[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5636-H5640]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             CORNING NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY CONVEYANCE ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 144 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill, H.R. 535.

                              {time}  1338


                     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 consideration of the bill (H.R. 
535) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Corning 
National Fish Hatchery to the State of Arkansas, with Mr. Camp in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Studds] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this noncontroversial legislation.
  H.R. 535 seeks to convey the Corning National Fish Hatchery to the 
State of Arkansas. Mrs. Lincoln, the sponsor of the bill, will fully 
explain the need for this legislation. Briefly, the State of Arkansas 
has been operating and maintaining the Corning hatchery since 1983. 
Arkansas has recognized the need to modernize the facility, but cannot 
obtain the necessary funding to do so because the State does not hold 
title to the hatchery. The Fish and Wildlife Service, which does hold 
title, fully supports the conveyance of the title to the State of 
Arkansas.
  During our subcommittee markup, I offered an amendment--which was 
adopted unanimously--to expand the mission of the hatchery. In that 
way, the Corning facility would not be limited to fish cultures only 
and would be able to perform a broader range of fishery-related 
activities. In addition, the amendment ensures that if this property 
ever reverts to the Federal Government, it will be in the same or 
better condition as the time of the transfer. These changes are 
reflected in the bill pending before the House today.
  I am confident that H.R. 535 as written will satisfy the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service and the State of Arkansas. I urge you to support 
H.R. 535 without amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey has said it 
all. This is a bill without controversy. It is very much like many 
others we have passed in years gone by. I must say for the life of me I 
cannot figure out what it is doing under a rule. If there was ever a 
bill that was ready for suspension, it would be these three. They are 
routine. They are without controversy.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 535, a bill to transfer title 
of the Corning National Fish Hatchery to the State of Arkansas.
  The Corning hatchery, which has been operated by the State of 
Arkansas under a memorandum of understanding with the Fish and Wildlife 
Service since 1983, produces bass, bluegill, sunfish, crappies, and 
catfish for State fishery programs.
  While the State has made minor improvements to the facility, it is 
now interested in making more significant capital investments and would 
like title to the property before doing so. This bill would give title 
to the State, while protecting the interests of the Federal Government 
by requiring that title revert to the Fish and Wildlife Service in the 
event that Arkansas no longer wants to operate the facility as a fish 
hatchery.
  This is standard language we have used to transfer many facilities in 
the past. It is supported by both the State and the administration, and 
I urge Members to support it today.

