[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 154 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9691-H9695]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Bunning). The Chair must remind all
Members to address their remarks to the Chair and not to others, such
as the President.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Calvert].
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report
on Interior appropriations.
Mr. Speaker, I am the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee with
jurisdiction over mineral resources on the public lands. I believe the
conference report language on mining claims solves a problem.
Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to fix an outdated law, not since
1866, whereby miners pay a fixed price of $5 an acre for resource-rich
land. None of us believe that the existing price of $5 an acre is valid
today, but there is every reason to support his conference report.
Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear that patent applicants will pay
fair market value for the land, upon enactment of this conference
report. The Committee on Resources has within its budget reconciliation
title legislation a measure to levy a royalty on hardrock minerals
produced from public lands for the first time in 150 years.
Mr. Speaker, why would any of us not support his opportunity to
charge fair market value for mineral patents and receive royalty?
Mr. Speaker, I urge acceptance of this conference report.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho
[Mr. Crapo].
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion to
recommit the Interior appropriations conference report.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report language does answer one of the
critical issues that we are dealing with with regard to mining reform,
and that is it does require a fair market value to be paid for the land
in a mining claim.
The other issue that is talked about so much is whether a royalty
will be paid for the right to mine the minerals under the land that
will be patented. That issue is also going to be resolved. Members all
know that in the reconciliation bill that is coming, an imposition of a
royalty is included. The two key issues that we must address here in
mining reform, plus additional mining reform issues that are going to
be addressed, are under consideration and will be resolved by this
House.
Mr. Speaker, the effort to recommit this bill is an effort to stall
the mining reform that we are moving forward on and we must reject this
motion to recommit.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, we all read in the last month
or two where the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, had to sell
valuable mineral rights to a foreign-owned company at basement prices.
And I will not even call them basement prices. The prices were so low,
it was criminal that we had to give away those mineral resources.
Mr. Speaker, those of us in the Congress who are environmentalists
and fiscal conservatives recognize how wrong it is to give away our
natural resources, especially to foreign-owned companies.
Mr. Speaker, what we should do is recommit this bill, fix this
problem, and make sure that this travesty does not continue. It is
wrong from an environmental standpoint, it is wrong from a fiscal
standpoint, and it is wrong from an American standpoint.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, the new majority came here with a call
they were going to run this place like a business. Well, I do not know
of any business or any family who would run their business as we are
running the natural resources of this country.
Mr. Speaker, think about the term ``below-cost timber sales.'' We
sell timber at a price that is inadequate to recoup the Government's
cost. We sell minerals at a price that no family, that no business
would give them away for.
If we were a wealthy institution, and with all our fiscal problems
this is a wealthy country, if we were impoverished, we would not sell
things below cost. We certainly would not take our children's and
grandchildren's assets and dispose of them in some fire sale that would
destroy the land in many instances, but certainly not bring any profit.
Mr. Speaker, this is bad business; it is bad government; it is bad
stewardship. Support the gentleman's motion.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I again rise in opposition to this conference
report and urge support for the motion to recommit this to conference.
Mr. Speaker, if this goes through as it is, it will, in most
likelihood, mandate and accelerate the issuance of 600 patents of
lands; a giveaway of land at fair market value for the surface, but
does not take into consideration what the value of the minerals are--
nearly a quarter-million acres of public land.
Mr. Speaker, years ago we changed that process with regard to coal
and
[[Page H 9692]]
oil. Why does this 19th century robber-baron attitude persist with
regard to hardrock minerals, where somebody can explore and prospect
for the gold, look for the value, and then come back and expect a
handout from the Federal Government? The land for peanuts and the
minerals for free while the taxpayer ends up holding the bag.
We cannot do that. This will result in a quarter-million acres of
Federal land punctuating the entire landscape of this country, critical
areas, which will be given away on this basis with no assurance as to
the use and return for the taxpayer.
Mr. Speaker, we need to keep the pressure on to get a good mining
reform law to change that 1872 law. We can only do that by sending this
back to conference or the President vetoing the bill. There are many
other things wrong with the legislation that need to be remedied, but
the mining moratorium is the debate today. Vote to send this back to
conference.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman
from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we respond to
what has just been said, because we must again make it clear that the
legislation we are considering does require payment of fair market
value for the land.
