, another plaintiff over 200 times, bringing suits of this kind. We 
ban attorney conflicts of interest so people who are purportedly 
represented by class action lawyers, even though they may not know they 
themselves are members of the class, will be taken seriously as the 
client. One strike suit lawyer rather famously said ``I have the best 
practice in the world. I have no clients.'' Well, now they will. We 
mandate in this bill full disclosure to the investors, to plaintiffs in 
the class action lawsuit, what are the terms of any proposed 
settlement, so that the lawyer's conflict of interest will not 
disadvantage them, so that routinely we will not have lawyers getting 
millions of dollars while the investors get but pennies on the dollar.
  More than anything else, we want to protect our free enterprise 
economy from this kind of predation. In my district in Southern 
California, there is a company that has I think experienced this as 
badly as anyone else, the problems of the strike suit. The company in 
Rainbow Technologies. They make a software key that prevents piracy of 
software. It is a fundamental foundation of the entire software 
industry.
  They faced one of these suits 2 years ago at Christmastime. In fact 
one of the directors was served on Christmas Eve. All the employees 
were terrorized, there was a great deal of bad press. I have some of it 
here: ``Software maker insiders accused of investor fraud.'' In fact, 
the lawsuit itself was filed with reckless disregard of the truth. 
These were fraudulent claims made against honest people. The employees, 
the honest people who worked for this company, were completely 
demoralized.
  But it was worse than that. It was worse than all of the money that 
these people had to spend to vindicate themselves. Their efforts to 
obtain a qualified outside director fell through. They have to date 
been forced to drop their directors and officers liability insurance. 
The kinds of damage that this company suffered, they won their case, it 
went away, are of no interest to the lawyers who recklessly filed the 
lawsuit. The chief architect of the lawsuit was quoted in paper saying 
``We dropped the suit. That is how the system is supposed to work.'' 
But getting away with this kind of damage to honest people is not the 
way the system should work.
  Alliance Pharmaceuticals in San Diego, CA, was sued 24 hours after 
announcing merely a delay in new product development. They make a 
miracle drug that can help as many as 80,000 premature babies every 
year whose lungs are not yet formed enough to breathe air.
  In a television report about this company and its product, we learned 
from a mother of a baby who was on the verge of death that she prayed, 
``Dear God, please save our baby,'' and God did.
  The agent of this miracle was Alliance Pharmaceuticals. The company 
came through with the medication I described which could be available 
for 80,000 kids nationwide. The mother said, ``I just wish everyone 
could have been in that room to see the joy and excitement on 
everybody's faces. A baby who was about to die, made a 180 degree 
turnaround.'' Yet this company too was victimized by a baseless suit, 
for which there was no recompense.
  We want to make sure that in the future the people, the honest men 
and women in America who are helping us advance, that these people have 
protection against this kind of suit, and that is why this legislation 
is supported by Democrats and Republicans, by the Washington Post, by 
the economists. It is bipartisan, it is enormously popular, it is much 
needed, and I thank the chairman for bringing it to the floor.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. 
I want to make a few facts clear to my colleagues. This conference 
report helps correct the injustices now brought by abusive strike 
suits, and restores a measure of fairness and sanity to our judicial 
system.
  Right now, American investors, consumers, and taxpayers are being 
taken to the cleaners by those who exploit the system for their 
benefit, not that of the little guy.
  A number of my colleagues have made statements that somehow this bill 
will pave the way for scoundrels and rascals to plunder innocent 
investors. Although I am only a freshman, let me assure these 
colleagues, who have been here longer than I, that the scoundrels and 
rascals are plundering investors right now. Without this bill, they 
will continue to do so.
  The strike suits that are filed by these rascals have the effect of 
hindering needed scientific research, stalling economic growth, and 
wasting time and taxpayer dollars within our judicial system.
  Strike suits in my San Diego district have forced small high-
technology and biotechnology firms to devote scarce time and resources 
to questionable trial proceedings, rather than focusing on research and 
development for a drug or device which could help improve the quality 
of life for the ill or elderly.
  The investor and consumer is also hurt by these suits, because they 
destroy any incentive for firms to voluntarily make forward-looking 
information available, on which investors rely to make their own 
decisions.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report is absolutely essential to my 
district, and my State of California. It is essential for the little 
guy in our society; the small investor, the small businessman, and 
patients and consumers. We should all support this bill, and send it to 
the President immediately to be signed into law.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the securities litigation 
conference report.
  The laws governing securities litigation can certainly stand to be 
improved, but the language of this conference report does much more 
harm than good. This legislation--written by and for the large 
securities firms--is antismall investor and antiworking family.
  The conference report reduces consumers protection. An investors 
ability and right to sue unscrupulous securities firms should not be 
stifled or circumscribed by Congress. For example, the language 
includes a sweeping loser-pays provision that will make it extremely 
difficult for anyone without a multimillion-dollar trust fund to 
challenge a large corporation in court.
  Supporters of this legislation claim that there is an explosion of 
frivolous suits. The fact is that the number of securities class action 
suits has shrunk over the past 20 years. During the last several years, 
suits have been filed against only 120 companies annually--out of over 
14,000 public corporations reporting to the SEC.
  I cannot support this legislation. This conference report goes 
against the interests of working people and small investors. I 
sincerely hope that the President will veto this legislation so that 
Congress can then enact true reform of our Nation's securities 
litigation laws.
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
1058, the so-called Securities Litigation Reform Act. This legislation 
actually weakens Federal securities fraud laws, and is just another 
example of the majority in this Congress trying to reduce the penalties 
for certain kinds of crimes committed by their wealthy supporters while 
continuing to maintain or increase discriminatory penalties for other 
kinds of crimes more commonly resorted to by poor people.
  In addition, I have received hundreds of letters from State and local 
officials, mayors, municipal and county treasurers and finance officers 
representing an extraordinary bipartisan national consensus that the 
pending measure would imperil the ability of public officials to 
protect billions of dollars of taxpayer monies in short-term 
investments and pension funds that have been entrusted to them. Many of 
these officials are both issuers of municipal bonds and investors of 
taxpayer money. In other words, they can be both plaintiff's or 
defendants in securities fraud class action lawsuits. They have joined 
with me to oppose this legislation because it will make it nearly 
impossible to recover taxpayer losses due to fraud, particularly if 
something like the Orange County fiscal crisis occurs elsewhere in the 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this discriminatory measure.
         American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
           Employees, AFL-CIO
                                 Washington, DC, December 4, 1995.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.3 million members 
     of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME), I am writing to express our strong 
     opposition to the conference agreement on H.R. 1058, the 
     Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
       This legislation would deny important rights which now 
     protect consumers, stockholders, and pension plans from 
     securities fraud. It would create new and unfair pleading and 
     burden of proof requirements for victims, and it calls for 
     the adoption of the so-called English Rule which unjustly 
     requires the loser of a law suit to pay the defendant's court 
     costs. We believe these changes discriminate against lower 
     and middle income citizens and would severely limit justified 
     litigation, thus acting to lessen deterrence to securities 
     fraud.
       Moreover, we are concerned that this legislation would have 
     an adverse impact on public employee pension systems. One 
     needs 

