[Pages H8572-H8578]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1854, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1996

Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 206, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1854) making appropriations for
the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996,
and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report
is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
July 28, 1995, at page H7964.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the order of the House, the gentleman
from California [Mr. Packard] and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Fazio] each will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to present the conference report on the
1996 legislative branch appropriations bill. This is the first 1996
appropriations bill to come out of conference, but there are a number
close behind us.
The conference report presents a bill that will greatly reduce the
size of our own branch of Government.
To summarize, the conference agreement provides budget authority of
$2.18 billion. This is $433 million below the President's budget
request, a 16.5 percent reduction. It is $205.7 million below fiscal
year 1995; that's an 8.6 percent reduction in funding below the current
year. This agreement reduces legislative branch jobs [FTE's] by 2,614
under fiscal year 1995, Senate staffing excluded; that's a 9.5 percent
reduction in jobs. Finally, the conference agreement is $114.7 million
below our 602(b) budget resolution target.
The House and Senate concluded a successful conference.
There were 55 amendments to the House bill, all were resolved by the
conferees.
I will include a table showing details and a list of the highlights
of the conference agreement.
We have compared the conference agreement to the House bill.
The bill we sent to the Senate did not have funds for Senate
operations.
Excluding the Senate items, the conference agreement is $9,518,000
below the House-passed bill. The reductions to the House bill consist
of: $18,458,000 further reduction to GAO; $4,511,000 further reduction
in congressional printing;
$903,000 reduced from the Joint Committee on Taxation; $1,060,000
further reduction in the power plant; $14,999,000 reduced from
Congressional Research Service in order to restore Library of Congress
funding; $7,000,000 from the Botanic Garden Conservatory renovation
which eliminates the funds to begin that project.
There were several additions to the House bill, including: $2,500,000
for a joint Office of Compliance; $3,615,000 for an orderly shutdown of
the Office of Technology Assessment; $50,000 for Capitol buildings
maintenance; $17,753,000 was restored to the funding of the Library of
Congress; and $13,995,000 was added back for the depository library
program under the Superintendent of Documents.
There were several provisions included, primarily to facilitate the
operations of the House and Senate. The conference report (House Report
104-212) has been available for several weeks and explains these
provisions.
One of these provisions is contained in amendment No. 10 which
provides $6,115,000 for the orderly shutdown of the Office of
Technology Assessment and includes provisions for severance pay and
disposal of property.
Amendment No. 55 includes some House housekeeping provisions added by
the managers and a provision that establishes an awards and settlement
fund required by the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995.
In addition to the overall reductions I have already enumerated, a
few of the highlights include:
House of Representatives--has been cut $57.2 million--$57,174,000--
below 1995. Included in this reduction, committee staff have been cut
33 percent; committee budgets have been reduced by $39.8 million--
$39,762,000--House administrative offices have been cut by $11.9
million below 1995--$11,934,000--

[[Page H 8573]]

and administrative staff have been reduced by 313 FTE's.
Senate--has been cut $33.7 million in 1995.
Joint items--Joint committees--printing, economic, taxation--have
been cut by 22.8 percent overall.
Office of Technology Assessment--has been eliminated, a $22 million
savings.
Congressional Budget Office--has been given $1.1 million and 13 more
FTE's to perform unfunded mandates workload.
Architect of the Capitol--has been cut $16.8 million below 1995. The
conference agreement ends the subsidy to the Flag Office. Flag prices
will be raised to reimburse the cost of the flag raising operation.
Requests for proposal will be issued to privatize custodial and
maintenance work, and a panel of outside experts will propose how the
powerplant can be privatized.
Government Printing Office--has been cut $7.9 million below 1995.
Congressional printing has been cut by $5.6 million, including no more
constituent copies of the Congressional Record. The number of daily
records printed will be reduced from 17,791 to 11,370, and we have
eliminated free copies of documents to judges, to former Members, to
press and other media, and to executive agencies.
Library of Congress--funding increased $1.5 million--only increase in
bill. The national digital library program of the Library is funded at
$3 million, the amount requested.
General Accounting Office--cut $75 million below 1995. The report
indicates our intent to reduce GAO by 25 percent over a two-year
period.

summary

In summary, the bill is $205.7 million below fiscal year 1995. It
effects a 2,614 reduction in full-time-equivalent jobs; that's a 9.5
percent cut, not including Senate jobs. In total, it is a $432.8
million reduction below the requests included in the President's
budget, a 16.5 percent reduction. Finally, it is $114.7 million below
our 602(b) target allocation.
Every Member can justify an ``aye'' vote on passage.

