[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 144 (Thursday, October 6, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 6, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 21, CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT OF 1994

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 568 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 568

       Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution 
     the House shall consider the conference report to accompany 
     the bill (S. 21) to designate certain lands in the California 
     Desert as wilderness, to establish Death Valley, Joshua Tree, 
     and Mojave National Parks, and for other purposes. All points 
     of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the conference report to final adoption without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Peterson of Florida). The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Beilenson] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary one-half hour of debate time to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier], pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 568 is the rule providing for the 
consideration of the conference report on S. 21, the California Desert 
Protection Act.
  The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration, provides that the conference report shall be 
considered as read, and provides one motion to recommit. The waivers 
apply to the 3-day layover rule and to the germaneness rule.
  Mr. Speaker, while I am often sympathetic to my colleagues on the 
minority who frequently oppose the waiver of the 3-day layover rule, 
the waiver in this instance is needed because of the time 
considerations we face as we near adjournment tomorrow.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Natural Resources 
Committee has testified, the conference report is very favorable to the 
opponents of the legislation, accepting as it does almost all of the 
amendments on the most controversial issues that were approved by the 
House and which placed restrictions on the original committee bill.
  This legislation is not new to us. It has been under debate for 8 
long years by Congress; during consideration in the House this year 
alone, we spent more than 23 hours over 6 days on the bill. Over 40 
amendments to the committee bill were filed and over 15 roll call votes 
were taken.
  I do not need to remind my colleagues that, earlier this week, we 
spent over 5 hours of debate on going to conference on the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the provisions that violate the germaneness rule had 
been a part of the bill as passed by the Senate. Those provisions 
include a study of the Mississippi Delta region and another 
establishing the New Orleans Jazz National Historical Park.
  The California Desert Protection Act is, in terms of expansion of the 
national parks system and national wilderness preservation system, the 
most important single measure since the 1980 enactment of the Alaska 
Lands Act. It seeks to protect and preserve some of the most beautiful 
areas in the California desert.
  As a Californian, I must say, Mr. Speaker, the California desert 
contains some of the truly rich and scenic areas not only of my State, 
but also of our entire Nation. Far from being a vast and useless 
wasteland, the rugged desert mountains and adjacent lowland terrain 
provide the habitat for some of the country's most unusual species of 
plants and wildlife.
  The area is also a museum of human history--perhaps the most valuable 
in North America because much of it has, until recent years, been 
untouched for thousands of years. Unfortunately, the desert's 
historical and natural treasures are now being threatened, and we are 
seeing irreversible damage and deterioration there. We must preserve 
these valuable natural and historical resources for future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlemen from California [Mr. Miller], 
the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, for his tireless 
efforts and persistence in working on this legislation, which is so 
important, not just to our State, but to the entire country.
  The California Desert Protection Act, which is the result of 8 years 
of active consideration, designates 69 wilderness areas comprised of 
approximately 3.5 million acres, as contained in the Senate bill.
  Like both the House and Senate bills, it expands the existing Death 
Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments and redesignates them as 
national parks. The conference report adopts the House provision 
establishing a Mojave National Preserve in which hunting will be 
permitted; the Senate bill would have established a new national park 
there.
  Mr. Speaker, the House has given this legislation an almost 
unprecedented amount of time. I urge my colleagues to adopt the 
resolution so that we may proceed to the consideration of this 
important conference report expeditiously.

