[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 83 (Monday, June 27, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 27, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1430
 
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
  AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995, AND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, 
                                  1994

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4603) making appropriations for 
the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 
related agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1995, and making supplemental appropriations for these departments and 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for other 
purposes.
  The SPEAKER (Mr. Montgomery). The question is on the motion offered 
by the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  The motion was agreed to.

                              {time}  1431


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill, H.R. 4603, with Mr. Brown of California in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Friday, June 
24, 1994, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Fields] had been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 
40, line 24.


                     amendment offered by Mr. Penny

  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Penny:  Page 39, line 24, insert 
     ``(less $39,000,000)'' before ``, to''.
       Page 40, line 10, insert ``(less $39,000,000)'' before the 
     colon.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The Chair will allocate the time evenly between the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Penny] and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan].
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I will share half of my 5 minutes with 
the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will allocate the time, as follows:
  The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny] for 
5 minutes, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] for 2\1/2\ 
minutes, and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment presented to the House today 
is targeted at the following programs: The Columbia River hatcheries 
with a $9.5 million appropriation, regional climate centers, $3 million 
appropriations, the wind profiler program at $4.35 million, the 
Federal-State weather modernization program, $3.3 million, zebra mussel 
research program, $2.8 million, and the undersea research program at 
$16 million. These programs were slated by the Clinton administration 
for elimination. My amendment simply conforms with the request of the 
Clinton administration.
  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration funding for 
research programs totals more this year by 5.5 percent than was 
appropriated last year. By adopting this amendment, we will reduce by 
$39 million that increase of $98 million which has been included in 
this appropriations bill. Among the specific projects denied by the 
Clinton administration were the Columbia River hatcheries. The 
administration proposed allowing the Bonneville Power Administration to 
generate the necessary funds for the operation and maintenance of this 
hatchery program. In this way we would back the U.S. Government out of 
the obligation to continue funding in this area.
  The regional climate centers' funding is designated for six regional 
climate centers located in New York, Illinois, Nebraska, Nevada, South 
Carolina, and Louisiana. The funding responsibility, according to the 
administration, should be shifted to the direct beneficiaries since the 
weather service is attempting to focus its limited resources on 
development of national and international weather models, and these 
regional weather stations are not deemed to be a national priority.
  The wind profiler project has been proposed for a decrease in 
spending in order to discontinue the operation. NOAA in its budget 
document says that although the value of this data in operational 
weather forecasting has been demonstrated, it is not likely that 
acquisition and operation of a national system can be supported given 
the current budgetary climate. Therefore they no longer need to operate 
this particular program.
  In addition, the amendment cancels certain State weather 
modernization grants. This program is actually getting an increase over 
fiscal year 1994 levels, but the administration has requested a $3 
million cut to terminate the North Dakota, Utah, Nevada, Illinois, 
Arizona, and Texas modernization grants. This type of State oriented 
cloud physics, according to NOAA is more appropriately the 
responsibility of the individual States and does not need Federal 
financing.
  In addition, the zebra mussel program is an item which the 
administration also wanted to cancel. According to NOAA ``to the extent 
that funding is needed for this activity, the peer review competitive 
process of the Sea grant can fund these activities.'' We do not need, 
in other words, a special line item appropriation in this particular 
legislation.
  That describes several of the cuts which I have proposed for this 
bill.
  I again would remind my colleagues that these were cancellations and 
reductions requested by the Clinton administration. This is an area in 
the budget that has been slated for an increase. Even with these 
reductions there will be an increased level of funding for NOAA 
research. I would urge favorable consideration of the amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia 
for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment to cut $39 million from the NOAA operations account. The 
gentleman has targeted six programs. Each of these NOAA programs was 
funded in the fiscal year 1994 bill and all have been included for many 
years in the appropriations act.
  Mr. Chairman, these are especially important programs to the Members 
and citizens across this country. Let me just briefly highlight a few 
of them:
  The Columbia River hatcheries. These hatcheries are designed to 
maintain salmon and other fish stocks which have had their habitats 
degraded or destroyed by Federal activity such as dams. This program is 
vital to regional strategies dealing with the problems facing salmon 
fisheries in the Pacific Northwest.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from the State of Washington 
who came before our committee and testified so effectively on behalf of 
this particular appropriation.
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say we in the Pacific 
Northwest are extraordinarily concerned. We have the imposition of the 
Endangered Species Act. We are taking extraordinary measures to try and 
protect these salmon; and the Columbia River hatcheries, the so-called 
Mitchell hatcheries, are absolutely crucial to this effort.
  The gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld] is on the floor, and 
she has been as concerned about this as I am, and I just hope the 
Committee will reject the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Penny] and stay with the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which 
would reduce $40.5 million for activities of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration.
  I take specific issue with the portion of the amendment that would 
delete $9.5 million for operation of Columbia River fish hatcheries 
authorized by the Mitchell Act. The Mitchell Act, enacted in 1938, 
authorizes funding for 10 Oregon and 15 Washington State hatcheries to 
maintain migratory fish in the Columbia Basin because of degradation 
and destruction to habitat caused by nonpower aspects of Federal dams, 
such as navigation, irrigation, flood control, and recreation.
  For the last 56 years, these hatcheries have provided more than 1 
million adult salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout to sport, 
commercial, and tribal subsistence fisheries annually from Alaska to 
California. The hatcheries produce 50 to 70 percent of the salmon 
released into the Columbia River.
  Some have suggested that the operation of these hatcheries be paid 
for by the Bonneville Power Administration. But this public investment 
represents a modest complement to what is now a $350 million annual 
mitigation effort undertaken by Bonneville Power Administration, 
reflected in the rates it charges customers. This mitigation program 
has more than doubled over the last 3 years.
  Even if you think that BPA should pay, it can not under current law. 
If this amendment is adopted there will be no choice but to cease 
hatchery operations.
  As many of my colleagues know, we face a significant fisheries 
management crisis in the Pacific Northwest. We are witnessing the 
lowest number of returning adult salmon on record. Endangered Species 
Act concerns, along with the effects of El Nino and ongoing disputes 
with Canada over fisheries harvest, have combined to produce a profound 
impact on the Pacific Northwest.
  The response to these problems has already involved the termination 
of ocean commercial fishing off Oregon and Washington, with severe 
restrictions on sport salmon fishing. It is impacting operations of, 
and rates charged by, the Bonneville Power Administration. Terminating 
the operation of these hatcheries would further threaten an industry 
that produces between $100 to $150 million in economic activity to the 
Pacific Northwest.
  Finally, terminating these hatchery operations would likely put us in 
violation of our international agreements with Canada, Japan, and 
Russia to preserve the North Pacific Salmon fishery. At a time when 
tensions with Canada are reaching serious levels, this amendment would 
fundamentally undermine our bargaining position.
  Recognizing all these factors, the Commerce Department's Chief 
Financial Officer has proposed redistribution of $10.3 million within 
NOAA to address a critical fisheries management operations issue. The 
Department is proposing to reduce the proposed increase for the Marine 
Fisheries Service to offset the funding needed for hatchery operations. 
I am also assured that the administration expects to continue 
requesting funding in future years. The proposal is currently under 
review at OMB, with prompt approval expected.
  In light of all these factors, it is apparent that the Penny 
amendment is ill advised and should be rejected by the House. Oppose 
the Penny amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his testimony 
before the committee on this.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I also yield to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Skaggs], a distinguished member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] yielding to me.
  On a different piece of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, I just want to 
point out to my colleagues how critical it is that we also maintain the 
wind profiler program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration. It is an absolutely critical element in the future of 
highly precise measurement of the upper atmosphere winds. This was not 
included in the President's budget request, essentially by error, which 
everyone now recognizes.
  Mr. Chairman, we have got to continue this program for aviation 
safety, the application of this technology in the commercial area, and 
many, many other reasons, and I appreciate the gentleman from West 
Virginia for having yielded on this point as well.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the work of the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] on this. He has been particularly effective 
in bringing this program to our attention.
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and 
thank the chairman for his work.
  Congress authorized the Mitchell Act in 1938 to mitigate the impact 
of Federal hydroelectric projects in the Columbia River Basin.
  The Mitchell Act Hatcheries Program has focused funds on fish 
hatcheries in-stream improvements--fishways and irrigation screening--
and research related to improving the quantity and quality of fish 
produced in the system. The Federal Government has invested significant 
financial resources in this program, and until alternative funding for 
the hatcheries is assured, the Federal Government must continue its 
commitment to the program. Last year, $18.5 million was appropriated.
  Congressional funding has growth from a one-half million dollar 
appropriation in 1938, to about $8.5 to $9.5 million annually. These 
funds support the Columbia River Fish Development Program administered 
by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Between $6.5 and $7.5 
annually of these funds go to the Washington Department of Fish and 
Wildlife and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to run 25 
hatcheries. These hatcheries produce 3 to 3.5 million pounds of 
juveniles, or about 100 million smolts each year, mostly on the lower 
Columbia River. In addition, this program has funded the construction 
of approximately 800 irrigation diversion screens; it continues to 
maintain about 600. Through this program, 45 fish ladders have been 
built, of which 43 are still operating.
  We are currently facing a salmon crisis in the Pacific Northwest. The 
decline of Northwest salmon stocks can be attributed to a variety of 
human-related activities, including damage to habitat, hydropower 
operations, and fishing, but two recent natural events have contributed 
signficantly to the sudden decrease in overall numbers: consecutive 
years of drought and El Nino conditions. While there are no direct 
actions that U.S. fisheries managers can take to alleviate these 
natural problems, the present situation generates more pressure to take 
steps over which we do have control, particularly fishing harvest 
levels and hydropower operations.
  Due to the prediction of unprecedented low escapement numbers for 
Coho and Chinook, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council has closed 
the coastal harvest season for the first time in history. There will be 
little if any Columbia River commercial or recreational harvest allowed 
this season, and tribal fishing will also be significantly reduced or 
curtailed.
  Although not originally in the fiscal year 1995 budget request, the 
administration has now committed to funding the Mitchell Act for fiscal 
year 1995 at the level of $10.3 million. This funding will be taken 
from existing NOAA programs and will not represent an increase in 
NOAA's overall fiscal year 1995 budget. This change reflects a 
recognition of the serious problems facing the Columbia River Basin 
salmon runs.
  The Mitchell Act Hatcheries Program is vital for the continued 
availability of harvestable salmon stocks for tribal and other fishing 
interests while we continue to address recovery of weak stocks. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose the Penny amendment and support the continued 
funding of this important program.