[[Page H 8574]]
<graphic><tiff>TH06SE95.000

[[Page H 8575]]

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to see Cal Ripkin break that record as
much as anybody, but, you know, there are other people's lives at stake
here in this bill.
I rise in opposition to the bill. One reason is it eliminates the
Office of Technology Assessment. I think it is important that the
Members understand fully what this bill does. For one, it eliminates
the Office of Technology Assessment, the studies they do, technical
studies, studies that give us information we could not get otherwise.
They are overseen by a bipartisan board.
It is going to make us much more reliant upon the high-priced
lobbyists that represent the billion-dollar telecommunications industry
or whatever others may have a vested interest.
It eliminates 25 percent of the General Accounting Office. Think of
the millions of dollars that have been saved every year by GAO. Yet we
are going to tell them that a quarter of GAO is expendable. I think
that is penny wise and pound foolish.
But most importantly, my friends in this Chamber, we need to know
what this does to the lives of those people that have devoted their
lives to serving this institution.
I would like you to focus for a moment on someone like Nancy Glorius.
She started working for this institution when she was 15 years old. She
has worked for the House of Representatives for 34 years, helping the
House buy anything from paper clips to computer networks, has always
done a good job. You know what, she just received a form letter, pink
slip, without so much as her name on it, after spending 34 years of her
life serving this institution; people like Charles Hoag, who worked
here 24 years and was let go just months before his retirement and
replaced with higher paid employees. This is not right.
This institution will not serve us, more importantly the American
people, if this is the way we conduct ourselves.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Thomas], chairman of the Committee on House Oversight.
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston], and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative Appropriations,
the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], and the ranking member,
the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], because the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio] also serves as the ranking member on House
oversight.
I think the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] made the point
this is an absolute reduction. It is a cut. This is a change from
previous Congresses.

{time} 1745

Notwithstanding the desire not to make reductions or cuts, I still
want to compliment everyone involved because I think it was done in the
fairest manner and in the most efficient way possible. We took the
major cuts ourselves. We eliminated three committees. Fully 30 percent
of the money, 29 million, came out of the committees.
So, I think by example we have indicated where we want to go. The 25-
percent General Accounting Office cut was recommended by the General
Accounting Office. All we did was accept it. We have more changes
coming. Look at the new handbook which my colleagues have received.
This is just the beginning.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I have never voted for a legislative
appropriations bill in the 4 years that I have been in Congress. But
for the first time, in a bipartisan way, in order to balance the
budget, in order to work together across aisles, and I hope this is a
vanguard in the next few weeks and months, I will vote for this bill.
It makes tough choices toward balancing the budget. It cuts 33 percent
out of our mail accounts. It cuts money from the clerk hire. It cuts
money from the General Accounting Office and the Office of Technology
Assessment.
Yes, my colleagues, if we are going to more toward balancing the
budget, which I fully endorse, Congress has to take the first step and
share in the sacrifice.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we were successful in working with the
gentleman from New Jersey and getting a Roemer-Zimmer amendment
attached. If my colleagues save money in their office account, that
money will go for the U.S. deficit.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa
[Mr. Nussle].
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage with the gentleman
from California [Mr. Packard] in a colloquy.
Mr. Packard, in reviewing the conference report language, it appears
that the intent of the subcommittee is to prohibit all moves by Members
of their offices. As my colleague knows, as part of the transition we
are attempting to consolidate Member offices, consolidate split suites
where there are two rooms and one room that is located elsewhere. We
want to make sure that the bipartisan building commission, as part of
the transition, still has the ability to consolidate suites, and I want
to make sure that even though there is a prohibition, that that
prohibition is more if a Member's term is limited for one reason or
another by death or resignation and not for the incidental
consolidation Members' suites.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NUSSLE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. The subcommittee recognizes that the bipartisan Building
Commission may need some flexibility in fulfilling its goal of
consolidating office space, including eliminating split suites. It is
not the intent of the subcommittee to prohibit such moves authorized by
the bipartisan Buidling Commission.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member
of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I do support the cuts in this bill, but I do
not believe that Congress ought to be exempted from the negotiating
squeeze if, in fact, the entire national budget is headed for a train
wreck. The President has indicated that, if we send this bill to him
before other issues are resolved, he will veto it. That is not going to
be in anybody's interest, so it seems to me what we ought to do is to
delay the sending of this bill to the President.
That is why the motion to recommit, which I will offer in just a
moment, will do just that. It will simply recommit the conference
report to the committee with instructions that the conference not meet
until subsequently instructed to do so by the House pursuant to clause
1(c) of rule XXVIII. That would simply facilitate the delaying of this
bill until other budget issues are worked out in other appropriation
bills so that we are not in the unseemly position of appearing to be
trying to speed passage through of the bill that funds our agencies
while other agencies are going to get caught in the squeeze.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
in response to the motion to recommit.
Let us look at the motion to recommit. It delays. If my colleagues
want gridlock, if my colleagues want a so-called train wreck, then vote
for this motion to recommit. The best way to avoid a train wreck is to
do what we are supposed to do, and that is pass appropriations bills.
What is wrong with the conference report the way it is? I do not
think there is anything wrong with it. It cuts below last year's bill.
Could it be that those who want to hold this bill are opposed to
deficit reduction? We are supposed to be bringing about deficit
reduction. That's what this conference report does. It also makes
significant reforms in the legislative branch.
Vote against delay. Vote against the motion to recommit.
Since the first of the year Republicans have set an aggressive
legislative agenda. Now we are bringing the

