[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 61 (Tuesday, May 17, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 17, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 518, CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION 
                              ACT OF 1994

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 422 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 422

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 518) to designate certain lands in the 
     California Desert as wilderness, to establish the Death 
     Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks and the Mojave National 
     Monument, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and the amendments made in order by this 
     resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Natural Resources. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Natural Resources now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     by title rather than by section. Each title of the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. Points of order against the committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 
     5(a) of rule XXI are waived. No amendment to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     unless printed in the portion of the Congressional Record 
     designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII before 
     the beginning of consideration of the bill. The amendment 
     caused to be printed in the Record by Representative LaRocco 
     of Idaho (relating to an East Mojave Preserve) may amend 
     portions of the bill not yet read for amendment. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto final passage without intervening motion 
     except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 
     After passage of H.R. 518, it shall be in order to take from 
     the Speaker's table the bill S. 21 and to consider the Senate 
     bill in the House. All points of order against the Senate 
     bill and against its consideration are waived. It shall be in 
     order to move to strike all after the enacting clause of the 
     Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of 
     H.R. 518 as passed by the House. All points of order against 
     that motion are waived. If the motion is adopted and the 
     Senate bill, as amended, is passed, then it shall be in order 
     to move that the House insist on its amendments to S. 21 and 
     request a conference with the Senate thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary one-half hour of debate time to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier], 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. Speaker, House Resolution 422 is the rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 518, the California Desert Protection Act.
  This is an open rule providing for 1 hour of general debate to be 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Natural Resources Committee.
  The rule makes in order the Natural Resources Committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment, with each title of the substitute to be 
considered as read.
  The rule waives clause 5(a) of rule 21--prohibiting appropriations in 
a legislative bill--against the committee substitute. The waiver is 
minor in nature, affecting sections 608 and 609, which set up credit 
accounts for certain specific land transfers.
  After very careful consideration, the Committee on Rules granted the 
request of the Natural Resources Committee that only those amendments 
printed in the Congressional Record prior to consideration of the bill 
be considered. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that second-degree amendments 
to all amendments will be in order under the rule.
  As the chairman of the Rules Committee has said on a great many 
occasions, the committee does not grant the request for preprinting of 
amendments thoughtlessly or carelessly. Several members of the Natural 
Resources Committee testified on behalf of preprinting because of the 
enormously complex nature of the bill and the need for proponents and 
opponents to know exactly which areas will be affected by amendments 
and any unintended problems those changes will cause.
  It appears to the Rules Committee that all parties will benefit from 
this request. For example, amendments affecting the boundaries of the 
desert areas--whether increasing or decreasing the size of the 
protected portions of the desert--can be checked ahead of time against 
maps of land parcels and roads to ensure that the intent of the 
amendments is actually accomplished.
  The language of amendments affecting boundaries of an area as large 
and complex as the California desert will be technical by definition; 
preprinting will give both proponents and opponents the opportunity to 
determine the effects of proposed changes on, for example, private 
property rights and grazing permits.
  Further, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides that the amendment of the 
gentleman from Idaho [Mr. LaRocco] may amend portions of the bill not 
yet read for amendment. This is merely a matter of convenience, 
requested by Mr. LaRocco, so that the gentleman will not be required to 
offer his amendment to each title of the bill that it affects; the 
intent of his amendment can be achieved by offering it one time.
  The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions. And finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides a hookup with 
the Senate companion bill by providing for consideration of S. 21 in 
the House and waiving all points of order against the Senate bill and 
against its consideration.
  The rule makes it in order to move to strike all after the enacting 
clause and insert the text of H.R. 518 as passed by the House and all 
points of order against the motion are waived. It will then be in order 
to move that the House insist on its amendment to S. 21 and request a 
conference.
  Mr. Speaker, the California Desert Protection Act is, in terms of 
expansion of the National Parks System and National Wilderness 
Preservation System, the single most important measure since the 1980 
enactment of the Alaska Lands Act. It seeks to protect and preserve 
some of the loveliest spots in the California desert.
  I must say, Mr. Speaker, that desert contains some of the truly rich 
and scenic areas not only of my State, but also of our entire country. 
Far from being a vast and useless wasteland, the rugged desert 
mountains and adjacent lowland terrain provide the habitat for some of 
the country's most unusual species of plants and wildlife.
  The area is also a museum of human history--perhaps the most valuable 
in North America because much of it has, until recent years, been 
untouched for thousands of years. Unfortunately the desert's historical 
and natural treasures are now being threatened, and we are seeing 
irreversible damage and deterioration there. We must preserve these 
valuable natural and historical resources for future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlemen from California, Mr. Lehman, the 
sponsor of the bill, and Mr. Miller, the chairman of the Natural 
Resources Committee, Mr. Vento, chairman of the subcommittee for 
working so diligently to seek a compromise on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the California Desert Protection Act, which is the 
result of years of active consideration, designates 71 wilderness areas 
on public lands that are now managed by the Bureau of Land Management 
in the California Desert; it expands the existing Death Valley and 
Joshua Tree national monuments and redesignates them as national parks; 
it establishes a new Mojave National Park; and it designates wilderness 
areas within the National Park System.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule will give the House a chance to consider all 
the controversies surrounding this bill, including those embodied in 
the comprehensive substitute that will be offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis]. I understand that it has been estimated that at 
least 45 amendments have been printed in the Congressional Record, 
meeting the deadline set by the rule.
  Those amendments cover a wide range of issues, including military 
concerns about certain provisions of the bill, and they will give 
members the opportunity to discuss every conceivable controversy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt the resolution so that we 
may proceed to the consideration of this important piece of 
legislation.

