[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 55 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3828-H3838]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 4(b) OF RULE XI WITH RESPECT TO 
                  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 412 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 412

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is 
     waived with respect to any resolution reported from that 
     committee before April 27, 1996, and providing for 
     consideration or disposition of any of the following 
     measures:
       (1) A bill making general appropriations for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1996, any amendment thereto, any 
     conference report thereon, or any amendment reported in 
     disagreement from a conference thereon.
       (2) A bill or joint resolution that includes provisions 
     making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
     1996, any amendment thereto, any conference report thereon, 
     or any amendment reported in disagreement from a conference 
     thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. McINNIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 412 is a simple 
resolution. The proposed rule merely waives the requirement of clause 
4(b) of rule XI for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the 
Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House for 
resolutions reported from the committee before April 27, 1996, under 
certain conditions.
  This narrow, short-term, waiver will only apply to special rules 
providing for the consideration or disposition of measures, amendments, 
conference reports, or items in disagreement from a conference that: 
make general appropriations for fiscal year 1996, or provisions making 
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 412 is straightforward, and it was 
reported by the Committee on Rules with unanimous voice vote. The 
distinguished Member, Mr. Moakley, stated in the Committee on Rules 
that he had no objections to this rule. The committee recognized the 
need for expedited procedures to being these legislative measures 
forward as soon as possible. Simply put, we must move quickly before 
temporary spending authority expires at midnight tonight. Mr. Speaker, 
we have reached an agreement with the White House and it is time to 
move forward.
  The agreement we reached last night will result in 1996 discretionary 
spending being $23 billion less than last year's level, and the 
additional funidng for the administration's programs is offset by 
reductions and saving in other areas. I urge my colleagues to support 
House Resolution 412.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado, Mr. 
McInnis, for yielding me the customary one-half hour and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule waiving the two-thirds requirement for same 
day consideration of a bill will finally enable the House to bring up 
the omnibus appropriations bill.
  After 6 months of waiting for my Republican colleagues to pass the 13 
appropriations bills, we are finally going to be able to bypass their 
Appropriations Committees and get our Government back on its feet.
  Federal workers won't have to worry about being furloughed; military 
retirees won't have to worry about their benefits; and students headed 
for college won't have to wait any longer than they already have for 
their student loans to be processed.
  I support this two-thirds rule, Mr. Speaker, because I wouldn't do 
anything to slow the appropriations process any more than it already 
has been

[[Page H3829]]

but I believe my Republican colleagues have behaved very irresponsibly 
on this budget and I hope next fiscal year will be different. The 
American people have suffered from their political games and it is no 
way to run a government.
  But this rule doesn't go far enough. So, I will oppose the previous 
question in order to offer an amendment to the rule which would make in 
order a new section in the rule. This provision would direct the 
Committee on Rules immediately to report a resolution that would 
provide for consideration of a bill to incrementally increase the 
minimum wage from its current $4.25 an hour to $5.15 an hour beginning 
on July 4, 1997.
  This will not slow down the continuing resolution, Mr. Speaker, it 
will allow the House to vote on a separation measure to increase the 
minimum wage.
  Mr. Speaker, my Democratic colleagues and I believe very strongly 
that American workers deserve a raise and we will continue to fight 
until they get one.
  With CEO's of major corporations getting raises of millions and 
millions of dollars a year, I certainly hope my Republican colleagues 
will agree with us that average working people deserve a $1,800 raise--
enough for 7 months of groceries.
  We are not talking about a lot of money, Mr. Speaker. But we are 
talking about a lot of people, 12 million people who work very long 
hours and still live below the poverty line.
  It has been 5 years since the last increase in the minimum wage, 5 
years, Mr. Speaker. Its value has plummeted to a 40-year low. People on 
minimum wage only earn $8,400 a year.
  That means that someone who works just as long--and I would argue 
just as hard--as those CEO's does not make enough money to feed and 
house their family.
  Any Member who disagrees with me, any Member who does not think we 
should raise the minimum wage to $5.15 an hour should vote for the 
previous question.
  I urge everyone else who believes hard-working Americans should be 
able to support their families on their income to defeat the previous 
question.
  Let's give hard-working Americans a raise.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. McINNIS. I think it is in order, Mr. Speaker, to request a copy 
of the proposed amendment to the rule from the minority in order to 
determine whether a discussion of it is germane to the debate on this 
particular rule. Otherwise, I will be forced to raise a point of order 
against any further debate on a nongermane amendment to the rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the amendment is being worked on. It will 
be in the gentleman's hands very shortly.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am thrilled. I cannot believe what I have just heard. My good 
friend from Massachusetts, is the gentleman in fact suggesting that we 
bypass the committee process and bring directly to the floor his 
particular amendment? I think this is the very side that I get hammered 
time after time after time again with these rules, what about the 
committee process?
  Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the gentleman and my friend from 
Massachusetts overlooked this, and I am certain that in order to stay 
consistent with what their side on a continuing basis continually talks 
about, that he will rescind his amendment and proposal to offer an 
amendment and take it back to the committee process.
  I think it is also important for us to realize it is an election 
year. How can we tell it is an election year? Where has this group, 
where has the minority been? They held the majority in the House. They 
held the majority in the Senate. They held the Presidency for the first 
2 years I was here. Not once, not once in committee, not once on the 
House floor did we hear any discussion about minimum wage. In fact, I 
found it kind of interesting. Time, February 6, 1995, now the President 
wants to make work pay by raising the minimum wage. Yet, more than 2 
years ago he said that raising the minimum wage is, and I quote from 
Time magazine ``the wrong way to raise incomes of low wage earners.''
  If we want to help the low wage earners in this country, get 
Government off their back. Do something about the taxes on these 
people. Do something about the child tax credit. That is how we are 
going to help the working poor in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, my colleague, my friend, is right. Maybe 
we should have addressed minimum wage. But as he knows, we had other 
things on our pallet. We had the health care bill that took a lot of 
time. We had the budget bill. We had the appropriation bills that the 
Republicans did not let come out through the proper process. So we 
really were distracted doing other things. But now we are looking clear 
eyed at the minimum wage, and maybe we should have done it before.
  Having said that, we have just received notice from Speaker Gingrich 
that he does not want to allow the minimum wage to go forward, so we 
cannot rely upon the ordinary committee process. This is the process we 
have to take.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today I call upon my colleagues to defeat 
the previous question so that we can go back to the Committee on Rules 
and have a vote on raising the minimum wage. My colleagues and I have 
been trying for weeks to convince Newt Gingrich and the rest of the 
Republican leadership to allow a vote on raising the minimum wage, a 
mere 90-cent increase for the hard-working men and women of this 
country at a time in our Nation's history when we are looking at 
corporate CEO's who are making on average $2 to $3 million a year, and 
working Americans have not seen a raise in their income in the last 
several years. They scramble every week to try to pay their bills.
  Mr. Speaker, last month I went to the Committee on Rules, and I 
testified in favor of allowing a vote on raising the minimum wage. My 
request was denied. On this floor the next day my Democratic colleagues 
offered a motion to allow a vote on raising the minimum wage. Again, 
our effort to give working families a raise was denied. As a matter of 
fact, the House Parliamentarian ruled that the Republican leadership 
was using an invalid procedure to kill that vote. After denying us the 
right in this body, the people's House, to raise the people's 
interests, we were not allowed to have this come up for a vote.