The argument has been made, ``Yes, but it does not require payment
for the minerals.'' But I say again, the reconciliation legislation
that is coming does contain the royalty provision for payment of the
minerals as they are extracted.
Mr. Speaker, those are the two pieces of the reform that have
consistently been thrown out as the components that we must address:
The value of the land and the value of the minerals. Those are both
being addressed and those who would have Members support the effort to
recommit this conference report simply want to stop the progress on
making these needed mining reforms.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alaska [Mr. Young], the chairman of the Committee on Resources.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this motion
to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report language on mining claims solves a
problem, rather than simply deferring action. When enacted, miners
seeking title to their claims will pay fair market value, not $5 an
acre, which never occurred to begin with.
{time} 1145
Some mining claimants have complied with present law and now qualify
under present law. This is America. They have filled all the
obligations required under law. If a new law is retroactively applied
without grand- fathering these claims, then the Federal Government will
be exposed to billions of dollars in takings liabilities. You say fine.
That is the taxpayers' dollars you are talking about. That is what you
are talking about here, is controlled by the Government.
These people followed the law, and we passed that law. And now you
are going to make it retroactive. That is taking and the Government is
susceptible to a lawsuit. Maybe you ought to be reliable yourselves.
Maybe you ought to pay the bill instead of the taxpayer. If we are
talking about future laws, that is different, but this applies to the
present law that in fact is in effect today and those people followed
that law.
A ``no'' vote is the right vote for this motion to recommit. If in
fact a ``yes'' vote is the overwhelming majority or the minority, then
we have taken and implemented a taking of property from a
private individual, a citizen of the United States.
I have watched this from the floor before. Where this Congress thinks
nothing about retroactive taxes, breaking people, taking their homes in
the guise of good for all. This time if you do so, you are going to be
sued. We are going to be sued. But none of us are held responsible.
That is what is wrong.
I hope that the people listening to this program, all 26 million of
you, understand what this Congress may do today. That is, implement a
lawsuit against you, not us individually, but against the taxpayers of
America.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just a couple of things I want to emphasize. We respect
private property rights in this bill, perhaps more than has been
historically true. We have tried to protect those. We have tried to
ensure that we protect America's natural heritage.
I would have to point out, obviously we have $1.4 billion less, and I
think those who have spoken in opposition to the bill have made that
case that we should have spent more. But if we are going to get a
balanced budget in 7 years, it has to start somewhere. We have tried to
do the things that are important.
Again, I emphasize, the parks will be open. The forests, the
Smithsonian, the fish and wildlife facilities, the Kennedy Center, the
National Gallery of Art, their operating budgets have been held pretty
much intact, because we want the public to continue to have access to
the facilities that they treasure.
We had to make it up on land acquisition and many other activities
that had not as high a priority. Even on the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
where it was something that affected the tribal activities, we have
maintained the level of funding. On the issue of the moratorium, I
think it is a policy question. Members have heard debate on both sides.
Each Member will have to make his or her own decision.
We were instructed to maintain the moratorium by a voice vote and the
original amendment carried 271 to 153. But there was a difference among
conferees as reflected in the report.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio, said that in
this bill we respect private property rights. And we do. We protect
private property rights. The problem is, though, we do not respect
public property rights. And we give away the public property on too
many occasions in giving away the opportunity to exploit the people's
resources.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Miller].
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
bill and in support of the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit the Interior
appropriations bill to conference and to restore the House language
regarding the mining law patent moratorium.
If the conference report on the fiscal year 1996 Interior
Appropriations bill were a car, it would be recalled.
What it purports to do in the name of budget cutting is obscene. Not
only is this appropriations bill packed with authorizing legislation as
in a spending bill--in clear violation of House rules--but, it also
shamelessly and against the public interest runs rampant in overturning
sound environmental policy.
There are simply too many flaws in this conference report to describe
each one of them, but, one of the most offensive is the elimination of
the mining patent moratorium.
Despite the fact that the House has repeatedly voted for a moratorium
on giving away public lands to mining companies, the conference
committee adopted language that replaces the patent moratorium with a
new Senate provision that is even worse than that which currently
exists under the old 1872 law.