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous matter.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule allows the Natural Resources 
Committee to perpetrate a textbook case of legislative abuse. By 
requiring that amendments be printed in the Congressional Record prior 
to consideration of the California Desert Protection Act, the rule 
continues a scheme that began in the Natural Resources Committee to 
prevent the bill from being fully scrutinized and debated. The 
objective is to enact the largest government heist of land in the lower 
48 States without the support of the people in southern California who 
are most affected.
  First, the bill was discharged from the subcommittee of jurisdiction 
without a markup. Then, we are told, the minority did not receive the 
committee print until 5:10 p.m. the night before the 10 a.m. markup the 
next morning, so Members did not have time to read the bill and prepare 
amendments.
  Once the markup began, the chairman skillfully used proxies, or 
phantom votes, to defeat amendments that could be offered. Amazingly, 
the phantom voting power was used by the Chairman to defeat an 
amendment by one of his own Democrat colleagues to allow additional 
trails to be used by off-road vehicles.
  The amendment, which passed by a vote of 5 to 3, was overturned 17 to 
23 by 20 phantom votes held by the chairman. But that was not the end 
of the legislative abuse, Mr. Speaker.
  Clause 2 of rule XI requires that a majority be present for the 
reporting of legislation from a committee. Since there were only a 
handful of members on hand for the vote to report the desert protection 
bill, the chairman resorted to an unsuccessful rolling quorum. It is a 
procedure that is brazenly contemptful of the rules of the House and 
makes it nearly impossible for the minority to raise a timely point of 
order.
  This effort to prevent scrutiny is now being aided and abetted by the 
Rules Committee, which has put before us a rule that requires that all 
amendments to H.R. 518 be printed in the Record before hand.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill raises a number of contentious issues, 
including a lack of funds to pay for the land grab; the impact on 
military training activities, water and private property rights, 
hunting, and mineral exploration activities; and the ability of law 
enforcement officers to conduct illegal alien and drug interdiction 
activities.
  In many of these areas compromises can be found, but those potential 
compromises will be elusive because Members will not have the ability 
to raise subsequent amendments once the debate has started.
  Mr. Speaker, most Americans support a balance between protecting the 
environment of the desert and maintaining legitimate multiple land-use 
activities. H.R. 518 does not provide that balance and, if adopted, 
this rule would ensure that such a balance will never be achieved.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to defeat the 
previous question so that I can offer an honest open rule that will for 
an honest open debate on the California Desert Protection Act. Again, I 
urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following information:

   Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on the Rule for California 
           Wilderness Act (H.R. 518), Wednesday, May 11, 1994

       1. Strike Pre-Printing Requirement--Motion to strike 
     provision requiring that amendments to the bill be pre-
     printed in the Congressional Record prior to the 
     consideration of the bill. Rejected 3-4: Yeas: Solomon, 
     Quillen and Drier. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson and 
     Gordon. Not voting: Frost, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Slaughter and 
     Goss.
       2. Report Rule--Motion to order rule reported as moved. 
     Adopted: 4-3. Yeas: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson and Gordon. 
     Nays: Solomon, Quillen, and Dreier. Not Voting: Frost, 
     Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Slaughter and Goss.

                                  OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Open rules       Restrictive rules
                      Congress (years)                       Total rules ---------------------------------------
                                                              granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).............................................          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).............................................          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).............................................          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).............................................          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).............................................          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)............................................          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)............................................          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).............................................          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).............................................           64      14         22       50         78 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
  the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of     
  order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.                            
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is    
  otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
  of total rules granted.                                                                                       
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called 
  modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for           
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are        
  restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.                                                        
                                                                                                                
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''   
  Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through May 12, 1994.                                                         


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).        
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994......  O         H.R. 2442: EDA                 N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).    
                                           Reauthorization.                                                                                             
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Protection.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994.....  O         H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).    
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Natural Resources.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me. I want to thank the Committee on Rules for the 
consideration of the rule and the reporting of this rule to the floor, 
which I think will both allow us to have a timely consideration, a fair 
consideration of the California Desert bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the Congress has considered legislation affecting lands 
within the California desert for nearly two decades. In 1976, we passed 
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act [FLPMA] which directed the 
Secretary of the Interior to prepare and implement a comprehensive long 
range plan for the California Desert Conservation Area. In response the 
Bureau of Land Management released the California desert plan first in 
1980, and after some revision, again in 1982.
  Recognizing that something had to be done to protect the area's 
natural resources without eliminating jobs and economic development, 
Senator Alan Cranston introduced the first California desert bill in 
1986. Since then, companion bills have been introduced in each 
successive Congress. There have been approximately 15 hearings since 
1986 on California desert legislation. On November 26, 1991, the House 
of Representatives passed by a vote of 297 to 136 legislation very 
similar to H.R. 518.
  H.R. 518, the California Desert Protection Act, reflects compromises 
that have been crafted to balance the wishes of those who want to use 
the land for grazing, mining, and recreation, with those who prefer 
areas remain untrammeled. Not one use of the California desert today 
will be prohibited if and when this bill becomes law. In some cases, 
the bill provides for activities to continue under different management 
prescriptions than today but the bill will not eliminate any activity 
that occurs today in the California desert.