  Yesterday the Speaker of the House said that it is not his intention 
to schedule a vote on the minimum wage. He refuses to do it. Yesterday 
or the day before yesterday, the third ranking member of the Republican 
leadership in this body said that the minimum wage families do not 
exist. There is a movement here and a pattern to not allow us to be 
able to vote in this Nation on the minimum wage. Eighty-four percent of 
the people in this country want us to increase the minimum wage.
  Stop playing parliamentary games with America's working families. 
Please, give them a simple yes or no vote on raising the minimum wage 
in this country. Stop denying hard-working families, people that we 
ought to honor for taking on the personal responsibility of working 
hard every single day. All they want to do is to get their kids to 
school. They want a decent retirement for themselves. That is all they 
are asking for. And they make $8,500 a year.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues in this body, during the 
shutdown in the Christmas holidays, Members of this body made more than 
minimum wage workers made in 1 year. It is unfair. Let us vote now, let 
us vote right away, an up or down vote on raising the minimum wage in 
this country.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H3830]]

  I would be interested later in the debate perhaps to hear from the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut about the President's comments that this 
is the wrong way to raise the incomes of the low-wage earners. Perhaps 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut before she leaves the floor today on 
the debate would like to come down and talk about the President's own 
chief economic expert, economist, who says that the higher minimum wage 
does not seem a particularly useful way to help the poor.
  Why all of a sudden the change? Why all of a sudden the reverse? I 
will tell my colleagues why; it is show and tell for election year.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is about a rule. That is what we are talking 
about. We have come to a resolution on this budget. We have cut the 
rate of growth by $23 billion over last year. Let us get on with the 
business. Do not let them divert by talking about something that they 
have plenty of opportunities to do something about but all of a sudden, 
lo and behold, and I am sure by coincidence right before an election 
shows up, they come to the floor and they pound the podium and they 
talk about the minimum wage. They cannot explain the President's 
comments who says it is the wrong way to help these, the low-wage 
earner. They cannot explain the chief economist over at the White House 
when he says it does not work.
  Where were these people? Where was the gentlewoman from Connecticut? 
Where was the gentlewoman from Connecticut when we had, for example, 
just a couple of weeks ago a limitation on the taxes in this country?
  My bet is that the gentlewoman probably voted against it. I think it 
is important, if we want to help the working poor of this country, let 
us talk about taxes. Let us do something to control the taxes.
  Nothing helps them more than taking a look at the heavy, heavy burden 
of taxes. Do you know that the average working person in this country 
has to go in and spend 2 hours and 45 minutes of their working day, the 
first 2 hours and 45 minutes of their working day just to pay the 
taxes? If we want to do something to help these people, cut that 2 
hours and 45 minutes and let some of that time go right into their 
pocketbook. The average person in this country works from January 1 to 
May 6 every year, every hour during that period of time just to pay 
their taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, the point here is very important. That is that today we 
are engaged in a debate on the rule, a rule which would allow us to get 
this compromise put into law, which will allow this budget to go 
forward. This is a good budget. We have come up with. This is a budget 
that will allow the Federal Government in Washington, DC, to reduce its 
spending by $23 billion. That is a very, very significant step forward. 
Let us do divert. Let us not dilute it by bringing in what I consider, 
frankly, frivolous timing on this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, who are these people that work on the 
minimum wage or for the minimum wage? Three of them are testifying out 
in the swamp triangle in front of the press right now about earning the 
minimum wage and trying to raise a family. So they indeed do exist.
  Mr. Speaker, they are the people who take care of our mothers and our 
fathers and our grandparents in nursing homes. They are the people who 
clean the offices. They are people to clean the airports. They are the 
people who are breaking their backs to raise their kids every single 
day in America.
  Do we know what happens when we pay them $4.25 an hour? They cannot 
raise a family on that. They end up sometimes working two jobs, three 
jobs, overtime. What does that mean? That means they are not there for 
their kids in the evenings. A mother is not there to teach her kids 
right from wrong. She is not there to read them bedtime stories. A 
father is not there for a PTA. He is not there for Little League games. 
He is not there for church. He is not there for dinner conversations. 
And the whole fabric of civil society starts to breakdown. That is what 
we are talking about here, paying somebody a decent livable wage so 
they can live a decent livable life.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what we are talking about, basic economic 
justice for people. Let me put the Republican position on the minimum 
wage in perspective. A person making the minimum wage, as I said $8,500 
a year, the average CEO in America today makes about $12,000 a day. I 
wanted to repeat that, $12,000 a day.
  My friend from Colorado talked about taxes. Let me tell my colleagues 
about taxes. Under their tax plan, if you do the math right, every CEO 
in America would get a tax break of about $8,500 a year. In other 
words, the Republicans spent the last 16 months trying to give CEO's a 
tax break equal to the amount a minimum wage family earns in an entire 
year. Where is the economic justice in all of that?
  This is an issue which is supported by over 100 economists. It is an 
issue that is supported by three Nobel Laureates, by 80 percent of the 
American people. We ought to move on this and move on it today. We have 
an opportunity on this previous question to vote it down so we can 
bring up the opportunity to have a real debate and a real vote on a 
critical issue for this country.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republicans on this side of the aisle and in the 
other body have embarked upon a strategy of ducking this issue as the 
Speaker indicated the other day in a press conference, blocking it, as 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] indicated, said he would fight it 
with every fiber of his being; burying, as Senator Dole intends, to do 
by attaching it to extraneous matters in the other body. This strategy 
of duck, block it, delay it, bury it, is not what the American people 
want. They want us to move on this issue because they know it is a 
matter of economic justice.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say in conclusion that we have got 12 
million people in this country who are doing tough work, tough work. 
They have made a choice to do work over welfare. If we want to solve 
this welfare issue, we have got to make work pay. That is all we are 
asking. The minimum wage is at an almost 40-year low, 40-year low. 
People made more on the minimum wage in the 1970's and in the 1980's 
and in the 1960's than they would even if we raised it 90 cents an 
hour.

