Legislative Update

August 9, 1995

[Note: Congress is on break until September 6; now is a good time to lobby them on issues while they are home]

Items with significant changes and action needed

Violence Against Women Act:

Thanks to everyone's calls, letters and hard work, Violence Against Women Act programs saw partially restored funding (though not full funding) in House committee and floor action during July.

On Wednesday, June 28th, the House Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee removed $100 million of money allocated for Violence Against Women Act programs. Violence Against Women Act programs were authorized to receive $176.7 million from this subcommittee in FY1996; the subcommittee allocated only $75 million. Programs covered by this committee include training for law enforcement and judiciary officials on violence issues, programs for victims of child abuse, judicial training on child abuse, and programs to address stalking and campus sexual assault. The full appropriations committee failed to restore any VAWA funding when they met on July 19 even though Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) offered an amendment to do so. Yet when this appropriations bill came to the House floor, Republicans agreed on a voice vote to restore $50 million to VAWA programs. Final tally: VAWA received $125 million of the over $175 million authorized for FY 1996 in this bill.

On July 11, the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations subcommittee marked up a bill which allocated only $400,000 of the $61.9 million authorized for VAWA programs. [Note: actual authorization totals for all violence against women programs in this bill totalled $96.9 million. The difference is due to separate funding pools for battered women's shelters. Funding comes from two different sources: the Family Violence and Prevention Services Act, which authorized $35 million, and VAWA with an additional $15 million authorized. In the final analysis, $32.645 million was allocated for the Family Violence authorization; $0 was allocated for the VAWA authorized $15 million]. When the full Appropriations committee began their mark up of the bill on July 20, Republicans agreed to restore $40 million to VAWA programs under threat of an amendment by Rep. Nita Lowey. No change was made in this bill to VAWA programs when the bill came to the House floor. Final tally: $40.4 million allocated of the $61.9 million authorized for VAWA [if you add the Family Violence funding source to the total, $73.045 million of the $96.9 million combined authorizations for FY 1996].

ACTION NEEDED:

We made an impact on the House side; we now need to restore VAWA programs to full funding when they reach the Senate. The following Senators are on the respective Appropriations subcommittees which will handle these bills first. If your Senator is on one of these subcommittees, contact them immediately and urge them to fully fund all VAWA programs in their bills. The Senate will be on a fast track to pass appropriations bills when they return from their August recess; we don't have much time to spare.

Senate Commerce, State, Judiciary Subcommittee members:

Republicans: Phil Gramm,, Chair; Ted Stevens, ; Mark Hatfield, OR; Pete Domenici, NM; Mitch McConnell, KY; Conrad Burns, MT

Democrats: Ernest Hollings, SC, Ranking Member; Daniel Inouye, HI; Dale Bumpers, AR; Frank Lautenberg, NJ; Robert Kerrey, NE

Senate Labor, HHS, Education Subcommittee members:

Republicans: Arlen Specter, PA, Chair; Mark Hatfield, OR; Thad Cochran, MS; Connie Mack, FL; Chris Bond, MO; Jim Jeffords, VT; Judd Gregg, NH

Democrats: Tom Harkin, IA, Ranking Member; Robert Byrd, WV; Ernest Hollings, SC; Daniel Inouye, HI; Dale Bumpers, AR; Harry Reid, NV; Herbert Kohl, WI

Packwood:

The Senate Ethics Committee finally released its preliminary report on the Packwood investigation in May, citing substantial credible evidence that Senator Packwood committed acts of sexual misconduct, tampered with evidence and misused his political office for personal gain. Senator Packwood met with the committee behind closed doors for several days at the end of June; shortly afterwards, Packwood stated that he did not want public hearings, a direct contradiction from his previous statements on the issue. The five Democratic women Senators and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) signed a letter to the Ethics Committee urging public hearings.