[[Page H 14055]]
     only to look to Orange County, California as an example of a case where 
     alleged securities fraud has resulted in the loss of employee 
     retirement funds. If this legislation is adopted, it could 
     limit the ability of those who have been wronged to recover 
     their full damages.
       We ask that you oppose the conference agreement on H.R. 
     1058.
           Sincerely,
                                              Charles M. Loveless,
                                          Director of Legislation.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, let's face it. The current 
securities litigation laws leave companies wide open to predatory or 
frivolous lawsuits. The present situation is a virtual gold mine for 
class action attorneys who actively seek to put together lawsuits out 
of unforseeable investor losses. Companies can be sued anytime the 
value of their stock drops. The cost of defending against these 
meritless actions often forces settlement agreements as a means to an 
end. Not only are the companies at risk, but those serving as financial 
advisors are also on the hook at well.
  This comes with a high cost. Over 53 percent of the high-technology 
companies in California's Silicon Valley have been sued. Public 
perception of companies with high short-term capital needs and 
potentially high long-term payoffs is being undermined. Investor 
confidence is lost, and companies remain vulnerable when, despite their 
best efforts, they do not do as well as they predicted.
  I believe H.R. 1058 is an important step toward protecting companies 
and their shareholders from the costs of frivolous and down-right 
predatory security lawsuits. It restores balance to the legal system. I 
have also asked the President to sign this compromise bill this year so 
these reforms are not further delayed. Securities litigation reform is 
needed now.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. 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 320, 
nays 102, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 839]

                               YEAS--320

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--102

     Abercrombie
     Baldacci
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     de la Garza
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Engel
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Klink
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Stark
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Velazquez
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Lowey
       

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Chapman
     DeFazio
     Fowler
     Parker
     Portman
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Stokes
     Tucker
     Wilson

                              {time}  1329

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Parker for with Mr. DeFazio against.
       Mr. Portman for with Mr. Stokes against.

  Mrs. CHENOWETH changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________