This is not an insignificant concern. It is one--if not the primary--
reason the President has said he will veto this bill.
Unless the patent moratorium is restored, over 600 patent
applications worth more than $15 billion in mineral resources,
currently blocked by last year's moratorium, will be given away for
less than $700,000 for whose benefit and under the banner of what kind
of conservatism.
Unless the conference report is changed and the moratorium imposed--
mining companies--many of them foreign-owned--will get title to an
additional 230,000 acres of the public's land for a pittance of their
real value. Who does this benefit?--the struggling middle class?--is
this an element of the contract for America?--what kind of conservatism
is this?
Ending the moratorium also means that all 330,000 mining claims--or
another one million acres of public land--will be eligible for
patenting or disposal to the mining industry.
People often ask us Why can't you run government more like a
business?
Our inability to reform the 1872 mining law is a perfect example of
both why they ask us this question and why we can't run government more
like a business.
I can think of no business that gives away its assets--for free--
without taking any kind of a payment. But, the Federal Government is
[[Page H 9693]]
forced, through actions such as this legislation to virtually give-away
public lands that are rich in gold and silver to mining companies. We
don't even reserve a royalty or any other sort of economic payment to
the public--it's just finders keepers under the 1872 mining law.
We have been trying for years and years to get this archaic law
changed--but the mining industry and its friends in Congress have been
successful in blocking those attempts.
So, we have been forced to impose a simple moratorium to stem the
flow of valuable mineral properties from the public troth while we try
to get meaningful reform enacted.
Just this year, because Congress has failed to reform the 1872 Mining
Law, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt has been forced to sign away land
worth more than $1 billion for a pittance of its true value.
For example, the Secretary was recently compelled to sign away
ownership to 109 acres of public land in Idaho containing hundreds of
thousands of dollars worth of a mineral called travertime to a Dutch
owned corporation for the paltry sum of $275. This looks like letting
business run government for business's purpose--these are public lands,
these are public assents. This legal piracy of public resources must
stop. If the Republicans are serious about reforming Government, and
not just interested in consolidating and moving more and more of the
Nation's capital resources--upstream--to the already rich and wealthy,
then they should not stand in the way of reforming the 1872 Mining law.
We should not give away permanent ownership of the public lands. We
don't do that in oil, gas or coal leasing.
But, the hard rock mining industry claims to be different than all
the other mineral resource and extractive industries. They claim that
patenting is critical to their ability to function. But, this is a
bogus argument. You do not need a patent to mine. It is absolutely
irrelevant to the question of mining--unless you are trying to avoid
paying a royalty if and when Congress gets around to changing the 1872
mining law.
No State gives private companies title to its resources, and yet the
companies mine on State land. I know of no private citizens who give
mining companies title to their land for mineral exploration and
production, and yet they mine on private lands.
So why don't we change the law? It's simple--money talks, nobody
walks--The mining industry spent a small furtune last year and again
this year to prevent reform of the 123-year-old Mining law of 1872. It
is cheaper for them to pay the lobbyists and make the campaign
contributions than to see real reform enacted to safeguard the
taxpayers who own this gold. As a result, we can look forward to many
more giveaways like the ones Secretary Babbitt signed earlier this
year--trading a fortune in public gold for a pauper's ransom.
If we do not stop patenting, through mining reform or through a
patenting moratorium pending achievement of mining reform--we will see
more and more public land given away in the years to come.
Unless we keep the patent moratorium in place, these lands will be
given away to mining corporations that want to avoid paying a royalty.
We cannot be party to the continued looting of the Treasury by
foreign gold companies and others. So we should include a patent
moratorium because as a practical matter, we should not leave the 1872
law, and particularly the patenting process, on the books should no
action be taken on comprehensive reform. If we must again defer until
next year--or the year after--comprehensive reform, we should hold the
program in abeyance. For while we may not have agreed on the precise
design of reform at the point, virtually everyone agrees drastic reform
of the mining program is necessary.
So, I urge the House to recommit the conference report and insist on
adoption of the House language. If we cannot achieve real reform, we
will at a minimum stop the giveaway of 15 billion dollars' worth of
public resources until such time as we do achieve reform.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Interior
appropriations bill before us today. It is a bill rife with Federal
giveaways--an interesting juxtaposition given the Republican interest
in balancing the budget and reforming welfare and other programs for
the poor.