On July 31, in an unprecedented move, the Senate Ethics committee deadlocked along party lines and thus denied public hearings in the Packwood case. On August 2, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) then followed through on her promise to bring a resolution to the Senate floor for a vote calling for public hearings. On an almost party-line vote, the resolution was defeated 48-52 (Daniel Patrick Moynihan was the only democratic to vote against it; Republicans Olympia Snowe, William Cohen and Arlen Specter voted in favor -- the final vote is attached at the back of this Update). NOW held a zap action outside the Senate offices on Thursday, the same day two new allegations against Senator Packwood surfaced -- one by a minor at the time of the allegation -- and the Ethics Committee delayed its final recommendation on the case until September so as to "investigate" these new charges. In light of the new allegations, Senator Boxer has stated she may call for another vote on public hearings when the Senate returns to Washington in September.

ACTION NEEDED : The decision against public hearings as well as the vote on the Senate floor is outrageous and unjust. The Senate pursues witchhunts via hearings on Waco and Whitewater, yet public hearings on substantiated charges against one of their own is kept behind closed doors. During the August recess, we need to pour on the pressure. Targets: Ethics Committee republicans: Mitch McConnell, R-KY, Chair; Robert Smith, R-NH; Larry Craig, R-ID; senators who voted against Boxer's resolution; and Majority Leader Bob Dole, for leading the opposition against Boxer's resolution. Tell them you're angry about their opposition to pubic hearings, that these new allegations show this case is not settled, and to change their minds and support Barbara Boxer if she brings another vote on the issue. Also, thank those senators who did vote correctly and urge them to again support Boxer if she calls for another vote.

Welfare Reform:

The Senate began debate on welfare reform on Monday, August 7, but the bill was pulled late on August 8 when it became clear the Republicans did not have the votes to pass the bill. Senator Dole introduced S.1120 as the leadership plan with some adjustments to the Senate Finance committee bill. (See below for significant changes between the Leadership bill and the Senate Finance Committee bill; also refer to previous updates for a table comparing House and Senate --Finance Committee -- bills). The major division among republicans now lies in the child exclusion provisions passed by the House but not mandated in the Senate bill (though they remain a state option). Senate conservatives, led by Senators Lauch Faircloth (R-NC) and Phil Gramm (R-TX), claim these provisions stop illegitimacy, even though studies show there is no correlation between out-of-wedlock births and receipt of welfare benefits. Debate on welfare will continue when the Senate returns after Labor Day. One concern about the crowded Senate calendar (all 13 appropriations bills need to be passed and through conference committee by Sept. 30 or the government runs out of money) is that welfare reform may be added to the budget reconciliation bill as a way to pass it. That bill is limited to 20 hours of debate, limited amendments and no filibuster is allowed. If that happens, welfare will not receive the full debate it deserves.

IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GOP LEADERSHIP BILL AND THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE BILL

(Please refer to the July 7, 1995 Legislative Update for an outline of the Senate Finance Bill and the House bill.)

Structure

*Entitlements to Child Care, AFDC cash benefits, child welfare and jobs programs are eliminated; these programs are consolidated into one block grant, which are capped at FY94 spending levels for five years. Food stamps may also be block granted to the states at their option

Growth Formula for States

*States who qualify as a "high growth" state can receive a 2.5% increase, from the amount received the previous fiscal year, in their block grant for each of the fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000.

Child Exclusion

(The Finance Committee bill implicitly allowed states to deny benefits while the Leadership bill explicitly grants states these options)

*Single teen mothers must live at home, attend school, and states have the option to deny benefits to teen moms.

*States have the option to deny payments for additional children born while receiving welfare benefits.

*State option to penalize recipients who do not cooperate in establishing paternity (the House bill penalizes recipients with a reduction in benefits; the Senate Finance bill penalizes the state for not reaching paternity establishment goals.)

Time Limits

*5 year lifetime (earlier at state option), must work as soon as state deems "work ready" or 2 years, whichever is earlier.

Work Participation Rates

*FY 1996-25%

*FY 2002-50%

The penalty to the states for not reaching these levels is the same as the House and Finance Committee Welfare bills, 5%.

Child Welfare Programs

*Eliminated; programs rolled into a block grant to the states.

Child Care

*No federal mandate for child care, even for work activity participants; states have complete discretion on how to spend their money for child care programs.

ACTION NEEDED : All Senators need to be urged to oppose the leadership bill; it is too fundamentally flawed to be repaired. It is also now time to call President Clinton and ask him to veto any welfare bill that will hurt poor women and children. Senators can be reached through 202-224-3121 and President Clinton can be reached at 202-456- 1111.