  In creating this compromise Congressman Richard Lehman, the author of 
H.R. 518, Subcommittee Chairman Bruce Vento and I have drawn the park 
and wilderness boundaries to exclude project sites for all known 
operating mines, including Chemgold, Viceroy, and American Sulphur 
Company. In addition, the committee adopted an amendment that could 
allow grazing to continue in the Mojave and Death Valley National Parks 
at no more than the current level, subject to other Federal law.
  The Natural Resources Committee also made changes to allow for the 
continued use of popular offroad vehicle areas. There are approximately 
33,000 miles of roads, including 18,000 miles of primitive routes and 
15,000 miles of paved and unmaintained dirt roads which will remain 
open to dirt bike riders and other off road vehicle users if this bill 
becomes law.
  Mr. Speaker, the California desert encompasses 25 million acres--
approximately one quarter the size of the State. Within the 25 million 
acres, there are three desert ecosystems known as the Sonoran, Mojave 
and Great Basin, 90 mountain ranges, sand dunes as high as 700 feet, 
more than 2,000 species of plants and wildlife, and a wealth of 
archaeological sites.
  H.R. 518 would affect approximately 9 million of the 25 million acres 
in the California desert. The legislation would designate 3.9 million 
acres as wilderness administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and 
create a 1.5 million acre Mojave National Park. The existing 600,000-
acre-Joshua Tree National Monument and 2 million-acre-Death Valley 
National Monument would be expanded by 200,000 acres and 1.3 million 
acres respectively, and the areas would be redesignated as national 
parks. In addition, H.R. 518 would designate 700,000 acres of 
wilderness in the newly created Mojave National Park.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule for consideration of H.R. 518 merits our 
support. This is an open rule, with the caveat that members have their 
amendments printed in the Congressional Record in advance. There are 
156 maps accompanying this legislation, and in many instances the full 
ramification of an amendment cannot be understood without examining the 
map. The rule gives members the opportunity to examine the maps prior 
to voting.
  There is widespread support for this legislation throughout the 
country. In California, 16 county governments, including Los Angeles, 
San Diego, Contra Costa, Riverside, and San Francisco have endorsed the 
legislation. In addition, 36 city governments, including Los Angeles, 
Palm Desert, San Diego, Laguna Beach, Ventura, Sacramento, Riverside, 
Davis, and Redlands support H.R. 518. About 1,600 scientists and major 
conservation organizations would like this legislation enacted.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage members to support the rule for H.R. 518, 
the California Desert Protection Act. I also appreciate the efforts of 
Congressmen Lehman and Vento who have devoted a great deal of time to 
this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, there is very widespread support for this legislation 
throughout the country and throughout our State of California. 
Overwhelmingly, the people of the State of California support this 
legislation and the parks and the wilderness areas that it will create.
  Many, many local county and city governments support the creation of 
the national parks and the wilderness areas and support this 
legislation, as do so many scientific organizations, environmental 
groups, civic organizations and others on behalf of the Desert 
Protection Act.
  Finally, I would like to say that this legislation very much mirrors 
what has taken place in the Senate when, after over 10 years of 
deliberation, the Senate finally took up the bill as introduced by 
Senator Feinstein and worked its will on that legislation. This 
legislation reflects many of the changes that she made in the Senate. I 
dare say that without her effort in the Senate and her tenacity to 
stick with this issue until she could bring it to a vote in the U.S. 
Senate, we would not be here today considering this legislation.