                              {time}  1145

  Let us do something for these folks. Let us raise the minimum wage. 
Let us give them the respect and the dignity that they deserve, and let 
us send a message to America that work pays.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am interested by the gentleman from Michigan's 
comments. I wonder where the gentleman's vote was on the largest tax 
increase in the history of this country about 2 years ago, and I do not 
want the gentleman to come back and say, well, as my colleagues know, 
we just increased taxes on the wealthy people in this country.
  Our colleagues increased taxes, as the Democrats, on this House floor 
on everybody in this country that buys a gallon of gasoline, 4 cents a 
gallon. Our colleagues have continually thought the response to aid 
Washington, DC, is to tax, tax, tax.
  If our colleagues want to help the working poor in this country, if 
our colleagues are really sincere about it and not playing election-
year tactics, if our colleagues really want to help them, do something 
about the burden of taxes in this country.
  I have said repeatedly from this microphone every person out there 
trying to work, trying to stay off welfare, still has to spend their 
first 2 hours and 45 minutes of every working day just to pay their 
taxes.
  Now, how interesting, and I will not yield, now, how interesting it 
is that the gentleman from Michigan and the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut talk about how their party wants to help the working 
person. Well, maybe one of them, and they have not done it yet, maybe 
one of them would be kind enough to explain the President's comments, 
and I will quote it again from Time magazine. When the President 
directly addresses and states his position on minimum wage, and that 
is, ``Minimum wage,'' and I quote, ``is the wrong way to raise the 
incomes of low-wage earners.''

[[Page H3831]]

  Our colleagues are hurting these people. That is what we are trying 
to say to them, they are hurting the very people that everybody wants 
to help. If our colleagues were serious about it, they should have 
supported, and some of you actually did, but we should have had more 
support from our colleagues' side of the aisle to put a tax limitation 
on the bureaucracies in Washington DC. But they did not support that.
  And, by the way, they did not hesitate to support the largest tax 
increase in the history of this country. That is what is key here. If 
they really want to help the working people, let us shift this debate.
  By the way, the debate should not even be on this. The debate should 
be on the rule. But our colleagues continue to try to divert it over to 
this.
  So let us shift the debate where it ought to be, and that is the tax 
burden that their party primarily in the last 40 years has been 
responsible for placing on the working people of this country. Not just 
the working poor, but every working man, woman, and child in this 
country, lives under their tax burden.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes all of America will be 
able to see a vote on whether or not the people of America, the working 
families of this country, will get the increase in their wages that 
they deserve, get a raise.
  I believe American working families deserve a raise, and finally this 
morning we are going to have a vote on that subject. And if my 
colleagues believe that way, all of America will be able to see that 
they voted against this call for the previous question and we have 
finally an up-and-down vote on the minimum wage.
  But, as my colleagues can see, what we have been hearing this morning 
is the same old Republican story: Promises made, promises broken. That 
is what this Republican majority is all about. It was only last week 
that the Republican leadership of this House and of the Senate were 
telling us: We would have a vote on the minimum-wage increase. But they 
forgot to ask the lobby.
  As we can see, this would be like the Republicans writing 
environmental legislation without getting a bill from the polluters. 
They just do not do that. They made their announcement, and they had a 
traffic jam out here.
  As we can see, they forgot to ask the special-interest lobbyists, and 
the limousines starting converging on the Capitol, almost a traffic jam 
out here on the avenue, because these lobbyists expect this Republican 
majority to do exactly what they tell them to do, and they made the 
mistake of not asking. They listened to the American people, for once, 
who demand that they get the kind of raise that they deserve because 
they are out there struggling with their families.
  We are not talking about people that have got limousines that benefit 
from this minimum-wage increase. We are talking about the people that 
mop the floors, we are talking about the people that take out the 
trash, that wash the dishes, the hard-working people of this country 
who can barely make ends meet on the little bit of minimum wage they 
have got. And this morning we are going to decide are we going to stand 
by those people who are working so hard to build a future for their 
families, or are we going to fold and join the limousine crowd who did 
not get asked but made their voice heard and caused the Republicans 
once again to break their promise to the American people?
  Let us stand up for the little folks of this country.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  How interesting to hear the gentleman from Texas talking about the 
little people. I wonder if the gentleman from Texas has any small 
business in his district.
  As my colleagues may know, my district is a rural district out in 
Colorado. It is not a wealthy district; most of the district is rural. 
We are ranchers and farmers, and we own small hardware stores. In fact, 
my father owned a little candle store for 40 years, and it was tough. 
Maybe the gentleman from Texas and I would like to have them come to my 
district.
  By the way, we do not have any limousines out there; that may be 
something that perhaps my colleagues are not accustomed to. But we will 
take them out in a pickup truck and have them explain to the small 
business people in my district how it is going to help them and how it 
is going to help their employees, and we will bring the employees in, 
by increasing the minimum wage and keeping the tax burden exactly the 
same.
  Do my colleagues know what we are debating today? We are debating the 
rule. This debate has been totally diverted, totally swung over to a 
nongermane subject on this rule. What is this rule all about? Do my 
colleagues know what it is about? It is about reducing spending in this 
year's budget over last year's budget by $23 billion. That is right: 
billion dollars. Finally we have made positive progress.
  As my colleagues know, a lot of people, when the Republicans planted 
our garden, we said to the Democratic leadership, ``Look, you got too 
many weeds in your garden. It's gotten too fat. It's not being taken 
care of, and the people, the taxpayers, that have to pay for the seeds 
and water and fertilizer for this garden are being abused.'' Let us 
plant the garden; we planted the garden.
  Then all of a sudden nothing came up, it was not growing, and some of 
these people just sat back and said, ``We told you. So by gosh, your 
way doesn't work.''
  But guess what happened today? We wake up, and we have got plants 
popping out everywhere. Do my colleagues know why? Because last night 
we reached an agreement, and this rule will help us move that agreement 
to the President's desk within 24 hours. We reach an agreement that 
allows us to reduce the size of Government in Washington, DC, to reduce 
the size of growth in this budget, to finally realize that the 
taxpayers of this country have a right to demand from their Government 
in Washington, DC, efficiency and accountability.
  Now what is happening? Finally of course they are not going to 
concede. A little plant is now coming out of the ground, and this 
garden in fact is going to be a very healthy garden. Now they try to 
pull in something that their own President did not agree with, and that 
is this diversionary argument of minimum wage.
  Let us go back to the rule. Last night in the Committee on Rules, I 
was there. I voted on it. Every Democrat in the Committee on Rules 
voted for it. I voted for it. We did not have this kind of sneak attack 
last night in the Committee on Rules, and in fact my good friend from 
Massachusetts, of whom I have a great deal of respect for, and frankly 
the more I work with him, the more I respect him, has stood on this 
floor before and said, ``What about the committee process?''
  Do my colleagues know what is happening? This is a sneak attack. They 
jump up here with minimum wage.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I agree. I will vote for the rule. I am 
just trying to make the rule just a little bit better.
  So I am with the gentleman from Colorado on the rule, but I just want 
to get a shot at the previous question. So the gentleman and I will 
vote arm in arm when it comes to voting for the rule.
  Mr. McINNIS. But the gentleman from Massachusetts would agree by 
doing this we avoid the committee process on the minimum wage issue; is 
that not correct?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. But the gentleman from Colorado will agree that the 
Speaker said he is not going to allow the minimum wage to come to the 
floor, so will the gentleman tell me how else we can get it to the 
floor?
  Mr. McINNIS. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for his courtesy and kindness. The fact is he knows and I 
know this is a sneak attack. That is all right, we can take it, we can 
absorb it. But if our colleagues want to talk about minimum wage, if 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut wants to talk about minimum wage, why 
does she not talk about the tax vote she took? Why do our colleagues 
not talk about the tax vote we took just 2 weeks ago where we