Abortion and Family Planning:

Appropriations:

In addition to adding abortion and family planning restrictions to the Foreign Aid Authorization bill in early June, House Republicans (led by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) succeeded in adding the same restriction to the Foreign Operations appropriations bill on June 28. The Smith amendment includes a prohibition against directly or indirectly performing abortions by any program or organization which receives U. S. aid, even if they use non-U.S. funds to do so; it also prohibits them from using U.S. aid funds to lobby or advocate foreign governments to change their abortion laws or policies; and prohibits U.S. funding of the UNFPA (United Nations Fund for Population Assistance) so long as the UNFPA participates in China. Rep. Jan Meyers (R-KS) attempted to modify Smith's amendment by eliminating the first two restrictions and preserving the China policy. She pointed out that currently no U.S. money goes to pay for abortions and that Smith's restrictions will only affect family planning. Her modification failed by a vote of 201-229; Smith's amendment then passed 243-187.

The Department of Defense Authorization bill came to the House floor on June 14 with the restored prohibition against any abortions being performed at military facilities, even if paid for with private funds. Rep. Rosa DeLauro offered an amendment to strike the language on June 15 which failed by a vote of 196-230. Yet the Senate Armed Services committee provided some ray of hope on June 22 as they marked up the same bill. Senator Chuck Robb offered a motion to strike the restrictive language from the bill and it passed 11-10 (with all Democrats except James Exon (D-NE) voting with us and all Republicans except William Cohen (R-ME) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) voting against. The next step is the Senate floor; urge your Senators to keep this restrictive language out of the Senate bill.

The House Treasury/Postal Appropriations subcommittee marked up its bill on June 28 with language reinstating the restriction on federal health insurance policies from paying for abortions. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) offered a motion to strike the restriction on the House floor on July 18; the motion failed 188-235. On the Senate side, the Treasury/Postal Appropriations bill did not have the abortion restriction when it came out of committee; when the bill came to the floor in a rare Saturday session on August 5, a Committee amendment to the bill included a recommendation that the abortion restriction from the House bill be removed. A vote was taken to strike the restriction passed 52-41. But then Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) offered a modified amendment which stated that federal employees health insurance plans could not pay for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest or life of the woman, which passed 50-44. Senator Barbara Mikulski offered an amendment which further elaborated Nickles list to include "or when the abortion is determined to be medically necessary". It failed 45-49. The House Commerce/State/Justice Appropriations subcommittee marked up its bill on June 28 as well, reinstating another restriction on federal funds being used to pay for abortions for women in prisons. DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton offered a motion to strike this restriction on the House floor on July 26; it was defeated 146-281. The Senate has not yet acted on the Commerce, State, Judiciary bill.

The House Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations subcommittee marked up their bill on July 11 with Title X funding at $193 million and Medicaid abortions as in current law. However, when the full Appropriations Committee started to mark up the bill on July 20, it became a free for all for the anti-abortion, anti-family planning agenda.

The first blow came from Appropriations chair, Bob Livingston (R-LA), who offered an amendment to eliminate the Title X family planning program and transfer its money to two existing block grants, Maternal and Child Health and Migrant and Community Health centers. Neither program requires that money be spent for family planning. The amendment passed 28-25. The second battle was a complete ban on federal funding of human embryo research pushed by Jay Dickey (R-AR) and Roger Wicker (R-MS); it passed 30-23. Tom DeLay (R-TX) offered an amendment which undermines ACGME requirements that require OB/GYN residency programs to provide training in abortion procedures (with religious and moral objections). The amendment continues to treat institutions who do not provide training as accredited for purposes of reimbursement for Medicare, HEAL Loan forgiveness and state licensure of physicians. The amendment passed 29-25. And Rep. Ernest Istook offered his amendment to make payment of Medicaid abortions in cases of rape and incest a state option, retroactive to 1993 when rape and incest were added to the Medicaid policy on abortions. That amendment passed 29-23.