The real message is: It's OK to attack welfare for the poor, but do
not question Federal welfare to those who can make billions off our
Federal lands with a minuscule return to the Government. Why are we
offering this giveaway to those who benefit from the largesse of our
natural resources, and at the expense of our public lands and our
Federal Treasury?
The biggest giveaway in the bill is the fire sale of our Federal
lands and their mineral deposits to a single beneficiary--the mining
industry. And this is done in the name of mining reform. This isn't
reform; this is a retreat.
The House is already on record opposing what the Senate has included
in H.R. 1977. We voted 271 to 153 in opposition to lifting the
moratorium on mining claim patents--only 2 months ago. Now, we are
retreating from this vote and our position against this giveaway.
Mining companies stand to gain millions, or billions, in mining these
underground resources with literally no return to the Federal
Government. If this is Republican reform, then I can only imagine what
is in store for the American people.
Let's look at real reform and let's stand by the vote we took in July
and let's not rip off the American people.
I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 1977 and vote to recommit the
bill.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago today, on September 29, 1965,
President Johnson signed the National Foundation on the Arts and the
Humanities Act into law. This historic act created the the National
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities
and ushered in a new era in the cultural life of America.
At this time I would like to submit for the Record a newspaper
article from September 30, 1965 on President Johnson signing the act.
For most of our Nation's history, one would have to travel to the
largest cities in order to see and experience great art. But today,
thanks in large part to the 100,000 grants made by the National
Endowment for the Arts, culture and art are thriving in every corner of
America. The statistics speak for themselves: in 1965 there were only
58 orchestras in the country; today there are over 1,000. Prior to the
NEA there were 37 professional dance companies in America; now there
are 300. In 1965, there were five State arts agencies; today, every
State has a public arts agency and there are community arts agencies in
over 3,800 cities, counties and towns. Perhaps most impressive of all
has been the increase in the number of people attending the theater;
before 1965 only 1 million people attended the theater each year, today
over 55 million attend annually.
From the great performances on public television, to touring arts
exhibitions and performances, art is now available to all Americans.
By any measure, the National Endowment for the Arts has been a
success. The Arts Endowment has made a difference in the lives of
millions. In Chicago for instance, grants to organizations like Urban
Gateways have helped tens of thousands of school children become better
students through the arts. All across America, millions of children and
their families have had the chance to see the masterpieces of the
visual arts, hear the masterworks of American composers, and read the
novels, stories and poems of America's best writers. Traditional folk
arts have been resurrected. Historic buildings which add beauty and
character to neighborhoods and cities have been saved and restored. In
short, American culture and the American people have been profoundly
changed by our small investment in the arts.
And so, Mr. Speaker, on the 30th anniversary of the National
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, I
urge my colleagues, and the nation as a whole, to reflect on the role
that arts and humanities play in our lives; how we are enriched by them
and how bleak our lives would be without them.
Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article for the Record.
[From the Morning News, Wilmington, DE, Sept. 30, 1965]
$21-Million-a-Year Boost--LBJ Signs Aid-to-Arts Bill
(By Norman Runnion)
Washington.--President Johnson turned the White House Rose
Garden into a cultural center yesterday to sign a bill that
makes the federal government a multimillion dollar patron of
the arts.
Taking over a role played by the aristocracy in medieval
times--and now carried on by governments in many European
countries and the Soviet Union--the Administration will be
able to pour up to $21 million a year into support of the
creative and performing arts and humanities.
Poets, painters, actors and a huge crowd of congressmen
gathered in the rose garden to watch Johnson sign the bill
which created a National Foundation for the Arts and
Humanities.
Now that the bill is law, Johnson said, ``Let me tell you
what we are going to do with it. Working together with the
state and the local governments, and with many private
organizations in the arts, we will:
``Create a national theater to bring ancient and modern
classics of the theater to audiences all over America.
``We will support a national opera company and a national
ballet company. (He did not spell out whether this would be
similar to Russia's world-famous Bolshol Ballet Co.)