                              {time}  1730

  We think that the House has considered this in the past. The hearings 
have been held. The subject has been debated far and wide throughout 
the country and throughout our State. The time is now for the 
consideration of this legislation.
  This rule is put forth by the Committee on Rules. I thank my 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] for presenting 
this rule this evening to the House. It provides for free and open 
debate. Anybody who wanted to offer an amendment is able under this 
amendment to provide one.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the comment that was made 
about the preprinting of the amendment, this legislation deals with 
many, many maps and millions of acres, and many amendments that will be 
offered deal with boundaries within the parks and within the wilderness 
areas. It was important that we be able to look at these amendments and 
determine what these amendments would or would not do before we could 
decide whether we could accept them, had to reject them, or to work our 
some other arrangement with those who would offer those amendments.
  Already since those amendments have been published we have been beset 
with a number of amendments where the authors of the amendments do not 
know where the lands are, who the beneficiaries are, or what they do.
  That is the exact purpose, so we could give this House an informed 
judgment of what the impact of those amendments will be, and yet 
everybody who has an interest in this legislation was entitled to the 
right to provide for those amendments. I would hope we would pass the 
rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond to some of the comments made by our distinguished chairman the 
gentleman from Martinez, California [Mr. Miller]. For starters, I would 
note that he referred to the fact that the legislative history of this 
is very, very long. It has been considered for several years. Fully 
one-third of the members of his committee are new, having just become 
Members of the 103rd Congress. While he says that many people 
throughout the country have focused attention on and debated the 
California Desert Protection Act, I would hasten to add in many other 
parts of the country this is not a top priority.
  I believe that for many of the Members, this is the first time they 
have actually had an opportunity to face this issue.
  He does, correctly, raise the point that we are dealing with 
thousands and thousands of acres. However, Mr. Speaker, we were dealing 
with thousands and thousands of acres as we were looking at the Montana 
bill that we just voted out a few minutes ago.
  It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we should recognize that an open 
rule for that legislation seemed to work things out adequately, and 
gained a great deal of support. Why can it not also work here?
  Further, Mr. Speaker, I would say that as we look at where we are 
today on this question, it appears that we are only going to consider 
general debate tonight, and who knows when we are going to bring out 
the amendments that were required to have been filed last Friday. There 
is going to be much more time for Members to look at and address this 
issue. Unfortunately, those of us in the minority and other Democrats 
who might want to have amendments that they could offer to the 
legislation that is pending will not have that chance.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Redlands, California [Mr. Lewis] one of the two Members, including 
Mr. McCandles, who have worked diligently to fashion a very balanced 
compromise on this, but, unfortunately, have been shut out.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much 
for being so generous in yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would not take much time, but this is a very, very 
important issue to my district, since most of my district is impacted 
by the proposal of the chairman in the committee of the House. Mr. 
Speaker, I want my colleagues, first of all, to know that I very much 
appreciate their patience with this process. The issue is very, very 
important to the four Members who are elected to represent the people 
who live in the affected districts in California. There are four 
Members who have their districts substantially made up of desert 
territory.
  The issue is very complicated, and subject, I believe, to endless 
possibilities in terms of length of this debate, and deserves as much 
time as the Members can bear.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to start this debate, though, by speaking to 
my chairman, Mr. Miller, and wish Mr. Miller a happy birthday. It is 
nice to be with you, Mr. Miller.
  I would further like to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Rules 
for granting at least a modified open rule. Frankly, a modified rule at 
least gives the four of us and others interested the opportunity to 
present some amendments to try to change this process, but indeed, 
there is little doubt that every effort was made to put limitations 
upon us through the Committee on Rules process and appear to be open, 
in contrast to what occurred on the Montana legislation.
  I must say, Mr. Speaker, above and beyond the courtesy the chairman 
of the Committee on Rules has shown me, I must confess to the Members 
that I am somewhat disconcerted on this relative to fairness. This bill 
has been handled in the most outrageous fashion of any legislation that 
it has been my experience to deal with in my 25 years in public 
affairs. I would like to briefly describe the heavy-handed tactics of 
the senior members on the majority side of the Committee on Natural 
Resources.
  The nature in which this bill was rammed through their committee, as 
described by my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], 
is essentially an outrage to the process, the approach that should be 
used to balance public affairs and compromise that leads to good public 
policy. Not only did the committee circumvent the process of the 
subcommittee markup, but the chairman, Mr. Miller, presented an 
entirely new piece of legislation on the day of the markup, and the 
committee staff saw it the evening before, essentially making it 
extremely difficult for people to respond appropriately with amendments 
in the committee process.
  This legislation normally would be considered to be noncontroversial 
legislation, if we were going to handle a markup in that fashion. 
Traditionally the committee will use such rules or exercise such rules 
when there is not any partisan confrontation or serious controversy. In 
contrast to this, this legislation is by no means noncontroversial or 
bipartisan. The substitute legislation offered by the chairman extended 
well beyond the original text of H.R. 518. The majority claims that 
since similar legislation was considered in previous Congresses, a 
subcommittee markup was not necessary. That explanation fails to 
account, as David Dreier indicated, for 14 brand-new members on that 
committee, freshmen who have not been through this process, and indeed, 
no only deserve to have the right to consider possibly amending, but in 
turn carry out their responsibility to so participate.
  Instead, item after item ended up being passed by way of the phantom 
vote that was so eloquently expressed by my representative from the 
Committee on Rules. The committee, under the leadership of its 
chairman, has done a real disservice to the constituents of the 
gentlemen from California, AL McCandless, Duncan Hunter, Bill Thomas, 
and myself, who were elected to represent the people who live in, who 
understand, and who love the desert. All of us feel that we have been 
treated in this process somewhat like second-class Members of this 
body.
  I would say to any one of these Members who happens to be watching on 
television or listening here on the floor, think about your own 
district. If someone was going to carry legislation that directly 
impacted the planning process, the use of the lands that make up the 
majority of your district, you would expect at least to have the 
courtesy of some consultation, some discussion. There was no attempt on 
the part of this committee to reach out to those Members, to ask them 
to participate in the process. Indeed, a preconceived idea of the way 
our districts ought to work by people outside our districts was the 
total process of this committee.
  It was clear that one could make amendments in committee if they had 
time to figure out where they should go and what form they should take, 
but there is also, no doubt, beyond a small, strictly partisan meeting 
held the day before to discuss some of these things, a clear message 
was sent by the chairman that no amendment should be passed by way of 
majority votes on the committee. There was too much involved in terms 
of the past work of the chairman, I guess, perhaps too much California 
politics involved as well.
  The chairman has also attempted to circumvent the Committee on Armed 
Services by removing from the text of H.R. 518 any reference to the 
military activities which are conducted at the key military 
installations in the California desert. During consideration of H.R. 
518 Mr. Miller and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] will offer 
an amendment dealing with land withdrawals and military overflights. I 
caution my colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services, pay very, 
very close attention to the way the Miller-Vento amendment reads. It 
could severely impact the training and testing activities conducted in 
the desert, the very activities that are vital to our national defense, 
and which General Schwartzkopf indicated were fundamental to our 
success, for example, in the recent confrontation in the Middle East.
  I hope it is clearly understood by the Members of the House that the 
legislation before us, H.R. 518, severely impacts the land use and 
local economies of the Members' districts involved, Al McCandless of 
Riverside County, Duncan Hunter in Imperial County, Bill Thomas in Kern 
County and my district, which is large enough desert to put four 
Eastern States very easily inside.