                              {time}  0120

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at 1:20 this morning as we prepared to march 
back to the California desert I would like to say this bill has been 
extremely controversial, as we all known, because it attempts the 
largest government heist of land in the lower 48 States without the 
support of the people of southern California who are most affected by 
this legislation. Consequently, the debate over both the process and 
the procedures for considering this legislation has been very 
acrimonious and this rule continues that acrimony by waiving all points 
of order against the conference report.
  It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the actual conference 
committee met for only 2 minutes, 2 action-packed minutes with no 
Republican Members present until the very end before a compromise was 
agreed to because most of the deals were cut long in advance of the 
conference.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, by waiving all points of order against the 
conference report, the rule allows at least two nongermane Senate 
provisions to be included in the conference report that have nothing to 
do with the California desert. They are the New Orleans Jazz National 
Historical Park Act and the Lower Mississippi Delta Region Heritage 
Study. While I am pleased to learn the House passed amendments to the 
Mojave National Preserve, law enforcement vehicles and private property 
rights are contained in the conference report, both the rule and the 
conference report are both complicated and very far reaching.
  Mr. Speaker, most Americans support a balance between protecting the 
ecology of the desert and maintaining legitimate multiple land use 
activities. S. 21 does not provide that balance, and if adopted, Mr. 
Speaker, this rule would ensure that such a balance will never be 
achieved.
  For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the rule. I 
strongly oppose it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman 
from Redlands, CA [Mr. Lewis] who has led the charge on this.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much 
for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, first I would like to begin by letting the House know 
very clearly that we do intend to have a discussion of the rule while 
we are trying to solve the technical problems which I mentioned 
earlier. It is not our intention to have dilatory discussions or a 
number of votes or otherwise. We may have to have a vote on the rule, 
for the difficulty is one that the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Thomas] feels very strongly about. But from there I hope we will get 
through as soon as possible.
  I do want to take the time of the House, however, to discuss with 
them what really has brought us to this point at this late hour after 
many, many hours of discussion on this bill and an extended series of 
votes as we went through the process the last several days. First and 
foremost, I want the House to know that the report before us is as good 
as I could have hoped for coming through this process, for at the 
beginning of the process I have told Members more than once the Members 
who are elected to represent the desert, five of us were not just 
disgusted, we were outraged by the way the committee treated us 
relative to the constituents that we represent. There are five Members 
who represent the desert. The committee chose not to discuss their idea 
of our world with us whatsoever. Instead they chose to go forward with 
a policy development of their own direction, and in my judgment they 
reflect the views of very few in America.
  I might mention as an aside, it was an interesting thing, when I 
traveled to Haiti over the weekend with our Intelligence Committee and 
the defense subcommittee, and as we were talking about Haiti problems, 
one of our intelligence officers said to me that one of our 
difficulties comes from the factions in this country, and they have 
what they call in Haiti MREs. MREs are the things that servicemen eat, 
the food they talk about all the time. But MREs in Haiti means 
something else. And I said what was that. And he said Morally Repugnant 
Elite.
  I must say that some of those who have driven this process that has 
led to this hassle over all of these, most reflect the MREs of that 
community within those who want to essentially decide what happens to 
the desert by never discussing it with those people who live there or 
those of us who represent it.
  To illustrate the difficulty in clear form is to do so by repeating 
just what happened just other day. We finished our work here on the 
bill the other night. The last discussion on the bill ended at 6:02 in 
the evening. The conferees were appointed after that. After that 
conferees were appointed, at approximately 6:05, the conference was 
scheduled for 6:45. As all of my colleagues will remember, we had a 
series of five or six votes. They began at 6:46. One of our Republican 
conferees got to the conference room. There were two Members present at 
that time. The gentleman was asked if he wanted to comment. He spent 30 
seconds. Following, the rest of the conferees on the House side arrived 
at 6:47. The conference was over. There was no Republican conferee that 
came from the Senate. Then I heard from those who are the experts on 
the way that committee runs conferences, this is the way it is done all 
of the time. You know how conferences are run. Well, on my defense 
subcommittee they are not run that way. We have give and take, we make 
real changes, we do not have staff do everything. It is just absolutely 
unacceptable that power should be exercised in that way, and it is a 
reflection of what happens when you have too much power too long in one 
committee, and it has treated us, to say the least, like second-class 
Members of the House.
  Above and beyond that, I have a small comment about the rule itself, 
for there was a request made to waive points of order as well as to 
waive the 3-day rule. There is within the bill a minor little item that 
involves title 11 of the conference report that is entitled the Lower 
Mississippi Delta Region Initiatives. Obviously the lower Mississippi 
Delta Region is a heck of a long ways away from the California desert. 
I am not arguing the measure of this title. I do wonder why it is part 
of the California desert plant.
  Title 11 of the conference report contains a provision establishing a 
New Orleans Jazz National Historical Park. Again, this provision has 
nothing to do with the California desert. It has been suggested that if 
we do not think that there are any turtles in Louisiana of the style we 
are trying to protect, there certainly are not any alligators in my 
desert.
  But in the meantime, a provision that would dramatically affect the 
potential of a program that would involve $8 million to $10 million a 
year is put in the conference committee, has never been passed out of a 
committee in this House that I can find in any way, shape or form. One 
more time it is a combination of staff and committee that has chosen to 
be arbitrary with those Members who represent the desert. That, if not 
many other things that we have suggested over these many months, is a 
great reason to vote against this bill, and so I urge the Members to 
vote against the rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, we have no requests for time on this 
side, and I am happy to defer to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from La Quinta, CA, Mr. McCANDLESS, another of my great 
friends who has the privilege of representing the magnificent desert 
empire.
  (Mr. McCANDLESS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule for a number of 
reasons. But let me try to summarize the best I can in view of the 
patience that the House has had on this legislation and the fact that 
we are finally bringing it to some kind of a conclusion.
  Members have heard about the conference committee. The next afternoon 
at 1 o'clock the Rules Committee met. Our staff did not get a 
conference report from anyone other than the Senate until 11:20 a.m., 
prior to the 1 p.m. meeting in the Rules Committee.