[[Page H3832]]

said to the country and to the bureaucracy in Washington, DC: Before 
you raise taxes on the American people, you ought to get a two-thirds 
vote.
  Now a lot of States do that. There are a lot of States that require a 
balanced budget. I would be interested to see what the gentleman from 
Texas or the gentlewoman from Connecticut voted on the balance budget 
amendment.

  Do my colleagues really want to help the working people of this 
country? Then put this argument aside, let us debate the rules and the 
germaneness, and I mean argue what is germane to this rule, and let us 
get this budget, this agreement which cuts spending by $23 billion; we 
can have that to the President's desk within 24 hours.
  And do my colleagues know something? I think both parties can stand 
up and say, by gosh, we are making progress in moving this country 
forward in a fiscally sound manner. But short of doing that, if some of 
the people who stand up here, and again just a coincidence in an 
election year, and talk about how much they have helped the working 
poor, I think it is legitimate, very legitimate, for everyone of us in 
this room to ask them, How did you vote on the balanced budget 
amendment? How are you rated by the Taxpayers Association? How did you 
vote on the tax limitation amendment? Where have you been on some of 
these spending issues that are here?
  Do my colleagues want to help the working people of this country? 
One, get this budget to the President within the next 24 hours because 
he said he would sign it; two, follow your own President's advice where 
in Time magazine he said the minimum wage is the wrong way to raise the 
incomes of the low wage earners; and, three, get back to the 
germaneness of this rule, let us get this debate out of the way, and 
let us get to the budget debate because that is the most important time 
of the day. That is what is going to make this budget. And what we are 
doing right now is spending very valuable time debating kind of a sneak 
attack, certainly did not come up in the committee last night, 
certainly will not go through the committee process, but they think is 
fun and games to play down here and discuss it.
  Let us get back to the budget. Let us pass this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is 
asking for a vote on minimum wage. Why will not the House allow us to 
vote on the minimum wage? By opposing the previous question, that is 
the only way we can do that. This martial law resolution gives special 
status to a lot of categories of bills. A minimum wage increase 
deserves that special status. We should be willing to give special 
treatment to the American families who are having to work for $4.25 an 
hour.
  In fact my colleague from Colorado talked about this should go 
through the committee process. My committee has tried to have a hearing 
on this bill, and we have not. Seventy percent of the bills in 1996, 
and I will yield if I have time, 70 percent of the bills on this floor 
this year did not go through the committee process, and yet today they 
are not willing to use that special exception for the working folks. He 
knows also the reason that we tried to have health care reform in 1993 
and 1994 and not a minimum wage increase, but it has gotten so far out 
of whack because of inflation we need to do it.
  A great Senator from Texas said what we need to do is put the jam on 
the bottom shelf for the little people. Senator Ralph Yarbrough, the 
late Senator, said that minimum wage increase will do that, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. McINNIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all for the gentleman from Texas, I think it is incumbent 
upon him to use the words that he used in description, that he use them 
at least somewhat close to their definition. Continually he attempts to 
use the words martial law as if we are attempting martial law on this 
House floor, and let me just read for his assistance the definition of 
martial law. It is a temporary rule by military authorities over the 
civilian population.
  This is getting a little out of hand when we start using those kinds 
of terms. Let us bring it back to the issue that we are talking about 
today. The issue is we have got a rule here that agreed to by all of 
the Democrats on the committee, that was voted by a voice vote, which 
means there is agreement amongst the committee, to bring this rule down 
to the floor so that we could clear the path for our budget package to 
come down here, to be heard, to be voted on, to be sent to the 
President within the next 24 hours.

                             {time}   1200

  My goodness, we have spent the last 6 months in tough negotiations 
and good faith negotiations from both sides to come to some kind of 
budget which will help reverse the spending in Washington, DC, which 
will help the taxpayers of this country; which, by the way, will help 
every working man, woman, and child in this country. We have it in our 
hands. We have the budget. We can send it to the President within the 
next 24 hours.
  So why are we stalling? Let us stay germane to the subject. Let us 
pass this rule. Let us send this budget to the President. It is $23 
billion in reductions in spending in Washington, DC. Do we want to make 
a working poor person's day or any working poor person's day? Tell them 
that finally the Government in Washington, DC, is about to reduce the 
rate of their growth, that the bureaucracy that is out of control in 
Washington, DC, is about to come back down to the size that it ought to 
be. That is a government that serves the people, not a government that 
rules the people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I must say that the gentleman from Colorado 
has made a very valiant effort to try to justify why this should not be 
brought to the floor, but the bottom line is we have no choice. We know 
that the Republican leadership in this Congress will not schedule the 
minimum wage for a vote. ``It is not my intention to schedule a vote on 
the minimum wage,'' said the House Republican leader, the gentleman 
from Texas, Dick Armey. This is the only way we can bring this up to 
the floor for a vote.
  We are talking about real people and real lives here. Minimum wage 
workers have a very difficult time paying for groceries, paying for 
housing, paying for the utility bills. I think that the budget we are 
going to pass today is a great thing, and I will commend every one 
involved in it. But the bottom line is when we are talking about a 
minimum wage worker, that budget may be something that helps them in 
the long run, but they need help right now to raise their living, the 
amount of money they take in so they can buy food, housing, and the 
basic necessities of life.
  Let me just say, very briefly, in my home State of New Jersey we have 
raised the minimum wage. It is now $5.05 an hour. This increase has 
been a complete success. We have increased the purchasing power of 
minimum wage workers and we have improved our economy with it.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the gentleman from Texas does not 
quite leave the floor. Why does the gentleman not put on the other side 
of this very nice poster, which by the way was paid for by the 
taxpayers, probably a couple of hundred bucks, put on the opposite side 
the President's statement about the minimum wage? And I am quoting Time 
Magazine from February 6: ``It is the wrong way to raise the income of 
the low-wage earners.''
  Now let us talk. I will be very interested to see if the gentleman 
from Texas votes against this rule. In fact, I think there is pretty 
wide agreement on that side of the aisle to support this rule, because 
I think that side of the aisle does not want to shut down the 
Government. We need to get a budget to the President.
  All this kind of thing is, in my personal opinion, is show and tell. 
it is election year. We have to expect some of that. But the fact is we 
have one of