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. Speaker, we are debating the California wilderness bill. One way 
or another, this committee has decided that they can handle the 
planning, the future economic values, the development, the growth 
potential, indeed the lives of the people who live in areas that large 
and forget about those people they elected to represent them.
  I hope it is clearly understood by the Members of the House that the 
legislation before us severely impacts not just that land use, the 
fundamental violation is the relationships between Members in this 
House. It is outrageous to think that the chairman would actually go so 
far as to ram legislation in this fashion through without even bringing 
in those Members for personal consultation about their districts. It is 
unbelievable that that kind of process has developed here in this 
committee.
  Mr. Speaker, we will hear the proponents of H.R. 518 describing it as 
a compromise. Compromise, indeed. This could not be further from the 
truth. H.R. 2379, the California Desert and Employment Preservation Act 
introduced by my colleagues and I who represent the desert is the only 
compromise that truly deserves that description. H.R. 518 is nothing 
more than a wish list for a small band of well-funded and influential 
preservation groups with a narrow ideological agenda.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 518 cavalierly ignores the recommendations made by 
the Bureau of Land Management as mandated under legislation coming out 
of this very committee a number of years ago.
  I would like the Members to particularly focus on this point. My 
predecessors, Jerry and Shirley Pettis, Jerry was tragically killed in 
an airplane accident. He had had legislation calling for the creation 
of a commission that would lead to dealing with the complex issues in 
this region. Shirley when she arrived here was approached by the 
chairman of this committee, at that time Philip Burton. Mr. Burton 
suggested that they should shepherd this bill through because it was a 
complex area that deserved maximum public input.
  Mr. Speaker, as a result of that the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act was passed. It created a 15-member commission. On that 
commission were representatives of environmental groups, of ranchers, 
of miners, all those who care about and understand the desert. They met 
for a period of 4 years. There were some 40,000 individual comments, 
some $8 million were spent of public taxpayers' monies leading to a 
compromise. Yet this committee and this chairman and this subcommittee 
chairman have chosen to ignore all that money and this work.
  Mr. Speaker, I want the members to get a clear sense that we are not 
just unhappy about this process.
  I do not consider it just an outrageous way to handle public affairs 
and public policy development. I believe the Members of this body know 
that I am not enamored with the rhetoric of the extreme. Indeed I 
believe deeply that the American public is disgusted with partisan 
confrontation that too often dominates the floor debate. Most issues 
have little to do with partisan politics and certainly this kind of an 
issue should have little to do with it. But if the Committee on Natural 
Resources is any indication of the way the rest of the policy 
committees in the House in the future intend to act in terms of the way 
they will treat the minority in this place, then, friends, Katy bar the 
door. No wonder the floor debate is so often dominated by the extreme. 
The world's greatest deliberative body has become a partisan shouting 
match precisely because of the excesses of the majority. If this 
continues, the over 50 years of dominance of a single party in this 
House is going to end up destroying not just comity but really 
undermining the fundamentals of what has originally been designed to 
make this the greatest deliberative body in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from California yielding me so 
much time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said in a short time about the 
procedures used in the committee and the procedures used by the 
chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, which happens to be me, 
and I have just got to tell the House that not only does it reflect 
badly on the Members who are constructing that record but it simply is 
not true.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it rather interesting if this is the most 
important piece of legislation to the gentleman who was just in the 
well or to his colleagues from California, Mr. McCandless and Mr. 
Hunter, who he named in his remarks that they would never once ask me 
for an appointment to have a substantive discussion on this matter, 
they would never send me an amendment or a note or a request for any 
change in this legislation in the over 2\1/2\, 3, 4 years since I have 
been chairman of the committee and we have had this under discussion.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that has never happened.
  Mr. Speaker, when various committees in the Congress impact my 
district, I go see the chairman or the subcommittee chairman or the 
Member who has that bill or whoever it might be and say, what is going 
on here? Is there a chance we can talk about this? Can I offer some 
amendments?
  Mr. Speaker, I have never had that request from the gentleman or the 
other gentlemen from California, Mr. McCandless or Mr. Hunter. I do not 
know. Maybe the gentleman has to explain back home why this bill got 90 
votes in the Senate for it, and the loss, but do not put that on me, 
because that never happened.
  Mr. Speaker, the first mention I got was a nice note the other night 
from the gentleman saying how upset he was with the process. That is 
the first time, and we have had this bill in our committee under active 
consideration for 3 years, because we passed it in the last session and 
we have had it this time.
  Mr. Speaker, let us understand that clearly. The gentleman was in our 
committee when we took up the bill for full consideration and as 
everybody on my committee knows, in spite of the gentleman's 
characterization of it, every member of my committee is entitled to 
offer amendments. I have never prevented a member of my committee from 
offering that because I grew up in the tradition of listening to 
people. There happened to be one from the gentleman's side, John 
Ashbrook, who told me what it was like to be in the minority around 
here and when people act that way.
  Mr. Speaker, when we discharge the committee, my habit, and people 
from my committee on both sides of the aisle know this, I will say, 
``The gentleman is asking for unanimous consent to discharge the 
subcommittee. If there is no objection,'' then there is a deliberative 
pause for several seconds. I say, ``Hearing no objection, so ordered.''
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was in the room when that happened and 
maybe his lieutenants on the committee bumbled, fumbled, or mumbled but 
the fact is they never made that request. They never made request for 
an additional hearing, they never made a request for amendments and, in 
fact, a few minutes after we were into the hearing and the markup, most 
of them had left the room.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact is that is the way this committee has been run 
from the time I have been on it. I think there are two committees in 
this House that respect minority rights. That does not mean the 
minority gets to win because they do not have the votes to win on 
crucial issues, but their rights are preserved, the procedure is 
preserved, and as the gentleman from the Committee on Rules knows, we 
always come and ask for an open rule.