                              {time}  1440

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan] on this amendment has expired.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota is trying to cut several 
very important programs within the NOAA count. The cuts would have a 
drastic effect on critical programs affecting public health and safety 
as well as economic growth. It would eliminate 7 important scientific 
and environmental programs of NOAA, impacting 29 States.
  In addition, it would zero out the National Undersea Research 
Program, a critical part of NOAA's mission since 1971. This program 
supports research on the world's oceans and large lake ecosystems. Sea 
Grant research on zebra mussels is vital to understanding and 
protecting marine systems and the Great Lakes ecosystems as well as 
many more freshwater streams around the country. In fact, zebra mussels 
are now as far south as my district in Kentucky. They have been 
discovered in Lake Cumberland. This is a very damaging animal that must 
be researched.
  So this amendment would be destructive of some very important 
research programs with which the Congress disagrees with the 
administration. There is nothing new about that, but the Congress wants 
these programs, and that is the reason we are opposing this amendment 
on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield briefly?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's singling out 
the Zebra Mussel Research Program which the Committee on Public Works 
and Transportation authorized to deal with this extraordinarily 
destructive mollusk that has invaded the Great Lakes. It was carried in 
ballast from the Black Sea and is now destroying the food chain in Lake 
Erie. It has moved into Lake Michigan. We find it also in Lake 
Superior, and it has moved down the river systems and into the inland 
lakes.
  The mollusk cleanses the water by destroying and eating all the vital 
plankton in the water column, which leaves clear water but no food for 
fish to feed upon. The only way we are going to get at the cause or the 
means of controlling this terrible organism is through research.
  I do not know how well-intentioned the gentleman's amendment is or 
what the gentleman's purpose is, but it certainly misses the point of 
dealing with a very destructive organism which is in 20 percent of the 
world's fresh water. The amendment just does not make any sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny] to cut 
$39 million from the budget of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration [NOAA]. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  The amendment would, among other things, eliminate $16 million of the 
National Undersea Research Program [NURP]. NURP is administered by six 
centers across the Nation, including one at the University of 
Connecticut Avery Point campus. These centers are responsible for 
important marine research in our coastal waters and in the Great Lakes. 
The Avery Point Center alone conducts research in the Atlantic north of 
New Jersey and in the Great Lakes. The Avery Point Center is involved 
in research on marine habitat destruction, movement of pollutants in 
the food chain, and environmental technology development.
  Mr. Chairman, the research conducted at Avery Point is especially 
important today in light of the collapse of the New England 
groundfishery. As many of my colleagues from New England know, 
groundfish populations in waters off our coasts are at alltime lows. In 
January of this year, the Commerce Department issued emergency rules 
which will reduce harvests by 50 percent over the next several years. 
The Department has also committed $30 million to assist fishermen in 
dealing with these drastic cutbacks. These restrictions will have 
substantial adverse effects on fishermen and communities which depend 
on fishing.
  The Avery Point Center is engaged in research on groundfish habitat 
which is designed to determine where it has been degraded and where 
productive habitat can be utilized. The center is making special use of 
underwater robots to produce habitat surveys which are many times more 
detailed than traditional trawl methods. This research has vitally 
important implications for our efforts to rebuild groundfish stocks. It 
would be foolhardy to terminate the center's research at such an 
important juncture.
  Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee already cut NURP's budget by $2 
million in its bill. This will require the centers to trim their 
already razor-thin budgets and reject worthy research projects because 
of lack of funding. I firmly believe that marine research is worth a 
$16 million investment and I urge my colleagues to reject this 
amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by our friend and colleague, Representative Penny, to cut 20 
percent of the funds appropriated in H.R. 4603 for the Economic 
Development Administration, better known as the EDA.
  In this bill, while the funding level of $371 million for the EDA is 
$20 million more than last year, the fact is that it is $41 million 
less than the President requested, and of that amount $80 million is 
set aside for defense conversion grants.
  Little more than a month ago, the bill reauthorizing the EDA was 
passed on this floor by a resounding vote of 328 for to 89 against. Now 
our responsibility is to fund it.
  As stated during the reauthorization bill's passage, the bill 
provides for important, even vital, new approaches for the EDA to move 
forward in time, putting a greater emphasis on leveraging EDA funds 
with non-Federal funds, all of which will be used to target areas with 
the greatest needs, that are suffering dire economic distress.
  Most important of all, these funds, which will leverage billions in 
private sector funds, will be used for jobs, jobs, jobs--both creation 
of jobs, and retention of jobs. This is especially true in areas hit 
hard by base closures, but also in areas that have been and will be in 
the future, hit hard by natural disasters.
  The biggest disaster of all, however, in the context of EDA funding, 
is that it is needed overall to help rebuild and rehabilitate our 
infrastructure, and to find new and innovative ways in which to lead 
long-term, economically distressed areas to economic recovery along 
with the rest of this Nation.
  The money in the bill is tightly targeted. Gone is the old 
grandfathering of eligibility. In its place is a new requirement that 
eligibility must be proven each time an economic development project 
application is submitted. This change was in response to charges heard 
in the House that the old grandfather clause made 85 percent of the 
entire country eligible for EDA grants, instead of only chronically 
distressed areas as originally envisioned.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Penny amendment to cut 20 percent 
of the EDA funding in H.R. 4603, the Commerce, State, and Justice 
appropriations bill.
  Ms. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment being 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota, which would eliminate funding 
for a series of programs administered by the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration [NOAA].
  I share my colleague's desire to reduce the deficit, and I am proud 
to have supported last year's historic deficit reduction plan, which 
will reduce our budget shortfall by nearly $500 billion.
  But in opposing this amendment, I want to remind my colleagues of a 
fundamental reason for reducing the deficit--to enable the Federal 
Government to respond to pressing national problems. The Penny 
amendment would reduce Government expenditures. But at the same time, 
it would gut the Federal Government's effort to respond to an emerging 
environmental and economic crisis caused by the infestation of zebra 
mussels in inland waterways across much of the East and Midwest.
  Zebra mussel infestation is fast becoming a serious national problem. 
This prolific species fouls and shuts down water utility systems, 
beaches, and navigational locks, and can cause serious harm to aquatic 
ecosystems. The Office of Technology Assessment [OTA] estimates that 
the power industry alone may face a cost of more than $3.3 billion 
because of the zebra mussels. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 
estimated that the zebra mussel could cause an additional $500 million 
in damage to fisheries and other ecosystems.
  Let's not kid ourselves, American taxpayers, as consumers, will pay 
those bills if this problem is not effectively addressed. Also, this is 
clearly an interstate problem. We would be irresponsible to turn our 
backs.
  The Penny amendment would eliminate the $2.8 million set aside in the 
bill for research on zebra mussels. Mr. Chairman, the only way we can 
avoid the devastation caused by zebra mussels is to learn more about 
them. A $2.8 million investment that can help avert billions in 
economic and environmental damage strikes me as a sound investment.
  I urge my colleagues who share my strong belief in deficit-reduction 
to remember that not all cuts are created equal. The savings promised 
by the Penny amendment will be overwhelmed by the cost of failing to 
respond to the spread of zebra mussels and other nuisance species. Vote 
no.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I stand today in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by Representative Penny which would cut the NOAA 
Undersea Research Program and sea grants for zebra mussel research.
  The health of the Great Lakes is important to the entire Nation and 
the zebra mussels threaten commerce and the environment of the Great 
Lakes.
  Introduced in 1986 by a Russian flagged ship, the zebra mussel 
invasion could cost this country $5 billion by the year 2000. The 
utility industry alone, stands to lose approximately $3.3 billion in 
the next decade. Due to zebra mussels.
  With last year's Mississippi River floods, the zebra mussels have 
spread from Congressmen Penny's home State of Minnesota through the 
inland waterways and lakes of 19 States and it continues to spread. 
They attach to the hulls of recreation & fishing boats, with the boat 
operator, unknowingly spreading the zebra mussel problem to other 
inland waters.
  One female mussel can produce over one million eggs per year.
  Zebra mussels collect PCP's and distribute them to unsuspecting birds 
and fish who eat them. The mussels are suffocating the fresh water clam 
population. Zebra mussels further threaten the Great Lakes, inland 
lakes because they feed on tiny organisms, tiny organisms which keep 
our lakes free of algae.
  The tiny thumbnail size mollusk attaches itself to any hard surface 
including the hulls and rudders of cargo ships, affecting navigational 
ability. It clogs intake valves of water treatment centers and power 
plants attaching themselves to create barriers as thick as 8 inches.
  Great Lakes sea grant programs are developing ways to cope with this 
problem. Most biologists believe the zebra mussel cannot be eradicated, 
only controlled. They have taken the lead in developing techniques to 
deal with this national problem and we should not stop this research.
  The Great Lakes provide the United States with 95 percent of its 
fresh water with nearly 25 million people tapping the Great Lakes for 
their drinking water.
  Two hundred million tons of commodities pass through the Great Lakes 
every year and 20 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity is produced by 
Great Lakes water.
  We cannot tamper with health of not only the Great Lakes but our 
Nation's waterways. For the sake of our environment, for the sake of 
shipping and boating industry, all of us depend on the Great Lakes.
  I urge the Members to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Penny amendment 
which would cut $39 million from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration's [NOAA] fiscal year 1995 appropriation. I would also 
like to compliment the Appropriations subcommittee Chairman Alan 
Mollohan and ranking Republican Harold Rogers for their efforts to 
adequately fund NOAA's programs.
  As the ranking member on the Oceanography, Gulf of Mexico, and Outer 
Continental Shelf Subcommittee of the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries, I have had the opportunity to hear hours of testimony on 
NOAA's budget. NOAA's ocean science, education and protection programs 
are among the most important Federal environmental initiatives in 
existence.
  Covering well over two-thirds of the world's surface, oceans control 
our weather and climate, and hold vast but finite supplies of food and 
energy. All life originated in our oceans, and our oceans still hold 
the key to the continued health of our planet's environment.
  NOAA, as our Nation's steward of the oceans, plays a critical role in 
assuring that we understand and protect this valuable resource. Through 
programs which range from strictly scientific, such as the National 
Undersea Research Program [NURP], to educational, such as the Global 
Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment [GLOBE] program, 
to regulatory, such as the administration of the Coastal Zone 
Management Act [CZNA], NOAA has a broad ocean, Great Lakes and coastal 
science, education and protection portfolio which it manages on a 
shoestring budget.
  Historically, the United States has spend little on enhancing our 
understanding of the marine environment, while at the same time 
expending billions of dollars on the exploration of space. The irony is 
that we have probably spent more money searching for water bodies on 
other planets than we have on understanding our own oceans.
  The fiscal year 1995 budgets are no different. Next year, the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] will receive over 
20 times the funding for NOAA's wet programs.
  Already, NOAA's budget in the Commerce, justice, State bill is 
decreased by roughly $90 million from its fiscal year 1994 appropriated 
total. The numbers for specific ocean science programs are even worse. 
The total budget for NOAA's Oceans and Great Lakes programs, which 
include programs such as NURP and Sea Grant zebra mussels research, is 
only $81 million, a $4 million decrease from fiscal year 1994.
  Today, even these small sums are coming under assault. The Penny 
amendment, although well intentioned, would zero-out important 
initiatives such as NURP and Sea Grants zebra mussel research, cutting 
NOAA's Ocean and Great Lakes programs by almost 25 percent. Both these 
programs support the work of our Nation's leading academic institutions 
and are scientifically peer review.
  Eliminating NURP would cripple NOAA's undersea research programs. 
Undersea research has been a critical part of NOAA's mission since 
1971. NURP supports research on the world's oceans and large lake 
ecosystems. The initiative is one of the most successful marine science 
programs administered by NOAA.
  Likewise, the Sea Grant research program on zebra mussels is an 
important project which should be maintained. The research has been 
vital to understanding and protecting marine and Great Lakes 
ecosystems. Zebra mussels cause millions of dollars in damage to 
infrastructure and crowd out indigenous species. Spending limited sums 
on studying the program today will save the taxpayers millions in the 
future.
  If we expect NOAA to continue to carry out its most important 
missions and continue to supply us with the science necessary to 
protect our marine resources, we must not let such amendments prevail.
  Mr. Chairman, NOAA's programs, especially its ocean science, 
educational, and protection programs, cannot afford another cut. I urge 
all my colleagues to oppose the Penny amendment.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota. This amendment would eliminate 
important scientific and environmental programs from an agency that has 
already been cut some $87 million below its fiscal year 1994 level.
  In particular, I am disturbed because the amendment would eliminate 
funding for NOAA's National Undersea Research Program or NURP.
  The NURP program is a highly competitive and progressive program 
which assists leading scientists with research in the great lakes, the 
oceans, and on the sea floor using the most modern technology. NURP 
centers, located throughout the country, focus their research on the 
identification, distribution, and impact of contaminants in the marine 
environment; sediment dynamics; recruitment of economically important 
fish and invertebrates; and beach erosion. This work has enhanced our 
knowledge of the dynamic process governing our oceans, increased our 
understanding of fisheries, and expanded our general knowledge of the 
deep sea environment.
  NURP has consistently proven its important role in providing 
opportunities for the scientific community to conduct research not 
possible within the limits of traditional ship-based research and 
laboratories.
  NURP has also contributed to advances in biotechnology and gear 
design, advanced underwater technology, and fostered the development of 
small businesses.
  Furthermore, the program is taking a lead role in addressing 
questions associated with global environmental change. Indeed, NURP 
offers a distinct advantage compared to the traditional oceanographic 
approaches to global climate change programs. With advanced undersea 
technology, NURP is able to obtain precise measurements ocean processes 
at spatial and temporal scales not attainable with conventional 
techniques. This information can be used to complement the broad-scale 
time-series information currently obtained from the various global 
change programs.
  These are important scientific efforts. And they are important to 
Members of this body because NURP provides the opportunity to study the 
processes governing our oceans and great lakes so that we and others in 
government can make the appropriate decisions regarding proper 
management and protection of these valuable resources.
  Over the years, NURP has enjoyed very strong support by the Merchant 
Marine Committee as well as by the House of Representatives as a whole. 
We must continue our support and I urge my colleagues to join with me 
and defeat this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  The amendment was rejected.