[[Page H3833]]

the most important issues of this Congress, one of the most important 
issues of this Congress sitting in front of us, and that is a budget 
bill. In order to clear the way for this budget bill we need to pass 
this rule, and we are going to pass this rule.
  Last night this rule passed out of committee on a unanimous vote. Not 
one Democrat voted against it. Why? Because they understand the 
importance of it. They were not going to be obstructionist. We had a 
very good Committee on Rules last night. There was no harsh debate. 
There was no sneak attack, trying to bring in this minimum wage issue. 
There were no discussions on the tax bill that they passed 3 years ago. 
No. The debate up there, and it was not really a debate, the discussion 
in that committee was, ``Hey, we have got an agreement. We are going to 
get an agreement on this budget. Let us move it up to the President. 
Let us keep the Government open. We can do it.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado talks about sneak attacks. 
Everybody knows that the way to get an amendment in this type of 
process is to defeat the previous question. This is operating according 
to the rules of the House. Nobody in that committee last night said 
they would not make a motion to defeat the previous question. We said 
we would vote for the rule, and that agreement still holds.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, sometimes Congress works at a 
glacial pace, but other times Congress can move like lightning when we 
choose to do it. Yesterday we passed a 1-day CR with lightning speed. 
It did not take any preliminary hearings.
  A few weeks ago, the Republican leadership decided to schedule a vote 
to lift the ban on assault weapons, passed just last year. They made 
that decision, announced it, and voted on it within 1 week. Lightning 
speed. Last week, we voted on a constitutional amendment to require a 
supermajority vote to make changes in the Tax Code. We did not even 
need a committee hearing on a constitutional amendment. Lightning 
speed. But when it comes to providing a working wage for Americans by 
raising the minimum wage, it gets glacially cold around here. Paralysis 
sets in. Our leadership says it is not their intention to schedule a 
vote on the minimum wage. We cannot move. The lightning speed tends to 
slow down to the point where we have a glacial pace.
  The Republicans have used parliamentary tactics, and now they are 
simply blocking a vote. Let us have one, up-or-down, on the minimum 
wage increase that the American people overwhelmingly support.
  Mr. Speaker, what is the Republican response to our request for a 
simple up-or-down vote on an increase in the minimum wage: They call 
it--incorrectly--an unfunded mandate and invoke parliamentary procedure 
to prevent a vote.
  They counter it with elaborate proposals for tax credits, tax 
incentives for businesses, assaults on labor unions, and labor law. Now 
they want hearings--for legislative packages--all of which are designed 
to put off debate and voting on an increase in the minimum wage for 
months--or forever.
  Twelve million Americans earn $4.25 or less--73 percent of them are 
adults, and most of them are women. The purchasing power of the minimum 
wage has plummeted to a 40-year low.
  A 90-cent increase proposed by the President and Democrats in the 
House and the Senate would provide $1,800 a year for a full-time 
worker. Raising the minimum wage would provide an immediate raise to 
more than 10 million hourly workers--and the ripple effect would assist 
another 3 million low-wage workers.
  Some have argued that a raise in the minimum wage would have an 
adverse effect on business--especially small business.
  But this is not just a war between working people and the business 
community.
  Increasing the minimum wage has received wide, bipartisan support in 
the past--including the support of Senator Dole and Speaker Gingrich.
  And if our local governments think this is such bad policy, why do 
nine States and the District of Columbia have minimum wages that exceed 
the Federal standard?
  The fact is: Historical evidence shows us there is little or no job 
loss from increasing the minimum wage. We all know intuitively that 
business and the economy grow and flourish when people are making a 
living wage.
  Living wages increase productivity--the unemployed are attracted off 
welfare, families receive health care, some of the strain of providing 
for their families is taken away. Democrats understand how important it 
is for small business to flourish.
  That's where the new opportunities are being created--small business 
is the fuel that's driving the economic engine of recovery. That's why 
Democrats have supported policies such as raising the deduction for 
health care costs for the self-employed.
  We want to keep that economic engine firing away--and we know that 
small business will continue to pull the major load of our economic 
recovery.
  When Franklin D. Roosevelt first proposed a national minimum wage, he 
described it as a ``fair day's pay for a fair day's work.'' Let's make 
the minimum wage a fair day's pay once more.
  I urge defeat of the previous question.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, before he walks off the 
floor, I am a little mystified, I guess. He talks about how Congress 
works with lightning speed. The gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] 
was in the majority 2 years ago and he was in the majority for 40 
years. But my first 2 years of Congress, you certainly ruled this place 
with an iron hand. When you wanted to, you would get something with 
lightning speed. Where was the minimum wage?
  The second thing I would like to ask the gentleman, nobody else has 
done it yet, for perhaps a little explanation. The President's position 
was in 1995, just a year ago, as he says: ``The wrong way to raise the 
incomes of low-wage earners is the minimum wage.''
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, in the last Congress we did, 
without one Republican vote, more to help working families through the 
increase in the working families' tax credit, sometimes known as the 
EITC. We did not have one vote from that side of the aisle to help 
people with families working, earning less than $27,000 a year. That 
used to be a bipartisan issue.
  Where the Republicans decided not only to oppose the minimum wage but 
an increase in the earned income tax credit comes from surprises me. 
But perhaps at the moment we have simply to look at their proposal in 
lieu of a minimum wage increase, which does nothing but redistribute 
poverty among working families. It does not help anyone's income to go 
up.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thought I would get a germane answer to 
my question, but I did not. Let me make the point very clearly. The 
gentleman's side did take a vote very clearly that did affect the 
working poor in this country. They raised taxes by the largest amount 
in the history of this country.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. On the top 1 percent of all taxpayers.
  Mr. McINNIS. No; you did not. You raised the gasoline tax by 4 cents. 
You raised taxes on every working person in this country.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. For the last 2 years, gasoline taxes were 
below what they were at the time we voted the tax.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado controls the 
time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, the fact is, the only thing they did to the 
working people of this country is raise taxes. But that is not the 
issue.
  Mr. Speaker, let me go back to the gentleman from Massachusetts. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts has written the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules on a number of occasions asking the committee to comply with 
the rules, and he has specifically pointed out the germaneness part of 
it. Now, clearly, this is not germane to the issue. The issue we have 
today is can we pass a rule which will clear the path for a budget to 
get to the President so he can sign it by midnight. I think we can. I 
think we are going to get this rule. I think most of the Members over 
there are going to vote for this.
  I think all of this is a diversion from the fact that finally, 
finally under the leadership of the Republican Party we have gotten a 
$23 billion reduction in spending over last year, and through the 
cooperation of the President in the