  Mr. Speaker, we are here on an open rule. We are simply asking for 
management. The fact remains for those listening to this that I am sure 
there is some other explanation going on here and that is that the 
gentleman in all likelihood if we can take the last time the House 
considered the bill, the fact the Senate has considered the bill and 
the expected outcome is not going to win his debate here, so now the 
gentleman has decided to make this personal and impugn the integrity of 
the committee and me as the chair.
  Mr. Speaker, I am simply here to say it never happened, I would never 
run a committee that way, and the members of my committee know that is 
the case.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting. In the most contentious 
hearings, whether it was the energy bill or whatever it is, I have 
members of my committee on the minority side come to me all the time 
and say, ``Thank you for letting me offer the amendments.'' I consider 
that their right. I either win those votes or I lose those votes. I am 
not there to block people from having a say. I used to vote all the 
time with the minority before we got so partisan not to cut off debate 
so that people would have a chance, but now we have all of these rules 
that we only get 1 hour of debate, 10 minutes of debate, 5 minutes of 
debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that is the way to run this 
institution. The gentleman is talking about some other episode, folks, 
because those rights were protected. Those amendments were not offered.
  Why is this bill different than the Montana bill? There were no 
boundary changes offered to Montana today if the gentleman was there on 
the floor while we were considering the bill. The amendments we are 
considering here have numerous, hundreds and hundreds of boundary 
changes, and what we asked for was the right to have those printed in 
the Record so we could look, so tomorrow if we start amendments we 
could say to the Members of the House, this is or is not the impact, 
and those who offer the amendments from either side could agree or 
disagree but we would understand that.

                              {time}  1750

  I am very troubled that my colleagues would engage in this kind of 
tactic to somehow try to taint this process, to taint this legislation.
  This is an urgent and necessary piece of legislation. The people in 
our State overwhelmingly support it. The gentleman who spoke and some 
who will speak do not support it. That is the process. That is the 
process.
  But let us not lead people to believe that something took place that 
did not take place or that somebody was shut out of a process when this 
process has been open and we have had, as I said, some 15 hearings. I 
do not know what the Republicans did on their side of the aisle. We 
took people through the Senate bill. We talked about the changes.
  The gentleman stands in the well and says that the amendments that we 
brought were more expansive. No. They are not. We took what we passed 
and moved toward the Senate. We started taking out mining companies and 
all the things that concerned the gentleman in the desert. The bill is 
narrower than when the House passed it last.
  So there is somebody kicking up some dust here trying to avoid, I 
think, what probably will be the results when the House is finished 
with the deliberation. But I will not stand here and have the integrity 
of this committee on either side, because the minority was there, and 
at each and every stage there is a pause before amendments. I even make 
them call the votes twice of every Member. All the votes are called 
twice. All the requests are stated twice in our committee. And that is 
how we run the Natural Resources Committee.