                   amendment offered by mr. goodlatte

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Goodlatte: Page 39, line 24, 
     insert ``(less $26,060,000)'' before ``, to''.
       Page 40, line 10, insert ``(less $26,060,000)'' before the 
     colon.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could establish a limitation 
on debate on this amendment, allowing, say, no more than 20 minutes, 10 
minutes per side on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, if that would be agreeable to all around, I make that 
as a unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, the 
request is certainly agreeable on this side.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky for a limit of 20 minutes to be divided equally between the 
proponent and an opponent of the amendment?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] will 
control 10 minutes, and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] 
will control 10 minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I will share half of my time with the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Goodlatte].
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that would strike 
$26,060,000 from the NOAA budget for operations, research, and 
facilities. This amount reflects the sum appropriated to four projects 
that weren't authorized. The House hasn't passed authorizing language 
for the Atlantic bluefish tuna research, the fishery observation 
training, and the National Institute for Environmental Renewal. The 
House has passed authorization for the National Weather Service, but 
this bill appropriates $25,140,000 over the lawful amount.
  Appropriating funds for these programs violates the rules of the 
House which ban appropriations to unauthorized projects. Under the 
rules of the House, any Member should be able to strike these projects 
on a point of order, however, these rules have been waived for this 
bill.
  H.R. 4603 includes $300,000 for the Atlantic bluefish tuna research. 
This program's goal is to ensure that American fishermen are in 
compliance with international trade regulations for the bluefish tuna. 
The Department of Commerce regulates this trade, yet the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], a branch of the Commerce 
Department, hasn't requested funding for this program.
  The fishery observer training program trains people to accompany 
fishing vessels for the purpose of data collection and to prevent 
throwback waste. The training is mandated by the Magnuson Fisheries 
Conservation and Management Act, and H.R. 4603 appropriates $120,000 
for the continuation of this program. But, NOAA already has a program 
in place to cover this training and fulfill the Magnuson requirements. 
This program duplicates the NOAA program and is much smaller in scope.
  The National Institute for Environmental Renewal was appropriated 
funds last year without authorization. They are trying to do it again 
this year. The program was given $500,000 by the appropriators to 
continue its study on nonpoint pollution runoff into the Chesapeake 
Bay. Even though this study might benefit my home State of Virginia, we 
must strike the funding from H.R. 4603. It has not been authorized and, 
I will say it again, we can not appropriate funds for unauthorized 
programs.
  The House passed H.R. 3811, the NOAA reauthorization bill, on 
November 20, 1993, by a voice vote. This bill authorized $458,305,000 
for the National Weather Service, yet H.R. 4603 appropriates 
$483,445,000, $25,140,000 above what the House approved. Since all 
points of order have been waived, we have to strike this violation of 
House rules via amendment. The Goodlatte amendment does just that.
  Members who oppose this amendment will come down to the well here and 
sing the praises of these programs. If they were authorized programs I 
might be a member of that chorus. I do not intend for these programs to 
fall because they are not worthy of merit. Rather, they must be zeroed 
out because this is a procedural abuse. Someday, Congress may realize 
that the low esteem of the public is earned by actions such as 
including unauthorized pork in appropriation bills.
  As I started the research for this amendment, I knew I would 
encounter opposition. More impressive, however, than the predicted 
dissenters are those who have offered their support. The bipartisan 
Porkbusters Coalition, cochaired by Mr. Fawell and Mr. Penny were quick 
to offer their support. The over 250,000 members of the Citizens for a 
Sound Economy and the more than 600,000 members of the Citizens Against 
Government Waste endorse this amendment. They sent me a letter of 
support, in which they write:

       While the programs in question may have some merit, they 
     have not been authorized and as such are objectionable. As 
     with other pork-barrel spending, they cannot be justified . . 
     . unless they pass muster with the authorizing committee of 
     jurisdiction.

