[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 Speaker, we have an opportunity to fix an outdated law, not since 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.

                          ____________________