[[Page H 8576]]
fruits of our labors to our colleagues. Let us move forward. Vote for
deficit reduction, vote against delay, vote against the motion to
recommit.
This motion to recommit the bill to conference is an unprecedented
action since I have been here. It is designed to remove control of the
legislative agenda from the majority. It is designed to delay the
appropriations process. It is designed to give the President control
over the legislative branch of Government. I would ask the Members to
oppose the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] is through,
I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from California going to have a
colloquy with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer]?
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I do not see that on the table right now.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I think it might be important
simply to reference the concern the gentleman had, however.
Mr. PACKARD. There has been some concern, particularly by the
Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, that our bill would change the
reduction in force of GAO as it affects, as it might affect, veterans'
preference. We have discussed this with Mr. Buyer, chairman of the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs subcommittee. I have a letter from the
GAO, and I would submit it for the Record. It is to Mr. Detweiler, the
National Commander of the American Legion, who has posed the problem in
a letter of August 22, 1995. The Comptroller General's, Mr. Charles
Bowsher letter assures the veterans that there is no intention of
undermining veterans' preference, and certainly I think this issue is
cleared up as far as my understanding of the bill is concerned. There
apparently has been a misunderstanding of section 212 of the conference
report. Mr. Bowsher's letter clears that up. And both Mr. Buyer and I
wanted to make sure this is clarified.
The letters referred to are as follows:

Comptroller General

of the United States,

Washington, DC, September 1, 1995.
Mr. William Detweiler,
National Commander, The American Legion, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Detweiler: I am very troubled by the August 22
letter, which you sent to members of Congress. Your assertion
that section 211 of H.R. 1854 (the legislative branch
appropriations bill) would result in an erosion of veterans'
preference is erroneous.
Section 211 provides no exemption from the statutory
requirement for veterans' preference in a reduction-in-force.
On the contrary, section 211 specifically requires that GAO
recognize veterans' preference in developing its reduction-
in-force rules. GAO will do so.
Beyond this bill, GAO's enabling legislation requires that
the agency accord employees the same preferences, including
veterans' preference, that are provided to employees in the
executive branch.
I assure you that we have no intention of undermining
veterans' preference. Indeed, GAO is committed to preserving
veterans' preference and will accord veterans the same rights
as they would receive during reductions-in-force in executive
branch agencies.
I would be happy to meet with you to discuss this matter
further. I hope you will join us in correcting any
misunderstanding your letter has created about the effect of
section 211 on veterans' preference.
Sincerely yours,
Charles A. Bowsher,
Comptroller General of the United States.
____