  The Citizens Against Government Waste will consider this vote for 
their congressional ratings this year.
  I urge every Member of this House to do the right thing and obey the 
rules we have set to govern ourselves. If we ignore the rules that we 
pass to govern this House, why should the public obey the rules we pass 
to govern the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], I oppose very strongly. It cuts a total 
of $26 million from the NOAA operating account.
  Now, that means a $25 million cut from National Weather Service 
staffing, 17 percent below the amounts recommended in the bill. Mr. 
Chairman, a cut of that magnitude would force the closure of 44 part-
time weather services offices in 30 States across this great Nation, 
States including Alaska, California, Indiana, Mexico, Oregon, Texas, 
and Virginia. You can see that it affects in a very dramatic and 
negative way the Weather Service, which is something that I do not 
think this Congress can tolerate.
  The cut would also mean that 21 Weather Service offices receiving new 
NEXRAD radars could not be staffed in fiscal year 1995, including 
stations in Florida, Texas, New York, Illinois, Nebraska, and 
California.
  The Congress has already made a commitment to modernization of the 
National Weather Service. This amendment would severely delay the 
modernization effort and cause further cost increases in future years.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, and oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment as well. This amendment 
would cut the operations, research, and facilities part of NOAA, in my 
judgment the most important part, by this amount of money. My greatest 
concern about the intent of the amendment would be the cut that would 
be imposed, as the chairman has said, on the Weather Service, on the 
modernization.
  Every single American relies upon the National Weather Service 
through their local television channel, as well as the radio, 
newspapers, and, of course, the weather radio service, to learn about 
dangerous weather, as well as we hope sometimes even pleasant weather. 
But even our lives can depend upon an effective National Weather 
Service.
  This amendment would cut what is already a weak amount of money for 
the National Weather Service modernization program. Congress has 
invested over $1 billion in modernization. This amendment would force 
premature closure or cutbacks in the Weather Service offices before 
these new modernized offices are brought on line. So I think the 
amendment would pose a threat to public health and safety, because it 
would degrade services in many areas. It would also delay staffing in 
43 Weather Service offices coming on line in 1995, increasing, not 
decreasing, the costs for modernization.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte]. The amendment strikes three 
unauthorized projects which are included in the NOAA account. These 
include $300,000 for Atlantic bluefin tuna research, $120,000 for 
fishery observation training, and $500,000 for the National Institute 
for Environmental Renewal. These projects are not authorized by the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. I understand they are not 
even requested by NOAA, so they cannot be of tremendous importance.
  In the case of the Atlantic bluefin tuna, NOAA does not support the 
existence or continuation of this program. This is an express violation 
of House rules.
  Also addressed in this amendment is a $25 million appropriation above 
the authorized level of funding for the National Weather Service. In 
the days of limited budget resources, we cannot afford unauthorized 
increases like that.
  Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and the 
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the committees of 
oversight for these programs, have not authorized these appropriations. 
They are appropriated in violation of House rules which specifically 
ban unauthorized appropriations. The gentleman from Virginia should 
have been able to rise on the floor and simply make a point of order. 
But, like is oftentimes the case, he is forced to come out here and 
have the burden of presenting an amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of the House rules. As Members of 
the House of Representatives, we should have zero tolerance for 
misappropriated funds. I urge a ``yes'' vote for fiscal responsibility. 
I urge a ``yes'' vote to save taxpayers $26 million. I urge Members to 
vote in favor of the Goodlatte amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the 
amendment. With all due respect to the previous speaker, this a blue 
fin tuna, not bluefish tuna. I think that that pretty much gives away 
the amount of knowledge that stands behind the amendment.
  I do not know much or anything about soybeans, but I do know 
something about blue fin tuna. Let me assure the gentleman while this 
may appear on the surface to one not familiar with the problem to be an 
easily mocked item, first of all, it is extraordinarily important.
  There is a multimillion dollar commercial and recreational industry 
based on the Atlantic blue fin tuna. It is of enormous importance to 
most of the east coast of the United States, at least to the northern 
part of the east coast. Our science is not up to telling us why these 
stocks are crashing. There needs to be international management of the 
stocks.
  The United States is party to an international convention, and we do 
not know enough to manage these stocks wisely. If we fail, we will have 
lost a very, very important industry. You are targeting, among other 
things, in this amendment, $300,000 for the New England Aquarium for 
research on the Atlantic bluefin tuna.
  This is authorized. The standing authority of the National Marine 
Fisheries Service to conduct fisheries research is more than adequate 
general authorization for any fisheries research on commercial stocks.
  This is precisely what it is. It is the core of the responsibility of 
the National Marine Fisheries Service. It is enormously important. And 
although it may be easy to make fun of, it is not very amusing to 
someone whose livelihood depends on this. It is a small and very 
important item.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would point out to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee 
that the report of the subcommittee on page 47 refers to Atlantic 
bluefish tuna research. So I think the gentleman from Illinois was in 
good faith in comments that he made. But bluefish or blue fin, it is 
unauthorized.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Manzullo].
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, we are once again seeing business as 
usual in this Congress. Why do we time and time again reinforce to our 
constituents the worst stereotype about Members here? Four programs, 
all unauthorized, all unrequested by the President, snuck through the 
process and made their way to the House floor to protect some very 
small but influential interests.
  For any Member who has cosponsored the A to Z initiative, think of 
this amendment as B for bluefin tuna and F for fishery training.
  Mr. Chairman, would somebody please explain to me why it is of vital 
national importance that we spend $300,000 on Atlantic bluefin tuna 
research? Why do we need to spend $120,000 for fishery observation 
training? At a time when our national debt is over $4 trillion and 
certain Members claim victory on our annual budget deficit, we cannot 
just justify spending all this money on the programs just to appease 
Charlie Tuna.
  Everybody seems to look to the Federal Government to solve our 
problems. Why cannot the fishing industry itself raise their own money 
to do their own research, instead of coming to Congress and saying we 
need the money?
  The people in this country have had it. They are tired of all this 
spending. Bring an end to it, stop the unauthorized spending, and let 
us go with the Fawell amendment.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  There have been several references to this program not being 
authorized. I would like to make it very clear that that amendment 
represents a decrease in funding for the National Weather Service by 
more than $25 million. The gentleman says this funding is not 
authorized. I believe the gentleman is probably referring to an 
authorization level set in H.R. 2811, which passed the House in 
November of last year. The chairman of the authorizing committee, is 
very familiar with this. It set a fiscal year 1995 authorization level 
for the Weather Service prior to actual budget estimates being 
developed and submitted for consideration by the Congress.
  That authorization bill was never taken up by the Senate and was 
never enacted into law. I am certain the Committee on Science, Space, 
and Technology, the authorizing committee for the Weather Service, 
would consider the actual fiscal year 1995 funding requirements and 
change their authorization levels for this program should further 
action be taken on the NOAA authorization bill.
  So it is really quite a technicality that the gentlemen who are 
offering this amendment raise. I would like to point out that this 
amendment would cut a significant number of weather services. It would 
have an incredibly negative impact on the ability to predict weather 
and to man these weather stations. One of them which would be cut that 
the gentleman ought to appreciate is in Lynchburg, VA. I am sure that 
that would be an unintended result for the gentleman who, I understand, 
represents part of that area.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time and 
will be in a position to yield back the balance of my time. I want to 
reassert my opposition to the amendment of my good friend, the 
gentleman from Virginia. I wish him well in all other respects except 
this one.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his well 
wishes. I will remember all those other respects.
  I would say to the gentleman from Kentucky and to the gentleman from 
West Virginia that we are doing what both the authorizing committees 
that he has referred to have asked for. In fact, we are not cutting one 
penny of the amount that was authorized by these committees. We are 
simply suggesting that when we add an additional $25 million that has 
not been authorized by any committee, that that clearly violates the 
rules of the House.
  We would look to the National Weather Service to operate within the 
budget that is appropriately due them under those rules. There is 
nothing specified in these cuts as to where Weather Service offices 
would be closed or where personnel might be cut back. That is something 
that would have to be determined by future legislation and by future 
action of that agency and so no Member should fear that this cut will 
take place in their particular congressional district or in their 
particular State.
  I would also suggest that the rules of the House are very clear that 
the appropriating committee has three alternatives when presented with 
an authorization. They either accept that authorization, they can 
reduce it, or they can eliminate it. But they are not under the rules 
of this House authorized to increase it by $25 million. It is 
particularly important that we observe that in this very, very 
difficult fiscal time when we are having budget deficits in excess of 
$250 billion a year and a national debt in excess now of $4.5 trillion.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment 
and show some fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would just submit that every Member who is voting on this amendment 
should be concerned about the effect of a $25 million cut on the 
Weather Service across this Nation and certainly on the Weather Service 
in their geographical area.
  I would submit that the gentleman ought to be concerned about it, 
because as I said, Lynchburg is going to be one of those areas that is 
going to be subject to these cuts.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], chairman of the Committee on 
Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, somebody mentioned A to Z. This is a 
perfect example of the problem with A to Z, because we would be faced 
with amendments and we would not know anything about them.
  Let me say to the gentleman that the fact that he does not know the 
difference between a blue fish and a blue fin is a superb example of 
the problem here. I wish I had a blue fish. They are very hungry. They 
are very aggressive, and they are very mean. And one would immediately 
make it clear to the gentleman that he was not a blue fin tuna. Blue 
fin tuna are more placid, more gentle. They grew to 1,100 pounds.
  A lot of people make their livelihood out of this. This is a very 
small item. I did not hear the gentleman from Illinois, who was 
complaining here earlier, complain about the millions of dollars we 
spend to support crops in Illinois. I have no problem with that. But 
one ought to know what one is talking about on the floor of this House.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Goodlatte was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that I know 
full well that we are talking about blue fin tuna. I was simply coming 
to the defense of the gentleman from Illinois and pointing out that it 
was the chairman's own committee report that referred to it as blue 
fish tuna. I think the gentleman from Illinois was acting in good faith 
in making that mistake in reliance upon the erroneous report.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Goodlatte amendment to H.R. 4603, which would reduce the appropriation 
for the National Weather Service by $25 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind everyone about the critical 
importance of providing adequate funding for NOAA and the National 
Weather Service.
  Just last year many of our colleagues witnessed firsthand the utter 
devastation brought on by the floods in the midwestern region of the 
United States. In recent years we have witnessed the brutality of 
Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki; the winter ``Storm of the Century'' which 
pounded the eastern half of the United States and disrupted air 
transportation throughout the Nation; and this spring the Palm Sunday 
tornadoes that devastated areas in Alabama and Georgia.
  Mr. Chairman, the out-of-date technologies currently employed by the 
National Weather Service continue to be the largest barrier to 
improving our understanding and forecasting of severe weather events.
  The National Weather Service still relies on a number of vacuum tube 
radars installed around 1957. The communications and data processing 
equipment used by National Weather Service meteorologists is less 
capable than the current line of desk top computers. The United States 
in recent years has had to borrow a weather satellite from the 
Europeans as the last remaining United States Geostationary weather 
satellite was operated beyond its 5-year designed lifetime.
  The National Weather Service is now well into a program to modernize 
its technology with new NEXRAD Doppler radars, the successful launch 
and deployment of the next generation Geostationary weather satellite--
GOES-8--and the installation of new computers and automated systems.
  That National Weather Service, however, cannot operate on equipment 
alone. It must depend upon the dedicated efforts of its highly skilled 
personnel, and the training and education needed for the operation of 
new technologies. The Goodlatte amendment strikes at the heart of that 
need by cutting National Weather Service personnel and training by $25 
million.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would result in closure of 44 part-time 
weather service offices in 30 states; reduce numerous other offices to 
part-time status; and require an NWS-wide furlough of some 16 days. Any 
one of these actions would put NOAA in violation of the service 
degradation and/or closure provisions of Public Law 102-567, the 
Weather Service Modernization Act of 1992.
  In addition, the National Weather Service would be required to put on 
hold any additional modernization and restructuring related activity 
which provides the staffing and training for new NEXRAD radar offices.
  Mr. Chairman, providing the funds necessary to modernize the National 
Weather Service clearly is an investment in America's future. It is an 
investment in life-saving equipment. It is also a wise economic 
investment.
  In fact, a National Institute of Standards and Technology study 
conducted last year indicated that the economic benefits to the Nation 
of weather service modernization are about eight times greater than the 
costs. The study also shows that, once the modernized weather system is 
in place, we will realize benefits of over $7 billion primarily through 
efficiency gains in key industrial sectors of the U.S. economy, such as 
commercial aviation, agriculture, construction, communications, 
electric power generation, and manufacturing.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that Mr. Goodlatte claims that the 
appropriation for the National Weather Service is $25 million over our 
authorization. The gentleman well knows that the authorization process 
has not been completed, and that the Senate has not yet acted, on the 
NOAA Authorization bill passed by the House of Representatives last 
year. That bill, which passed the House several months before this 
year's budget was submitted by the President, did not fully anticipate 
the staffing and training requirements which would result from 
maintaining all existing weather offices while new modernized offices 
are brought into operation, as required by Public Law 102-567. 
Obviously, I cannot guarantee that the House would have authorized the 
full Presidential request had we acted earlier this year rather than 
last year. But I think that this is very likely what would have 
happened.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2, rule XXIII, the Chair 
announces that he will vacate proceedings under the call when a quorum 
of the Committee appears.
  Members will record their presence by electronic device.
  The call was taken by electronic device.

                              {time}  1517


                          quorum call vacated

  The CHAIRMAN. One hundred Members have responded. A quorum of the 
Committee of the Whole is present. Pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIII, 
proceedings under the call shall be considered as vacated.
  The Committee will resume its business.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I renew my demand for a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was refused.
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                      coastal zone management fund

       Of amounts collected pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1456a, not to 
     exceed $7,800,000, for purposes set forth in 16 U.S.C. 
     1456a(b)(2).


                              construction

       For repair and modification of, and additions to, existing 
     facilities and construction of new facilities, and for 
     facility planning and design and land acquisition not 
     otherwise provided for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration, $52,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That subject to the availability of 
     appropriations provided in advance for these purposes, the 
     Secretary of Commerce is granted approval to enter into a 
     contract with Florida State University which shall: (1) 
     provide the University with funds to assist in the 
     construction and associated expenses, including parking, of a 
     meteorological sciences building on its Tallahassee, Florida, 
     campus; and (2) include a space agreement with the University 
     at no cost to the Government, other than for operational 
     expenses, for space in this building for use as the Weather 
     Forecast Office: Provided further, That if the Secretary of 
     Commerce determines that the property that was transferred to 
     the United States by the City of Clovis, California, by a 
     deed dated November 20, 1984, for use as a weather 
     forecasting office, is no longer needed for such use, title 
     to that property, and improvements thereto, shall revert to 
     the City of Clovis, California.


            fleet modernization, shipbuilding and conversion

       For expenses necessary for the repair, construction, 
     acquisition, leasing, or conversion of vessels, including 
     related equipment to maintain and modernize the existing 
     fleet and to continue planning the modernization of the 
     fleet, for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration, $23,040,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I know of no 
amendment until page 48, line 4. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 
that the remainder of the bill through page 48, line 3, be considered 
as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill, through page 48, line 3, is as follows:


                 fishing vessel obligations guarantees

       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the Federal 
     Credit Reform Act of 1990, of guaranteed loans authorized by 
     the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended, $459,000.


            fishing vessel and gear damage compensation fund

       For carrying out the provisions of section 3 of Public Law 
     95-376, not to exceed $1,273,000 to be derived from receipts 
     collected pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 1980 (b) and (f), to remain 
     available until expended.


                      fishermen's contingency fund

       For carrying out the provisions of title IV of Public Law 
     95-372, not to exceed $999,000 to be derived from receipts 
     collected pursuant to that Act, to remain available until 
     expended.


                     foreign fishing observer fund

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975, as amended (Public Law 
     96-339), the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
     of 1976, as amended (Public Law 100-627) and the American 
     Fisheries Promotion Act (Public Law 96-561), there are 
     appropriated from the fees imposed under the foreign fishery 
     observer program authorized by these Acts, not to exceed 
     $400,000, to remain available until expended.