[[Page H5637]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arkansas 
[Mrs. Lincoln], the author of the bill.
  (Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to urge my colleagues to 
support H.R. 535. Before I list all the reasons why my colleagues 
should support this bill, I first want to extend my deepest thanks to 
the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Young, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, Mr. Saxton, and the ranking minority member of the 
Fisheries Subcommittee, Mr. Studds, for taking action on this bill in 
such a prompt manner. I worked with all these distinguished gentlemen 
last year on the Merchant Marine Committee, and I certainly must say 
that I miss working with them on a more regular basis.
  I urge my colleagues to support this non-controversial bill. H.R. 535 
would transfer property rights in the Corning National Fish Hatchery 
from the Federal Government to the State of Arkansas. Due to previous 
Federal budget cuts, the fish hatchery was closed in early 1983. 
However, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission resumed hatchery fish 
production in May 1983 after entering into an agreement with the fish 
and wildlife service. The fish hatchery has been operating since 1983 
as William H. Donham State Fish Hatchery. With funds provided by the 
State of Arkansas
  This fish hatchery has become an important part of the Arkansas 
Fisheries Division Fish Culture Program and I believe that this 
transfer will greatly benefit the sportsmen and women of Arkansas and 
the Nation. This warm water hatchery is very active and successful, 
producing up to 1,000,000 fish annually.
  Currently, and since 1983 no Federal funds are used to operate or 
maintain the Corning National Fish Hatchery. Let me repeat, this fish 
hatchery does not cost Federal taxpayers a red cent. It is financed 
solely by funds derived from resident and non-resident fishing licenses 
sales. This transfer of ownership has the support from both the 
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
  It is appropriate to transfer the property to the State of Arkansas 
since the funds used to finance the hatchery's programs are raised 
within the borders of Arkansas. In addition, without this transfer, 
Arkansas would be unable to make long-term commitments as to the 
direction the hatchery will take in its operations or risk of 
abandonment.
  Identical legislation passed both the House and the Senate last 
Congress only to be stymied in the Senate during the last minutes of 
the 103d. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 535 and to oppose any 
amendments.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, those who have spoken already quite properly represent 
the presentation of this legislation and they, in fact, are not 
controversial. I do have an amendment to the legislation that would 
require that prior to the transfer of these facilities, prior to the 
transfer of title from the Federal Government to the State government 
that the Federal Government would get an appraisal as to the fair 
market value and the State would in fact pay the Federal Government in 
the fair market value for these assets.
  The fact is that we have been transferring these assets historically 
for many, many years from the Federal Government to the states without 
questioning the value of the property being transferred or the Federal 
taxpayer investment in these properties. But today is not the same as 
it has been in the last 20 years. That is, this is the first Congress 
that is operating under a firm target of balancing the Federal budget 
in the next 7 years.
  We see a whole hose of programs that are being cut, some much smaller 
in value than the value of these hatcheries, but the point is this, 
that no longer are we in a position simply to transfer assets of the 
Federal Government and receive nothing in return at a time when we are 
trying to balance the budget. So the amendment that I will offer to all 
three of these bills later on is an amendment to require an appraisal 
and a fair market value assessment, crediting the State with the cost 
of some of their improvements that they have made and then making sure 
that the State either pay the Federal Government in cash or in in-kind 
contribution for that fair market value.
  I think this is fair to the taxpayers of the country. I think it is 
fair to other committees that are making cuts in very vital programs 
and that we ought to do our share. The value of these assets, of these 
hatcheries, we really do not known. There are no current appraisals of 
these. Appraisals were done in 1983, back in 1979. We have comparable 
sales in some cases for much smaller parcels adjacent to these lands 
that were transferred earlier that have been sold in some cases for 
higher value than the appraised value of the hatcheries.
  Let us remember that in fact when the hatcheries
   are, they have been run for the benefit of the States, so the fact 
that the State has been running this at their cost should be no mystery 
to us or surprise us because in fact the State has been the beneficiary 
of the programs being run there and the State will continue to do so.

  If the Federal Government is going to back out of this and we are 
going to turn these assets over, I think the least that we can do is 
ask that we return to the Treasury some ability to recapture the cost 
that the Federal Government has spent on these assets.
  Finally, let me make this point, Mr. Chairman: This is only the 
beginning of a whole series of assets that will be coming to the floor 
seeking transfer from the Federal Government either to the private 
sector and/or to other segments of the Government. I think it is very 
important that we understand that when we do make these transfers to 
these other entities, that we ought to make some effort to try and 
recapture the fair market value of those assets.
  There will be assets developed in the energy area, in the mineral 
area, in the timber area, in a whole range of programs that the Federal 
Government is currently engaged in, mainly throughout the western 
United States, but in some cases, as we see with these hatcheries, in 
other areas of the Federal Government. I would hope that Members would 
support these very commonsense and very-fair-to-the-taxpayer amendments 
asking for fair maket value.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 535, a bill to transfer title 
of the Corning National Fish Hatchery to the State of Arkansas for use 
by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission.
  The Corning National Fish Hatchery includes approximately 137 acres, 
buildings, structures, and related equipment. It is a warm water 
hatchery that produces between 250,000 to 1,000,000 fish each year. 
About 95 percent of these hatchery-reared fish are stocked in new or 
renovated public lakes, providing recreational opportunities for 
thousands of Americans.
  It is my understanding that the State of Arkansas has been 
effectively operating this hatchery facility since 1983, under an 
agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The State has spent 
in excess of $1.5 million to maintain it. H.R. 535 would simply convey 
all right, title, and interest of the United States to the State of 
Arkansas.
  Finally, this legislation contains language providing that the 
property revert back to the Federal Government if the State of Arkansas 
no longer wishes to use the facility as part of its fisheries resources 
management program. It also stipulates that the property be returned in 
substantially the same or better condition than it was in at the time 
it was transferred to the State.
  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports this transfer and I 
compliment the gentlelady from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln] for bringing 
this matter to our attention.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill and the amendment printed in the bill 
are considered as having been read for amendment under the 5-minute 
rule. [[Page H5638]] 
  The text of H.R. 535 is as follows:

                                H.R. 535

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Corning National Fish 
     Hatchery Conveyance Act''.

     SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF CORNING NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY TO THE 
                   STATE OF ARKANSAS.

       (a) Conveyance Requirement.--Within 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall convey to the State of Arkansas without reimbursement 
     all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 
     the property described in subsection (b), for use by the 
     Arkansas Game and Fish Commission as part of the State of 
     Arkansas culture program.
       (b) Property Described.--The property referred to in 
     subsection (a) is the property known as the Corning National 
     Fish Hatchery (popularly known as the William H. Donham State 
     Fish Hatchery), located one mile west of Corning, Arkansas, 
     on Arkansas State Highway 67 in Clay County, Arkansas, 
     consisting of 137.34 acres (more or less), and all 
     improvements and related personal property under the control 
     of the Secretary that is located on that property, including 
     buildings, structures, and equipment.
       (c) Reversionary Interest of United States.--All right, 
     title, and interest in property described in subsection (b) 
     shall revert to the United States if the property ceases to 
     be used as part of the State of Arkansas fish culture 
     program. The State of Arkansas shall ensure that the property 
     reverting to the United States is in substantially the same 
     or better condition as at the time of transfer.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the committee amendment.
  The text of the committee amendment is as follows:

       Committee amendment: Page 2, line 21, strike subsection (c) 
     and insert the following:
       (c) Use and Reversionary Interest.--The property conveyed 
     to the State of Arkansas pursuant to this section shall be 
     used by the State for purposes of fishery resources 
     management, and if it is used for any other purposes all 
     right, title, and interest in an to all property conveyed 
     pursuant to this section shall revert to the United States. 
     The State of Arkansas shall ensure that the property 
     reverting to the United States is in substantially the same 
     or better condition as at the time of transfer.

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment.
  The committee amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1345

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments?
             amendment offered by mr. miller of california

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of California: In section 
     2(a) (page 2, beginning at line 3), strike ``Within'' and all 
     that follows through ``without reimbursement'', and insert 
     ``Upon the provision of consideration by the State of 
     Arkansas in accordance with subsection (c) within 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     the Interior shall convey to the State of Arkansas''.
       Amend section 2(c) (page 3, beginning at line 3) to read as 
     follows:
       (c) Consideration.--
       (1) Consideration required.--The Secretary of the Interior 
     shall require that, as consideration for any property 
     conveyed by the Secretary under subsection (a), the State of 
     Arkansas shall--
       (A) pay to the United States an amount equal to the fair 
     market value of the property conveyed by the Secretary under 
     subsection (a), reduced in accordance with paragraph (3); or
       (B) convey to the United States real property that the 
     Secretary deterimes--
       (i) has a fair market value not less than an amount equal 
     to the fair market value of the property conveyed by the 
     Secretary under subsection (a), reduced in accordance with 
     paragraph (3); and
       (ii) is useful for promoting fish restoration and 
     management.
       (2) Appraisal required.--The Secretary shall determine fair 
     market value of property for purposes of this subsection 
     after considering an appraisal of the property prepared for 
     the Secretary after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (3) Reduction of fair market value of property conveyed.--
     For purposes of subparagraphs (A) and (B)(i) of paragraph 
     (1), the fair market value of property conveyed under 
     subsection (a) shall be reduced by the value of any capital 
     improvements to the property that were made by the State of 
     Arkansas before the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (4) Deposit of payment.--
       (A) Deposit.--Amounts received by the United States as 
     payment under this subsection shall be deposited into the 
     Sport Fish Restoration Account of the Aquatic Resources Trust 
     Fund established by section 9504 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9504), commonly referred to as the Wallop-
     Breaux Fund.
       (B) Limitation on use of deposits for purposes not related 
     to fish restoration and management.--Section 9504(b)(2)(B) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9504(b)(2)(B)) 
     does not apply to amounts deposited under this paragraph.