The American Legion,

Washington, DC, August 22, 1995.
Dear Representative: The American Legion is requesting that
you oppose the conference report on H.R. 1854, the FY 1996
appropriations bill for the Legislative Branch.
The American Legion is strongly opposed to section 211 of
H.R. 1854, a provision that will allow the General Accounting
Office to place less emphasis on veterans' preference in
reduction-in-force situations. The American Legion believes
this is a major step in the erosion of veterans' preference
for employment purposes.
``The Veterans' Preference Act of 1944'' was enacted by
Congress to assist veterans seeking employment because their
military service prevented them from earning promotions and
benefits in the civilian work force like their civilian
counterparts. Unlike affirmative action programs, veterans'
preference requires that veterans must be fully qualified and
competitive for the preference to apply. The law simply
provides preference to a veteran in obtaining and retaining
federal employment provided the candidates or employees have
equal qualifications.
The American Legion requests that you preserve America's
contract with veterans and oppose the conference report for
H.R. 1854. Thank you for the continued leadership on
important veterans issues.
Sincerely,
William M. Detweiler,
National Commander.

Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, first of all I do want to
reference the last point made by my friend from California. I have been
on the phone with the Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Ed
Scott. It is the administration's position that unless the language is
changed, the Comptroller General would retain the authority to pay less
attention to veterans' preference. I appreciate the concern that I know
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] had, and I know that the
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] has just indicated he shares,
but I do think it is important that we point out for the record that
this concern remains extant in the executive branch, and I also want to
join with the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] in saying it is
not the intent of either the majority or the minority to have that
effect, but I would, for further clarification, include the letter from
Jesse Brown, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in the Record at this
time:

The Secretary of

Veterans Affairs,

Washington, DC, September 6, 1995.
Hon. Vic Fazio,
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Legislative,
Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Fazio: I am deeply concerned about a
provision in the conference report on H.R. 1854, the proposed
Legislative Appropriations Act for FY 1996, that could erode
veterans' preference under a downsizing of the General
Accounting Office.
Section 212 of the conference report, which originated in
the Senate, would authorize the Comptroller General to give
less weight to veterans' preference in any reduction-in-force
that GAO carries out under this legislation.
This provision overlooks the vitally important role of
veterans' preference in America's sacred contract with her
defenders. The week after we commemorated our great victory
in World War II and a month after the dedication of the
Korean War Memorial is no time for the Congress to permit any
dilution of our obligations to our warriors. The suggestion
that something less than strict adherence to veterans'
preference would be acceptable is a slap in the face to all
those who have served and sacrificed in defense of freedom
and democracy.
I hope you agree with me that legislation, such as H.R.
1854, allowing the weakening of veterans preference must not
be enacted.
Sincerely,
Jesse Brown.

Mr. Speaker, as it relates to the motion offered by the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] to recommit, I want to say very clearly that
I would never advocate a veto of this bill by any President of either
party. I have never in the time I have managed this bill as chairman of
this subcommittee seen that likelihood carried out by President Reagan
or President Bush. But I think we all understand that none of us want
to be treated differently in this branch of Government than anyone else
in Government.
We want to make that clear to all the people who are observing our
proceedings. If we are going to be asking loyal and hard-working
Federal employees to take furloughs and to have their lives disrupted,
certainly the American public would think it important that we share in
that same struggle, that same burden. It would only be fitting that we,
therefore, indicate our interests in being treated alike.
So, Mr. Speaker, I believe the motion to recommit would instruct the
conferees to wait until further progress has been made on the other
appropriations bills, would not tempt the White House to issue a veto,
and is a middle ground that perhaps some of us would seek short of
having a confrontation on an issue that ought to be treated with comity
by both the executive and legislative branch.
Mr. Speaker, just in completing my remarks, I want to pay tribute
once again to the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] who has done
an outstanding job in his first voyage as chairman of this subcommittee
under very difficult circumstances. I voted for this bill when it
passed the House, and, as a courtesy to him, I signed the