When the Labor/HHS/Education bill came to the House floor on August 2, divisions between moderate and conservative Republicans jeopardized passage of the entire bill due to these amendments as well as dramatic cuts in education programs and worker safety standards. Rep. Jim Greenwood (R-PA) led the fight to restore funding to the Title X family planning program. Due to a procedural agreement, Livingston had the first vote on his amendment as in the committee bill (Title X funds to existing block grants); it failed 207-221. Greenwood's amendment to restore Title X then passed 224-204. Yet this proved to be the only victory on reproductive rights related amendments. Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) tried to strike the Medicaid language; it failed 206- 215. Rep. Greg Ganske (R-IA) tried to strike the ACGME language and was defeated 189-235. No one offered an amendment to strike the human embryo restriction.

ACTION NEEDED : All of these amendments are potential threats when the Senate starts work on its appropriations bill. Contact members of the Labor/HHS/Education subcommittee (see list under VAWA section) if your senator sits on that committee. Ask him to oppose these restrictions from the House when they mark up their bill.

Other Abortion-Related Legislation:

On June 15, Rep. Charles Canady (R-FL) held a hearing on the Christian Coalition's "Contract with the American Family" provision to outlaw the D & X procedure and restrict late term abortions in his Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. The opposition portrays these abortions as "partial birth" abortions and leaves the impression that they occur in normal, healthy pregnancies on normal, healthy fetuses. The truth is that the D&X procedure is used only when the woman's life or health is jeopardized or the fetus suffers from severe abnormalities and has very little chance of survival. The D&X (dilation and extraction) abortion technique is an extension of the D&E (dilation and evacuation) procedure which aborts the fetus intact.

Canady did introduce a bill the day of the hearings (HR 1833). The bill would ban "partial birth" abortions (with a definition so vague that it could extend to other late term procedures), making it a criminal offense if a doctor performs such a procedure. The only defense (not exemption from criminal prosecution) a doctor could make in using this technique is if the life of the woman was in danger and no other procedure was available to save her life (without regard to whether the other procedure was equally safe for the woman). Furthermore, the woman, the father of the fetus, and the maternal grandparents (if the woman is under 18) all have standing under the bill to sue the doctor for civil damages -- even if they were fully complicit and gave consent to have the procedure done.

Testimony at the hearing was very emotional. The antis used diagrams and assertions that the fetus is only "three inches from birth" when this procedure is done. On the pro-choice side, a doctor testified that this bill would interfere with good medical practice because it would prevent a doctor from using his or her best judgement in treating a patient. A woman who had had the procedure done at 7 months of pregnancy gave the most heart-wrenching testimony. It was only in the 7th month that she and her husband discovered the fetus suffered from severe fetal abnormalities, a condition known as trisomy-13. The fetus had no eyes, six fingers and toes, most of the major organs had formed outside of the body and there was no chance of life outside of the womb.

The subcommittee voted 7-5, along party lines, to pass this legislation. The full Judiciary Committee marked up the bill on Tuesday, July 18 and passed it along party lines, 20-13. Republicans rejected amendments which would have exempted the doctor from criminal prosecution if he performed the abortion to save the woman's life or danger to her health. The only significant which did pass removes standing for civil damages under the bill if any of the parties consented to the procedure. The House is expected to take up this legislation after the August recess.

ACTION NEEDED : Tell your representative to oppose this bill when it comes to the floor for a vote. This bill criminalizes medical procedures performed in cases of life or health endangerment or gross fetal abnormality. The bill goes beyond Roe v. Wade, which proscribes abortions after viability unless the woman's life or health is endangered or in cases of severe fetal abnormalities -- a direct assault under this bill. Congress has no business dictating what medical procedures doctors can and cannot use. This bill would replace medical judgment with micromanaged medical malpractice, and women will suffer for it.