  I do not know how other chairs run it. That is how we run it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentleman would probably like to be 
informed that I did sit on the floor for the last time with the author 
of this bill, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lehman], just a week 
ago to discuss some of these possibilities. He is the author.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman was 
talking about me when he was standing in the well. You were referring 
to the chairman of this committee.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Let me just complete the statement. The 
response of the author of the bill was, ``Jerry, I am not going to be 
able to help you with this. The chairman is going to do exactly what he 
wants to do with this bill, and he already has in his mind what he is 
going to do. He is going to roll right over me,'' is what he said to 
me.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, how long has the 
gentleman been in this body?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am not sure that that is relevant. But 
long enough.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Well, are you incapable of having a face-
to-face conversation with another Member? Are you incapable of coming 
over and asking me whether that characterization is accurate or not, 
especially when this is so important to your district? I would think 
you would stretch out a little bit. The aisle is not that far.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I say to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Miller], certainly I stood on that side of the aisle for that reason. 
You know very well how I feel about that. The fact is you and I have 
had occasion on more than one circumstance to talk about this 
legislation.
  Mr. MILLER of California. You have never requested a substantive 
discussion on this bill at all. Never.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Your style is always so gentle.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Do not tell me about my style.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. You always just gently suggested, ``I will 
just roll you over, Lewis. Do not worry about it.'' I know your style. 
Everybody else knows your style.
  Mr. MILLER of California. No. Except it does not work that way.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. It seems to.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I guess the gentleman made a horrible error 
in judgment. My door has never been closed to people who have had an 
interest in a piece of legislation. And it never happened.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Is it accurate to say that a significant 
number of the votes on this bill in committee were ghost votes, the 
Members were not even present to vote?
  Mr. MILLER of California. No. It is accurate to say that when votes 
were taken, because in many instances the Republicans left the room, 
votes were voted by proxy on both sides. The gentleman knows that is 
allowed under the rules. The gentleman's side of the aisle does not 
agree with that, but they voted their proxies, we voted our proxies, 
not ghost votes, not phantom votes. I appreciate that characterization. 
That means something else to the public.
  Let us talk about what went on in that committee in this body.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I do know this, the public expects Members 
to be there and cast their own vote. They do not expect ghost votes.
  Mr. MILLER of California. If the gentleman was in the room, he could 
have asked any Republican member to enforce the right to call a quorum 
to vote on anything. The fact is you did not do it. You fumbled the 
ball. You fumbled the ball, and that is it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Miller, probably the value of this is 
that there is a clear display of your gentle style. I appreciate it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. No; it is the firmness when you impugn the 
integrity of the committee which I run or my chairmanship of that 
committee or me personally. There is nothing to suggest that I have to 
take that, and you know you made a bad error in judgment about how you 
handled this legislation. You will not rub that off on this committee, 
the membership of this committee on either side of the aisle, or on me.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from La Quinta, California, [Mr. McCandless] another of the 
Members who represents one of the areas which will be affected if this 
were to become law. He is going to be retiring, and let us hope that he 
could play a role in the compromise. Unfortunately, he has not been 
able to, up to this point.
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the dialog 
that just took place.
  Having been born in the area that we are talking about and having 
spent a great deal of my younger life and all of my adult life in the 
area, I have a certain feeling for it. In fact, people say, ``Are you 
going to stay on the east coast after you retire?'' I say, ``No, once 
you have sand in your shoes, it never leaves.'' Now, what that means is 
that people like myself, who live in the areas in question where the 
impact is going to take place, relative to this legislation, love the 
area in which they live. We love the people, love the climate, love 
everything that is special about it, and so we are not about to go out 
and destroy something that we have been raised in.
  Now, the problem here is when we talk about the history of this 
legislation, yes, there is a long history. The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis] touched on a part of that. It started in 1968. 
That was the beginning of it with Bob Mathias, and it went on through 
the points that the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] made with 
respect to Jerry and Shirley Pettis.
  Interestingly enough, that original part of the history, the 
legislative history of this bill, also included Senator Cranston, who 
with the Pettises and Bob Mathias ultimately worked down to the point 
where in 1976, this body passed the FLPMA legislation the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lewis] referred to.
  Now, I arrived on the scene in about 1975, as a part of the 
governmental process upon which this FLPMA legislation took place. As a 
member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, I followed this 
process almost on a weekly basis, because another member of our board 
was the representative of county government for Riverside County on the 
advisory commission, and they went out into the field. They held 
hearings. They took all kinds of information from the people who are 
involved there in all walks of life, in all disciplines, in every part 
of the desert areas in question. They filed their report after the long 
and arduous process, with the Secretary, as his advisory committee, and 
Secretary Andrus, a Democrat I might add, under the Carter 
administration, accepted the plan.
  We now come back to the bill before us, and now some are not 
satisfied with the 6 years of work on the part of the group who spent 
hours and hours and weeks and weeks doing this advisory work all this 
because a small group was not satisfied. They wanted more.
  This was a consensus. This was a consensus plan. But that small 
faction who were unsatisfied, and wanted more than the compromise gave 
them, talked Mr. Cranston into bringing back up all of this that goes 
beyond the 1980 plan to satisfy their agenda.
  Obviously that side of the issue became more successful than we have 
to date, because this passed the Senate in recent times.
  The point I am trying to make here is that we in the desert, both 
those who live there and all of those who represent it, love the area. 
We want to preserve the desert. But those who support H.R. 518 say that 
because we oppose it, well, we do not care about the desert. We are 
happy to see motorcycles run all over it.
  Let me tell you, ladies and gentleman, what is going to happen here 
in my area where you have four-wheel-drive clubs that are very 
responsible, that are made up of working people who cannot afford to 
fly-fish in Australia. They are not even going to be able to travel to 
their own property which is privately owned, because it will have 
become an inholding surrounded by wilderness, or some other designation 
that will be a part of this bill.
  Now, how would you like to continue to pay taxes on a piece of 
property that you have enjoyed, as a kind of a campout place over a 
weekend, and now not be able to even get to it?