[[Page H3834]]

last few days, we now have a package which will reverse spending in 
Washington, DC, which will demand that Government now begin to become 
accountable to the people which it serves. The people do not serve the 
Government, we serve the people, the working people out there.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Clay].
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question and to support the amendment offered by my colleague, the 
distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Moakley, 
directing the Republicans to stop blocking the loud and clear demand of 
working men and women for a straightforward increase in the minimum 
wage.
  Mr. Speaker, the House Republicans obviously have lost any sense of 
compassion. They have turned the minimum wage into a three-ring circus. 
In one ring we have 20 House Republicans proposing a $1 increase in the 
minimum wage; in another ring we have the Speaker stomping his feet and 
roaring that he will not allow a vote on the minimum wage. And, in the 
center ring we have Majority Leader Dick Armey promoting a proposal to 
increase the deficit by giving taxpayer subsidies to low-wage 
employers.
  My colleagues, we don't need these legislative gimmicks. We just need 
fair wages. The time for a vote on a clean minimum wage increase is 
now. To Speaker Gingrich, I say stop playing games and schedule a vote. 
Stop posturing for special interest business and schedule a vote. 
Thirteen million Americans who work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, 
deserve a raise, and this Congress ought to give it to them.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in the gentleman from Missouri, 
who speaks so boldly and speaks eloquently about the need for this 
minimum wage, I would ask: Did he sponsor a bill? At least I do not 
remember a bill during my first 2 years in the U.S. Congress where the 
gentleman sponsored it to help the working poor, and I do not remember 
the gentleman standing up and talking about the working poor and so on 
when he passed the largest tax increase in the history of this country, 
which included a tax on every working person or every person, 
certainly, that purchases fuel in this country.
  The key here, Mr. Speaker, is that we need to go back to germaneness. 
The key issue we have here is the germaneness of the rule in front of 
us.
  What should we be talking about? We all ought to be talking in very 
positive terms about this budget that we want to send to the President 
by midnight tonight. If we do not send it to the President, the 
spending authority expires. We are going to have a real problem.
  You do not want to shut the Government down, or maybe some of you do 
want to shut the Government down, but if you do not want to shut the 
Government down, you need to cooperate with us on this rule. The 
members of the Committee on Rules, did. We had a great conversation, a 
great discussion last night. It was a voice vote. Not one disagreement 
in the committee.
  Then today we come down here, and clearly we have a nongermane issue, 
meaning an issue that has nothing to do with the rule in front of us. I 
guess, Mr. Speaker, I could ask for a point of order, but then they 
would call it a gag order, so I guess in an election year we can expect 
this kind of frivolous discussion. But let us not ignore the fact we 
need to pass this rule. We have a great budget. It is a success. We 
have reduced spending in Washington. Let us get this budget to the 
President and let us get it signed. We can do it by midnight.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, it is very apparent to me, listening to the 
debate, that the gentleman from Colorado is trying to obfuscate the 
real issue. We all agree that we will take up the appropriation bill 
that will finally fund the Government for the rest of this year. That 
should have been done 7 months ago, but the Republicans did not do it.
  The real issue is whether we will have two things to do. One is a 
minimum wage, and the other is the appropriation bill. We can do both. 
All we have to do is defeat the previous question. We could tell 
Speaker Gingrich and the gentleman from Texas, Dick Armey, ``Sorry, 
boys, we are going to vote on a minimum wage in the House of 
Representatives. We are going to defeat the previous question.'' If 
Members are not for the minimum wage, they will vote for the previous 
question. If they are for the minimum wage, they will vote against the 
previous question. It is a very easy vote. And, by defeating the 
previous question, we amend the rule. The rule then passes. We have 
passed the appropriation bill. We send it to the President. The 
Government keeps on running. And soon thereafter, because of this 
amendment, we will be voting on a minimum wage. That is what we should 
be doing. What is wrong with the Speaker?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ 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 say to the gentleman from Colorado, we are 
going to pass the rule, we are going to pass the bill. It reduces 
spending, but in a way that does not hurt children and their education, 
does not hurt the environment, does not hurt citizens who want security 
in their neighborhoods, because it does not adopt the cuts that you 
voted for.

                              {time}  1215

  We want to expand this and have a vote on the minimum wage. We will 
make an agreement. If the Speaker says we will have a vote, we will not 
oppose the previous question. But if he says we will not have one, do 
not say go through committee.
  I want to read something from November 8, 1989. This is a statement 
by Mr. Dole on the floor: ``We had a White House meeting this morning, 
and the President asked about minimum wage and the progress it was 
making. I said we hoped to have it passed as early as noon or 1:00.'' 
That was Mr. Dole in 1989. In 1996, Mr. Dole has an option: either 
continue to cater to the radical right of the Republican Party or do 
what was done in 1989.
  The minimum wage today is back where it was in 1989. We need to move 
ahead. You are standing there trying to divert attention. We are going 
to vote for the rule and the bill, but we should also bring up the 
minimum wage. It is of importance to the working families of this 
country.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. 
Once again, this rule gives a clear demonstration of the priorities of 
Newt Gingrich and the Republican leadership. Newt Gingrich and the 
Republican leadership are stopping the minimum wage legislation from 
coming to the floor of this House.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, the gentleman from Colorado keeps asking why 
did the Democrats not do this in the past, why did the President not 
say he supported it in the past. It does not matter. It should be done 
now. Then is then and now is now. It is time for us to step up to the 
plate for the workers of this country.
  Besides, I think the gentleman from Colorado is off the point. Why 
will Newt Gingrich not come to this floor and tell the American people 
why he is standing in the way of a debate that would give a simple 90 
cents per hour increase to those who make the least amount of money in 
this country? It is important for the American people to understand.
  This is simply about whether or not we recognize that American 
workers are hurting, whether or not we recognize that CEO's and others 
are getting richer and richer while the least of these is getting worse 
and worse in this country. It is not about what was not done yesterday. 
It was not about the