                              {time}  0130

  We were unable to digest the conference report because of the short 
time. The conferees on that conference committee did not receive at 
that time, 1 o'clock, had not yet received the conference report.
  Now, we can talk all we want to about this, that, or the other thing, 
but in my mind, the proper legislative process is that you have a 
conference report, that whatever happened that brought it about and 
gave it birth, at least you have it to read, and therein lies tonight a 
major problem with the district that my colleague, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas] represents which he will eloquently, I am sure, 
bring to your attention.
  However, when we consider a rule, we consider also what comes with 
the rule, and I just say rules that raise points of order, they offer 
amendments and do this kind of thing are troublesome because they bring 
with them many things of which the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis] touched on very briefly. And oddly enough, the California desert 
bill also authorizes the Lower Delta Region Heritage Study.
  I have got a problem with the Lower Delta in Mississippi. Maybe the 
Lower Delta of Lower California, but not the Lower Delta of the 
Mississippi which, as near as I can tell, consists of pork, programs 
from the great States of Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Missouri, 
Illinois, Tennessee, Mississippi. This bill also creates, as we heard a 
little earlier, the New Orleans Jazz National Heritage Park to be 
administered by the National Park Service, and we have talked ad 
infinitum about the problems of the Park Service and its lack of 
ability to bring itself up to some standard with respect to its assets.
  Now, they are no doubt worthy projects for the most part, but let me 
talk to you about a few more which are in this rule for which we have 
points of order waived: the Delta Region Heritage Corridors and 
Cultural Centers, the Music Heritage Program, with emphasis on the 
blues, of course, Delta Antiquities Survey, and I will come back to 
this one in a minute, and the Delta Region African-American Heritage 
Center.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not have a problem with the content here as it 
relates to these particular kinds of projects. I am sure they are 
worthy, and there is no way that you can say that they are not, because 
there is no way that you can say anything if you are not familiar with 
them, because you did not receive the conference report.