                              {time}  1800

  These are the points that I am interested in, that the people who 
live in the area are interested in. I might add, the people who are not 
supporting this bill are the people who live in the area, the people 
who use the area, not the people from San Francisco or someplace like 
that, far from the desert.
  If you talk to the people within the framework of the counties 
impacted by this bill, they will tell you they are not supportive of 
this, on an overwhelming basis.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by simply saying that I am sorry that 
we got involved in this kind of a donneybrook. Mr. Vento was kind 
enough, several years ago, to invite me and others to attend and be a 
part of the hearings that were held in the desert, and from that we 
were able to see what it was people wanted, from the vast majority of 
people who showed up. Interestingly enough, Mr. Vento, with the 
consent, I guess, and the agreement of the full committee chairman, 
created a new chairmanship and presented this particular piece of 
legislation to that new subcommittee chairman, who then handled it and 
has handled it during those previous years. That is kind of an 
interesting paradox in itself because when you talk to the subcommittee 
chairman, you get the direct impression that there is no use even 
talking to anybody else about this bill. We were not able to talk with 
the Senator who sponsored this bill over in the other body. We were not 
able to talk to a number of people. They did not want to talk to us.
  So, these are the frustrations that you see being vented here today 
that, in my mind, are not as personal as the framework within which 
this bill has passed through the years, and the disappointments we have 
had after we thought we had something that Secretary Andrus approved 
and that President Carter approved. And then we go back and reinvent 
the wheel.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time at 
this time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time.
  At this point I yield myself such time as I may consume and will 
close by simply saying that the four Representatives of this area--
Messrs. Lewis, McCandless, Hunter, and Thomas--have worked for years to 
fashion a compromise on this. Unfortunately, they have not been able to 
be part of this process.
  I have just been handed a note here saying that they requested a 
hearing on their bill and they were denied the request for the hearing 
that they had wanted to have on their legislation.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. McCandless] does still have sand 
in his shoes, I know that. He loves the desert. He is very generous in 
allowing many of us from California and other parts of the country to 
enjoy the magnificent desert empire.
  It seems to me that as we look at this issue, we can address this in 
a very balanced way. All we need to do is defeat the previous question 
here, and then pass my amendment, which will be a true open rule, 
basically waiving this preprinting requirement, which is jeopardizing 
the process of free and fair debate, and then we can proceed and have 
all of these ideas considered and then the House will be able to work 
its will.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not want to continue the debate. I would just point 
out that the gentleman referred to a request for a hearing of me. I was 
working as a subcommittee chairman with this jurisdiction in the 101st, 
and this Congress. Under the rules of the committee--I might say that 
the request came to me 2 days before we had the hearing on the measure 
that was before us, the major measure, H.R. 518. I might say, for the 
sponsors of that bill, I was not able to prepare and to get witnesses 
to respond to a bill that quickly which was introduced just a couple of 
days before the hearing, but the members did discuss their bill at the 
hearing. Whether that was adequate or not, I do not know. I would like 
to say on this matter further----
  Mr. DREIER. The gentleman is referring to H.R. 2379, as they 
introduced it.
  Mr. VENTO. That is correct.
  Mr. DREIER. The indication they gave to me was that they had made the 
request that you hold a hearing on that issue and were denied that.
  Mr. VENTO. They wanted the hearing held at the same time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Peterson of Florida). The Chair would 
advise Members that all debate should be addressed to the Chair.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, the 
request was, since we were having hearings on H.R. 518, that they asked 
to be heard the same day or at the same time so they could discuss the 
bills together. Unfortunately, it had not been introduced but just a 
few days, several days before the hearing, nor was there a request up 
to that point.
  So it was not possible to prepare the witnesses to respond to this 
bill at that point. But they did discuss the bill at the hearing.
  Mr. DREIER. If I may reclaim my time, I will close by saying that the 
chairman of the full committee made what I believe to be a very 
eloquent argument for the open rule. He referred to the fact that in 
his committee he allows amendments to be offered regularly. And he 
usually asks for us to do that right here on the House floor. I am 
going to give my friend from Martinez a chance to continue that ``Mr. 
Open Rule'' moniker which we regularly like to put around him, and vote 
to defeat the previous question, bring about an open rule, and let us 
do just the way they do in the Natural Resources Committee, have free 
and fair debate here.
  Mr. Speaker, with that I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, in closing, if I may, I would remind my 
colleagues that this in fact is an open rule. It is clear from the 
number of amendments which were submitted for preprinting, about 45 of 
them, that the rule, even with that provision, gives the House a chance 
to consider virtually every technical or policy issue associated with 
this bill to protect the California desert.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for 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. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 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.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule XV, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the 
question of adoption of the resolution.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 245, 
nays 172, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 175]

                               YEAS--245

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--172

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Barlow
     Blackwell
     Brown (CA)
     Byrne
     de la Garza
     Emerson
     Fish
     Ford (TN)
     Grandy
     Leach
     Neal (NC)
     Sharp
     Smith (OR)
     Tucker
     Valentine
     Washington

                              {time}  1825

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Byrne for, with Mr. Emerson against.
       Mr. Tucker for, with Mr. Leach against.
       Mr. Washington for, with Mr. Smith of Oregon against.

  Mr. MILLER of Florida changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HAMILTON and Mr. DOOLEY changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Peterson of Florida). The question is on 
the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. 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 248, 
nays 165, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 176]

                               YEAS--248

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--165

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Barlow
     Brown (CA)
     Byrne
     de la Garza
     Emerson
     Fish
     Ford (TN)
     Grandy
     Harman
     Leach
     McKinney
     Neal (NC)
     Reynolds
     Sabo
     Sharp
     Smith (OR)
     Tucker
     Valentine
     Washington
     Waters

                              {time}  1835

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Byrne for, with Mr. Emerson against.
       Mr. Tucker for, with Mr. Leach against.
       Mr. Washington for, with Mr. Smith of Oregon against.

  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.

                          ____________________