[[Page H3835]]

fact that people were afraid of the business community months ago. It 
is about whether or not, given he has the power, Newt Gingrich has the 
power to bring it to the floor, whether or not he is going to do it on 
behalf of the workers.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I would be interested if the gentlewoman from 
California is out there telling the working poor that it does not 
matter, ``It does not matter that we did not try and raise your minimum 
wage while we were in office. It does not matter that when we were in 
the majority we did not try and raise the minimum wage.''
  The fact is it does matter. The fact is, if you want to help the 
working poor of this country, do something about the taxes.
  The other issue that is very important here, as the gentlewoman from 
California--and I will yield to the gentleman in just a minute--as the 
gentlewoman from California comes down here and just blasts the rule, 
where were you at the Rules Committee meeting last night? Not one 
Democrat voted against it. We had a very healthy discussion about the 
importance of this rule so that we can get a budget to the President by 
midnight tonight. I think we can do it.
  One of the former speakers up here talked about how much this budget 
bill that we are ready to send to the President has some positive 
things from his point of view. I agree with him, it does have some 
positive things, but the positive thing to me is it cuts spending by 
$23 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. 
Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right. The minimum wage should have 
been raised 2 years ago, and I had a bill in to raise it to $5.50 an 
hour. But the fact that it was not raised then makes it more imperative 
that we raise it now because the purchasing power of low-wage workers 
has declined even more. So let us move forward today and pass a minimum 
wage.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Linder], my fellow colleague on the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have been watching this debate on my 
television and it has degenerated for high comedy to farce.
  The gentleman from Texas has decided that Americans deserve a raise 
and, by golly, we are going to give it to them, and that is precisely 
the difference between the two sides. Democrats think that politicians 
can determine what a person's work is worth and they will give them the 
raises, and we believe the marketplace works.
  The gentleman from Michigan says that the minimum wage today is right 
where it was in 1989. Is that not interesting, when the other gentleman 
from Michigan, the minority whip, said that it is a 40-year low? One of 
them is not telling us the truth.
  The fact of the matter is that this is not policy, this is politics, 
and it is crass politics. It is mean politics. It is using people who 
are right now about 3 percent of 117 million workers as pawns in a 
political battle to make political points.
  Two years ago they could have raised the minimum wage. They did not 
even mention it. Robert Samuelson, in an article, points out the fact 
that the minimum wage is less about social policy than politics.
  If you doubt that, ponder some facts gathered by New York Times 
reporter David Rosenbaum. With computers and other documents, he 
searched references made by President Clinton. In the 2 years when he 
controlled the House and the Senate and the White House in 1993 and 
1994, guess how many times President Clinton talked about the minimum 
wage? You got it, zero. Zero.
  This year, with Republicans in control, between the first of the year 
and March 11 he talked about it 47 times. The Time article by Michael 
Kramer--I said this earlier this morning--President Clinton said, ``It 
is the wrong way to raise incomes of low-wage earners.''
  In a Wall Street Journal article, April 12, 1996: ``Remember when 
Bill Clinton claimed he was a new Democrat precisely because he did not 
favor a higher minimum wage? That was 1992, the last time he was trying 
to give moderates a reason to entrust their vote with him.''
  The fact of the matter is, most of America has gotten used to this 
President having both sides of the issue and not knowing where he 
stands. They will see through this, too.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, during the years I have been in Congress, 
in fact for 50 years, without exception the majority of Republicans in 
the House of Representatives have been opposed to the minimum wage. 
Even back when economists said it did work, Republicans were opposed to 
it for half a century.
  Now they have ridden themselves into a box canyon. Because the great 
majority of the American people want to raise the minimum wage in order 
to help the working poor, Republicans can no longer be caught being 
against the working poor, so they have to make a choice.
  They have chosen. They have chosen to come down on the side of their 
friends in business and against the taxpayers. How? By freezing the 
minimum wage for their pals in corporations and then turning to the 
taxpayers and saying, ``Give the working poor more money for every kid 
they have.'' So here is the working poor out of a Dickens novel coming 
annually to the Congress saying, ``Please, may I have more? Please, Mr. 
Speaker, I have had another child, may I have more?''
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Owens].
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are attacking the lowest wage 
earners in America, the people at the very bottom, on two fronts. 
First, they deny them an opportunity for an increase in the minimum 
wage; an in this legislation, which this rule concerns, they are 
attacking people and preventing them from getting an education by 
stealth assassination of a concept called Opportunity to Learn. They 
have usurped the role of the authorizing committee and they have ruled 
out Opportunity to Learn standards in this legislation.
  Opportunity to Learn means that the Federal Government will collect 
information, it is all voluntary, collect information about what our 
school systems are doing to guarantee that children have an opportunity 
to learn. How are they providing decent books, decent buildings, decent 
science labs, qualified teachers who can teach science? How are they 
doing this? This is strictly voluntary.
  Nevertheless, after 6 months of debate, the authorizing committee 
decided to do this, and now in a few meetings the conference report 
tells us that Opportunity to Learn standards are stricken. That is 
against the rules, it is illegal, but it will prevail because they have 
the votes.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans make us talk about an 
issue that they say is irrelevant because they refuse to allow a full 
discussion about the minimum wage. Therefore, we must take this 
opportunity to talk about the minimum wage.
  It is relevant. It is relevant to millions of Americans, their 
families, their mothers, who depend on the lowest of wages, and it 
should be relevant to you if you care about the American taxpayer.
  Why should it be irrelevant? Why should we be put in such a position 
to beg for those who need to be concerned? You have refused to 
understand what it means to not have food, what it means to not have 
shelter, what it means not to have the basic resources to take care of 
your family, and yet on the other side you talk about family values. 
You talk about expediency. How can you not reconcile the indifference 
that you are showing toward the very people you say you care about?
  It is relevant. It is relevant, I would say, Mr. Speaker, contrary to 
what the majority leader has said before.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H3836]]