  Mr. MILLER of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires that 
as consideration for the fish hatchery conveyed to the State of 
Arkansas, that the State pay the Federal Government the fair market 
value based on an updated appraisal.
  That payment shall not include the value of any capital improvements 
made by the State. The amendment also strikes the clause in the bill 
which would have the property revert to the Federal Government if not 
used by the State as a hatchery. In other words, the State would 
receive clear title.
  The amendment gives the State the option to pay cash equivalent to 
fair market value or to exchange property with the Fish and Wildlife 
Service which must be useful for promoting fish restoration and 
management.
  If the State pays cash, the amendment provides that the proceeds 
would be deposited in the sport fish restoration account which is 
better known as the Wallop-Breaux Fund. Every State receives Wallop-
Breaux funds which are dedicated to improving sport fishing 
opportunities. The amounts devoted to fish restoration are decreasing, 
so this amendment will help assure that all of our constituents 
continue to benefit from this fund.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier in the general debate on this 
legislation, I think this is simply a matter of equity for the 
taxpayers, that they receive some semblance, and hopefully will 
receive, in fact, fair market value for these Federal assets that the 
Federal Government has built and developed, when they transfer them to 
the State.
  It also provides the additional benefit that the funds received not 
only will return to the Federal Treasury, but they will help fund those 
portions of the Federal programs and cooperative programs between the 
States and the Federal Government that come under the Wallop-Breaux 
funds for the improvement of this Nation's sport fisheries.
  Again, the amounts of money are not large, but I think the principle 
is sound. I think the principle is fundamental as we continue upon our 
legislative journey, living under the hard cap of going to a balanced 
budget in the next 7 years. Every committee, every Member of Congress, 
and all of our constituencies are going to have to make sacrifices to 
deal with that.
  Quite clearly, we have been transferring these assets for the past 20 
years. That has become what we believe is normal. These are not normal 
times. We believed that highway demonstration projects were normal up 
until this year. They no longer are normal, because we cannot justify 
the expenditure of those moneys and the need to balance the budget and 
to meet higher priorities of this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope, again, that the Members of Congress would 
support this amendment to provide for a return of fair market value to 
the taxpayers of the Nation.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman well knows, we have discussed this 
amendment at length at the subcommittee level, and I believe at the 
full committee level as well. While I would generally tend to agree 
with the gentleman, that certainly if this is an early version of many 
transfers that will occur as part of the budget-balancing process that 
we will go through during the months and years ahead, certainly it 
would be good to start this in a way that is the most fiscally prudent. 
That is exactly the reason that I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  It is noteworthy, I believe, to point out here that it was in 1983 
that the Federal Government decided that we [[Page H5639]] no longer 
had the resources to justify the implementation of a Federal program at 
this hatchery. In that year, the State of Arkansas decided that since 
it was a very important program to that region of the country, that the 
State of Arkansas would supplement what the Federal Government had 
previously spent, and continue the program on forward.
  To the extent that this bill changes that situation, it does so for 
one very good reason. That is that the hatchery is in dire need of 
upgrading and renovation, and perhaps some additional facilities to be 
built on the premises which require financial considerations. Those 
considerations can be forthcoming only when the State of Arkansas has 
title to the property.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, this bill becomes very necessary. In order 
to ensure the Federal equity position, however, it is noted in the bill 
that there is a clause which ensures that if the hatcheries would ever 
revert to the Federal Government, that they would be in as good or 
better condition than they are at the time of transfer.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a number of other reasons that I could go on 
and explain at some length, but certainly the gentleman will have ample 
opportunity to help Members on both sides of the aisle find savings as 
we make our way through this budget process. This, in my opinion, Mr. 
Chairman, is not the place to be penny-wise and dollar foolish, and 
risk the very existance of this very vital hatchery facility.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not very often that I find myself differing from 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. We did, as the gentleman 
has indicated, go through this in subcommittee and in full. I am the 
first to concede that this is not one of the more cosmic issues of our 
day, and really ought not to be taking up a great deal of time, with 
all due respect to the State and the gentlewoman who represents it.
  However, let me just say that I think I know what the gentleman from 
California is concerned about as he looks down in the future here. I 
share his concern of what may be coming. There may be attempts for the 
Federal Government to divest itself of some of our great national parks 
and forests and resources, and God knows to whom and when. However, I 
will be at this side if and when that battle occurs.
  However, there is nothing devious here. This is a State that is 
willing to assume the purpose for which the Federal Government acquired 
these facilities in the first place. It is perfectly consistent with 
the normal process of excessing Federal property. We do not, as I 
understand it, normally charge the States if
 they bid on and receive land which has been excessed by the Federal 
Government.