Title IX:

The Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill also attracted an anti-Title IX amendment by Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK). The amendment stops enforcement of Title IX with respect to intercollegiate sports at the end of 1995 until the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) comes up with "objective" criteria to explain how schools can comply with parts two and three of the existing regulations on Title IX (history and expansion of programs and accommodation of interests of underrepresented sex). The amendment passed in committee 30-23. The problem is the term "objective", which can attract years of litigation by opponents of Title IX while current enforcement is halted. When the bill came to the floor, Representatives Nancy Johnson (R-CT) and Patsy Mink (D-HI) were prepared to offer an amendment to remove the language when Dennis Hastert approached them for a compromise. They changed the word "objective" to "specific" criteria which then passed on a voice vote. OCR is already in the process of clarifying their regulations following House hearings in May; this clarification may be all the amendment requires. Nonetheless, we would still like to see such language removed totally from the bill as it threatens to stop enforcement of Title IX by a date certain until certain conditions are met. When contacting the Senate Labor/HHS/Education subcommittee, add this to the list of issues they should keep off their bill.

Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Rights:

Ryan White CARE Act

The reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act (S.641) was on the Senate floor during the week of July 25th. The CARE act provides essential, life-sustaining medical and support services to more than 350,000 women, men and children living with HIV and AIDS in this country. Although the CARE act eventually passed with overwhelming support (97-3), several anti-lesbian and gay amendments also passed. An amendment introduced by Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) to prohibited funds to be used for programs that directly or indirectly "promote or condone homosexuality." This effectively denies support services to homosexuals with HIV and AIDS. The Helms amendment passed by a vote of 54-45. Senator Nancy Kassebaum (R-KS) introduced a secondary amendment in an attempt to limit the impact of the Helms amendment. Her amendment prohibits funds to be used to promote sexual activity or intravenous drug use. The Kassebaum amendment protects, however, the delivery of essential medical and support services to all people living with HIV and AIDS. Her amendment passed by a vote of 76-23. Hopefully, the Kassebaum language will override Helms' amendment when this bill goes to conference committee.

Affirmative Action:

Since the Supreme Court's Adarand decision there has been a tremendous push to end affirmative action. Pete Wilson, the Governor of California, has already waged a successful fight in California to prohibit the use of race or gender in the admissions policy of the California University system. Many members of Congress would like to follow Governor Wilson's lead.

Representative Gary Franks (R-CT) wanted to offer an amendment to the DOD appropriations bill ending set asides in federal contracts for minority-owned businesses. Originally, the House leadership supported such an amendment. Yet when the bill went to Rules Committee, the leadership pressured Franks not to offer his amendment and it was not allowed on the floor.

Representative Charles Canady (R-FL) introduced HR 2128 on the House side, in conjunction with Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) who introduced S. 1085, both which effectively end all federal affirmative action programs. Senator Dole's bill (S.1085), which has been referred to the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, ends set asides for minority- and women-owned businesses in federal contracts, prevents consideration of race or gender in hiring practices, and drastically limits the use of litigation as a device to end known discrimination in the private sector.

On July 20, Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) started on his threat to add anti-affirmative action amendments to all appropriations bills. He offered an amendment to the Transportation Appropriations bill which would have ended set asides in federal contracting. The amendment failed by a vote of 61 to 36. An alternative amendment by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), which reaffirmed the holding of the Adarand decision, passed by a vote of 84 to 13. The Murray amendment reaffirms the use of affirmative action programs in federal contracts and states that these programs must be narrowly tailored and serve a compelling government interest.

In the face of these attacks, President Clinton, in a nationally televised speech on July 19, reaffirmed his commitment to affirmative action. The President noted that there have been some abuses of affirmative action programs, but his message was to "mend, not end" it. To this end, he has ordered a study of federal contract programs to ensure that they are correcting actual and existing discrimination.

Fractions in the Democratic Party have surfaced as well. The Progressive Policy Institute, (PPI), a think tank within the Democratic Leadership Council, introduced an anti-affirmative action proposal on August 2. The proposal, supported by Senator Liebermann (D-CT), would end the federal government's contract set aside program for minority- and women-owned businesses, the use of race or gender as a consideration in hiring practices, and drastically reduce the use of litigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to end known discrimination in the private sector. In place of the EEOC, the PPI proposal suggests that private, community run organizations investigate the hiring practices of private businesses and plan boycotts if they are found to be discriminatory. The PPI proposal does not outline where these community organizations would get the financial resources to effectively replace the EEOC.