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the major crisis facing our country is that 
more and more we are becoming a low-wage society. During the last 20 
years, the real wages of American workers have declined by 16 percent, 
and more tragically for our young workers, the new jobs that they are 
getting are paying even lower wages than was the case 15 years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, what is also grossly unfair is that while the vast 
majority of the working people become poorer, the people on top become 
richer, and we now have by far the most unequal distribution of wealth 
and income in the industrialized world. If people work 40 hours a week, 
they should not live in poverty. A $4.25 minimum wage is a disgrace.
  Let us have the courage to do the decent thing, the right thing. Let 
us raise the minimum wage now. Bring that legislation to the floor.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think it is very important. It amazes me how boldly some of the 
speakers we hear on that side of the aisle are talking about the 
working poor. Where were those kind of comments when they raised the 
taxes on all of the working people, not just the poor working people 
but the middle class and the upper, all of them?
  Folks are going to be out there and are going to be paying. I do not 
know if any of you have been to the gas station lately, but the gas 
prices have really gone up. You can lay the credit of the additional 
taxes of 4 cents right at your feet. Most of the people that have 
spoken in opposition to me today voted to raise those taxes.
  If you want to help the working poor of this country, if you want to 
help the working people of this country, quit raising taxes. Taxes are 
not the answer. Help us pass this rule so that we can reduce spending.
  The President is ready to sign it. He is ready to reduce the spending 
by $23 billion. It has taken a lot of effort on our side to get that 
kind of compromise put together from the President. Join us. You want 
to help the working people, help us cut spending in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the last time I argued to raise the minimum 
wage on the House floor I was accused by the majority whip as being 
hypocritical. I would say that the only people being hypocritical here 
are the Republican leadership. They talk about family values, they 
claim to support America's workers, yet their policies are just the 
opposite.
  The bottom line, my colleagues, is that we want a vote. Let us say it 
again. We want a vote, up or down, on the minimum wage. The Republican 
leadership is afraid to give us a vote because they know if there was a 
vote on the House Floor, the minimum wage would go up. It would pass. 
They do not want to do it. That is Republican democracy for you. 
Seventy-one percent of Republicans support increasing the minimum wage, 
and 84 percent of all Americans support increasing the minimum wage.

                              {time}  1130

  But yet the tyranny here of leadership will not even allow us a vote 
on the floor. Today's Congress Daily says House Speaker Gingrich, who 
last week conceded he would allow for a vote on the minimum wage in 
some form, was pressured by other members of the leadership to rule out 
a vote. Who does the Speaker represent, the American people or the 
leaders?
  All we are saying is that we want a vote. Again, Speaker Gingrich 
conceded last week he would allow a vote. This week, he was pressured 
``by other members of the Republican leadership to rule out a vote, at 
least for the foreseeable future.''
  What are you afraid of, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle? 
Let the American people have their way. Let the Congress have their 
way. All we are saying is give us a vote up or down. You are blocking a 
vote. You cannot claim to want to help America's workers by not 
allowing an increase in the minimum wage. you cannot claim family 
values by not allowing an increase in the minimum wage. Why should 
someone get off welfare, as you say you want people to do, when they do 
get off welfare and make a minimum wage they are getting paid less than 
if they were on welfare?
  All we are saying is people want to work, and they are at the very 
bottom of the economic spectrum, these are people that want to work. 
They do not want to collect a check. They want to work.
  Pay them a decent wage. That is the American way. Wages are at a 40-
year low. It is a disgrace. We demand a vote.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear kind of a show-and-tell going 
on here. Obviously it is an election year. The issue that is 
continually I think a diversionary issue, has been once again brought 
up by the gentleman from New York.
  I think it would be interesting to see where the gentleman from New 
York ranks on the taxpayer ratings. I think it would be interesting to 
see if the gentleman from New York had a bill he sponsored to raise the 
minimum wage when he was in the majority. I would conclude he probably 
did not.
  I think the important issue here, the key issue here, Mr. Speaker, is 
we can finally help the working poor and every working person in this 
country by passing this rule and passing a budget that reduces spending 
by $23 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding me the time.
  On the subject of the minimum wage, which of course we are talking 
about here, cutting spending, so the Democrats will do anything to get 
off a spending cut and start talking about something else. Let us talk 
about the minimum wage.
  I know the folks over there are simply economically ignorant. I do 
not believe they are malicious, but you know, who do you think is going 
to get jobs when you eliminate the minimum wage? Or when you increase 
it? It is going to be good-bye teenage employment for the summer. 
Nobody is going to be able to get jobs. I would challenge the comrades 
over on the other side of the aisle, go talk to Burger King, go talk to 
McDonald's, go talk to any small business, go talk to a pet shop or go 
talk to a construction company. Ask them how many jobs they will have 
to eliminate when you increase the minimum wage?
  If you want to show compassion, do not show compassion with 90 cents 
more an hour. Show compassion with a $500 per child tax credit which 
you fought. Show compassion to repeal the 4 cents per gallon gas tax 
which the President increased.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated I shall offer an 
amendment to the rule which would make in order a new section in the 
rule. This provision would direct the Committee on Rules to report a 
resolution immediately that would provide for consideration of a bill 
to incrementally increase the minimum wage from its current $4.25 an 
hour to $5.15 an hour beginning on July 4, 1997. This provides for a 
separate vote on minimum wage. It in no way slows down the continuing 
resolution. The Speaker and the majority leader yesterday announced 
that there would be no vote on the minimum wage before the election. 
Let me make it clear to my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, 
defeating the previous question will allow the House to vote on the 
minimum wage increase. This is what 80 percent of Americans want us to 
do. So let's do it.
  I include the text of this amendment for the Record at this point in 
the debate.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:

[[Page H3837]]

       ``Sec.  . The House of Representatives directs the 
     Committee on Rules to report immediately a resolution 
     providing for the consideration of a measure to increase the 
     minimum wage to not less than $4.70 an hour during the year 
     beginning July 4, 1996, and not less than $5.15 an hour after 
     July 3, 1997.''

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, since he will have time to prepare this amendment that 
he wants to put on, he would also include within that amendment, since 
the amendment you will be preparing is nongermane, we might as well hit 
the whole topic, put in a clause that reduces the gas tax by 4 cents a 
gallon. You did put that on every working person in America. Put in the 
child tax credit so we can reduce the taxes, so people do not have to 
work 2 hours and 45 minutes to pay their taxes every day.
  The important issue here is Democrats have attempted, some, not all, 
have attempted to divert from the issue at hand. The issue at hand is 
we have a budget that is going to work, that will cut spending by the 
Federal Government by $23 billion. That is the largest and most 
significant reduction since the end of World War II.
  We ought to all be happy today. We ought to be celebrating. We are 
going to make progress. So I would urge you support the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. 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 220, 
nays 200, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 133]

                               YEAS--220

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

                               NAYS--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Baesler
     Ewing
     Ford
     Gibbons
     Hayes
     Hunter
     McDade
     McIntosh
     Peterson (MN)
     Rangel
     Schroeder
     Watts (OK)
     Wilson

                              {time}  1255

  Messrs. DOYLE, FORBES, FRISA, TORKILDSEN, and McHUGH changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. WATT of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 133, I was 
unavoidably detained with constituents. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 286, 
noes 135, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 134]

                               AYES--286

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan

[[Page H3838]]


     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Studds
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--135

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Baesler
     Dunn
     Ewing
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Hayes
     Hunter
     Peterson (MN)
     Rangel
     Schroeder
     Wilson

                              {time}  1312

  Mr. RICHARDSON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________