  I would hope that the 104th Congress would look itself in the mirror 
and say what is a conference report: a report on the conference that 
the conferees are entitled to see at least in enough time prior to 
going to get a rule on the conference.
  Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat exercised tonight, as you can see. The 
hour is late, and I will conclude.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  It is nothing new to rise and complain about rules which restrict 
points of order or amendments; this does happen from time to time, and 
in fact happens to be the case with the rule now under consideration. 
But let me explain to you just what the inability to raise points of 
order, or offer amendments to this bill, means.
  We are considering a piece of legislation with which I know my 
colleagues are now very familiar; perhaps more so than they ever 
planned or wished to be. It is the conference report on S. 21, the 
alleged California Desert Protection Act. One would anticipate a bill 
with this name to deal with desert matters, and it does. But, oddly 
enough, this California desert bill also authorizes a Lower Mississippi 
Delta Region Heritage Study, which, as near as I can tell, consists of 
pork programs for the great States of Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, 
Missouri, Illinois, Tennessee, and Mississippi. This bill also creates 
the New Orleans Jazz National Historical Park, to be administered by 
the National Park Service.
  There are no doubt worthy programs; no doubt there is a need for 
these programs down there in that part of our country. Here are a few 
of them: Delta Region Heritage Corridors and Cultural Centers; Music 
Heritage Program--with emphasis on the blues, of course; Delta 
Antiquities Survey--I will come back to this one; and, the Delta Region 
African American Heritage Center.
  As I said, all obviously worthy endeavors in their own right; I just 
don't know what they are doing in a bill that claims to protect the 
California desert. I haven't seen them in this bill previously, and I 
would guess that my colleagues have not either, because they were not 
in the desert bill that this body voted on this past summer.
  These programs don't belong here; there is an obvious question of 
germaneness. But under this rule, there is nothing you can do about it. 
It is hardly fair to my colleagues and the taxpayers whom they 
represent. It is an insult to them to absorb the considerable 
discussion and debate which we have had on this desert legislation, and 
then at the last minute try to add on these provisions, subject to 
appropriations, which no one has had the opportunity to review.
  This is ridiculous. We don't know anything about these programs, and 
all we know about the New Orleans Jazz Park is that it will be added to 
the existing Park Service backlog. But, because points of order are 
waived, there is no recourse under this rule to act if you agree that 
this bill is an inappropriate place for these programs.
  The last time I checked, we were not the other body, and one could 
not simply add to a bill whatever one wanted to. This bill does just 
that, and this rule spits in your eye and dares you to do something 
about it. This is election-year pork-barrel politics, pure and simple, 
and it has nothing to do with the California desert. You all know me as 
the desert rat, the guy with sand in his shoes, one of the five ``Die 
Hards''. Well, let me add to the list of problems with S. 21 the fact 
that it is loaded up with nongermane pork which will be supported by 
the taxpayers in your district. Try not to worry too much about the 
precedent this sets for future legislative business.
  The desert bill is not supposed to be about Southern culture or 
heritage. But your constituents who pay the freight around here will 
sure be singing the blues when they realize they just paid for a New 
Orleans Jazz National Park in Louisiana, along with millions of acres 
of desert which they will never see.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, and ask that my 
statement be entered in the Record.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule 
so that we can get to the conference report on this important bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Peterson of Florida). The question is on 
the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242, 
nays 140, not voting 52, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 501]

                               YEAS--242

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

                               NAYS--140

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

                             NOT VOTING--52

     Applegate
     Blackwell
     Boucher
     Bunning
     Carr
     Clay
     Clinger
     Ewing
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Fowler
     Gallo
     Grandy
     Hall (OH)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Houghton
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     LaFalce
     Lewis (FL)
     Lloyd
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McMillan
     Michel
     Montgomery
     Murphy
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pickett
     Ravenel
     Roberts
     Rowland
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Slattery
     Smith (OR)
     Sundquist
     Synar
     Tucker
     Valentine
     Vucanovich
     Washington
     Whitten
     Williams
     Yates

                              {time}  0151

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Tucker for, with Mr. Lewis of Florida against.

  Mrs. KENNELLY and Mr. ZIMMER changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________