                         General Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the general administration of 
     the Department of Commerce provided for by law, including not 
     to exceed $3,000 for official entertainment, $36,510,000: 
     Provided, That of the offsetting collections credited to this 
     account, $17,000 are permanently canceled.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 1-11 as amended by Public 
     Law 100-504), $16,900,000.

                          Bureau of the Census


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for collecting, compiling, 
     analyzing, preparing, and publishing statistics, provided for 
     by law, $141,272,000: Provided, That of the offsetting 
     collections credited to this account, $225,000 are 
     permanently canceled.


                     periodic censuses and programs

       For expenses necessary to collect and publish statistics 
     for periodic censuses and programs provided for by law, 
     $142,576,000, to remain available until expended.

                   Economic and Statistical Analysis


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, of economic 
     and statistical analysis programs of the Department of 
     Commerce, $48,615,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 1996: Provided: That of the offsetting collections 
     credited to this account, $2,000 are permanently canceled.


         economics and statistics administration revolving fund

       There is hereby established the Economics and Statistics 
     Administration Revolving Fund which shall be available 
     without fiscal year limitation. For initial capitalization, 
     there is appropriated $1,677,000 to the Fund: Provided, That 
     the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to disseminate 
     economic and statistical data products as authorized by 15 
     U.S.C. 1525-1527 and, notwithstanding 15 U.S.C. 4912, charge 
     fees necessary to recover the full costs incurred in their 
     production. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, receipts received 
     from these data dissemination activities shall be credited to 
     this account as offsetting collections, to be available for 
     carrying out these purposes without further appropriation.

                   International Trade Administration


                     operations and administration

       For necessary expenses for international trade activities 
     of the Department of Commerce provided for by law, and 
     engaging in trade promotional activities abroad, including 
     expenses of grants and cooperative agreements for the purpose 
     of promoting exports of United States firms to include a 
     grant of $9,000,000 for the National Textile Center 
     University Consortium, without regard to 44 U.S.C. 3702 and 
     3703; full medical coverage for dependent members of 
     immediate families of employees stationed overseas and 
     employees temporarily posted overseas; travel and 
     transportation of employees of the United States and Foreign 
     Commercial Service between two points abroad, without regard 
     to 49 U.S.C. 1517; employment of Americans and aliens by 
     contract for services; rental of space abroad for periods not 
     exceeding ten years, and expenses of alternation, repair, or 
     improvement; purchase or construction of temporary 
     demountable exhibition structures for use abroad; payment 
     of tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first 
     paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in 
     foreign countries; not to exceed $327,000 for official 
     representation expenses abroad; purchase of passenger 
     motor vehicles for official use abroad, not to exceed 
     $30,000 per vehicle; obtain insurance on official motor 
     vehicles; and rent tie lines and teletype equipment; 
     $268,723,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the provisions of the first sentence of 
     section 105(f) and all of section 108(c) of the Mutual 
     Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall apply to carrying out these 
     activities without regard to 15 U.S.C. 4912; and that for 
     the purpose of this Act, contributions under the 
     provisions of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange 
     Act shall include payment for assessments for services 
     provided as part of these activities.

                         Export Administration


                     operations and administration

       For necessary expenses for export administration and 
     national security activities of the Department of Commerce, 
     including costs associated with the performance of export 
     administration field activities both domestically and abroad; 
     full medical coverage for dependent members of immediate 
     families of employees stationed overseas; employment of 
     Americans and aliens by contract for services abroad; rental 
     of space abroad for periods not exceeding ten years, and 
     expenses of alteration, repair, or improvement; payment of 
     tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first paragraph 
     of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign 
     countries; not to exceed $15,000 for official representation 
     expenses abroad; awards of compensation to informers under 
     the Export Administration Act of 1979, and as authorized by 
     22 U.S.C. 401(b); purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     official use and motor vehicles for law enforcement use with 
     special requirement vehicles eligible for purchase without 
     regard to any price limitation otherwise established by law; 
     $38,823,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the provisions of the first sentence of section 105(f) 
     and all of section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational and 
     Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) 
     shall apply in carrying out these activities.

                  Minority Business Development Agency


                     minority business development

       For necessary expenses of the Department of Commerce in 
     fostering, promoting, and developing minority business 
     enterprise, including expenses of grants, contracts, and 
     other agreements with public or private organizations, 
     $42,428,000, of which $30,300,000 shall remain available 
     until expended.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill up 
to page 48, line 3?
  If not, the Clerk will read the next paragraph.
  The Clerk read as follows:

            United States Travel and Tourism Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Travel and 
     Tourism Administration including travel and tourism 
     promotional activities abroad for travel to the United States 
     and its possessions without regard to 44 U.S.C. 501, 3702 and 
     3703, including employment of American citizens and aliens by 
     contract for services abroad; rental of space abroad for 
     periods not exceeding five years, and expenses of alteration, 
     repair, or improvement; purchase or construction of temporary 
     demountable exhibition structures for use abroad; advance of 
     funds under contracts abroad; payment of tort claims in the 
     manner authorized in the first paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 2672, 
     when such claims arise in foreign countries; and not to 
     exceed $15,000 for official representation expenses abroad; 
     $17,907,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That none of the funds appropriated by this paragraph shall 
     be available to carry out the provisions of section 203(a) of 
     the International Travel Act of 1961, as amended: Provided 
     further, That in addition to fees currently being assessed 
     and collected, the Administration shall charge users of its 
     services, products, and information, fees sufficient to 
     result in an additional $3,000,000, to be deposited in the 
     General Fund of the Treasury.


                             point of order

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the 
provision beginning with the word ``provided'' on line 24, page 48, 
through the end of and including all of line 4, page 49.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will advise the gentleman that the word 
``provided'' is on line 25, not line 24.
  Mr. DINGELL. I am sorry. Line 25, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] desire 
to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, can I make the point of order before the 
gentleman from Minnesota responds?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has made his point of order.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have not made it yet. The point of order 
is that the paragraph violates rule XXI, clause 2. It changes existing 
law by directing an agency to assess and collect user fees.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes a point of order 
which I believe will be conceded knowing the rules as I do.
  My question for the gentleman from Michigan is, the point of order he 
raises deals with fees to be collected by the U.S. Travel and Tourism 
Administration.
  Mr. DINGELL. That is correct.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. The U.S. TTA has been ordered to collect these fees, 
these user fees, but has never been able to do so because it has been 
ruled that U.S. TTA as a subagency of the Department of Commerce does 
not have the authority to collect fees though the Department of 
Commerce has authority to collect fees.
  The question is, the gentleman objects to the Committee on 
Appropriations directing U.S. TTA to collect such fees, but will the 
gentleman then move legislation to give such authority, framing it 
however the gentleman wishes to do, to collect those fees and help this 
agency do its very substantial and useful job of bringing tourism into 
the United States?
  Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman will recall, the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce reported out legislation which dealt with this question 
which was ruled to be unconstitutional. We are still trying to figure 
out ways of addressing that particular question and it is, I want to 
observe with a great sense of sorrow that I rise to raise this point of 
order because my dear friend, the gentleman from West Virginia, who 
like all the rest of our good members in the Committee on 
Appropriations loves to legislate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is dubious that this last conversation 
relates to the point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Brown of California). The gentleman concedes the 
point of order. The point of order is accepted, and the proviso is 
stricken.


                     amendment offered by mollohan

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Mollohan: On page 48, line 21 of 
     the bill, strike the sum ``$17,907,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$14,907,000''.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is necessary in order to 
keep the bill within the 602(b) allocation. The gentleman's point of 
order puts us above the 602(b) allocation. I look forward to working 
with the gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, in resolving this issue for the U.S. 
TTA as the bill progresses.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      Patent and Trademark Office


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Patent and Trademark Office 
     provided for by law, including defense of suits instituted 
     against the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks; 
     $88,329,000, to remain available until expended, to be 
     derived from deposits in the Patent and Trademark Office Fee 
     Surcharge Fund as authorized by law: Provided, That the 
     amounts made available under the Fund shall not exceed 
     amounts deposited; and such fees as shall be collected 
     pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1113 and 35 U.S.C. 41 and 376, shall 
     remain available until expended.

  Technology Administration Under Secretary for Technology/Office of 
                           Technology Policy


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Under Secretary for 
     Technology/Office of Technology Policy, $10,000,000, of which 
     not to exceed $2,000,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 1996.

                 National Technical Information Service


                          ntis revolving fund

       For expenses necessary to implement the American Technology 
     Preeminence Act, $12,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the offsetting collections 
     credited to this account, $140,000 are permanently canceled.

       National Telecommunications and Information Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as provided for by law, of the 
     National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 
     $21,056,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That of the offsetting collections credited to this account, 
     $2,000 are permanently canceled.