[[Page H 8577]]
conference report. The conference does make some significant
improvements. It provides additional funds to CBO to handle the needs
of unfunded mandate analysis, which we recently gave them. It restores
additional FTE's to the Government Printing Office, it restores funds
for our depository libraries around the country, it reestablishes the
Joint Committee on Printing, it restores the Folk Life Center at the
Library, and restores funding to the Library of Congress. For many
Members an important provision: It keeps the Flag Office alive,
although the cost of flags will rise to cover the full cost of the
dissemination.
But sadly it goes too deep in its cuts in the GAO, more than a 15-
percent cut below last year, and most regrettably, and I share this
with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton], our colleague who
chairs the board that guides the Office of Technology Assessment,
rather than support the House position that kept OTA alive under the
Library of Congress, it actually does away with the entity. So for
those two reasons, Mr. Speaker, regrettably I must oppose this
conference report.
Mr. Speaker, my most popular remark of the evening: I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if Congress sent as the first appropriations bill the
Labor-HHS or some other appropriations bill with an 8- or 9-percent cut
to the President, do my colleagues know what we would hear from the
President? Why do you not cut yourselves first before cutting these
other agencies?
We are cutting ourselves first. We think that is appropriate. This is
a model for the rest of the appropriations bills. We are proud to send
it to the President first, but we think it will be accompanied by
several other bills. I urge the Members to vote for it and to vote
against the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, today, we in Congress, under the leadership of the
Republican majority, have the opportunity to end business as usual in
Government. We have the opportunity to prove to the American people
that the change they voted for last November has not fallen on deaf
ears.
Through the hard work and diligence of both the House and the Senate,
we have crafted a legislative branch appropriations bill that cuts
spending and returns sanity to congressional expenditure. This bill
indicates just how serious we are about reshaping Government. By
cutting our own budget, we have set the standard for every other
Federal agency and taken the first crucial step toward a brighter, more
prosperous future for our children.
I would encourage all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1854.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered.
There was no objection.

motion to recommit offered by mr. obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Is the gentleman opposed to the
conference report?
Mr. OBEY. At the present time, Mr. Speaker, yes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Obey moves to recommit the conference report on H.R.
1854 (H. Rept. 104-212) to the Committee on Conference with
instruction that the conferees not meet until subsequently
instructed to do so by the House pursuant to clause 1(C) of
rule XXVIII.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164,
noes 243, not voting 27, as follows:

[Roll No. 637]

AYES--164

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bonior
Borski
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOES--243

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

NOT VOTING--27

Bishop
Brown (FL)
Cardin
Fattah
Foley
Geren
Hoyer
Lincoln
Maloney
McDade
McKinney
Mfume
Moakley
Mollohan
Morella
Oberstar
Reynolds
Riggs
Sabo
Serrano
Sisisky
Smith (NJ)
Tucker
Waldholtz
Waxman
Wilson
Young (FL)

{time} 1816

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

[[Page H 8578]]

Mrs. Maloney for, with Mr. Foley against.

Mr. TEJEDA changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. FLAKE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the
conference report.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 305,
nays 101, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 638]

YEAS--305

Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flake
Flanagan
Forbes
Ford (TN)
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnson (SD)
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NAYS--101

Abercrombie
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bonior
Browder
Brown (CA)
Bryant (TX)
Clay
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
DeLauro
Dellums
Dingell
Doggett
Durbin
Engel
Evans
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
Meek
Miller (CA)
Moran
Nadler
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Rahall
Richardson
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Tanner
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Ward
Watt (NC)
Williams
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--28

Bishop
Brown (FL)
Cardin
Dicks
Fattah
Foley
Geren
Hoyer
Lincoln
Maloney
McDade
McKinney
Mfume
Moakley
Mollohan
Morella
Oberstar
Reynolds
Riggs
Sabo
Serrano
Sisisky
Smith (NJ)
Tucker
Waldholtz
Waxman
Wilson
Young (FL)

{time} 1825

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mrs. Waldholtz for, with Ms. McKinney against.

Mr. PALLONE changed his 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.

____________________