``We will create an American film institute, bringing
together leading artists of the film industry, outstanding
educators, and young men and women who wish to pursue the
20th Century art form as their life's work.
``We will commission new works of music by American
composers.
``We will support our symphony orchestras.
[[Page H 9694]]
``We will bring more great artists to our schools and
universities by creating grants for their time in
residence.''
The President declared further that ``in the long history
of man, countless empires and nations have come and gone.
Those which created no lasting works of art are reduced today
to short footnotes in history's catalogue.
``We in America have not always been kind to the artists
and scholars who are the creators and the keepers of our
vision. Somehow, the scientists always seem to get the
penthouse, while the arts and the humanities get the
basement.''
It was a remark that went over well with his audience,
which included such notables as composers Meredith Willson
and Richard Adler; actor Gregory Peck and Hollywood director
George Stevens; photographic great Edward Steichen;
Impresario Sol Hurok, writers Paddy Chayefsky and Marianne
Moore.
Notably absent was playwright Arthur Miller, who informed
Johnson that he would not be present because he disagreed
with the Administration's Vietnamese policy. It was the
second such snub this year. For the same reason, poet Robert
Lowell turned down an invitation in June to the White House
Festival of the American Arts.
The legislation signed by the President creates a national
foundation to develop policy and coordinate the work of two
endowments. One would be for the humanities which would
include such things as art criticism and the study of modern
and classical language, and the other for the arts, including
music, folk art, industrial design and the like.
There will be a basic $5-million fund for each endowment,
with additional money authorized to match nonfederal
contributions for support of the arts and humanities. Each
state with an arts council will get $50,000 a year for its
support, while states without the councils will get $25,000
to help create them.
Furthermore, the U.S. Office of Education will get $1
million to support state and local educational agency efforts
to teach the arts and humanities and to train elementary and
high school teachers in these fields.
The national theater and ballet and opera companies that
Johnson mentioned will one day be able to perform in the John
F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, which will be the
nation's No. 1 cultural showpiece.
The President later in the day requested $17,910,000 in
supplemental appropriations to initiate the grant-in-aid
programs under the act signed yesterday. The request was
included in a $132,993,000 supplemental appropriation request
sent to Congress.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of the amendment
to restore funding to the Mojave preserve which failed on the House
floor, I am deeply disappointed that the Senate saw fit to accept the
House language on this issue.
While there are a number of other things wrong with this measure, not
the least of which is the mining issue, this back door effort to gut
the California Desert Protection Act is of particular concern to me.
Congress expressed its will loudly and clearly when it passed the
California Desert Protection Act in the last session. Overwhelmingly
and with significant Republican support, Congress directed the National
Park Service and not the Bureau of Land Management to manage the Mojave
preserve.
If the new majority in this House seeks to repeal this or any other
part of the Desert Act, they should introduce legislation to do that.
It should be open and undisguised legislation. We should not let the
appropriations process be abused in this way.
Supporters of the Desert Act were not afraid to have open and honest
debate during the years it took to get this measure enacted. Opponents
should allow for the same kind of exhaustive review if they believe
they have the support to repeal it.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.
general leave
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
the conference report.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
motion to recommit offered by mr. yates
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I offer to a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference
report?
Mr. YATES. Totally, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Yates moves to recommit the conference report on the
bill H.R. 1977 to the committee of conference with
instructions to the managers on the part of the House to
insist on the House position on Senate amendment numbered
158.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. YATES. 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 277,
nays 147, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 696]
YEAS--277
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inglis
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Solomon
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
Zimmer
NAYS--147
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bilbray
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Gallegly
Gekas
Gillmor
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hoke
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Kim
Knollenberg
[[Page H 9695]]
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Livingston
Lucas
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Mollohan
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Quillen
Radanovich
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Roth
Salmon
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Young (AK)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--10
Buyer
Collins (IL)
Fields (LA)
Frost
McHugh
Porter
Reynolds
Tejeda
Tucker
Walker
{time} 1210
Mr. PETRI, Mr. LUCAS, Mrs. MYRICK, and Mr. MOLLOHAN changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. GRAHAM, WELLER, CUNNINGHAM, KINGSTON, MANZULLO, McCOLLUM, and
JONES changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to recommit was laid on the table.
____________________