                          public broadcasting

                 facilities, planning and construction

       For grants authorized by section 392 of the Communications 
     Act of 1934, as amended, $26,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended as authorized by section 391 of said Act, as 
     amended: Provided, That not to exceed $2,200,000 shall be 
     available for program administration as authorized by section 
     391 of said Act: Provided further, That notwithstanding the 
     provisions of section 391 of said Act, the prior year 
     unobligated balances may be made available for grants for 
     projects for which applications have been submitted and 
     approved during any fiscal year: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding the provisions of sections 391 and 392 of the 
     Communications Act, as amended, not to exceed $700,000 
     appropriated in this paragraph shall be available for the 
     Pan-Pacific Educational and Cultural Experiments by Satellite 
     program (PEACESAT).


               amendment offered by mr. burton of indiana

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana: Page 50, line 
     19, strike ``$26,000,000'' and insert ``$24,000,000''.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto close is 10 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill contains $26 million for planning and 
construction grants for public television, radio, and nonbroadcast 
facilities. This is 8-percent above fiscal year 1994 and it is about $2 
million higher than 1994. This is almost 1\1/2\ times President 
Clinton's budget request. The budget request was $10.742 million. The 
Department of Commerce wants to scale back this program. We have a $4.5 
trillion national debt, the deficit this year is going to be 
approximately $244 billion, and the deficit in about another 3 or 4 
years is going to be over $400 billion. We must establish priorities. 
This is one area where we can save some money. We are not cutting back 
on the President's request. Originally I was going to propose an 
amendment to cut back what President Clinton wanted spent for this 
program. We decided not to do this because a lot of people feel this is 
very important. However, we do believe that it is reasonable to cut 
this back to the fiscal year 1994 budgetary request which was $24 
million, so we can save $2 million here and it is not going to hurt a 
thing.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope all of my colleagues will see fit to support 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment to 
cut the public broadcasting facilities, planning and construction 
program by $2 million. This is an excellent program. It is a 
competitive matching program that funds the construction, repair and 
replacement of public broadcasting facilities and extends, very 
importantly, Mr. Chairman, public radio and television signals to areas 
that are underserved or unserved. It also helps to upgrade and preserve 
services offered in existing stations. It is targeted to those areas 
that are underserved and have a very difficult time marshaling the 
resources to get on line with public radio and public television.
  It is a partnership that works, Mr. Chairman. The Federal 
contribution leverages millions of dollars in private funds. The 
committee has received many requests from Members asking that this 
program be funded at the $35 million level, an amount included in a 
pending authorization bill.

                              {time}  1530

  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Burton amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I likewise rise in opposition to the 
amendment in spite of the good friendship of mine with the mover.
  I oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman, because it would cut money from 
the bill that has funds for the public telecommunications and 
facilities program which primarily would benefit the more rural parts 
of the country. This program is critical to good-quality public 
broadcasting in rural and underserved areas, not the cities. We are 
talking about the underserved areas here.
  This is a public-private partnership which has allowed the Federal 
Government to leverage a small amount of Federal dollars to create a 
$1.8 billion information infrastructure for the rest of the country. We 
cannot afford to jeopardize that investment by not maintaining the 
infrastructure.
  This amendment would damage the maintenance and upgrading of this 
infrastructure. It would hit rural and poor areas especially hard, 
resulting in cutbacks in many of the stations around the country.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1994 there were 325 applications for moneys under 
this program filed for a total of $97 million, and we were only able to 
fund, I think it was 24 million dollars' worth. This would keep us at 
that level in spite of the zooming applications for funds.
  So I would hope that we would reject the amendment and be able to 
properly fund public broadcasting in the rural and poorer parts of the 
country.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  First of all, we are not cutting below last year's level. The 
President requested $10.7 million for this program. That was a dramatic 
cut.
  My original amendment I was going to propose would cut it back to 
what President Clinton asked for, but we received a lot of phone calls 
from people who expressed their concern about public broadcasting. We 
said, OK, let us just cut it back to last year's level. That is only a 
$2 million cut.
  If we did what President Clinton wanted to do, we would cut it in 
half. We would cut it more than in half, from $26 million down to $10.7 
million.
  This is not a draconian cut. This is reasonable. It is just taking it 
back to last year's level.
  So if it is so important that this be funded at the level the 
chairman and ranking Republican thinks it should be funded at, then why 
is it the President of the United States said it should only be funded 
at $10.7 million?
  I say to my colleagues this is a reasonable cut. It is not going to 
cut into the muscle and bone of the Public Broadcasting System. It is 
going to confine it to last year's spending level, and with the budget 
deficit being what it is, with the fiscal problems facing this Nation 
what they are, it seems to me it is reasonable to make a cut of only $2 
million.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would point out this reduction of funding would bring down the 
level to that of 1980, $24 million, 15 years ago, without taking into 
account even inflation. The need for this program, the demand, is 
substantially more than we have appropriated.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Price].
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, our distinguished 
subcommittee chairman makes a very important point here. The number of 
applications, the possible worthy uses of these funds every year, far 
exceed the annual appropriation.
  For example, in 1993 the agency received 305 applications totaling 
$77 million. This year so far we are talking about 325 applications 
totaling $97 million. So the need is out there.
  This modest appropriation also leverages a great deal of money from 
other sources. Our experience in North Carolina is perhaps typical of 
this where an award amount of $864,000 last year helped us meet a total 
project cost of over $2 million. Funds from other sources, public and 
private, helped us stretch the Federal grant and maximize its impact.
  This is a modest appropriation, Mr. Chairman, and it should not be 
reduced further, for it is money well spent.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, Let me conclude then by saying this is not a draconian 
cut. We are only cutting it back to last year's funding level. It is 
only $2 million. We are not cutting back to what President Clinton 
requested we do, which was $10.7 million, which is about a $13 million 
cut. This is reasonable.
  I understand there is a need for public broadcasting, but to take it 
beyond last year's levels right now is fiscally irresponsible.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote and 
pending that, I make the point of order a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman makes a point of order a quorum is not 
present. The Chair will count for a quorum.
  Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Is the gentleman going to be able to get a vote if he 
does withdraw his point of order, a recorded vote?
  The CHAIRMAN. While the chair is now counting for a quorum, the chair 
observes 25 members standing.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I withdraw my point of order, and I thank the 
gentleman.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Does the Chair think there are 25 Members here?
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of no quorum has been withdrawn, a sufficient 
number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered.
  Mr. SOLOMON. You realize our nose is out of joint after that last 
episode.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair apologizes if he miscounted.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Your apology is accepted.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order and 
thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York.
  The CHAIRMAN. A sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is 
ordered.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 156, 
noes 230, not voting 53, as follows:..

                             [Roll No. 279]

                               AYES--156

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Crane
     Crapo
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Levy
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Parker
     Paxon
     Penny
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Walker
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--230

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barlow
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Regula
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--53

     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Baker (LA)
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Brewster
     Brown (FL)
     Collins (MI)
     Cox
     Deal
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hilliard
     Hoke
     Hunter
     Lambert
     Lehman
     Lewis (FL)
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Miller (FL)
     Murphy
     Owens
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rush
     Smith (OR)
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington
     Waters
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1558

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Deal for, with Mr. Rangel against.
       Mr. Hunter for, with Mr. McCollum against.
       Mr. Lewis (FL) for, with Mr. Quinn against.
       Mr. Miller (FL) for, with Mr. Hastings against.
       Mrs. Roukema for, with Mr. McCloskey against.
       Mr. Smith (OR) for, with Mr. Towns against.

  Mr. GALLEGLY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CALVERT, ROBERTS, SLATTERY, and BEREUTER changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                   information infrastructure grants

       For grants authorized by section 392 of the Communications 
     Act of 1934, as amended, $70,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended as authorized by section 391 of said Act, as 
     amended: Provided, That not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be 
     available for program administration and other support 
     activities as authorized by section 391 of said Act: Provided 
     further, That of the funds appropriated herein, not to exceed 
     5 percent may be available for telecommunications research 
     activities for projects related directly to the development 
     of a national information infrastructure: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding the requirements of section 392(a) and 
     392(c) of such Act, these funds may be used for the planning 
     and construction of telecommunications networks for the 
     provision of educational, cultural, health care, public 
     information, public safety or other social services.


               amendment offered by mr. burton of indiana

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana: Page 51, line 
     10, strike ``$70,000,000'' and insert ``$48,000,000''.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes and 
that the time be equally divided between the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Burton] and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
do not have an objection to limiting the time, but I think, if we could 
limit it to 15 minutes, 7\1/2\ minutes on each side, we may not use all 
of that, but it would be better.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I accept the 
time allocation offered by the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Then the unanimous consent request will be for limiting 
time for debate on this amendment to 15 minutes equally divided.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from West 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton] for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this bill contains $70 million 
for information infrastructure grants, and that is $44 million, over 
1\1/2\ times what it was last year, in fiscal year 1994. That is almost 
$30 million below the President's budget request. He wanted even more. 
Last year Congress appropriated only $26 million for this grant 
program, and this year it is $70 million. That is a 169 percent 
increase in one year.