ACTION NEEDED : House members should oppose the Canady bill and any attempts (such as the Gary Franks amendment) to weaken affirmative action programs. Senators should oppose the Dole bill and oppose amendments such as those offered by Senator Gramm. Democrats in particular should be asked to oppose the PPI "alternative".

This legislative update was compiled by the Government Relations/Public Policy Team at the National NOW Office. For copies of any of the above bills, call your Senator or Representative at (202) 225-3121 who will send you copies free of charge. This update is mailed monthly to NOW leadership and is available on the Internet. The address of NOW's home page is http://now.org/now/ . Any member can get the update for a yearly charge of $25.

Vote on Senator Barbara Boxer's Resolution on Public Hearings (8/2/95)

ALABAMA

Heflin (D) yea

Shelby (R) nay

ALASKA

Stevens (R) nay

Murkowski (R) nay

ARIZONA

McCain (R) nay

Kyl (R) nay

ARKANSAS

Bumpers (D) yea

Pryor (D) yea

CALIFORNIA

Feinstein (D) yea

Boxer (D) yea

COLORADO

Brown (R) nay

Campbell (R) nay

CONNECTICUT

Dodd (D) yea

Lieberman (D) yea

DELAWARE

Roth (R) nay

Biden (D) yea

FLORIDA

Graham (D) yea

Mack (R) nay

GEORGIA

Nunn (D) yea

Coverdell (R) nay

HAWAII

Inouye (D) yea

Akaka (D) yea

IDAHO

Craig (R) nay

Kempthorne (R) nay

ILLINOIS

Simon (D) yea

Moseley-Braun (D) yea

INDIANA

Lugar (R) nay

Coats (R) nay

IOWA

Grassley (R) nay

Harkin (D) yea

KANSAS

Dole (R) nay

Kassebaum (R) nay

KENTUCKY

Ford (D) yea

McConnell (R) nay

LOUISIANA

Johnston(D)yea

Breaux (D) yea

MAINE

Cohen (R) yea

Snowe (R) yea

MARYLAND

Sarbanes (D) yea

Mikulski (D) yea

MASSACHUSETTS

Kennedy (D) yea

Kerry (D) yea

MICHIGAN

Levin (D) yea

Abraham (R) nay

MINNESOTA

Wellstone (D) yea

Grams (R) nay

MISSISSIPPI

Cochran (R) nay

Lott (R) nay

MISSOURI

Bond (R) nay

Ashcroft (R) nay

MONTANA

Baucus (D) yea

Burns (R) nay

NEBRASKA

Exon (D) yea

Kerrey (D) yea

NEVADA

Reid (D) yea

Bryan (D) yea

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Smith (R) nay

Gregg (R) nay

NEW JERSEY

Bradley (D) yea

Lautenberg (D) yea

NEW MEXICO

Domenici (R) nay

Bingaman (D) yea

NEW YORK

Moynihan (D) nay

D'Amato (R) nay

NORTH CAROLINA

Helms (R) nay

Faircloth (R) nay

NORTH DAKOTA

Conrad (D) yea

Dorgan (D) yea

OHIO

Glenn (D) yea

DeWine (R) nay

OKLAHOMA

Nickles (R) nay

Inhofe (R) nay

OREGON

Hatfield (R) nay

Packwood (R) nay

PENNSYLVANIA

Specter (R) yea

Santorum (R) nay

RHODE ISLAND

Pell (D) yea

Chafee (R) nay

SOUTH CAROLINA

Thurmond (R) nay

Hollings (D) yea

SOUTH DAKOTA

Pressler (R) nay

Daschle (D) yea

TENNESSEE

Thompson (R) nay

Frist (R) nay

TEXAS

Gramm (R) nay

Hutchison (R) nay

UTAH

Hatch (R) nay

Bennett (R) nay

VERMONT

Leahy (D) yea

Jeffords (R) nay

VIRGINIA

Warner (R) nay

Robb (D) yea

WASHINGTON

Gorton (R) nay

Murray (D) yea

WEST VIRGINIA

Byrd (D) yea

Rockefeller (D) yea

WISCONSIN

Kohl (D) yea

Feingold (D) yea

WYOMING

Simpson (R) nay

Thomas (R) nay

Return to NOW Home Page / Join NOW / Send NOW Mail