  There is ample precedent for this in the past. There are any number 
of facilities in different States that I think we will be dealing with 
in the future. I do not think that we risk setting some kind of 
precedent for the very real concerns of the gentleman from California. 
For that reason, I associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman 
from New Jersey.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, if I may reclaim my time, I would point out 
to all here on the floor and other interested parties that, as a matter 
of fact, it could well be the case that the State of Arkansas could 
well not afford to be able to purchase the facility, in which case the 
entire program would be jeopardized.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  I think there are many issues here to be debated. One point that was 
just brought up, in terms of preservation, if what we want to do is 
preserve some of the wonderful natural resources we have in this 
Nation, we do have to give the States the capability. The fact is most 
States, and I think we have heard from many of our fish and wildlife 
agency representatives, the States cannot afford it.
  The other point that I would make is the value of the property has 
changed considerably since 1983. If you are going to talk about the 
fair market value, since 1983 the State of Arkansas has put well over 
$2 million, almost $2.5 million into the property, which has enhanced 
its value. If it had been abandoned in 1983 by the Federal Government, 
it would be worth next to nothing at this point right now anyway.
  In terms of the justification given by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Miller], in terms of what he is trying to do, I do not disagree. I 
tend to find myself very fiscally responsible as well and wanting 
desperately to balance the budget, but I do feel he has chosen a poor 
target in this area.
  This is an industry, quite frankly, where we are producing fish for 
an industry of tourism and sport fishing. It is one of the largest in 
our State. It is one across the Nation that does have a tremendous 
amount of return on the dollars that are invested. I do think it is a 
poor target.
  The property is the Federal Government's, but they did give it up an 
awful long time ago. We are simply legalizing this situation to make 
sure that the State of Arkansas can adequately prepare and make the 
necessary decisions that they need to keep it a productive industry. 
Again, I would certainly focus that that is exactly what it is.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just ask my colleagues to reason in terms of 
fiscal responsibility. This is a good industry for us across the 
Nation, and the fish hatcheries are a big part of that. We have 
invested a great deal in the State of Arkansas.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Saxton was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Again, Mr. Chairman, the proceeds from the industry in 
sport fishing far exceed the cost of what we are talking here. I do 
think it is important in terms of making sure we are able to preserve 
these wonderful facilities that we have in the Federal Government to 
allow the States to do that.
  The chairman of the subcommittee did point out there is a reversion 
clause. If by any chance the States do not use these facilities for 
what they were intended, they do revert back to the Federal Government.
  As I said before, I think in all good intentions that my colleague, 
the gentleman from California, may have had, I do think that this is a 
poor target in terms of trying to make a point of saving money and in 
terms of billing the States, who cannot afford it, in losing the 
preservation of these natural resources that we have.
  I just urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and pass this bill 
and the other two, which are really noncontroversial bills.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 96, 
noes 315, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 356]

                                AYES--96

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Flake
     Ford
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klug
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Martinez
     Martini
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA) [[Page H5640]] 
     Mineta
     Mink
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Petri
     Poshard
     Reynolds
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Torres
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--315

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Longley
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Barr
     Bonilla
     Chapman
     Clyburn
     Cubin
     Fields (LA)
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Green
     Hefner
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kleczka
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Paxon
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Porter
     Richardson
     Shaw
     Waldholtz
     Watts (OK)

                              {time}  1419

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Gene Green of Texas for, with Mr. Watts against.
       Mr. Fields of Louisiana for, with Mrs. Waldholtz against.

  Messrs. HOLDEN FAWELL, and HORN changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mrs. LOWEY and Messrs. NADLER, ROHRABACHER, STOKES, and NEAL of 
Massachusetts changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I was attending a drug-free 
schools and communities event at the White House and was not able to 
make rollcall vote 356. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I also missed rollcall vote 
356. I was attending a drug free schools event at the White House. If I 
had been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, under the rule the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, 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. 535) to direct 
the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Corning National Fish 
Hatchery to the State of Arkansas, pursuant to House Resolution 144, he 
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________