                              {time}  1600

  Now, I am aware of the opportunities that will be created by the new 
information superhighway. The new telecommunications technology is 
exciting and its something that the Federal Government should support. 
However, we have a $4.5 trillion national debt and our kids are going 
to be saddled with this. The interest on the national debt alone is one 
of the largest expenditures in the budget.
  The deficit for this year, as I said before, is going to be 
approximately $244 billion. If we do not do something pretty quick, it 
is going to climb to almost $420 billion in the next three to four 
years. Therefore, the Federal Government's role in building the 
information superhighway will have to be more limited than some of us 
would like.
  Now, I am not sure we should be spending money on some of these 
demonstration projects listed on page 71 of the committee report 
either. Since my amendments in the past, Mr. Chairman, to freeze 
funding for various programs at previous years' levels, as the previous 
amendment was supposed to freeze at last year's level, have not been 
supported by the House, I am simply proposing to reduce this $44 
million increase by half, so there will still be a $22 million increase 
if my amendment passes.
  I hope all Members heard that. If my amendment passes, this will 
still be $22 million above last year's level. Under my amendment, 
funding will be almost $48 million, or an increase over last year of 85 
percent. Now, that has to be reasonable. We are almost doubling the 
appropriation from last year. We can still save the taxpayer $22 
million and do something for the information superhighway.
  So I hope my colleagues will see fit to support this amendment. It is 
reasonable and fiscally prudent.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, 
the goal of the National Information Infrastructure Initiative is to 
ensure that all Americans have access to affordable information and 
telecommunications technology. I emphasize all Americans. Also, this is 
a key provision in President Clinton's investment initiative and it 
will assist in bringing enhanced communications services across the 
country, including low-income inner cities and rural residences.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an extremely important item. Investing now in 
national information infrastructure will ensure that the United States 
does not become a nation of information have's and have not's. The 
National Information Infrastructure demonstration grants will serve as 
models to help spread the benefits of technologies in such critical 
areas as health care, education, and other social services, and spur 
overall growth of the information superhighway.
  There are lots of entities that have the ability to access the 
information highway. There are lots that do not. These grants are 
targeted to those that do not have the resources to utilize this 
critical technology.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, do I have time reserved in the debate?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has half of my time. That 
is part of my unanimous consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] has 3\3/4\ 
minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment that my good 
friend offers.
  Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment because this program is 
the one that will fund, if we fund them at all, distance learning 
operations which affect the rural parts of the country for such things 
as health initiatives for economic development work for all sort and 
manner of information on the new information highway.
  Without these kinds of grants, and I think this is a modest figure in 
the bill for a national program, without these grants, rural parts of 
this country will not be able to afford to tie in to the Nation's 
information highway, especially on health matters.
  So I would hope that we would defeat the amendment. I realize the 
gentleman is well-intentioned in his amendment, and he is a good friend 
who offers good advice all the time, except this one instance. I am 
asking that the gentleman's amendment be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that every time we have an 
increase spending amendment, I hear the same thing. ``This is the most 
important thing that has ever come before this body, and if we do not 
do it, the sky is going to fall.'' And people are running around like 
Henny Penny saying, ``Oh, my gosh, this is the end of the world.''
  The fact of the matter is, the information superhighway is not going 
to stop. That is the wave of the future. And whether government does it 
or the private sector does it, the information superhighway is going to 
continue to move ahead at a rapid rate.
  Now, we have severe deficit problems. It portends severe economic 
problems in the future if we do not get control of our appetite for 
spending.
  I just said in a couple of my remarks the deficit this year is going 
to be almost a quarter of a trillion dollars. They said that this is 
going to be a big reduction year. It is not. There will be a $244 
billion shortfall this year.
  Now, the amendment I am proposing is not cutting back the last year's 
level. Last year's level we spent $26 million for the information 
superhighway. This would be an increase of 169 percent if we pass the 
proposal made by the committee.
  I am just trying to reduce it to half of that. This is going to be an 
85 percent increase, if my amendment passes.
  I hope everybody is getting that. If my amendment passes, you are 
still increasing spending by 85 percent. You are still increasing 
spending by $22 million over last year. This is not a cut. It is merely 
reducing the amount of the increase by $22 million.
  So I say to my colleagues, if you believe we ought to spend more 
money on the infrastructure of the information superhighway, fine. You 
are going to get a $22 million increase if my amendment passes. But we 
do not need to increase it by 169 percent over last year.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Price], a distinguished member of the 
subcommittee.
  (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  This initiative is one of the most important in the Department of 
Commerce that our bill will fund this year.
  Last year, $26 million was appropriated for this program for the 
first time. That $26 million has generated over 7,000 inquiries to the 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA], and 
NTIA expects from 1,000 to 1,500 applications to result from the 
inquiries.
  Forty percent of the funds have been earmarked by NTIA for planning 
grants; 60 percent for demonstrations.
  The purpose of the high allocation for planning is to encourage a 
wide range of entities--States, regions, municipalities, nonprofit 
organizations--and a wide range of applications, for example, 
hospitals, schools, libraries, governments--in rural, suburban, and 
urban settings across the United States.
  Now, in fiscal year 1995, we are responding to the President's 
request to move this program forward with a generous increase for 
projects to demonstrate the enormous possibilities of the information 
superhighway.
  This is an important investment, and just as the statistics for the 
limited fiscal year 1994 funds demonstrate the overwhelming interest in 
this endeavor, we can expect a similar outpouring of demand as we 
provide the funds to move from the planning to the operational stage.
  I can't think of a better application of penny wise and pound foolish 
than the Burton amendment which cuts this level of funding.
  This is a program where we want to encourage a wide variety of 
efforts to make America's economy more productive, to put information 
to use in our daily lives, and to bring the power of modern technology 
to bear in ways we can only dream of now.
  To cut back on this commitment--which has been made after significant 
work by our subcommittee in a very tight budget year--would be to take 
a step backward in our economic, technical, and social progress.
  I strongly oppose the amendment, and I urge the committee to sustain 
the level of funding provided by the committee.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the very distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], 
the knowledgeable chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications 
and Finance of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the chairman of the subcommittee 
and the ranking minority member.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very central part of our ability to move to 
this new era where we capture the benefits of this telecommunications 
computer software revolution and ensure that it becomes accessible, not 
only to the wealthy, but to those who are in rural America, to those 
who are in the most isolated parts of our country.

                              {time}  1610

  A large part of this funding is going to be levering the applications 
that are going to come in from across the country to try to figure out 
how we are going to bring distance learning to the most rural parts of 
the country; how are we going to bring telemedicine, that is, how are 
we going to bring the consultations from Stanford and from Harvard 
Medical School into the most remote communities of the United States?
  That is what these grants are all about. Right now we expect 800 
million dollars' worth of leverage that this 70 million dollars' worth 
of grants will unleash in terms of investment in these kinds of 
projects. This ensures that the promise of the information superhighway 
just does not reach to the wealthy streets in the best communities in 
America but also to those parts of the country with those kinds of 
services which I think are the glittering promise of the information 
superhighway. That is, how with learning, with health care, with 
information we give it to every part of the country from inner cities 
to the most distant rural hamlet.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would like to ask the gentleman a question, if I may. Could the 
gentleman tell me, last year it was $26 million. This year it is a $70 
million request. Can the gentleman give us a rough idea what we are 
looking at down the road next year and the following year as far as 
requests for moneys?
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, as the years go by, we expect this to be 
phased out. In these initial years, where the technologies are new and 
the concepts are new, we are trying here to create a mechanism by which 
we focus upon that part of the superhighway discussion which most 
likely will go unattended to, which is the rural American part of it, 
how we serve the inner city.
  We do not have a specific amount that we are contemplating next year. 
To tell the gentleman the truth, the administration proposed $150 
million in this year's budget. It is down to $70 million. But over 
time, this will be phased out because we expect for the market system 
to ultimately devise mechanisms, once we have identified and proven the 
ability for these technologies to reach these isolated problem areas.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Let me just reclaim my time and finish my discussion.
  We have so many programs that are going to require more and more 
money as the years go by. They are all very worthwhile. And we do not 
seem to prioritize around here. And as a result, at some point in the 
future, we are going to reach a point of severe diminishing return on 
the entire investment of this Government.
  It is estimated that the national debt will get to $7 trillion, maybe 
$8 trillion in the next 5 to 6 years. If it gets to that point, the 
interest alone on the national debt is going to be the largest 
expenditure that we have. We are going to saddle our kids and our 
grandkids with a budgetary problem that will be insolvable. So we have 
to prioritize. I have proposed amendments, over the years, time and 
time again, to cut out programs and trim programs that reduced them to 
last year's spending level. Every time we see those amendments go down.
  This one allows for a $22 million increase over last year or an 85-
percent increase over last year. It would save the taxpayers $22 
million and help reduce this runaway Federal debt or deficit.
  It appears as though we are falling on deaf ears again. I just would 
like to say to my colleagues, the information superhighway is going to 
go forward whether we make this cut or not. There is no doubt about it. 
That is the wave of the future. But can we continue to support these 
huge increases in program after program after program, running this 
country into debt to such a degree that we will never dig ourselves out 
and our kids will suffer? I hope not. I think not.
  I would just like to say to my colleagues, this is going to be an 85-
percent increase if my amendment passes. It is a $22 million increase 
if my amendment passes, but it will save the taxpayers $22 million over 
what the committee proposes. It is a good amendment. I urge it pass.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have no requests for time, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 161, 
noes 227, not voting 51, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 280]

                               AYES--161

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Huffington
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Swett
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--227

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barlow
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grandy
     Green
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Reed
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--51

     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Baker (LA)
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Brewster
     Brown (FL)
     Collins (MI)
     Cox
     Deal
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Hoke
     Hunter
     Johnson, Sam
     Lambert
     Lehman
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Miller (FL)
     Murphy
     Owens
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rush
     Smith (OR)
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Washington
     Waters
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1635

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Miller of Florida for, with Mr. McCloskey against.
       Mrs. Roukema for, with Mr. Quinn against.
       Mr. Smith of Oregon for, with Mr. Rangel against.

  Mr. LIVINGSTON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. KAPTUR changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


            ENDOWMENT FOR CHILDREN'S EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION

       For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of the 
     National Endowment for Children's Educational Television Act 
     of 1990, title II of Public Law 101-437, including costs for 
     contracts, grants and administrative expenses, $2,500,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                  Economic Development Administration


                economic development assistance programs

       For grants for economic development assistance as provided 
     by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as 
     amended, Public Law 91-304, and such laws that were in effect 
     immediately before September 30, 1982, and for trade 
     adjustment assistance, $338,524,000: Provided, That none of 
     the funds appropriated or otherwise made available under this 
     heading may be used directly or indirectly for attorneys' or 
     consultants' fees in connection with securing grants and 
     contracts made by the Economic Development Administration: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Secretary of Commerce may provide financial 
     assistance for projects to be located on military 
     installations closed or scheduled for closure or realignment 
     to grantees eligible for assistance under the Public Works 
     and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended, without it 
     being required that the grantee have title or ability to 
     obtain a lease for the property, for the useful life of the 
     project, when in the opinion of the Secretary of Commerce, 
     such financial assistance is necessary for the economic 
     development of the area: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     of Commerce may, as the Secretary of Defense regarding the 
     title to land on military installations closed or scheduled 
     for closure or realignment.


                     amendment offered by mr. penny

  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Penny: Page 52, line 14, strike 
     ``$338,524,000'' and insert ``$270,819,000''.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes, and 
that my time be equally divided between the gentleman from Kentucky 
[Mr. Rogers] and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan] will be recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] will be recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is quite straightforward. It represents 
a 20-percent cut in the funding level for the Economic Development 
Administration.
  Mr. Chairman, the EDA provides grants to State and local governments 
for public works, technical assistance and jobs programs as well as 
loan guarantees to firms for business development.
  One criticism of the EDA is that Federal assistance should not be 
provided for activities whose benefits are primarily local and, 
therefore, whose responsibility should be that of State and local 
governments. In addition, EDA programs have been criticized, I think 
legitimately, for substituting Federal credit for private credit and 
facilitating the relocation of businesses from one distressed area to 
another through the competition among local communities for Federal 
funds. In other words, we underwrite with Federal dollars the 
establishment of a facility in one community because they have better 
grant writers than another community, and that makes no economic sense.
  Mr. Chairman, the EDA has also been criticized for its broad 
eligibility criteria which allows areas containing over 80 percent of 
all the U.S. population to compete for these funds. If we were to 
target the EDA more narrowly on communities that are in desperate need 
of urban or rural development, I think the EDA Program would be more 
defensible. But in our desire to pork barrel spend all over the 
country, 80 percent of the country is now eligible for EDA grants, 
making this program highly dubious.
  Mr. Chairman, this level of funding reduction would not eliminate the 
program but it would send a very strong signal that we are determined 
to see this program more carefully targeted and better utilized. We 
offered this 20 percent reduction for the EDA as a part of the Penny-
Kasich package last November.
  I would urge favorable consideration of the amendment today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Wise], chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Development of the 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia for 
yielding me the time.
  The gentleman from West Virginia, chair of the subcommittee, has done 
a masterful job in his debut this year as chairman of this committee in 
bringing out a very, very important bill.
  Basically in responding to the gentleman from Minnesota, I would 
first point to this chart, and this chart shows the EDA as it has 
evolved from 1966 in 1993 dollars. Its high was almost $1.5 billion, to 
1995 when it is $365 million. Indeed, the last 10 years combined do not 
equal the first 2 years of funding.
  No. 2, in terms of eligibility, the EDA while technically as the 
gentleman from Minnesota notes could apply to 80-some percent of the 
country, in truth and administratively, it has not been applied that 
way and, indeed, this House has passed an authorization bill that would 
limit it to 45 percent of the country.

                              {time}  1640

  Let me also note that the gentleman's amendment would cut 20 percent 
of the EDA funding. The EDA bill that the gentleman from West Virginia 
has brought to the floor is already significantly below both the 
authorized level and several, many millions, below, $38 million below, 
the President's proposal.
  I would urge rejection obviously of this amendment. If you have got a 
water system that you are trying to get to an industrial park to create 
jobs, it is the EDA that is the linchpin. If you are trying to save 
your community because of defense closing, who is it you call? You call 
the EDA. If you have had a flood recently such as the Mississippi in 
the Midwest, who is it you have gone to? You have gone to the EDA.
  This is not the place to be cutting funds.
  I would urge rejection.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. This has been the most effective program in the Pacific 
Northwest over the last 26 years.
  I commend the gentleman for his statement and rise in strong support 
of defeating the Penny amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WISE, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Since the beginning of EDA, this program has created or saved over 2 
million jobs. Every year that EDA is in operation, the tax dollars 
generated by EDA-created jobs exceed the total the amount of money 
spent and invested in this program over the years.
  Vote against the Penny amendment.
  Mr. WISE. I urge rejection of the Penny amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment strongly. The EDA is a 
proven economic development and jobs program.
  The House acknowledged that fact just last month when we passed 
overwhelmingly the EDA reauthorization bill by a vote of 328 to 69. 
This bill follows the intent of the House by funding all EDA programs 
at or below the House-passed authorization levels.
  Many communities in this country are suffering from long-term 
distress, natural disasters, defense cutbacks, and what-have-you.
  EDA gives these communities a helping hand, not a handout.
  I might note the district of the gentleman from Minnesota, his own 
district just last year received almost $5 million from EDA for 
disaster assistance for help in recovering from the Midwestern floods. 
Surely, he would agree these communities need and deserve assistance, 
and, surely, he would also agree that an area like Floyd County in my 
district which has a 12-percent unemployment rate conservatively 
deserves assistance.
  Because of an EDA grant, the county was able to attract 100 new jobs 
and an additional $1 million in annual revenue for the local economy.
  A vote for the Penny amendment is a vote to ensure that these 
communities have less help and less hope.
  I urge rejection of the amendment. Let us give these communities hope 
as well as some help.
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would simply add in conclusion that the defense of this program is 
not surprising to me given the fact that 80 percent of America 
qualifies for assistance under this program.
  Certainly, it has done some good in the years that it has been 
around. I question whether the program has done as much good as the 
appropriators would imply.
  The appropriation level this year is over $300 million. The point has 
been made that this program is receiving far fewer funds than it 
received in its origin. I think that is clear evidence that in times of 
tighter and tighter budgets, this Congress has decided that this is one 
of the programs that could be reduced.
  Clearly, budgets are not going to get any easier to deal with in the 
years ahead, and we ought to take those programs that have been reduced 
in recent years and follow that trend line down. It is a program that, 
frankly, could and should be canceled at some point. This is probably 
not the year to do that, but at least we ought to consider a 20-percent 
reduction as a way of signaling that an EDA program created some 30 
years ago as part of a war on poverty does not suit or meet the needs 
of America in the 1990's.
  I would again urge favorable consideration of the amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn], who as a freshman has distinguished 
himself by his hard work and effectiveness on the Committee on Public 
Works and Transportation.
  (Mr. CLYBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman. I rise today in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota.
  The Economic Development Administration was established by Congress 
in 1965 as an agency to promote prosperity in economically deprived 
areas of the country. I represent a district which has many 
economically depressed areas which rely heavily upon the EDA, and other 
public agencies, for assistance in promoting job creation.
  Mr. Chairman, infrastructure is essential to job creation in a 
manufacturing environment. Many communities in my State of South 
Carolina cannot meet the infrastructure requirements of manufacturers 
alone, and must rely on the EDA's assistance.
  In addition, the EDA provides funding for regional planning 
assistance to identify local needs and priorities. Once again, many of 
the areas in my State rely upon these funds to undertake planning 
functions. The direct result of these planning activities is a more 
efficient and cost effective administration of local government.
  Mr. Chairman, the appropriation for the Economic Development 
Administration is meager and inadequate at best. I strongly oppose any 
plan to reduce this much needed resource.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute, the balance of my time, 
to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is well intentioned but 
ill advised.
  Keep in mind that EDA is the one Federal agency which has as its sole 
mission helping communities create jobs. Keep in mind EDA has taken the 
lead in assisting communities suffering adverse impacts by base 
closings and realignment. Keep in mind that EDA helps leverage private, 
State and local money, and the Federal share is less than 50 percent 
for most of these projects. EDA is the one Federal agency helping 
communities create jobs at a time when the Federal Government is the 
biggest disemployer of America. I would submit it has inadequate funds. 
To talk about a 25-percent cut, I think, would be draconian and 
contrary to the best interests of all across America that send us here 
to represent their interests and to try and expand jobs and opportunity 
for all Americans.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Penny Amendment 
to reduce funding for the Economic Development Administration [EDA] by 
20 percent. EDA contributes significantly to economic growth and job 
expansion. Clearly, EDA fulfills a key function in providing State and 
local governments, nonprofit organizations, and public institutions 
with vital economic grants and technical assistance. EDA is vitally 
important to those who depend on its resources.
  Over the years EDA has proven to be a valuable source of economic 
assistance for regions all over the United States. EDA provided a total 
of $301.8 million in 1993 to various organizations across the country. 
This assistance was in the form of public works grants to public and 
private nonprofit organizations and technical grants and assistance to 
enable communities and firms to find solutions to problems that inhibit 
economic growth.
  EDA also provided planning grants to States, cities, districts, and 
Indian reservations and special economic adjustment assistance to help 
State and local governments solve recent and anticipated severe 
adjustment problems, including defense conversion assistance.
  I know that my home State of Maine has benefited from EDA funding. 
Last year, EDA provided economic assistance for 12 projects in Maine 
totaling over $2.5 million. Some of these projects assisted with EDA 
funds include the expansion of the international and domestic arrivals 
terminals at Bangor International Airport and the Eastport cargo 
facilities. EDA assistance has helped finance Maine businesses and 
developed revolving loan fund programs, as well. In short, Maine, like 
many areas of the country, benefits tangibly from EDA resources.
  The challenges of defense conversion are enormous, and EDA is an 
agency that is helping the Federal Government face those challenges by 
assisting industries, communities, and individuals adversely impacted 
by base closures and drastic cuts in defense spending.
  Over 2 years ago, I introduced comprehensive legislation to assist 
the people of communities faced with the severe economic hardships 
caused by the closure of a major military installation, and the role of 
EDA was a fundamental component of that legislation.
  EDA is actively involved in defense conversion efforts throughout the 
country. I recently introduced legislation that slightly amends the 
guidance for the EDA's defense conversion responsibilities dealing with 
funds authorized under defense bills. Currently, the EDA does not give 
any special preference to defense conversion projects. My legislation 
specifically directs EDA to ``ensure that funds are reserved for 
communities identified as the most substantially and seriously affected 
by the closure or realignment of a military installation or the 
curtailment, completion, elimination, or realignment of a major defense 
contract or subcontract.''
  The State of Maine is the fourth highest recipient of defense sending 
per capita in the Nation, and defense is the State's third largest 
industry. But Maine has lost approximately 10,000 defense-related jobs 
since 1989, and there is a deep concern that thousands of additional 
jobs are threatened by continued reductions in defense spending. The 
opportunities afforded by EDA are absolutely critical for the long-term 
health of Maine's economy.
  I believe that the Federal Government has the responsibility to 
provide the economic policies, tools, and incentives that are needed to 
stimulate both the economy and defense conversion initiatives. And the 
Economic Development Administration plays a vital role in fulfilling 
that responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, as we consider funding for EDA for the upcoming fiscal 
year, we cannot overlook its valuable contributions to communities all 
across this Nation. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting 
sufficient funding for EDA and opposing the Penny amendment.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment to H.R. 4603, the Commerce, Justice, State, and related 
agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995. However, before I 
discuss the specific provisions of the amendment, I would like to 
commend the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Mollohan, 
and its ranking member, Mr. Rogers, for their excellent work on this 
bill.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota would reduce 
total funding in the bill for the Economic Development Administration 
by 20 percent, cutting $67.7 million from EDA program funds.
  Just last month, the House expressed its overwhelming support for EDA 
by passing H.R. 2442, the Economic Development Reauthorization Act of 
1994, by a vote of 328 to 89. That bill reflected a bipartisan 
agreement of members of both the Public Works Committee and the 
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs and was strongly 
supported by Members on both sides of the aisle. For the first time in 
more than a decade, Congress expects to enact EDA authorization 
legislation.
  The House-passed authorization bill also launches EDA on a new effort 
founded on reform, responsibility, efficiency, and accountability. Gone 
are the programs and approaches of old. Gone are the inefficient 
bureaucracies; gone are the archaic eligibility requirements; gone are 
the time-consuming and cumbersome approval processes; and gone are the 
exorbitant authorization levels. The House-passed bill addresses both 
the concerns of the past and enables EDA to meet current and future 
challenges, keep our industries competitive in global markets, and 
maintain our quality of life.
  Today, the gentleman from Minnesota offers an amendment to cut these 
programs' appropriations by 20 percent or $68 million. H.R. 4603 
appropriated a total of $338.5 million for EDA programs. These programs 
appropriations are well within the authorization levels of the House-
passed bill. In addition, this bill appropriates $38 million less than 
the President's request. This bill is fiscally responsible.
  At a time when the infrastructure of distressed communities is 
crumbling, this amendment would cut much-needed public works funds. At 
a time when communities need assistance to determine how to compete in 
the global market, this amendment would cut critical planning and 
technical assistance. At a time when defense bases are closing, this 
amendment would cut defense economic adjustment assistance.
  Before we cut these programs without due consideration to the effect, 
let's provide EDA with an opportunity to ensure that our Nation's 
economic development program is second to none.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members, especially the 328 Members who voted 
for the EDA bill, to vote ``no'' on the Penny amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 110--
noes 282, not voting 47, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 281]

                               AYES--110

     Allard
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Calvert
     Castle
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Hoagland
     Hoekstra
     Huffington
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Penny
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Thomas (WY)
     Walker
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--282

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Grandy
     Green
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowe
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--47

     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Baker (LA)
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Brewster
     Brown (FL)
     Deal
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Hoke
     Hunter
     Johnson, Sam
     Lambert
     Lehman
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Murphy
     Owens
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rush
     Smith (OR)
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Washington
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1709

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Roukema for, with Mr. Hastings against.
       Mr. Smith of Oregon for, with Mr. Deal against.

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio and Mr. SHAYS changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Unsoeld) having assumed the chair, Mr. Brown of California, Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4603) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies programs for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1995, and making supplemental appropriations 
for these departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 1994, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________